Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-184 

4.6 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 

4.6.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.6.1.1 Topography 

Main Post. The topography of Fort Belvoir’s Main Post (Figure 4.6-1, Topography of Fort 

Belvoir) is characterized by uplands and plateaus, lowlands, and steeply sloped terrain. The land 

ranges in elevation from approximately sea level along the Potomac River to approximately 230 

feet above mean sea level (msl) near the intersection of Beulah Street and Woodlawn Road in the 

upland area of the installation (Horne, 2001). 

Uplands and plateaus make up approximately 40 percent of the installation. Upland areas 

dominate the topography on the North Post and are gently rolling to steeply sloped. The South 

Post and Southwest Area contain nearly level plateaus that are oriented from north to south. The 

South Post plateau is almost a mile wide and extends from Route 1 southeast to 23rd Street. 

Another plateau is in the Southwest Area. This plateau is lower in elevation and more gently 

sloping than the South Post plateau (Horne, 2001). 

Lowlands make up another 40 percent or so of the land at Fort Belvoir. Lowland areas on Fort 

Belvoir are mostly associated with the floodplains of Accotink, Pohick, and Dogue Creeks. 

Additional lowland areas exist between the shoreline and the steeply sloped terrain that surrounds 

the two plateaus. The lowland topography is gently sloped (from about 10 percent at their upland 

fringes to almost zero along the active floodplains) (Horne, 2001). 

Steeply sloped (greater than 20 percent) terrain characterizes the remaining 20 percent of the 

installation’s land. Areas of steeply sloped terrain, ravines, and stream valleys surround the two 

plateaus separating them from the lowlands. Seeps and springs occur along slope faces. Fringe 

slopes surrounding the South Post plateau range from 20 to 90 percent. Southeast of 23rd Street, 

the ground plunges to approximately sea level at slopes that range from 10 to almost 90 percent 

along the southern edge of Fairfax Village. Unstable, steep-slope conditions are mostly because 

of a combination of weakly cemented sedimentary substrates and wind and water erosion near the 

Potomac River (Horne, 2001). 

Steep and highly erodible slopes are also found along the eastern and western edges of the 

Southwest Area plateau and in deeply cut stream channels. These slopes range from 10 to 50 

percent (Horne, 2001). 

EPG. The topography of EPG is gently rolling, except for steep slopes bordering Accotink 

Creek. Accotink Creek enters EPG from the north at an elevation of approximately 120 feet 

above msl and descends to an elevation of approximately 100 feet msl before exiting EPG to the 

south. Steep slopes rise from both the eastern and western banks of Accotink Creek to an 

elevation of approximately 200 feet above msl, forming a narrow stream valley. The grades on 

the slopes range between 20 and 30 percent at most locations (USGS, 1984). 

The areas to the east of Accotink Creek range in elevation between approximately 200 and 230 

feet above msl. The highest lands are situated in the northern part of Heller Loop, and elevations 

descend gently to the south and west. Elevations also descend sharply toward the eastern and 

northern perimeters of EPG, along the creek beds for small unnamed tributaries to Accotink 

Creek. The areas to the west of Accotink Creek range in elevation between approximately 200 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-186 

and 300 feet msl. The highest lands are situated near the northwest corner of EPG, and elevations 

descend gently to the south and east (USGS, 1984). 

GSA Parcel. The topography of the GSA Parcel is generally flat because almost the entire site 

has been graded to support the construction of warehouse buildings. Portions of the parcel that 

have not been cut or filled slope slightly upward from the east side where the lowest point is 

approximately 200 feet above msl to the west side where the highest point reaches just over 240 

feet above msl (Fairfax County, 2002). 

4.6.1.2 Geology and Soils 

The following sections provide detailed descriptions of geology and soils on Fort Belvoir. 

4.6.1.2.1 Geology 

Main Post. Fairfax County is divided into two physiographic provinces: the Coastal Plain and 

the Piedmont Plateau (Hobson, 1996). The fall line, which runs north to south through Virginia, 

crosses Fairfax County and forms the boundary between the resistant, metamorphic rocks of the 

Piedmont and the softer, sedimentary rocks of the Coastal Plain (Terwilliger, 1991,). 

Fort Belvoir’s Main Post lies below the fall line within the high and low Coastal Plain Terraces of 

the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, which are two of the five Fairfax County province subsections. There are several geologic formations associated with the Coastal Plain Physiographic 

Province, including the Potomac Formation, Bacons Castle Formation, Shirley Formation, and 

Alluvium and Pliocene sand and gravel (Hobson, 1996,). The Potomac Formation outcrops along 

the slopes leading down to the Potomac River shoreline on the Main Post. 

The Coastal Plain Physiographic Province consists of unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay 

underlain by residual soil and weathered crystalline rocks. Most of the Coastal Plain 

Physiographic Province deposits in the Fort Belvoir area consist of a sequence of unconsolidated 

sediments that belong to the Potomac Group (Hobson, 1996,). 

The Potomac Group is characterized by lens-shaped deposits of interbedded sand, silt, clay, and 

gravel, primarily of non-marine origin. The Potomac Group is approximately 600 feet thick 

beneath most of Fort Belvoir (Law Engineering and Environmental Services, 1995, as cited in 

U.S. Army 2001). 

Fort Belvoir’s uplands are underlain by sands, silts, and clays of riverine origin. Uplands 

underlain by sands and silts tend to be more stable than those underlain by clays. Uplands that are 

underlain by clayey soils form undulating and rolling hills where the dominant land-forming 

process is mass wasting, which includes downhill creep, landslides, slumping, and rockfalls. 

Lowlands and valley bottoms are typically underlain with sediments deposited by moving water 

(Horne, 2001). The dominant land-forming process in these lower areas is active riverine erosion 

and deposition during overbank flooding. Surface drainage is commonly poor due to the shallow 

water table. Drainage usually occurs as surface runoff, with runoff greatest on the steeper slopes. 

The extent of runoff increases with construction activity and the removal of vegetation, which in 

turn increases the rate of erosion and the probability of creep and slumping. 

EPG. EPG is near the Fall Line, which is the northeastern-trending physiographic boundary 

separating the eastern edge of the Piedmont Upland physiographic province and the western edge 

of the Coastal Plain physiographic province (USATHAMA, 1990). Piedmont areas consist 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-187 

largely of Precambrian metamorphic and Cambrian igneous rock formations, whereas Coastal 

Plain areas consists of an eastward thickening wedge of unconsolidated sediments of gravel, sand, 

silt, and clay from the Cretaceous to Tertiary periods. 

Rock formations from both provinces can be found within the boundaries of EPG as a finger of 

Piedmont Upland province bedrock extends from north to south along Accotink Creek. Piedmont 

Upland bedrock outcrops form the bed and adjacent slopes of the creek. Most of the more gently 

sloping areas to the east and west of the creek consist of unconsolidated deposits from the Coastal 

Plain province. 

GSA Parcel. The GSA Parcel is in the Coastal Plain physiographic province, northeast of EPG 

and directly north of the Main Post. Similar to the eastern portion of EPG, the site is underlain by 

unconsolidated sediments (gravel, sand, silt and clay) (USATHAMA, 1990). Land-forming 

activity within the parcel is limited because of its small size, gentle slope, and the fact that much 

of the area is covered with impervious surfaces. 

4.6.1.2.2 Soils 

Main Post. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation 

Service) surveyed Fort Belvoir Main Post soils in 1982. The NRCS soil survey described and 

delineated 19 named soil series within Fort Belvoir. The survey data have been incorporated into 

the Fort Belvoir Geographic Information System. In addition to the 19 named soil series, there are 

areas of mixed waterborne sediments (Entisols) and tidal marsh (Histosols) that are not 

sufficiently defined to be classified as series (Horne, 2001). 

Of the area included in the survey, 1,898 acres are described as urban built-up, and 587 acres are 

cut and fill. The urban, built-up unit includes primarily ridgetop or other well-drained, flatter 

areas that have been disturbed minimally to drastically by construction and development over the 

years. Areas within the urban, built-up units that are not under buildings or pavement are 

vegetated, and soil fertility is maintained by fertilizer application and landscaping. The cut-andfill unit consists of areas where soil material has been removed (cut) and non-native material 

placed into low areas (fill) in order to level/lower slopes, facilitating construction activities. Fill 

material is generally of unknown source but is likely to be material selected for high structural 

stability following placement. Table 4.6-1 lists the soils mapped within Fort Belvoir Main Post, 

along with some selected features (Horne, 2001). Figure 4.6-2 (Soils of Fort Belvoir) depicts the 

distribution of soil types throughout the Main Post and EPG. 

For each soil type, Table 4.6-1 provides soil name; drainage and problem classes; whether they 

are highly erodible or subject to flooding; foundation support rating; and acreage. The problem 

class ranks the installation’s soils with respect to the degree of difficulty they present in buildingsite development, including the construction of buildings with and without basements; local roads 

and streets; shallow excavations; small commercial buildings; and lawns and landscaping. Soils 

classified as problem class A are severe and present significant, unfavorable constraints to 

development and require substantial design work, increased construction costs, and increased 

maintenance work, with lesser problems associated with classes B and C in that order. Each class 

is further defined below. 

• Problem Class A. Problems attributed to these soils include unstable slopes and land 

slippage, high shrink-swell clays, poor foundation support, and high water table 

conditions. The Fairfax County Public Facilities Manual and Building Codes require that 

a geotechnical engineering report be prepared by or under the direction of a professional 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-188 

Table 4.6-1 

Fort Belvoir Main Post soils 

Soil name 

(series-phase) 

Drainage 

class 

Problem 

Class 

Highly 

erodible Flooding Foundation support Acres 

Dumfries sandy 

loam, 

2–50% slopes 

WD A No No Generally stable west of I-95; 

could be unstable east of I95 especially near marine 

clays 

1,557 

Beltsville silt 

loama,0–15% slope 

MWD B Yes No Good with proper drainage; 

foundation drains and 

waterproofing necessary 

805 

Mattapex silt loamb

,

2–15% slope 

WD–

MWD 

B Yes No Marginal; foundation drains 

and waterproofing needed 

508 

Mixed alluvial, 

0–2% slope 

PD A No Frequent 

(Jan–Dec) 

Poor 479 

Matapeake silt loam

b

,

2–15% slope 

WD C Yes No Generally favorable 264 

Lenoir silt loam, 

0–2% slope 

SPD B Yes No Marginal 238 

Lunt fine sandy 

loama

,

2–25% slope 

WD–

MWD 

A No No Stable above sands; could 

be unstable near marine 

clays 

217 

Keyport silt loam, 

0–2% slope 

MWD B No No Fair 203 

Wehadkee silt 

loam, 

0–2% slope 

PD A Yes Frequent 

(Nov–Jun) 

Poor; basements not 

recommended 

169 

Bertie silt loam, 

0–2% slope 

MWD B No No Marginal to poor; foundation 

drains needed for 

basements and crawl 

spaces 

140 

Sassafras fine 

sandy loamb

, 2–

15% slope 

WD C No No data 130 

Woodstown fine 

sandy loamb,

0–15% slope 

MWD C Yes No Marginal; foundation drains 

needed for basements and 

crawl spaces 

119 

Dragston fine sandy 

loam, 0–2% slope 

SPD B No No Marginal; foundation drains 

and waterproofing needed 

103 

Fallsington fine 

sandy loam, 

0–2% slope 

PD A No No Poor 62 

Quantico, 

7–25% slope 

WD No data No No No data 60 

Galestown loamy 

fine sand, 

0–2% slope 

SED C Yes No Adequate for small buildings 

(three stories or fewer) 

54 

Chewacla silt loam, 

0–2% slope 

SPD A Yes Frequent 

(Nov–Apr) 

Poor; basements not 

recommended 

17 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-189 

Table 4.6-1 

Fort Belvoir Main Post soils (continued)

Soil name 

(series-phase) 

Drainage 

class 

Problem 

class 

Highly 

erodible Flooding Foundation support Acres 

Urban, 

0-10% slope 

N/A Not rated No N/A Suitable 1,742 

Cut and fill N/A Not rated N/A N/A Suitable 412 

Unknown N/A Not rated N/A N/A N/A 388 

TOTAL 7,793c

a

 Soils could support farmlands of statewide importance. 

b

 Soils could support prime farmlands. 

c

 Acreage is slightly different from official Main Post acreage due to differences in data extents and gaps in data. 

Sources: US SCS, 1982, as cited in Horne, 2001; Fairfax County, 2001a. 

Drainage Class Abbreviations: 

MWD = moderately well-drained SPD = somewhat poorly drained PD = poorly drained 

VPD = very poorly drained SED = somewhat excessively drained WD = well-drained 

See text for problem class definitions.

engineer experienced in soil and foundation engineering. The engineering evaluation and 

report must be submitted for approval, and the recommendations incorporated into the 

grading plans as requirements for construction prior to plan approval. 

• Problem Class B. Problems attributed to these soils primarily result from wetness and 

drainage problems that can be addressed on the construction plans with appropriate 

geotechnical notes and drawings, such as foundation drain details for basements and 

crawl spaces. Geotechnical investigation by an engineer is recommended; however, the 

submission of the resulting report for separate county approval may not be required in all 

cases. 

• Problem Class C. These soils are not considered problem soils for foundations. These 

soils typically have few problems that would adversely affect most residential uses. A 

geotechnical investigation by an engineer is recommended. 

Regardless of the soil problem class, Fairfax County generally requires that a geotechnical report 

be prepared and submitted for major construction projects involving multi-story buildings, mat 

foundation, deep foundation, deep excavations, sheeting and shoring, retaining walls, 

embankments, and ground modification (Fairfax County, 2007). 

Soils identified as having limitations with respect to building-site development are along streams 

and creeks along the shores of Pohick Bay, Accotink Bay, Gunston Cove, and the Potomac River. 

Limitations to construction include cutbank cave-ins, wetness, flooding, frost action related to the 

seasonally high water table, shrink-swell related to clay content, and slope and soil erosion. These 

coincide with steep slopes and wetland areas. 

Five hydric soils types occur within the Main Post: Mixed Aluvial, Chewacla silt loam, 

Wehadkee silt loam, Fallsington fine sandy loam, and tidal marsh. These soils are typically 

associated with wetland areas including tidal flats and the areas within and immediately adjacent 

to floodplains. These soil types encompass approximately 931 acres. The location of these soils 

within the landscape generally results in limitations to development because of their tendency for 

flooding or saturation. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-191 

Prime farmland is land federally designated under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FFPA; 7 

U.S.C. 4201) as having the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for 

producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of 

fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor and without intolerable soil erosion. Other land recognized 

under the FPPA includes unique farmland and farmland of statewide or local importance. Unique 

farmland is land other than prime farmland that is federally designated as important for 

production of specific high-value food and fiber crops. Farmland of statewide or local 

importance is land other than prime or unique farmland that is designated by state or local 

authorities as important for the production of food feed, fiber, forage, or oilseed crops. While the 

farmland designations are based strictly on soil characteristics and do not depend on a history of 

current or past agricultural use, the applicability of protection of these lands under the FFPA is 

contingent on the adjacent land uses and history of production. For example, lands already in 

urban use or otherwise irreversibly committed to nonagricultural uses do not typically qualify. 

Former farmlands within Fort Belvoir were committed to military use long before passage of the 

FFPA; these lands have not been in production for over 50 years. Therefore, while some soil 

types are classified as prime farmlands or farmlands of statewide importance, recent land uses 

within the facility are not consistent with prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance 

designations. 

Soil types on the Main Post that could support prime farmland account for approximately 1,021 

acres, comprising the entire Mattaplex silt loam, Woodstown fine sandy loam, Matapeake silt 

loam, and Sassafras fine sandy loam. An additional 1,022 acres of soils that could support 

farmlands of statewide importance include Belstsville, silt loam, Fairfax silt loam, and Lunt fine 

sandy loam (Table 4.6-1) (EA, 2005). No lands on the Main Post contain soils designated as 

unique farmland. 

EPG. Soils mapped on EPG by Fairfax County in 1990 are presented in Figure 4.6-2 and 

described in Table 4.6-2 (Fairfax County, 1990). The Fairfax County survey described and 

delineated 15 named soil series within EPG. On EPG, 121 acres are described as urban built-up, 

and approximately 7 acres are cut and fill (Paciulli, 1999). The developed areas include open 

areas surrounding former training and administrative building in the northeastern part of the 

Heller Loop, which is in the northeast quadrant of EPG; buildings near the intersection of Cissna 

and Telegaph Roads along the western edge of EPG; and smaller, scattered areas. Table 4.6-2 

lists the soil types mapped within EPG, along with some selected features: soil name; drainage 

and problem classes; whether they are highly erodible or subject to flooding; foundation support 

rating; and acreage. 

The only hydric soils mapped on EPG are Mixed Alluvial soils, which comprise approximately 

26 acres of relatively level floodplain land adjoining Accotink Creek and the lower reach of an 

unnamed west-flowing tributary (Fairfax County, 2006a). 

Within EPG, soils designated as prime farmland encompass approximately 69 acres mapped in 

the Appling, Meadowville, and Birdsboro soil series. Soils that have the potential to support 

farmland of statewide importance (Beltsville, Fairfax, and Louisburg) cover 248 acres (Table 4.6-

2). No lands on EPG contain soils designated as unique farmland. 

GSA Parcel. More than 68 acres of the 70-acre GSA Parcel consists of urban built-up soils. 

Mapped soil units make up a negligible portion of the area, with four different map units each 

contributing less than 1 acre (Fairfax County, 1990). The GSA Parcel contains no hydric or 

prime farmland soils (Fairfax County, 2006a). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-192 

Table 4.6-2 

EPG soils 

Soil name 

Drainage 

class 

Problem 

class 

Highly 

erodible Flooding 

Foundation 

support Acres 

Beltsville silt loama, 

0–7% slope 

MWD B Yes No Good, foundation 

drains and 

waterproofing 

needed 

140 

Louisburg coarse 

sandy loama, 

7–25% slope 

SED–WD C Yes No Good to marginal 108 

Dumfries sandy loam, 

7–50% slopec WD A No No Marginal 83 

Hyattsville, 

2–7% slope 

SPD B No Yes within 

drainageway 

Marginal to poor, 

foundation drains 

and waterproofing as 

necessary 

67 

Appling gritty loamb

, 

2–14% slope 

WD C No No Good 60 

Mixed Alluvial, 

0–2% slope 

PD A No Frequent 

(Jan–Dec) 

Poor 26 

Rocky Land (Acidic) 

25–50% slope 

WD C No No Good 9 

Birdsborob, 

7–14% slope 

WD B Yes Yes Marginal 6 

Meadowvilleb

, 

2–7% slope 

WD B Yes Yes within 

drainageway 

Marginal to poor, 

foundation drains 

and waterproofing 

needed 

3 

Fairfax silt loama, 

7–14% slope 

WD B No No Favorable for small 

buildings, foundation 

drains and 

waterproofing 

needed 

<1 

Augusta loam, 

2–7% slope 

WD B No Yes Marginal <1 

Urban, 

0-10% slope 

N/A Not rated N/A N/A Favorable 121 

Cut and fill N/A Not rated N/A N/A Suitable 7 

Unclassified (Accotink 

Creek drainage) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 175 

TOTAL 807 a

 Soils could support farmlands of statewide importance. 

b

 Soils could support prime farmlands. 

c

 Dumfries sandy loam designation from the 1982 US SCS survey is designated as 61B-E, Loam and Gravelly Sediments, in the 

1990 Fairfax County soil survey. 

Sources: US SCS, 1982, as cited in Horne, 2001; Fairfax County, 1990; Fairfax County, 2001a. 

Drainage Class Abbreviations: 

MWD = moderately well-drained SPD = somewhat poorly drained PD = poorly drained 

VPD = very poorly drained SED = somewhat excessively drained WD = well-drained 

See text for problem class definitions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-193 

4.6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The Preferred Alternative would be expected to have no effect on geology and result in localized 

changes in topography as a result of construction. Soils would undergo long-term direct adverse 

effects where replaced with impervious surfaces and would experience short-term adverse effects 

in areas disturbed in the process of developing structures and or installing infrastructure. A 

detailed description of the effects is presented below. 

4.6.2.1 Topography 

4.6.2.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Development that could be allowed under the Preferred Alternative land use plan would result in 

localized long-term adverse changes to topography resulting from construction. The change in 

land use designations with implementing the Preferred Alternative land use plan could produce 

more changes in topography than the 1993 land use plan because of the development, particularly 

roadways, that would be allowed on EPG. The Professional/ Institutional, Community, and 

Residential land uses would allow development in areas that were that were considered 

Environmentally Sensitive in the 1993 land use plan, although environmental constraints (e.g. 

endangered species habitat) would retain their protected status and continue to limit potential 

development in some of these areas. Changes to topography on the Main Post as a result of the 

change in land use plans would be minor and localized. 

4.6.2.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Implementing the Preferred Alternative and other facilities projects would produce minor longterm adverse changes to topography. Direct effects would result as the land in the vicinity of 

buildings and parking structures would generally be leveled although cuts in adjacent portions of 

the landscape could increase slopes. On EPG, construction would be concentrated in the 

relatively level areas on the plateaus east (NGA and WHS campuses) and west (remote inspection 

facility) of Accotink Creek, minimizing the overall effect. However, the placement of fill in 

association with stream crossings could result in an increase in the topography in the vicinity of 

the Accotink Creek drainage and its tributaries. On an installation-wide basis, these topographic 

changes would be minimal. Implementing the BRAC action would require upgrading existing 

roads and constructing new roads within EPG. Roads construction would also result in the 

leveling of the topography immediately below the pavement but would result in localized 

increases in slopes adjacent to the pavement as a result of cut and fill activities. The construction 

of roads on EPG would create changes in topography over a wider area than construction of 

buildings and parking structures. Therefore, while the degree of changes to topography would be 

greater under the Preferred Alternative than under the Town Center or Satellite Campuses 

Alternatives which do not include substantial development on EPG, the overall change would still 

be minor. Table J-2 in Appendix J lists approximate acreages of steep slopes within project 

footprints. 

4.6.2.2 Geology 

4.6.2.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

The Preferred Alternative would be expected to have no adverse effects on geology within Fort 

Belvoir’s Main Post and EPG. The geology of the area remains unchanged regardless of the 

small portions of bedrock underlying the area that could be affected by construction activities. 

Such effects would be inconsequential and localized. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-194 

4.6.2.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Implementing the BRAC action and other facilities projects would be expected to have no 

adverse effects on geology within Fort Belvoir’s Main Post and EPG. The NGA and WHS 

campuses and joint parking structure would be located on the EPG within the Coastal Plain 

Physiographic Province geologic materials. Since these materials are unconsolidated, excavation 

for foundations and utilities would be simple and not require blasting. Crossings of Accotink 

Creek would involve geology of the Piedmont Upland Physiographic Province and could require 

drilling or small amounts of blasting to manipulate the bedrock features adjacent to the creek. 

Overall, the geology of the area would remain unchanged, although small portions of the bedrock 

underlying the area could be directly affected by these construction activities. These effects 

would be inconsequential and localized. 

4.6.2.3 Soils 

4.6.2.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Effects to soils are typically assessed by the nature and extent of disturbance that would occur to 

the resource under the different scenarios. In this case, changes in land use plans do not define 

the extent of effects that would result if the plan were implemented. Instead, the land use plans 

define the types of activities that could occur within the various land use categories. The 

Preferred Alternative land use plan would not include an Environmentally Sensitive category that 

is part of the 1993 plan and instead incorporates those areas into, Community, Residential, and 

Professional/Institutional land use categories. Therefore, under the Preferred Alternative land use 

plan, the potential for development in a wider range of areas is possible than under the 1993 plan. 

Construction activities, the largest potential source of impacts on the soil resource, would require 

the standard erosion and sediment control, standard engineering practices, and stormwater control 

measures that are designed to minimize the loss of soils from erosion and sediment. 

Soil types that could support prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance occur 

within the project areas. However, since the lands within Fort Belvoir are in urban use or 

otherwise irreversibly committed to other uses, these designations are not applicable. 

4.6.2.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects to soils would be expected under the Preferred 

Alternative as a result of construction activities. The extent of disturbance that would be 

expected provides the most direct measure of determining the extent of impacts to the soil 

resource. Because some of the soils within the Main Post and EPG have already been impacted 

by previous construction and land clearing activities, not all soils within the project areas are in 

their undisturbed state and at maximum productivity. The raw acreage values of new disturbance, 

therefore, overestimate the extent of impacts that would occur. Regardless, the extent of new 

disturbance provides a reasonable basis for comparison. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, development activities would be distributed between the Main 

Post and EPG. While some degree of development and land disturbance has occurred within 

EPG during its years as a training facility, the area has less existing development than the areas 

on the Main Post. Therefore, it would undergo a greater extent of impact to previously 

undisturbed soils. The total amount of new disturbance that would result by implementing the 

BRAC action along with other facilities projects would be approximately 495 acres. Table 4.6-3 

presents the extent of new disturbance that would occur under each alternative and the areas 

where development activities would be concentrated. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-195 

Table 4.6-3 

Acreage of soil impact (disturbance footprint) under each alternative 

Alternative Acres impacted Main area(s) of disturbance 

Preferred 495 Primarily South Post and EPG; North Post to a lesser 

extent 

Town Center 262 North Post, South Post 

City Center 435 EPG and GSA (North and South Post to a lesser extent) 

Satellite Campuses 457 Primarily North Post; South Post to a lesser extent 

Disturbances would affect soil resources in a number of ways. In some cases, topsoil would be 

stripped from a site before the placement of pavement of building foundations. Productivity of 

stripped soils would be completely lost because vegetation would be unable to grow in the new 

impervious areas. The process of excavating trenches for pipelines and power lines would result 

in a loss of soil structure and a mixing of horizons (layers) that develop over time. While these 

soils are often placed back into the excavated areas, the mixing of the soils results in a long-term 

loss of productivity and presents the potential for erosion until vegetation is reestablished. 

Erosion would be minimized by using standard construction BMPs and the loss of productivity 

within managed landscapes could be overcome by applying fertilizer. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, development activities would be distributed between the Main 

Post and EPG. Much of the EPG, particularly the eastern portion has been disturbed through 

training and testing activities. Natural vegetation has become reestablished in a number of these 

areas and many of the soils disturbed in the 1940s and 1950s will have started to redevelop the 

structure and biological activity. The biological activity would result in an increase in 

productivity over similar soils that were more recently disturbed, although the productivity levels 

would not be equivlanet to that of native soils. 

Table 4.6-4 presents the primary soil types that would affected by each of the proposed BRAC 

projects. The majority of the areas proposed for development of the NGA and WHS facilities 

consist of either Urban or Cut and Fill soil types. On the main post, the DeWitt Army 

Community Hospital and the NARMC HQ building would be built on Beltsville, Metapeake and 

Mattapex soil types while the majority of other projects would occur on Urban soils. Urban and 

Cut and Fill soils are not naturally occurring soils and have suffered a loss in productivity as a 

result in a loss of structure and horizonation (layering). Beltsville, Matapeake, and Mattapex soils 

are considered highly erodible; sediment and erosion control measures would be required under 

the Commonweatlh’s stormwater program to minimize effects. Mattapex’s characteristic of 

being marginal for foundations could be overcome with standard engineering practices. 

Development of roads and infrastructure would result in impacts across a wider range of soil 

types. Infrastructure improvements would include the installation of about 250,000 linear feet of 

utility lines ranging up to 24 inches in diameter. These lines would require temporary disturbance 

of the soil resource during the process of excavation and burial. These impacts would be minor 

and short-term (days to weeks) with the attendant loss in productivity being a minor but more 

long-term (months to years) effect. Approximately 92 acres of existing soils would be cleared in 

the process of developing new roads; the productivity of the soils under the newly paved surfaces 

would be permanently lost. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-196 

Table 4.6-4 

Soil types impacted by proposed BRAC projects 

under the Preferred Alternative 

Map Number BRAC Facility Major Soil Types 

Impacted 

1 NGA Facility Cut/Fill, Quantico, 

Louisburg 

2 WHS Facility Cut/Fill, Urban, 

Beltsvillea

3 MDA Facility Urban 

4 Hospital Beltsvillea

, Mattapexb, 

Urban 

5 Dental Clinic Urban 

6 NARMC HQ Building Beltsvillea

, Matapeakeb

7 Corps of Engineers Integration 

Office 

Cut/Fill, Beltsvillea

8 Infrastructure Beltsvillea

, Dumfries, 

Louisburg 

9 Emergency Services Center Cut/Fill 

10 Network Ops – PEO EIS Urban 

11 USANCA Support Facility Urban 

12 Child Development Center (NGA) Urban 

13 Child Development Center Cut/Fill 

14 Administrative Facility Urban 

15 Access Control Point Urban 

16 AMC Relocatables Urban 

17 PEO EIS Administrative Facility Urban 

18 Structured Parking Facility Urban 

19 Modernize Barracks Urban 

20 MWR Family Travel Camp Urban, Woodstownb

, 

Dragston a

 Soils could support farmlands of statewide importance. Total impact to farmlands of 

statewide importance is 87.2 acres. 

b

 Soils could support prime farmland. Total impact to prime farmland soils is 27.4 acres.

Road construction would also require the construction of one new bridge over Accotink Creek 

which would also result in direct impacts to soils associated with the construction of piers and 

footings. These effects would be permanent but localized. Infrastructure would also include the 

installation of approximately 25,000 linear feet of perimeter fencing, which would require 

clearing and grubbing of an area approximately 40 feet wide throughout the length of the fence. 

Impacts as a result of installing the fence would be short term although control measures (BMPs) 

would be necessary to ensure that erosion was minimized and the soils stabilized as quickly as 

possible following construction. 

As noted above, soils that could support prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance 

occur within the project areas. Individual projects under the Preferred Alternative could affect 

27.4 acres of prime farmland soils and 87.2 acres of soils that could support farmlands of 

statewide importance. Lands within Fort Belvoir have previously been converted to urban use or 

otherwise irreversibly committed to other uses and are therefore incompatible with these 

designations. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-197 

4.6.2.4 BMPs/Mitigation 

4.6.2.4.1 Topography 

Construction activities would result in changes to topography rather than impacts per se, since an 

increase or decrease in slope would not be beneficial or detrimental for topography in and of 

itself. Standard engineering practices, BMPs, and building codes have been developed and are 

employed to address construction in varying topographic conditions. Since there would be no 

impact on the resource, no specific mitigation measure for topography would be necessary. 

4.6.2.4.2 Geology 

Standard engineering practices and BMPs would be implemented to address construction-related 

issues stemming from local geology. Such practices could include appropriate design criteria 

(e.g. depth and location) for placement of footings and piers in preparation for building roads, 

bridges and foundations. None of the Alternatives would result in effects to the regional geology 

and localized effects would be minimal. Therefore, no specific mitigation measures would be 

necessary for this resource. 

4.6.2.4.3 Soils 

Fort Belvoir and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) require that 

construction site operators minimize erosion by developing and implementing a site specific 

stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP describes BMPs and procedures to 

control erosion and sediment at the construction site. Because the Commonwealth of Virginia 

has already established requirements to limit soil erosion from construction sites, specific 

mitigation measures would not be required. 

4.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE TOWN CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

Implementing the Town Center Alternative would be expected to result in no effect on geology 

and result in short- and long-term minor adverse effects on topography and soils. A detailed 

description of the effects is presented below. 

4.6.3.1 Topography 

4.6.3.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Development under either the 1993 land use plan or the Town Center Alternative land use plan 

would result in long-term localized minor effects on topography resulting from construction 

activities. 

The change in land use designations with the selection of the Town Center Alternative could 

produce more changes to topography than the 1993 land use plan because it would include EPG. 

The Town Center Alternative land use plan would remove the Environmentally Sensitive 

category that is part of the 1993 plan and incorporate those areas into Community, Residential, 

and Professional/Institutional land use categories. While development could potentially occur 

over a greater area, environmental constraints (e.g. jurisdictional wetlands) would retain their 

protected status and would continue to limit potential development in some of these areas. 

Effects to topography on the Main Post would likely be similar under both the Town Center 

Alternative and the 1993 land use plan and would, in either case, be minimal and localized. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-198 

4.6.3.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Similar to the Preferred Alternative, developing the Town Center Alternative would result in 

long-term localized minor adverse effects on topography associated with construction activities. 

The Town Center Alternative would focus development on the North Post and South Post; 

therefore, construction of new roads within EPG would not be required. Because this alternative 

would avoid effects on EPG, changes in topography would be less than what would occur under 

the Preferred or City Center Alternatives. 

4.6.3.2 Geology 

4.6.3.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Implementing the Town Center Alternative would be expected to have no adverse effects on 

geology. The geology of the area would remain unchanged regardless of the small portions of 

bedrock underlying the area that could be affected by construction activities. Such effects would 

be inconsequential and localized. 

4.6.3.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Implementing the Town Center Alternative would be expected to have no adverse effects on 

geology within Fort Belvoir’s Main Post and EPG. Under this alternative, none of the BRAC 

facilities would be located on the EPG; therefore all construction would occur within the Coastal 

Plain Physiographic Province. While construction could affect small portions of the 

unconsolidated bedrock materials, no blasting would be likely and the overall direct effects would 

be minimal. 

4.6.3.3 Soils 

4.6.3.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Similar to the discussion under the Preferred Alternative above, the changes in land use between 

the Town Center land use plan and the 1993 land use plan do not define the extent of effects that 

would result in each case. Instead, the land use plans define the types of activities that could 

occur within the various land use categories. The 1993 land use plan includes the 

Environmentally Sensitive land use category. These lands have generally been reclassified as 

Professional/Institutional, Community, and Residential under the Town Center Alternative land 

use plan. While the potential exists for development to occur over a greater area under the 

proposed land use plan, environmental constraints (e.g. critical habitat) would retain their 

protected status and would continue to limit development in sensitive areas.. 

Soil types that could support prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance occur 

within the project areas. However, because the lands within Fort Belvoir are in urban use or 

otherwise irreversibly committed to other uses, these designations do not apply. 

4.6.3.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

As discussed above, short- and long-term minor adverse effects to soils would be expected under 

any of the alternatives as a result of construction activities. Under the Town Center Alternative, 

development activities would be distributed between the North Post and South Post with no new 

development proposed for EPG. The total amount of new disturbance that would result by 

implementing Town Center Alternative would be approximately 262 acres (see Table 4.6-3). 

Table 4.6-5 presents the primary soil types that would be affected by each of the BRAC projects; 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-199 

Table 4.6-5 

Soil types impacted by proposed BRAC projects 

under the Town Center Alternative 

Map Number BRAC Facility Major Soil Types 

Impacted 

1 NGA Facility Urban, Beltsvillea

2 WHS Facility Beltsvillea, Matapeakeb

3 MDA Facility Urban 

4 DeWitt Hospital Urban 

5 Dental Clinic Urban 

6 NARMC HQ Building Urban 

7 Corps of Engineers Integration 

Office 

Urban 

8 Infrastructure Urban, Dumfries, 

Beltsvillea

10 Network Ops – PEO EIS Beltsvillea

11 USANCA Support Facility Urban 

12 Child Development Center 

(NGA) 

Urban 

13 Child Development Center Beltsvillea

14 Administrative Facility Urban 

15 Access Control Point Urban 

16 AMC Relocatables Urban, Beltsvillea

, 

Mattapexb

17 PEO EIS Administrative Facility Urban 

18 Structured Parking Facility Urban 

19 Modernize Barracks Urban 

20 MWR Family Travel Camp Urban, Woodstownb

, 

Dragston a

 Soils could support farmlands of statewide importance. Total impact to farmlands of 

statewide importance is 38.5 acres. 

b

 Soils could support prime farmland. Total impact to prime farmland soils is 14.3 acres.

the majority of development would occur on the Urban soil type with only the WHS facility and 

Child Development Center occurring primarily on Beltsville, Matapeake, and Mattapex soil 

types. As noted under the Preferred Alternative, while these soils are considered highly erodible, 

BMPs required under the Commonwealth of Virginia’s stormwater regulations would minimize 

the extent of impacts. Infrastructure improvement, including water, sewer, and electrical lines 

would cross numerous soil types but only result in minor short- to long-term impacts as a result of 

disturbing soil profiles. 

Soils that could support prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance occur within the 

project areas. Individual projects under the Town Center Alternative could affect 14.3 acres of 

prime farmland soils and 38.5 acres of soils that could support farmlands of statewide importance. 

Lands within Fort Belvoir have previously been converted to urban use or otherwise irreversibly 

committed to other uses and are therefore incompatible with these designations. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-200 

4.6.3.4 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs would be similar to those for the Preferred Alternative (Section 4.6.2.4). Mitigation 

measures would not be required for topography, geology, and soils for reasons similar to those for 

the Preferred Alternative. 

4.6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF CITY CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

Implementing the City Center Alternative would be expected to result in no effect on geology and 

result in minimal changes to topography. Short- and long-term minor adverse effects on soils 

would occur. A detailed description of the effects is presented below. 

4.6.4.1 Topography 

4.6.4.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Development under either the 1993 land use plan or the City Center Alternative land use plan 

would result in localized minor adverse effects on topography associated with construction 

activities. 

The change in land use designations with the selection of the City Center Alternative land use 

plan would produce more impacts than the 1993 land use plan because of the development, 

particularly roadways, that would be allowed on EPG. The recharacterization of lands designated 

as Environmentally Sensitive under the 1993 land use plan to Professional/Institutional, 

Community, and Residential land use designations would allow development that was not 

considered in the 1993 land use plan. The City Center Alternative also designates the GSA 

Parcel as Professional/Institutional, which would allow development of new facilities; however, 

the extent of development already existing at the site would suggest minimal if any changes in the 

topography. Effects on topography on the Main Post would likely be similar under both the City 

Center Alternative and the 1993 land use plans and would, in either case, be minimal and 

localized. 

4.6.4.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Similar to the Preferred Alternative discussion above, development under the City Center 

Alternative would result in long-term minor adverse changes to topography associated with 

construction activities. 

Because the City Center Alternative would focus development on EPG and to a lesser extent on 

the North Post and South Post, extensive construction, including new roads and utilities, would be 

required within EPG and the GSA Parcel. While still localized and inconsequential, the City 

Center Alternative would likely have the greatest extent of effects on topography compared to the 

others. 

4.6.4.2 Geology 

4.6.4.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Implementing the City Center land use plan would have no effects on geology within Fort 

Belvoir’s Main Post, EPG, or the GSA Parcel. The geology of the area would remain unchanged 

regardless of the small portions of bedrock underlying the area that could be affected by 

construction activities. Such effects would be inconsequential and localized. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-201 

4.6.4.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

The City Center Alternative would be expected to have no effects on geology within Fort 

Belvoir’s Main Post, EPG, or the GSA Parcel. The geology of the area would remain unchanged 

regardless of the small portions of bedrock underlying the area that could be affected by 

construction activities. Such effects would be inconsequential and localized and be similar to 

those discussed under the Preferred Alternative (Section 4.6.2.2.2). 

4.6.4.3 Soils 

4.6.4.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

As discussed previously, the changes in land use between the City Center land use plan and the 

1993 land use plan do not define the extent of effects that would result in each case, only the 

types of activities that would be permitted. As noted above, the 1993 land use plan includes an 

Environmentally Sensitive category that is not carried through the City Center Alternative land 

use plan, rather, these lands would be recharacterized as Professional/Industrial, Community, and 

Residential. As noted above, environmental protections would remain in place for a portion of 

these areas (e.g. jurisdictional wetlands). 

Soil types that could support prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance occur 

within the project areas. However, because the lands within Fort Belvoir are in urban use or are 

otherwise irreversibly committed to other uses, these designations do not apply. 

4.6.4.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

As discussed above, implementing any of the Alternatives would be expected to result in shortand long-term minor adverse effects on soils as a result of construction activities. Under the City 

Center Alternative, development activities would be concentrated on EPG and, to a much lesser 

extent, in the North Post and South Post. The total amount of new disturbance that would result 

by implementing City Center Alternative would be approximately 435 acres (see Table 4.6-3), 

most of which would be concentrated on EPG. The soil types that would be affected by this 

alternative are presented in Table 4.6-6. Note that all BRAC development on the Main Post 

would occur on soils classified as Urban. Most development on EPG would occur on soils 

characterized as Urban or Cut and Fill, although part of the NGA facility would be built on 

Quantico soils. Construction of infrastructure, including roads and utility lines would affect a 

wide range of soil types resulting in minor short- to long-term losses in soil productivity where 

pipelines were buried and a permanent loss where soils were converted to impervious surfaces. 

The loss of soils in these relatively small areas would be minor. This alternative would also 

require the relocation of facilities to the GSA Parcel. Because that site consists primarily of 

buildings and other impervious surfaces, the effect on the soil resource in that parcel would be 

negligible. 

Soils that could support prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance occur within the 

project areas. Individual projects under the City Center Alternative could affect 15.6 acres of 

prime farmland soils and 54.0 acres of soils that could support farmlands of statewide importance. 

Lands within Fort Belvoir have previously been converted to urban use or otherwise irreversibly 

committed to other uses and are therefore incompatible with these designations. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-202 

Table 4.6-6 

Soil types impacted by proposed BRAC projects 

under the City Center Alternative 

Map Number BRAC Facility Soil Types Impacted 

1 NGA Facility Cut/Fill, Quantico, 

Applingb

2 WHS Facility Urban 

3 MDA Facility Cut/Fill, Urban 

4 DeWitt Hospital Cut/Fill, Urban, Beltsvillea

5 Dental Clinic Urban 

6 NARMC HQ Building Beltsvillea

, Dumfries 

7 Corps of Engineers Integration 

Office 

Cut/Fill, Beltsvillea

8 Infrastructure Beltsvillea

, Dumfries, 

Louisburga

9 Emergency Services Center Beltsvillea

10 Network Ops – PEO EIS Urban 

11 USANCA Support Facility Urban, Cut/Fill 

12 Child Development Center 

(NGA) 

Cut/Fill, Dumfries 

13 Child Development Center Urban 

14 Administrative Facility Urban 

15 Access Control Point Urban 

16 AMC Relocatables Urban, Beltsvillea

, 

Mattapexb

17 PEO EIS Administrative Facility Urban 

18 Structured Parking Facility Urban 

19 Modernize Barracks Urban 

20 MWR Family Travel Camp Urban, Woodstownb

, 

Dragston a

 Soils could support farmlands of statewide importance. Total impact to farmlands of 

statewide importance is 54.0 acres. 

b

 Soils could support prime farmland. Total impact to prime farmland soils is 15.6 acres.

4.6.4.4 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs would be similar to those for the Preferred Alternative (Section 4.6.2.4). Mitigation 

measures would not be required for topography, geology, and soils for reasons similar to those for 

the Preferred Alternative. 

4.6.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SATELLITE CAMPUSES 

ALTERNATIVE 

Implementing the Satellite Campuses Alternative would be expected to result in no effect on 

geology and short- and long-term minor adverse effects on topography and soils. A detailed 

description of the effects is presented below. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-203 

4.6.5.1 Topography 

4.6.5.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Development under either the 1993 land use plan or the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use 

plan would result in long-term localized minor adverse effects on topography associated with 

construction activities. 

The change in land use designations with the selection of the Satellite Campuses land use plan 

could produce slightly higher levels of effects than the 1993 land use plan since it would include 

EPG. The recharacterization of lands designated as Environmentally Sensitive under the 1993 

land use plan to Professional/Institutional, Community, and Residential land use designations 

would allow development that was not considered in the 1993 land use plan. Development would 

be limited in areas with environmental constraints (e.g. critical habitat) because these areas would 

retain their protected status regardless of the land use designation; however changes in 

topography could occur over a broader area under the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use 

plan. Changes in topography on the Main Post would likely be similar under both land use plans 

and would, in either case, be minimal and localized. 

4.6.5.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Similar to the discussions above, development under the Satellite Campuses Alternative would 

result in localized minor adverse changes in topography associated with construction activities. 

The Satellite Campuses Alternative would focus development on the North and South Posts. 

Because this alternative would avoid effects on EPG, it would result in less change to topography 

than the Preferred or City Center Alternatives. 

4.6.5.2 Geology 

4.6.5.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Implementing the Satellite Campuses land use plan would have negligible effects on geology 

within Fort Belvoir’s Main Post and EPG. The geology of the area would remain unchanged 

regardless of the small portions of bedrock underlying the area that could be affected by 

construction activities. Such effects would be inconsequential and localized. 

4.6.5.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Implementing the Satellite Campuses Alternative would be expected to have negligible effects on 

geology within Fort Belvoir’s Main Post and EPG. The geology of the area would remain 

unchanged regardless of the small portions of bedrock underlying the area that could be affected 

by construction activities. Such effects would be inconsequential and localized and be similar to 

those discussed under the Preferred Alternative (Section 4.6.2.2.2). 

4.6.5.3 Soils 

4.6.5.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

The changes in land use between the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan and the 1993 

land use plan define the types of activities that could occur within the various land use categories. 

As noted above, the 1993 land use plan includes an Environmentally Sensitive category that is not 

carried through the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan, rather, these lands would be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-204 

recharacterized as Professional/Industrial, Community, and Residential. As noted above, 

environmental protections would remain in place for a portion of these areas (e.g. jurisdictional 

wetlands). 

Soil types that could support prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance occur 

within the project areas. However, because the lands within Fort Belvoir are in urban use or are 

otherwise irreversibly committed to other uses, these designations do not apply. 

4.6.5.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Implementing any of the Alternatives would likely result in effects to soils as a result of 

construction activities. Under the Satellite Campuses Alternative, development activities would 

be distributed between the North Post and South Post with no new development proposed for 

EPG. This alternative would include the development of multiple facilities on the North Post golf 

coarse, which is an area where soils, if not in their native condition, are still highly productive. 

New development at Davison Army Airfield would not be expected to result in impacts to soils 

because this area was previously disturbed. Implementing Satellite Campuses Alternative would 

result in the greatest potential effect on soil resources of any of the alternatives (approximately 

457 acres, see Table 4.6-3). Table 4.6-7 presents the primary soil types that would be affected by 

each of the BRAC projects; the majority of development would occur on the Urban soil type. 

with only the, DeWitt Hospital and the NAMRC HQ Facility would be built on Mattapex and 

Lunt soils. The PEO EIS Network Operations would be built on Sassafras and Bertie soils and 

the PEO EIS Administrative Facility would be built on Beltsville soils. Beltsville, Mattapex, and 

Bertie soil types are considered highly erodible although BMPs required under the 

Commonwealth of Virginia’s stormwater regulations would minimize the extent of impacts. 

Soils with shrink/swell or other undesirable characteristics for construction would be addressed 

using standard engineering practices. Infrastructure improvement, including water, sewer, and 

electrical lines would cross numerous soil types but only result in minor short- to long-term 

impacts as a result of disturbing soil profiles. A permanent loss of the soil resource would occur 

where soils were covered with impervious surfaces; in these cases, the impacts would be minor 

and localized. 

Soils that could support prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance occur within the 

project areas. Individual projects under the Satellite Campuses Alternative could affect 28.9 

acres of prime farmland soils and 90.6 acres of soils that could support farmlands of statewide 

importance. Lands within Fort Belvoir have previously been converted to urban use or otherwise 

irreversibly committed to other uses and are therefore incompatible with these designations. 

4.6.5.4 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs would be similar to those for the Preferred Alternative (Section 4.6.2.4). Mitigation 

measures would not be required for topography, geology, and soils for reasons similar to those for 

the Preferred Alternative. 

4.6.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative would not affect the local geology but would be expected to result in 

short- and long-term minor adverse effects on topography and soils. A detailed description of the 

effects is presented below. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-205 

Table 4.6-7 

Soil types impacted by proposed BRAC projects 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

Map Number BRAC Facility Soil Types Impacted 

1 NGA Facility Cut/Fill, Urban, Lunt 

2 WHS Facility Urban 

3 MDA Facility Urban 

4 DeWitt Hospital Beltsvillea

, Mattapexb

5 Dental Clinic Urban 

6 NARMC HQ Building Mattapexb

, Beltsvillea

7 Corps of Engineers Integration 

Office 

Urban 

8 Infrastructure Urban, Dumfries, Bertie 

10 Network Ops – PEO EIS Sassafras, Bertie 

11 USANCA Support Facility Urban 

12 Child Development Center 

(NGA) 

Cut/Fill 

13 Child Development Center Beltsvillea

14 Administrative Facility Urban 

15 Access Control Point Urban 

16 AMC Relocatables Urban 

17 PEO EIS Administrative Facility Beltsvillea

, Urban 

Sassafrasa

18 Structured Parking Facility Urban 

19 Modernize Barracks Urban 

20 MWR Family Travel Camp Urban, Woodstownb

, 

Dragston a

 Soils could support farmlands of statewide importance. Total impact to farmlands of 

statewide importance is 90.6 acres. 

b

 Soils could support prime farmland. Total impact to prime farmland soils is 28.9 acres.

4.6.6.1 Topography 

Under the No Action Alternative, the 1993 land use plan would remain in place. Under this plan, 

the existing land use designations would continue to allow construction activities that could result 

in minor changes to topography. There would be no changes to land use designations and no 

development would occur at EPG or the GSA Parcel. 

4.6.6.2 Geology 

The No Action Alternative would be expected to have negligible effects on geology within Fort 

Belvoir’s Main Post and none at EPG or the GSA Parcel. The geology of the area would remain 

unchanged regardless of the small portions of bedrock underlying the area that could be affected 

by construction activities that would occur under the current 1993 land use plan. Such effects 

would be localized and inconsequential. 

4.6.6.3 Soils 

The continued use of the 1993 land use plan would allow future development to occur throughout 

the Main Post governed by future needs and the existing land use categories. The 1993 land use 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-206 

plan identifies 4,531 acres in Environmentally Sensitive, Training Range, and Outdoor Recreation 

land use types. Soil disturbances within these land use categories would be less extensive than in 

the other land use categories. Impacts on soil resources would be limited in size and minor in 

severity. 

Soil types that could support prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance occur 

within the project areas. However, because the lands within Fort Belvoir are in urban use or 

otherwise irreversibly committed to other uses, these designations do not apply. 

4.6.7 SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

4.6.7.1 Topography 

Implementing any of the alternatives would be expected to result in minor adverse changes in 

topography. The construction of buildings and infrastructure would result in alterations in 

topography under each alternative. These activities would be more likely to alter previously 

unaffected land under the Preferred Alternative and City Center Alternative land use plans 

because these would focus most new development on EPG. Changes to topography under all 

alternatives would generally result where the cut and fill approach is used to level areas for roads 

and buildings. While the degree of impact on topography would be greater under the Town 

Center and Satellite Campuses Alternatives, the overall effect would still be insignificant. 

4.6.7.2 Geology 

Implementing any of the alternatives would have negligible effects on geology within Fort 

Belvoir’s Main Post and EPG. The geology of the area would remain unchanged, although small 

portions of the bedrock underlying the area could be affected by construction activities. Such 

effects would be inconsequential and localized. 

4.6.7.3 Soils 

Short- and long-term adverse effects to soil productivity would occur under all the alternatives 

resulting from construction activities and the installation of impervious surfaces. These effects 

would be minor when considered on the landscape level. Soils covering many areas within the 

Main Post and EPG that are amenable to construction have already been subject to previous 

construction and land-clearing activities; therefore, not all soils within the project areas are in 

their undisturbed state and at maximum productivity (e.g. Urban and Cut and Fill). With the acres 

of disturbance being the simplest measure to compare alternatives, the Preferred Alternative and 

City Center Alternative land use plans would affect 495 and 435 acres of soils, respectively, 

concentrated primarily in EPG. Construction proposed under the Town Center Alternative would 

affect the smallest amount of native soils, with most development planned to occur on Urban or 

Cut and Fill soil types. The Satellite Campuses Alternative would result in disturbance of 457 

acres of soils occurring primarily on the North Post and Davison Army Airfield. The Town 

Center Alternative land use plan would affect the least amount of soils (262 acres), primarily on 

the North Post and South Post. Under all alternatives, soil erosion arising from construction 

activities would be minimized using a standard set of BMPs applied throughout the construction 

process. Soils characteristics that are not well suited to construction (e.g., shrink/swell, shallow 

groundwater) can be overcome with standard engineering practices. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-207

4.7 WATER RESOURCES 

Water resources on Fort Belvoir are described in the following section under major topics that 

include watershed characterization, surface water quality, pollutant sources, groundwater, and 

other water resources policies. Potential effects on water resources as a result of the proposed 

action and alternatives are also described. 

4.7.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.7.1.1 Watershed Characterization 

Fort Belvoir is located along the Potomac River, which is the second largest tributary to the 

Chesapeake Bay. Surface water from Fort Belvoir drains directly to the Potomac River and to the 

lower reaches of three major Potomac River tributaries: Pohick Creek, Accotink Creek, and 

Dogue Creek (Figure 4.7-1). The headwaters of these tributaries are off-post to the north and 

west of Fort Belvoir in Fairfax County, Virginia. The headwaters of Mason Run (tributary to 

Accotink Creek) and several unnamed tributaries are located within the installation. Fort 

Belvoir’s EPG is a large training area that is located just northwest of the Main Post, across I-95. 

EPG is located entirely within the Accotink Creek watershed. Accotink Creek flows southward 

through EPG and the Main Post, before emptying into Accotink Bay. The Main Post is bounded 

by Pohick Creek (which flows into Pohick Bay) to the southwest and Dogue Creek along the 

installation’s eastern boundary. Pohick Bay and Accotink Bay combine to form Gunston Cove 

along the southern tip of the Main Post. 

Fort Belvoir includes approximately 105.5 stream miles, of which 28 miles are perennial and 31.1 

miles are intermittent. Ephemeral streams (channels that have water only during or following storm 

events) comprise 1.9 miles, and other storm water conveyances total 44.5 miles on the installation 

(Fort Belvoir, 2004). Stream classifications and mileage were determined for Resource Protection 

Area (RPA) planning purposes and are subject to change as Fort Belvoir streams are evaluated in 

the field using Fairfax County’s perennial streams assessment protocol during project planning. 

Three manmade ponds and numerous groundwater seeps are also present on the installation (Fort 

Belvoir, July 2002). Additional information on wetlands and other biological resources is discussed 

in Section 4.8. 

4.7.1.1.1 Watersheds and Subwatersheds 

The watersheds of Fort Belvoir are part of the Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan hydrologic 

unit. A hydrologic unit is a geographic area that represents all or part of a surface drainage basin, 

combination of drainage basins, or a distinct hydrologic feature. The U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) designated Hydrologic Unit Code (or HUC) for this watershed is 02070010. HUCs were 

established by the USGS to identify U.S. watersheds and their subwatersheds using a 

standardized numeric classification system. USGS hydrologic units are arranged into four levels 

of progressively smaller watershed divisions and subdivisions, which are identified by a series of 

2-digit (largest area) to 8-digit (smallest area) HUCs. Efforts are underway to catalog even 

smaller drainage subdivisions. 

Fort Belvoir is drained by seven watersheds that contribute to the Potomac River and, ultimately, the 

Chesapeake Bay. During development of the Fort Belvoir Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan (INRMP), these seven watersheds were divided into 53 subwatersheds for the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-209

purposes of characterizing the installation’s waterbodies, identifying existing issues, and 

recommending solutions (Horne, 2001). The subwatershed that includes EPG (53) was divided into 

seven smaller subwatersheds: 53A–53G. These subwatersheds were subsequently re-numbered (53–

59) in the current Fort Belvoir watersheds GIS coverage (Fort Belvoir GIS, 2006). Figure 4.7-2 

shows the seven primary watersheds and the 59 numbered subwatersheds. Table 4.7-1 presents 

summary statistics for the seven watersheds that encompass Fort Belvoir. 

Accotink Creek, Dogue Creek, and Pohick Creek drain most of Fort Belvoir. These streams also 

drain much of eastern Fairfax County. This area of Fairfax County, particularly within the 

Accotink Creek watershed, is primarily urban and suburban in character and is approximately 80 

percent developed north and west of the installation. The remaining four watersheds—Accotink 

Bay, Gunston Cove, Pohick Bay, and Potomac River—represent areas on Fort Belvoir that 

directly drain to these waterbodies (Horne, 2001). 

The largest watershed on the installation, Accotink Creek, covers approximately 48 percent of the 

installation (including EPG) and contains 20 subwatersheds (Horne, 2001; Fort Belvoir GIS, 

2006). EPG is entirely within the Accotink Creek watershed and is divided into seven 

subwatersheds. The Main Post includes the remaining 13 Accotink Creek subwatersheds. 

The Dogue Creek watershed covers approximately 20 percent of Fort Belvoir and is divided into 

15 subwatersheds. The remaining five watersheds contain between two and seven subwatersheds 

each. Pohick Creek and Gunston Cove each covers roughly 8 percent of the installation. 

Accotink Bay and Pohick Bay each covers 7 percent of the installation. The Fort Belvoir INRMP 

(Horne, 2001) and the Fort Belvoir Watershed Delineation Project Update (Landgraf, 2003) 

provide additional background information on development conditions in the Fort Belvoir 

watersheds and subwatersheds.

The Fort Belvoir INRMP commits Fort Belvoir to follow a watershed approach to land 

management that acknowledges the relationship of land use and upstream areas with downstream 

resources (Horne, 2001). The Virginia Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and Chesapeake 

Bay initiatives, discussed in Section 4.7.1.5, establish far-reaching, natural resources protection 

policies, strategies, and actions for landholders to undertake throughout the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. The DoD and the Army are signatory agencies to the agreements and have 

incorporated watershed and tributary protection strategies into the master plan and other 

installation policies. 

4.7.1.1.2 Flows and Exchanges 

The USGS has historically maintained stream flow gauges at locations throughout the PotomacAnacostia-Occoquan watershed. USGS gauges have measured stream flow on the Potomac 

River, Pohick Creek, Accotink Creek, Piney Run, and Dogue Creek. Historical flow records 

were analyzed to determine the range of flow conditions and average stream flows. The nearest 

active USGS stream gage is Station 01654000 on Accotink Creek, approximately 5 miles 

upstream from the northern perimeter of EPG and upstream of Lake Accotink in Annandale, 

Virginia. This station monitors a 24 square mile watershed and has been in operation since 1947. 

Daily average flow recorded at this station is 28.4 cubic feet per second (cfs). The mean monthly 

flow between October 1947 and September 2004 ranged from 18.1 cfs in October to 42.3 cfs in 

March. The minimum monthly flow recorded over this period was 0.45 cfs in September 1954, 

and the maximum monthly flow recorded over the period was 125 cfs in May 1989. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-211

Table 4.7-1 

Fort Belvoir Watersheds 

Fort Belvoir 

watershed 

Total 

watershed 

surface area 

(acres) 

Percentage 

of total 

watershed 

area within 

Fort Belvoir 

Surface Area 

within Fort 

Belvoir 

(acres) 

Percent of 

Fort Belvoir 

land area 

Number of 

subwatersheds 

within Fort 

Belvoir 

Accotink Creeka 33,156 14 4,040 48 20 

Dogue Creek 10,883 21 1,713 20 15 

Pohick Creek 22,755 3 638 8 2 

Gunston Cove 681 100 681 8 7 

Accotink Bay 604 100 613 7 5 

Pohick Bayb 569 100 571 7 5 

Potomac Riverb 237 100 239 2 5 

TOTAL 8,495 100 59 

Source: Horne, 2001; Fort Belvoir GIS, 2006. 

a

EPG is located entirely within the Accotink Creek watershed. The number of subwatersheds was updated to include 

the 7 re-numbered EPG subwatersheds 

b

Total watershed surface area shown represents acreage on Fort Belvoir only.

4.7.1.2 Surface Water Quality 

4.7.1.2.1 Applicable Standards 

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) defines surface water quality 

standards that protect designated uses for surface waters in Virginia. Water quality standards 

consist of three components: use designations, general and numeric water quality criteria 

necessary to protect those uses, and an antidegradation statement. Water quality standards have 

the dual purposes of establishing the water quality goals for specific waterbodies and serving as 

the regulatory basis for establishing water quality-based treatment controls and strategies beyond 

the technology-based levels of treatment required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the Clean Water 

Act (CWA). All streams in Virginia, including those flowing through Fort Belvoir, are minimally 

assigned the uses of recreation (e.g., swimming and boating); propagation and growth of a 

balanced, indigenous population of aquatic life, including game fish, which might reasonably be 

expected to inhabit them; wildlife; and the production of edible and marketable natural resources 

(e.g., fish and shellfish). 

Virginia water quality standards contain general criteria statements and a wide range of numeric 

water quality criteria for pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), VOCs, acid- and baseextractable organics, other organics, metals, pH, and inorganics, as well as conventional 

pollutants such as total dissolved solids. Table 4.7-2 lists numeric water quality criteria and fish 

tissue screening levels for constituents that are of particular interest on the basis of information 

contained in Virginia’s 303(d) list of impaired waters for Fort Belvoir waterbodies (and receiving 

waters). Note that VDEQ is currently developing nutrient criteria for surface waters. Streams on 

Fort Belvoir are Class III nontidal waters, according to Virginia water quality standards. Tidal 

receiving waters including the Potomac River, Accotink Bay, Pohick Bay, and Gunston Cove are 

Class II waters. Virginia water quality criteria apply to Class II and Class III waters unless 

otherwise specified. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-212

Table 4.7-2 

Virginia water quality standards and fish tissue screening levels 

General water quality parameters 

Parameter Units Criteria 

Water temperature—Class III 

nontidal watersa oC 32 (instantaneous maximum) 

Dissolved oxygen–Class III 

nontidal waters mg/l 4.0 (instantaneous minimum); 

5.0 (daily average) 

Dissolved oxygen—Class II 

tidal watersb mg/l 

30 day mean > 5.5 mg/l (tidal habitats with 0-0.5 ppt salinity); 

30 day mean > 5 mg/l (tidal habitats with >0.5 ppt salinity); 

7 day mean > 4 mg/l; 

Instantaneous minimum > 3.2 mg/l at temperatures < 29o

C; 

Instantaneous minimum > 4.3 mg/l at temperatures > 29o

C 

pH SU 6.0-9.0 

Fecal coliform bacteriac #/100 ml 200/400 

E. coli d #/100 ml 126/235 

enterococci e #/100 ml 35/104 

Other parameters 

Parameter Units 

Aquatic 

life—

freshwater 

acute 

Aquatic 

life—

freshwater 

chronic 

Human 

health—

public water 

supplies 

Human 

health—all 

other surface 

waters 

Total PCBs (water) μg/l NA NA 0.0017 0.0017

Total PCBs (fish tissue 

screening level) ppb NA NA 54 54

Benzo(k)fluoranthene (water) μg/l NA NA 0.044 0.49

Benzo(k)fluoranthene (fish 

tissue screening level) ppb NA NA 15 15

Benzo(b)fluoranthene (water) μg/l NA NA 0.044 0.49

Benzo(b)fluoranthene (fish 

tissue screening level) ppb NA NA 15 15

Chrysene (water) μg/l NA NA 0.044 0.49

Chrysene (fish tissue 

screening level) ppb NA NA 15 15

a

Temperature criteria are not specified for Class II tidal waters. 

b

Open Water criteria shown. For information on seasonal DO criteria for specific designated uses refer to Virginia 

Water Quality Standards 9 VAC 25-260-185 and for information on implementation of DO criteria for naturally low 

DO waters refer to 9 VAC 25-260-55. 

c

The Virginia fecal coliform bacteria standard for primary contact recreational waters is as follows: “Fecal coliform 

bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 ml of water for two or more 

samples over a calendar month nor shall more than 10 percent of the total samples taken during any calendar 

month exceed 400 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 ml of water.” For information on fecal coliform criteria for shellfish 

waters refer to Virginia Water Quality Standards 9 VAC 25-260-160.

d

The Virginia E. coli standard for primary contact recreational waters (freshwaters) states that E. coli shall not 

exceed a geometric mean of 126 per 100ml for two or more samples over any calendar month and shall not exceed 

a single sample maximum of 235 per 100 ml. 

e

The Virginia enterococci standard for primary contact recreational waters (saltwater and transition zone) states that 

enterococci shall not exceed a geometric mean of 35 per 100ml for two or more samples over any calendar month 

and shall not exceed a single sample maximum of 104 per 100 ml. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-213

In addition to Virginia’s water quality standards, the Army’s administrative publication, DA 

PAM 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement, requires installations to conserve all 

water sources and protect them from contamination by developing and implementing plans to 

ensure a level of water quality that supports “the propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife; 

recreation in and on the water; and the protection of drinking water sources.” 

4.7.1.2.2 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Listing 

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify and develop a list of waterbodies that are 

impaired and for which technology-based and other required controls have not resulted in 

attainment of water quality standards. Several waterbodies that flow through Fort Belvoir, or are 

immediately downstream, are listed on Virginia’s 2004 303(d) list of impaired waters (VDEQ, 

2004). Virginia also recently prepared the Draft 2006 303(d) list, which includes updated 

impairment information (VDEQ, 2006). Impaired segments within or adjacent to Fort Belvoir are 

listed in Table 4.7-3. The development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) is required for 

waterbodies that are included on the 303(d) list. TMDLs and load reductions are required for the 

pollutants of concern for each listed waterbody. VDEQ is currently developing TMDLs in 

accordance with the 10-year EPA consent decree schedule for waterbodies originally listed on the 

1998 303(d) list, including TMDLs for PCBs for Accotink Creek, Dogue Creek, and Pohick 

Creek. A fecal coliform bacteria TMDL for Accotink Creek (portion upstream of Lake Accotink) 

was developed by VDEQ and approved by EPA in 2002. 

4.7.1.2.3 In-Stream Water Quality 

Current and historical water quality conditions of the watersheds of Fort Belvoir were determined 

using available VDEQ water quality data, Fairfax County Health Department data, EPA’s 

STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database information, the Fort Belvoir INRMP, and other 

Fort Belvoir documents. Water quality data collected at VDEQ stations within the vicinity of 

Fort Belvoir are presented in Table 4.7-4, and monitoring station locations are shown in Figure 

4.7-3. VDEQ uses ambient water quality, sediment, fish tissue, and other available data to assess 

water quality conditions, threats to human health, and the impairment status for each waterbody 

(see Section 4.7.1.2.2). Data for selected water quality parameters collected from 1/1/1990 to 

9/1/2006 were summarized to provide background information on water quality conditions for 

Fort Belvoir waterbodies. 

The Fairfax County Health Department also samples several streams in the County and publishes 

the results in an annual report. Four stations are located in the immediate vicinity of Fort Belvoir, 

upstream from the installation on Pohick, Accotink, and Dogue Creeks. The Pohick Creek station 

(#17-08) is located just outside the installation boundary on Old Colchester Road. The Dogue 

Creek station (#15-06) is located just outside of the installation boundary upstream from George 

Washington Village. The two stations in the Accotink Creek watershed are on Long Branch (#16-

13) just outside the installation boundary on the northern side of Telegraph Road and on Accotink 

Creek (#16-09) 5 miles upstream from Fort Belvoir. The stations are shown on Figure 4.7-3. 

The results from the 2002 water quality report for fecal coliform, nitrate nitrogen, pH, and total 

phosphorus in these watersheds are presented in Table 4.7-5. For dissolved oxygen (DO), the 

farthest downstream stations in the Pohick watershed and on Long Branch in the Accotink 

watershed reported no DO levels under the minimum DO criterion of 4.0 mg/l in 2002. However, 

the Dogue Creek station reported that 29 percent of samples did not meet the minimum criterion, 

and the station farther upstream on Accotink Creek (#16-09) reported that 20 percent of samples 

did not meet the criterion (Fairfax County Health Department, 2003a). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-214

Table 4.7-3 

303(d) Listed waterbodies within or downstream of Fort Belvoir 

303(d) listed 

waterbody Extent Use impaired 

Impairment cause 

(initial list date) 

Accotink Creek 

Confluence of Calamo Branch 

downstream to end of free-flowing 

waters (8.62 miles) 

Aquatic Life, 

Recreation 

General Standard 

(Benthic)—(1996), Fecal 

Coliform (2004) 

Pohick Creek 

Confluence of South Run downstream 

to end of free-flowing waters (3.2 

miles) 

Fish Consumption, 

Recreation 

Fish Tissue—PCBs, 

PAH (2002). PAH listing 

was for 

Benzo[k]fluoranthene. 

Benzo[b]fluoranthene 

and Chrysene also noted 

in 2002. 

E. coli (2006) 

Dogue Creek 

Tidal waters of Dogue Creek, 

extending from approximately 

rivermile 2.1 until the confluence with 

the Potomac River. Portion of CBP 

segment POTTFa (0.74 mi2) 

Fish Consumption, 

Recreation, Aquatic 

Life, Shallow-Water 

SAVb

Fish Tissue—PCBs 

(2002), Fecal Coliform 

(2006), Aquatic Plants 

(2006) 

Accotink Bay 

Tidal waters of Accotink Creek until 

the confluence with the tidal waters of 

Pohick Bay/Gunston Cove. Portion of 

CBP segment POTTFa (0.35 mi2) 

Fish Consumption, 

Aquatic Life, ShallowWater SAVb

Fish Tissue—PCBs 

(2002), Aquatic Plants 

(2006) 

Pohick Bay 

Tidal waters of Pohick Creek, from 

the boundary of watershed A15, 

extending to rivermile 1.31 in Gunston 

Cove. Portion of CBP segment 

POTTFa (0.61 mi2) 

Tidal waters of Pohick Creek 

upstream from the boundary of 

watershed A16. Portion of CBP 

segment POTTFa (0.29 mi2) 

Fish Consumption, 

Recreation, Aquatic 

Life, Shallow-Water 

SAVb

Fish Tissue—PCBs 

(2002), Fecal Coliform 

(2006), Aquatic Plants 

(2006) 

* Ammonia was also 

listed in 2002 for the 

upper segment but was 

not included on the 2006 

list. 

Gunston Cove 

Segment extends from rivermile 1.31 

in Gunston Cove until the confluence 

with the Potomac River. Portion of 

CBP segment POTTFa

 (1.51 mi2) 

Fish Consumption, 

Aquatic Life, ShallowWater SAVb

Fish Tissue—PCBs 

(2002), Aquatic Plants 

(2006) 

a

POTTF refers to the Upper Potomac River segment of the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) 

b

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. 

The report also provided data for heavy metals. For the sampling period 1989 to 1998, the 

Pohick, Accotink, and Dogue Creek watersheds were all within the acceptable Primary Maximum 

Contaminate Levels (PMCLs) for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, 

and silver (Fairfax County Health Department, 2003a). 

Water samples were also collected on Fort Belvoir in 1998 and 1999 as part of the installation’s 

baseline aquatic survey (EA, 2000 as cited in Horne, 2001). Water samples were analyzed for 

nutrients, pesticides, metals, and total petroleum hydrocarbons on the installation’s five main 

perennial waterways: Accotink Creek, Dogue Creek, Mason Run, and two unnamed tributaries. 

With the exception of aluminum, manganese, and iron, none of the analytes measured were at 

high levels. The EPA human health criteria for manganese and iron are based on prevention of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-215

Table 4.7-4 

Water quality summary for VDEQ stations near Fort Belvoir 

 Water quality data summary 

Station ID 

Data 

period Statistic 

pH 

(SU) 

DO 

(mg/l) 

Temp 

 (degrees C)

E. coli

(# colonies/

100 ml) 

Fecal 

Coliform 

(# colonies/ 

100 ml) 

Total N 

(mg/l) 

Total P

(mg/l) 

TSS

(mg/l) 

Accotink Creek 

# samples 5 5 5 5 1 4 4 4

Min 6.30 8.27 5.99 50 50 0.46 0.03 3

Mean 6.8 10.30 13.67 415 50 0.62 0.04 8.75

1ALOA000.17 

(Long Branch, 

Trib. to Accotink 

Creek) 

8/11/05–

1/9/06 

Max 7.38 12.95 27.66 1,600 50 0.80 0.06 24

# samples 5 5 5 5 1 4 4 4

Min 6.79 8.26 4.11 25 50 0.69 0.01 3

Mean 7.06 10.49 12.37 374 50 0.89 0.05 14.5

1AACO004.84 

(Telegraph 

Road) 

8/11/05–

1/9/06 

Max 7.45 13.11 26.57 1,600 50 1.21 0.12 49

# samples 102 99 108 - 102 - 110 109

Min 6.17 6.00 0.80 - 18 - 0.01 1

Mean 7.40 10.33 15.28 - 588 - 0.18 10.37

1AACO006.10 

(Rt. #790) 

10/17/90–

6/13/01 

Max 8.70 15.00 29.80 - 16,000 - 10.00 227

Pohick Creek 

# samples 20 20 20 18 21 14 19 21

Min 6.35 6.38 1.09 25 25 0.51 0.01 3

Mean 7.29 10.70 13.90 325 431 0.84 0.03 15.04

1APOH005.36 

(Rt. 1 bridge) 

9/6/01–

1/18/06 

Max 8.21 15.75 25.36 2,000 2,000 1.51 0.05 188

# samples 37 36 41 - 37 - 42 43

Min 6.20 6.00 0.40 - 20 - 0.01 1

Mean 7.18 10.81 13.48 - 360 - 0.09 7.18

1APOH007.65 

(Rt. #642) 

10/17/90–

6/19/01 

Max 8.00 14.00 26.70 - 3,600 - 0.07 75

Pohick Bay 

1APOH002.42 # samples 1 1 1 - - - - 1 

(Boat ramp, Rd 

242) 

8/15/02 Value 9.17 8.80 29.07 - - - - 7 

# samples 143 126 154 14 131 13 154 166 

Min 6.00 2.00 1.6 10 2 0.98 0.03 0 

Mean 7.71 9.62 19.01 75 254 2.37 0.15 21.37 

1APOH002.32 

(West side of 

Pohick boat 

ramp) 

2/5/90–

11/7/05 

Max 10.00 16.00 32.50 400 8,000 4.36 3.90 68 

Dogue Creek 

# samples 4 2 4 1 2 - 4 4

Min 6.30 9.00 5.00 500 100 - 0.07 11

Mean 6.66 11 8.25 500 125 - 0.12 22.75

1ADOU002.59 

(Rt. #1) 

11/17/90–

5/16/02 

Max 6.99 13.00 17.70 500 150 - 0.20 31

# samples 117 108 127 14 121 13 134 133

Min 6.00 6.00 0.50 10 2 0.95 0.01 0

Mean 7.86 10.53 18.02 107.50 264 1.59 0.03 20.06

1ADOU000.60 

(Mt. Vernon 

Yacht Club) 

2/5/90–

11/7/05 

Max 9.00 16.00 31.50 800 9,200 2.24 0.06 139

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-217

Table 4.7-5 

Fairfax County Health Department water quality sampling results for 

1998-2002 for selected parameters in selected Fairfax County watersheds 

Parameter Criterion Year 

Pohick

Creeka

Accotink 

Creekb

Dogue 

Creekc

1998 7 7 18 

1999 12 13 5 

2000 13 10 13 

2001 19 18 11 

Fecal coliform 

% of samples with < 200 

colonies per 100 mg/l) 

200 colonies/100 

mg/l 

2002 21 12 6 

1998 0.3 0.5 0.2 

1999 0.3 0.6 0.2 

2000 0.3 0.5 0.1 

2001 0.3 0.5 0.2 

Nitrate nitrogen 

Geometric mean (mg/l) 10 mg/l 

2002 0.3 0.4 0.2 

1998 7.1 7.2 6.9 

1999 7.2 7.3 6.9 

2000 6.9 7.0 6.8 

2001 6.9 7.0 7.0 

pH 

Geometric mean 6.0–9.0 

2002 6.8 6.9 6.7 

1998 0.10 0.10 0.11 

1999 0.11 0.10 0.11 

2000 0.10 0.11 0.12 

2001 0.09 0.10 0.10 

Total phosphorus 

Geometric mean (mg/l) 

No established 

criteria 

2002 0.09 0.10 0.10 

Source: Fairfax County Health Department, 2003a. 

a

Station #17-08, at Old Colchester Road 

b

Station #16-09, 5 miles upstream from Fort Belvoir 

c

Station #15-06, upstream from George Washington Village 

objectionable taste and laundry staining, not adverse toxicological effects. The criterion for 

aluminum is based on long-term exposures for striped bass rather than humans and is frequently 

exceeded under natural conditions. The sampling results do not address contaminant inputs from 

storm flow conditions. 

Accotink Creek, at 0.8 miles upstream from Fort Belvoir, was part of the USGS National WaterQuality Assessment (NAWQA) for the Potomac River Basin from 1992 to 1996 (USGS, 1998). 

The study concluded that concentrations of nutrients and pesticides in streams of the Potomac 

River Basin are among the highest in the nation, primarily as a result of urbanization. Habitat 

condition is one of the primary factors influencing biological condition in a waterway, and the 

Accotink Creek site exhibited typical urban habitat degradation, including lower bank stability, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-218

increased bank erosion, and less riparian vegetation than less degraded sites. Pohick Creek and 

Dogue Creek, although not included in the NAWQA study, could be expected to have similar 

situations, though not as severe. 

Of the three main Fort Belvoir watersheds, Dogue Creek, which contains most of the present 

housing areas on Fort Belvoir, is undergoing the most intensive development (Fort Belvoir, 

2005b). However, the Huntley Meadows area, Jackson Miles Abbott Wetland Refuge in the upper 

reaches of Dogue Creek, and a chain of storm water ponds in Pohick Creek may help moderate 

storm water flows and biological condition by slowing storm flows and absorbing nutrients (Fort 

Belvoir, 2001). 

4.7.1.3 Pollutant Sources 

Pollutant sources are typically characterized as point or nonpoint sources under the CWA. Point 

sources, according to 40 CFR 112.3, are defined as any discernible, confined, and discrete 

conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete 

fissure, container, concentrated animal feeding operation, landfill leachate collection system, 

vessel, or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. The National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, under CWA Section 402, requires 

permits for the discharge of pollutants from point sources. VDEQ and VDCR administer the 

NPDES program in Virginia, which is referred to as the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (VPDES) Program. VDEQ regulates traditional point source facilities, such as 

wastewater treatment plants, while VDCR is responsible for administering the state’s municipal 

stormwater program, as described in Section 4.7.1.3.1. VDEQ also issues permits for dredge and 

fill activities that may affect wetlands and other State waters under the Virginia Water Protection 

(VWP) Permit Program. This program extends the state’s authority over impacts to wetlands and 

other State waters granted under Section 401 (Water Quality Certification) of the CWA. The 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also regulates dredge and fill activities under Section 404 of the 

CWA. These permit programs and potential impacts to wetlands are discussed in more detail in 

Section 4.8 (Biological Resources). 

Nonpoint sources are generally precipitation-driven and occur as overland flow carries pollutants, 

often attached to sediment, into streams. However, nonpoint sources may also include nonprecipitation driven events such as contributions from groundwater, sanitary sewer systems, 

direct deposition of pollutants from wildlife and livestock, and atmospheric deposition. Nonpoint 

source pollution is managed under various federal, state, and local programs. Although storm 

water and associated pollutants are typically characterized as nonpoint source, Virginia regulates 

storm water runoff from urban areas as a point source, as described in the following section. 

4.7.1.3.1 Point Sources 

As mandated by the CWA and EPA’s Phase I and Phase II storm water regulations, Virginia 

issues permits to dischargers of storm water from (1) industrial activities (including construction 

activities), and (2) municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) under the VPDES program. 

There are several types of permits under the VPDES permit program, including permits issued for 

effluent from facilities; discharges from municipal wastewater treatment plants; storm water from 

industrial activities; storm water from construction sites; and storm water from urban MS4s. The 

VPDES storm water program responsibility is divided between VDEQ and the Virginia 

Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). In January 2005, VPDES construction 

activity and MS4 storm water permitting responsibilities transferred from VDEQ to VDCR to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-219

become part of the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) (VDCR, 2005; VDEQ, 

2005b). The VDCR is responsible for the issuance, denial, revocation, termination, and 

enforcement of NPDES permits for the control of storm water discharges from MS4s and land 

disturbing activities under the Virginia Stormwater Management Program. The VDEQ continues 

to manage traditional wastewater point sources and other VPDES activities. Fort Belvoir has a 

VPDES Phase II Stormwater Permit (No. VAR040093) as a regulated small MS4 that expires in 

December 2007. In addition, the installation has a Phase I VPDES Industrial Stormwater General 

Permit (No. VAR051080) that specifically covers storm water runoff from Davison Army 

Airfield. Six additional storm water permits have been issued to the installation for storm water 

discharges associated with petroleum-contaminated sites, including a permit that was issued for 

remediation of the M-26 petroleum spill at EPG (Russell, 2005; Fort Belvoir, 2005b; USACE, 

2003). 

The VPDES Phase I permit program historically governed any construction activity including 

clearing, grading, and excavation activities, except for operations that result in the disturbance of 

an area less than 5 acres that is not part of a larger common plan of development or sale. The new 

Phase II VPDES program expands permit coverage to storm water discharges from construction 

activities affecting more than 2,500 square feet in areas that are considered to be within the 

Chesapeake Bay Preservation area (VDCR, 2005). All of Fort Belvoir is considered to be within 

the Chesapeake Bay Preservation area. The installation is currently developing and implementing 

pollution control measures in accordance with the standard permit conditions. Under Fort 

Belvoir's MS4 permit, construction plans and design documents must be submitted to DPWENRD for a technical review of new and redevelopment projects that disturb greater than or equal 

to 2,500 square feet of land surface to evaluate proposed storm water controls. Plans will be 

evaluated in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Manual, the Virginia 

Stormwater Management (SWM) Handbook, and the Fairfax County Public Facilities Manual 

(PFM). Deficient or non-compliant documents will be returned to the designers for modification 

and resubmission prior to initiation of site work. Excavation permits will not be granted until 

plans are approved. 

Pollution prevention for construction activities is addressed by VPDES Stormwater Permits for 

Construction Activities and Phase II MS4 permits as defined under the CWA, Virginia’s 

Stormwater Management Act and Erosion and Sediment Control regulations, and by Army 

administrative publication DA PAM 200-1: Environmental Protection and Enhancement. VPDES 

general storm water permits require that Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) be 

developed and implemented. These plans identify potential sources of pollution, describe storm 

water control measures to be implemented, and ensure compliance with the permit. Virginia’s 

SWM and Erosion and Sediment Control Acts require that, “properties and receiving waterways 

downstream of any land-development project shall be protected from erosion and damage due to 

increases in volume, velocity and peak flow rate of storm water runoff...in accordance with” 

minimum design standards as defined in Minimum Standard 19 of the Erosion and Sediment 

Control regulations or alternate design standards as defined in the Stormwater Management 

regulations. DA PAM 200-1 also requires installations to conserve all water sources and protect 

them from contamination by developing and implementing plans to ensure a level of water 

quality that supports “the propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife; recreation in and on the 

water; and the protection of drinking water sources.” 

The Noman M. Cole, Jr. Pollution Control Plant, formerly known as the Lower Potomac 

Pollution Control Plant, is a wastewater treatment facility located about one half mile upstream 

from Fort Belvoir along Pohick Creek. This facility receives approximately half of Fairfax 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-220

County’s domestic and commercial wastewater flow and has a treatment capacity of 54 million 

gallons per day (mgd) (Horne, 2001). The plant operates and discharges effluent into Pohick 

Creek under VPDES permit number VA0025364 . The plant achieves a 99 to 99.5 percent 

removal of suspended matter, organic substances, nutrients, infectious microorganisms, and other 

pollutants through its treatment processes (Fairfax County DPWES, 2001). However, water 

quality and flow conditions in the lower reach of Pohick Creek adjacent to Fort Belvoir may be 

influenced by discharges from the wastewater treatment plant (Horne, 2001). 

4.7.1.3.2 Nonpoint Sources 

Nonpoint sources may also contribute pollutants to downstream waterbodies and cause other 

impacts. Nonpoint sources represent contributions from diffuse, non-permitted sources. This 

does not include storm water from MS4 permitted areas, which is typically collected and 

discharged to surface waterbodies through an extensive storm water collection system. Storm 

water discharges and associated pollutants from these areas act as nonpoint sources, but are 

regulated as point sources. 

Because of Fort Belvoir’s administrative mission and the extent of development on the 

installation (approximately 30 percent of the installation is developed (USGS, 2001) and 

approximately 12 percent of the installation is covered with impervious surfaces (Horne, 2001)), 

the primary source of nonpoint pollution on Fort Belvoir is storm water runoff (Fort Belvoir, 

2005b). Activities such as clearing vegetation or grading, removing and compacting soils, as well 

as extensive uses of impervious surfaces could increase the amount of storm water runoff in a 

watershed and result in pollutant contamination. Increased storm water runoff could cause 

increased flooding, stream bank erosion, and degradation of in-stream habitat. Storm water 

runoff could become contaminated as it flows across the surface and picks up pollutants from 

roadways, yards, farms, golf courses, and parking lots. Watershed land cover distribution is an 

important factor in the delivery of nonpoint source pollutants, such as sediment, nutrients, heavy 

metals, and pathogens, through soil erosion. As the amount of impervious surface area increases, 

the amount of storm water runoff increases. 

The percentage of impervious surface area in a watershed is directly related to the hydrological, 

habitat, and water quality characteristics of the watershed (CWP, 2003). The threshold where 

indicators of stream quality shift toward degraded water quality is around 10 to 20 percent 

impervious cover (CWP, 2003). 

As indicated above and shown in Figure 4.7-2 and Table 4.7-1, there are seven watersheds and 59 

subwatersheds on Fort Belvoir (including EPG). The Accotink Bay, Gunston Cove, and Potomac 

River watersheds have the highest percentage of impervious surfaces, at 19, 16, and 14 percent, 

respectively. The Dogue Creek and Accotink Creek watersheds are 11 and 10 percent impervious, 

respectively; however, these watersheds contain the largest overall amount of impervious surface 

area because they are the two largest watersheds on the installation. 

The Pohick Creek and Pohick Bay watersheds are less than one percent impervious (Horne, 

2001). Unlike the Pohick Creek watershed, the Pohick Bay watershed originates on and is entirely 

contained within Fort Belvoir (Horne, 2001). With only 0.01 percent of its area being impervious, 

and 93.46 percent covered by forest lands (Horne, 2001), the Pohick Bay watershed is considered 

an intact watershed, as shown on Figure 4.7-2 (Fort Belvoir, 2004). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-221

At the subwatershed level, seven subwatersheds exceed the 25 percent impervious threshold: 

subwatersheds 4, 29, 34, 39, 40, 41, and 43. Subwatershed 4 is in the Accotink Bay watershed 

and west of the South Post Town Center. Subwatershed 29 is in the Accotink Creek watershed 

and in the center of the installation east of Accotink Village. Subwatershed 34 overlaps 

Woodlawn Village in the Dogue Creek watershed. The remaining four subwatersheds are on the 

North Post west of the DLA facility and north of Davison Army Airfield within the Accotink 

Creek watershed. 

A quantitative determination of the relative impact of various construction options on water 

resources within Fort Belvoir requires the development of a baseline. The watersheds identified in 

the 1999 baseline watershed survey and revised with information from the 2003 update represents 

baseline conditions (Landgraf, 1999; 2003). 

4.7.1.3.3 Storm Water Management 

Developed areas on Fort Belvoir, including parking lots and roadways, are generally served by 

storm water drainage systems. EPG has historically been used as a training area and is currently 

little used. Storm water drainage on EPG is managed by a limited system of drainage ditches and 

culverts or conduits. For developed areas on the Main Post, the terrain has generally been 

modified to move storm water runoff away from facilities. Storm water draining off Fort Belvoir 

enters a storm water system consisting of approximately 22.4 miles of paved drainage ditches and 

59.8 miles of storm drain pipes that ultimately discharge into various surface waterbodies. 

Additional storm water management structures on Fort Belvoir include storm water detention 

ponds and oil/water separators (Fort Belvoir, 2005b; Horne, 2001). Existing storm water 

management facilities include a DLA water feature, a rock catchment on the North Post, a 

Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) storm water management pond on the South Post, and 

various hydrodynamic devices, underground storage/detention pipes, storm water filter systems, 

and bioretention filters. Conventional infiltration practices are mostly used to control storm water 

from RCI housing areas. Figure 4.7-4 shows the location of storm water drainage pipes on Fort 

Belvoir. The pipes tend to be clustered around the developed portions of the installation. Section 

4.7.2.4 presents information about storm water management practices at Fort Belvoir. 

Generally, Fort Belvoir has had inadequate existing storm water management facilities because 

much of the development on the installation predated any storm water management regulations. 

Problem areas exist where unmanaged storm water threatens the viability of roads and utility 

lines, presents safety hazards, causes stream bank erosion, and renders sites undevelopable 

because of erosion and soil slumping. Refer to Section 4.12 for information on Fort Belvoir 

utilities and existing deficiencies. 

The Watershed Delineation Project Update (Landgraf, 2003) identifies issues of concern with 

respect to sedimentation on Fort Belvoir: sedimentation from construction projects, inadequate 

installation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, and lack of enforcement 

of minimum standards for erosion and sediment control. According to Landgraf (2003), Fort 

Belvoir has taken steps to improve these conditions, including the identification of 14 sites with 

erosion problems that had been remediated since the prior project survey in 1999. 

Other storm water and flooding problems on the installation were recently noted by Fort Belvoir 

ENRD personnel, as follows (Master Plan/Drainage Study meeting on 11/16/06): 

• Erosion and gullying occurs downstream of storm sewer outfalls. Erosion has also 

exposed utility lines at channel crossings. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-223

• Every subwatershed on South Post has deeply incised stream channels. Channel erosion is 

also a problem on North Post and EPG but not as severe. Deeply incised channels are a 

sign of extreme flow conditions, unstable stream banks and abnormal channel evolution. 

• Problems exist with the intersection of larger storm water pipes into smaller ones. 

• Flooding problems exist because of very flat drainage at the intersection of Gunston Road 

and 21st Street. 

• Storm water management is limited on South Post. Several facilities are on North Post. 

• Storm water management facilities were not designed to provide water quality control. 

• Historical storm water mitigation strategies, such as dumping of concrete debris to 

remediate problem erosion sites in streams, were not effective. Also, the existing storm 

water system was not designed to handle storm flows from large areas of impervious 

surfaces. 

Fort Belvoir is incorporating storm water management and protection methods into land planning 

and new development as well as correcting and retrofitting existing problem areas. A storm water 

drainage system master plan study is currently underway, as discussed above. This study will 

identify current deficiencies (e.g. capacity problems, outfall problems, stream bank erosion) and 

determine infrastructure needs required to meet BRAC requirements and long-term growth 

through 2030. This study will also provide recommendations for storm water quality and 

quantity control, such as required design criteria, potential locations for new facilities, and 

methodologies that should be used or avoided. 

The MS4 storm water management program discussed in Section 4.7.1.3.1 requires “minimum 

control measures,” including Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water and 

pollutants in runoff. Fort Belvoir is developing pollution control measures that must be 

implemented within 5 years of permit issuance. The following management recommendations 

from the Fort Belvoir INRMP (Horne, 2001), Landgraf (2003), and the Watershed-based Stream 

Corridor Management and Protection, Fort Belvoir, VA report by Allen et al. (1999) are being 

considered for incorporation into the Phase II Storm Water Regulations as part of the INRMP 

planning process:

• Maintain a riparian buffer along all installation waterways and shorelines. 

• Correct existing storm water-related problems as recommended by Landgraf (2003) and 

continue long-term stream corridor restoration projects. 

• Implement actions to counter existing flow excesses from developed areas as 

recommended by Allen et al. (1999). 

• Develop a program for routine drainageway maintenance, to include maintenance of 

existing storm water structures, and establish a storm water management working group. 

• Implement storm water management actions, including BMPs, on all construction projects. 

• Continue to incorporate principles of LID in facility siting and design on-post as 

recommended in Low-Impact Development Design Strategies (Prince George’s County 

Department of Environmental Resources, 1999). 

Numerous practices have been implemented on Fort Belvoir to control storm water runoff. These 

efforts include the construction of permanent storm water management ponds; reduction in the 

use of fertilizers to reduce nutrient runoff to receiving waters; revegetation of exposed slopes, 

creeks and stream banks; percolation trenches adjacent to parking lots; and using temporary 

sedimentation basins at construction sites. More recent efforts include implementing the rain 

garden concept of storm water management, which maximizes groundwater penetration as 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-224

opposed to runoff. Rain gardens are landscape design features consisting of localized topographic 

depressions planted with naturally hardy plants, usually a combination of trees, shrubs, hardy 

perennials, or grasses, and strategically located next to hard surfaces from which storm water 

runoff and snowmelt can be diverted and can collect. Rain gardens serve as retention areas that 

promote infiltration and reduce runoff. Examples are in place at the AMC temporary buildings 

and at the Davison Army Airfield Fire Station (Fort Belvoir, 2005b). 

4.7.1.4 Groundwater 

Fort Belvoir is underlain by three subsurface aquifers: Lower Potomac, Middle Potomac, and 

Bacons Castle Formation. These three aquifers are within the Potomac Group, a sequence of 

unconsolidated sediments characteristic of the Coastal Plain and underlying Fort Belvoir. The 

Lower Potomac aquifer, the primary aquifer in eastern Fairfax County, contains potable water 

below Fort Belvoir. The aquifer lies between a layer of crystalline bedrock and a clay wedge 

containing sandy clays and interbedded layers of sand. The aquifer is recharged by surface 

infiltration north and west of Fort Belvoir and flows to the southeast. 

The Middle Potomac aquifer consists of interbedded lenses of differing thicknesses of sand, silt, 

and clay, but its confining unit is not present in the vicinity of Fort Belvoir. The Bacons Castle 

Formation is the shallowest aquifer of the three and is recharged by and discharges to waterbodies 

on the installation (Horne, 2001; Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD, 2002). 

The water table on Fort Belvoir lies approximately 10 to 35 feet below the ground surface (except 

within and directly adjoining wetland and floodplain areas). Some areas on the installation have 

perched water tables approximately 2 feet below the surface as a result of groundwater trapped in 

strata overlying impermeable clays (Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD, 2002; Fort Belvoir, 2005b). 

Groundwater flow patterns for the unconfined uppermost saturated layer (water table aquifer) on 

EPG generally follow surface water drainage. However, local groundwater flow patterns could 

be affected by the heterogeneous nature of the unconsolidated fluvial deltaic Coastal Plain 

sediments. Groundwater could become perched in lenses within the unconsolidated sediments, as 

referenced above. The density and orientation of fracture and fault systems existing within the 

rock formations generally control groundwater flow within the crystalline rocks or saprolite of the 

Piedmont. The orientation of these systems is highly variable on a local scale. 

Fort Belvoir does not have any active potable groundwater wells on the Main Post or EPG but 

rather obtains all its potable water supply from the Fairfax County Water Authority in the amount 

of 2.2 mgd. A well inventory counted 220 groundwater supply and monitoring wells on Fort 

Belvoir, the majority of which are monitoring wells or inactive. Four wells are used for irrigation 

for the golf courses, and one supplies the MDW horse stables. Between 2001 and 2004, an 

average of 12.9 million gallons per year was drawn from the golf course wells for irrigation 

(Russell, 2005; Horne, 2001). 

4.7.1.5 Other Water Resources Policies 

In general, Fort Belvoir must comply with all applicable DoD, Army, Fort Belvoir, federal, and 

state statutes and regulations concerning water resources. The Fort Belvoir INRMP (Horne, 2001) 

provides a comprehensive list of relevant regulations and policies. Applicable regulations 

including the CZMA, Chesapeake Bay agreements, and floodplain management are described 

below. In addition, Fairfax County is developing watershed management plans for each of the 

County’s watersheds. These plans include information on watershed characterization, storm 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-225

water management, baseline and future watershed modeling scenarios, recommended BMPs, and 

recommended policies and other initiatives to improve watershed conditions. 

4.7.1.5.1 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and Chesapeake Bay Initiatives 

The CZMA’s goal is to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, restore or enhance the 

resources of the coastal zone of the United States. The CZMA as it applies to Fort Belvoir 

contains a federal consistency requirement, by which federal actions must be consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the federally approved Virginia 

Coastal Resources Management Program (VCRMP). This program focuses on problems 

associated with polluted runoff, habitat protection, riparian buffers, Resource Protection Areas 

(RPAs), wetlands, fisheries, sustainable development, waterfront redevelopment and 

encroachment, septic systems, erosion and sediment control, and air pollution control (VDEQ 

Coastal Program Office, 2004). Virginia’s coastal zone includes all of Fairfax County, which 

encompasses Fort Belvoir and the 12.25 miles of Potomac River shoreline on the installation 

(VDEQ Coastal Program Office, 2003). Under the CZMA and VCRMP, the Commonwealth of 

Virginia will be notified and then has sixty days from notification, to concur with or object to the 

consistency determination under CZMA. The consistency determination for the proposed action 

is included in Appendix C in accordance with CZMA and VCRMP requirements. Section 4.2.1.6 

provides additional details on the VCRMP and the consistency determination. 

Waterbodies on Fort Belvoir drain to the Potomac River and ultimately into the Chesapeake Bay. 

The Potomac River watershed covers approximately 14,670 square miles of diverse land uses in 

four states (Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia. 

The Potomac River extends more than 380 miles and reaches a width of more than 11 miles 

where it meets the Chesapeake Bay at Point Lookout, Maryland. The Potomac River was 

designated an American Heritage River in 1998 (EPA, 2004). 

The Chesapeake Bay is the nation’s largest estuary. It supplies vast amounts of seafood, is a 

major hub for shipping and commerce, provides natural habitat for a wide range of wildlife, and 

offers a variety of recreational opportunities for residents and visitors. The Chesapeake Bay 

watershed is a 64,000-square-mile drainage basin covering parts of New York, Pennsylvania, 

West Virginia, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, as well as the entire District of Columbia 

(Chesapeake Bay Program, 2000). 

Management of Fort Belvoir waterbodies is guided by several Chesapeake Bay agreements. 

These include the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the Cooperative Agreement between DoD 

and EPA Concerning Chesapeake Bay Activities, the Agreement of Federal Agencies on 

Ecosystem Management in the Chesapeake Bay, Federal Agencies Chesapeake Ecosystem 

Unified Plan (FACEUP), and Chesapeake 2000. These agreements address water quality and aim 

to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay’s aquatic resources. They accomplish this by 

consolidating existing regulatory requirements, such as water quality protection under the CWA, 

and supplementing these regulations with policy and guidance addressing unregulated, but 

ecologically significant management considerations, such as the establishment of adequate 

vegetated cover, the protection of wetlands, and storm water runoff control (Horne, 2001). In 

addition, since Fort Belvoir is considered to be a Chesapeake Bay Preservation area, the new 

Phase II VPDES program expands permit coverage to storm water discharges from construction 

activities affecting more than 2,500 square feet (VDCR, 2005). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-226

State and local efforts for protection of the Chesapeake Bay also guide management of Fort 

Belvoir waterbodies. In response to the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the Virginia 

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) was enacted to protect the Chesapeake Bay from 

further degradation from nonpoint source pollution and sedimentation. Under the CBPA, Fairfax 

County adopted a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance that designates RPAs and Resource 

Management Areas (RMAs). 

RPAs are regulatory zones along streams protected from most forms of development to preserve 

their function as biological filters and buffers. RPAs generally include major floodplains, riparian 

areas, and vegetated lands within 100 feet of tidal and nontidal wetlands, tidal shores, and 

perennial streams. Fort Belvoir has about 1,984 acres of RPAs, covering about 23 percent of the 

installation (Fort Belvoir GIS, 2006). RPAs on Fort Belvoir are shown in Figure 4.7-1. RPAs help 

filter storm water runoff and prevent nutrients, toxic substances, and sediments from entering 

streams, rivers, and, ultimately, the Chesapeake Bay. They also provide valuable wildlife habitat 

(Horne, 2001). All land outside of an RPA in Fairfax County is classified as an RMA. 

Riparian areas should be given special consideration when planning development (Directive No. 

94-1 in the Chesapeake Bay Agreements, Riparian Forest Buffers). A riparian area is generally an 

area of land adjacent to a body of water, stream, river, marsh, or shoreline that provides a 

transition zone between the aquatic and terrestrial environment. The riparian areas shown on 

Figure 4.7-1 represent areas within 35 feet of an intermittent or perennial stream, alluvial soils, 

and soils with slopes greater than 15 percent (Fort Belvoir GIS, 2006). Riparian areas are 

generally vegetated and act as a buffer to reduce effects of upland sources of pollution by 

trapping or filtering sediments, nutrients, and other chemicals and preventing them from entering 

a waterbody. Benefits from vegetated riparian areas include water quality enhancement, storm 

water and floodwater management, stream bank and shoreline stabilization, water temperature 

modification, wildlife habitat protection, pollutant absorption, and a high overall aesthetic 

appearance. New development must be minimized in riparian areas and continuous riparian 

corridors maintained, particularly in ravines and along the shoreline. Section 4.8 provides 

additional information on flora and fauna typically found within riparian areas on Fort Belvoir. 

4.7.1.5.2 Floodplain Management 

Under Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management (May 24, 1977), Fort Belvoir is 

required to evaluate any potential effects of any action occurring in a floodplain (Horne, 2001). 

Approximately 1,593 acres, or 19 percent of the installation, are within a 100-year floodplain of a 

waterway (Fort Belvoir GIS, 2006; FEMA, 1990). Notable floodplains occur along Pohick, 

Accotink, and Dogue Creeks and their larger tributaries, and along the Potomac River on the 

installation. 

4.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Environmental effects on water resources as a result of the proposed action primarily relate to the 

potential for increases in storm water runoff and associated pollutants from land disturbance 

activities, construction-associated effects, conversion of pervious areas to impervious, potential 

loss of riparian buffers, and other physical changes to watershed features. Storm water runoff 

increases flow volumes, velocity, peak flows, and the delivery of sediment and other pollutants to 

streams. The potential for erosion in an area is characterized by the interaction of four primary 

factors: the characteristics of its soils, its vegetative cover, its topography, and its climate. All 

these factors also determine the magnitude of storm water runoff. In general, storm water runoff 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-227

potential increases with decreasing soil moisture retention and vegetative cover and increasing 

impervious land area, land slope, and precipitation volume. Similarly, erosion potential increases 

with decreasing soil consolidation and vegetative cover and increasing land slope, precipitation 

volume and storm water runoff. 

To determine the potential environmental consequences on water resources as a result of the 

proposed action, an assessment of current, or baseline, conditions was made. This required a 

detailed examination of the existing distribution of land use areas and soil types and 

characterization of surface elevations, subwatersheds, and stream networks on the installation. 

Baseline peak flow conditions and potential effects of the proposed development scenarios within 

each subwatershed were modeled using the Technical Release 55 (TR-55) small watershed runoff 

model (NRCS, 1986). Potential changes in pollutant loads were estimated for each subwatershed 

using the Generalized Watershed Loading Functions (GWLF) model. Watershed modeling was 

also used to assess potential cumulative effects on flow and pollutant loads due to anticipated 

future development in the watersheds that drain Fort Belvoir. The process of evaluating the 

different development scenarios required the modification of land uses to account for the location 

of proposed facilities and associated development areas. The increase in impervious surfaces and 

their locations as a result of the proposed land use development scenarios were the variable 

factors used to assess potential effects on water resources. Note that these analyses were 

performed based on the preliminary siting of proposed BRAC facilities and other future 

development projects within the watersheds that drain Fort Belvoir; therefore, potential 

reductions in storm water runoff and associated pollutants due to BMP implementation and 

mitigation efforts were not considered. The types of BMPs that will be implemented and other 

storm water control activities will depend on final site/parcel development plans. Proper storm 

water planning and implementation of effective storm water management practices, as required 

by regulation and through proposed mitigation efforts, will reduce the estimated runoff and 

pollutant loads presented under each of the alternatives discussed below. Additional information 

on model development, technical assumptions, and analysis is presented in Appendix F. 

4.7.2.1 Surface Water Quality 

4.7.2.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects to surface water quality, ground water quality, and 

water resources protection would be expected at the watershed scale; however, localized effects 

could be more pronounced. Construction of facilities and infrastructure as a result of changes in 

land use designations could result in increased runoff due to an overall increase in impervious 

surface area, increased erosion, and increased sediment and pollutant loads. A reduction in 

pervious area may reduce infiltration and groundwater levels which can cause increases in 

pollutant concentrations in surface runoff. Decreased infiltration can also lead to lower stream 

baseflow conditions during dry periods. RPAs and riparian buffers also extend into areas 

proposed for land use designation changes. Encroachment into these areas decreases the buffer 

between developed land and sensitive natural resources. In addition, proposed infrastructure 

projects include a new bridge crossing over Accotink Creek and the replacement of existing 

bridges over Accotink Creek and Dogue Creek. Bridge construction and repairs will require the 

issuance of a Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit and a VWP permit by VDEQ. 

Table 4.7-6 presents the land use changes that could have an impact on water resources (i.e., land 

use change from undeveloped to developed). Section 4.7.2.1.2 provides a detailed analysis of the 

potential effects to surface water quality from short- and long-range development projects. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-228

Table 4.7-6 

Potential land use plan effects to water resources 

under the Preferred Alternative 

Proposed change 

Water resources 

present in area Potential effects 

Develop Administrative Center 

on EPG for NGA and WHS; 

convert land use designation 

from Training to Professional/ 

Institutional 

RPAs and riparian areas extend 

into EPG east and the proposed 

Remote Delivery Facility on EPG 

west along tributaries of Accotink 

Creek and the creek along the 

eastern boundary of EPG 

Encroachment of development near RPAs 

and riparian areas. Increased area of 

impervious surfaces would increase runoff, 

erosion, and pollutant and sediment loads. 

Reduction in pervious surfaces would reduce 

ground absorption of runoff, thereby reducing 

flow to existing groundwater seeps, where 

present 

Convert South Post golf course 

(Recreation land use) on South 

Post into Community land use for 

new hospital 

Storm water drainage features 

and few small areas of RPAs, 

riparian areas and wetlands 

along tributaries of Accotink and 

Dogue Creeks 

Encroachment of development near RPAs, 

riparian areas and wetlands. Increased area 

of impervious surfaces could increase runoff, 

erosion, and pollutant and sediment loads, 

and could reduce ground absorption of runoff, 

thereby reducing flow to existing groundwater 

seeps, where present. Increased sediment 

could affect the new storm water system and 

filters for the new on-post development. 

South Post eastern and southern 

areas–convert Environmentally 

Sensitive and Outdoor 

Recreation land uses to 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Training, and 

Residential

On the South Post plateau, apart 

from storm water drainage 

features, no notable water 

resources present 

Increased area of impervious surfaces could 

increase runoff, erosion, and pollutant and 

sediment loads, and could reduce ground 

absorption of runoff, thereby reducing flow to 

existing groundwater seeps, where present. 

North Post–convert 

Environmentally Sensitive and 

Outdoor Recreation land uses to 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Training, and 

Residential

RPAs, riparian areas, and flood 

zones along Mason Run and 

tributaries 

Encroachment of development near RPAs 

and riparian areas; no development would 

occur within these areas. Increased area of 

impervious surfaces could increase runoff, 

erosion, and pollutant and sediment loads, 

and could reduce ground absorption of runoff, 

thereby reducing flow to existing groundwater 

seeps, where present. 

4.7.2.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Storm water 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. To comply with federal, state, and installation 

requirements, Fort Belvoir would minimize potential effects through effective storm water 

planning, the development of adequate infrastructure, and the use of BMPs. Storm water 

requirements are addressed under the VPDES program, which includes the development of 

comprehensive SWPPPs that describe the BMPs to be used to minimize runoff and soil erosion 

from each construction site and Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. Fort 

Belvoir’s storm water permits (general permits and MS4) regulate storm water discharges on the 

installation. The state reviews and oversees implementation of the required storm water practices. 

Note that in the absence of state-required storm water management practices and erosion control 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-229

measures being implemented on a watershed basis, short- and long-term effects would be much 

greater in severity. 

Approximately 86 acres of high-intensity and 262 acres of medium-intensity development would 

be added to the installation by implementing the Preferred Alternative. High-intensity 

development includes areas where people work or reside in high numbers (e.g. apartment 

complexes and commercial/industrial areas). Medium-intensity includes a mixture of developed 

and nondeveloped land with impervious cover occupying 50-80 percent of the total land area. 

Impervious surfaces would substantially increase in Subwatersheds 1 (119 percent), 3 (32 

percent), 25 (75 percent), 53 (910 percent), 54 (352 percent), 55 (325 percent), 57 (285 percent), 

58 (194 percent), and 59 (134 percent). Increased impervious surface associated with 

development typically causes an increase in volume, velocity, and peak flow rates of runoff to 

nearby streams. Stream channels naturally attempt to accommodate the increased flows by 

increasing their cross-sectional area. This occurs through erosion of stream banks or downcutting of the channel beds. 

Virginia’s Storm Water Management (SWM) Regulations specify evaluating storm water runoff 

using 2-year or 1-year storm event data in order to assess potential erosion problems and channel 

adequacy. These regulations also include the requirement for an adequate outfall analysis or use 

of 1-year, 24-hour extended detention to protect receiving waters. Increased volume might 

translate to flooding where the stream channel is not adequate to contain the flow. During the 10-

year, 24-hour storm event, an increase in volume increases the potential for bank overtopping and 

flooding. Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations (4VAC50-30-40.19) and SWM 

Regulations (4VAC3-20-81) require that, “downstream channels and properties be protected from 

erosion and damage due to increases in volume, velocity and peak flow rate.” Because of this, 

site-specific BMPs or mitigation measures would be required for each construction site. A 

watershed-based approach would be implemented to evaluate upstream and downstream concerns 

and mitigate possible effects. As discussed above, BMPs and potential mitigation efforts were 

not included in the following analyses. The types of BMPs that will be implemented and other 

storm water control activities will depend on final site/parcel development plans. 

The 1-year and the 10-year, 24-hour storm events were modeled using the Technical Release 55 

(TR-55) model, developed by the NRCS (1986), to evaluate potential changes in peak flows as a 

result of the proposed action in each subwatershed. These storm events are identified in 

Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. These regulations require that properties 

and waterways be protected from damages from flooding due to increases in volume, velocity, 

and peak flow rates. The 10-year, post-development peak discharge flow rate is not to exceed the 

10-year, pre-development peak rate (4VAC50-30-40.19). The threshold used to determine 

potential adverse effects for this analysis was a 10 percent increase in peak flow occurring from a 

1-year, 24-hour and a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Subwatersheds 1, 3, 25, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 

and 59 would all be expected to have greater than a 10 percent increase in peak flow during the 1-

year storm event under the Preferred Alternative, with Subwatershed 1 experiencing the highest 

percent increase (100 percent). Table 4.7-7 lists the percent increase in peak flow from a 1-year, 

24-hour storm event for each subwatershed and the proposed construction projects that would 

affect runoff. Each of these subwatersheds, except for Subwatershed 3 would also experience at 

least a 10 percent increase in peak discharge during a 10-year, 24-hour storm event, indicating 

there would be a moderate to high increase in flood levels (Table 4.7-7). Table F-1 in Appendix F 

lists the peak flow percent increase for each subwatershed if the Preferred Alternative projects 

were implemented. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-230

Table 4.7-7 

Subwatersheds with greater than 10 percent increase in 1-year or 

10-year storm event peak discharge under the Preferred Alternative 

Subwatershed 

number 

Percent increase in 

1-year storm event 

peak discharge 

Percent increase in 

10-year storm event 

peak discharge Affecting projects 

1 100% 63% Hospital, Dental Clinic, AMC Relocatables, 

Infrastructure 

3 12% < 10% Hospital, Dental Clinic, AMC Relocatables, 

Infrastructure 

25 36% 16% Hospital, Dental Clinic, NARMC HQ Building

53 77% 22% NGA, Infrastructure 

54 29% 10% Infrastructure 

55 56% 17% Infrastructure 

57 93% 33% 

NGA, Infrastructure, Child Development 

Center (CDC) (NGA), Corps Integration 

Office 

58 70% 31% 

NGA, WHS, Infrastructure, Emergency 

Services Center (EPG) , Corps Integration 

Office 

59 82% 34% NGA, WHS, Infrastructure, Emergency 

Services Center (EPG) 

Sediment 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. To comply with federal, state, and installation 

requirements, Fort Belvoir would minimize potential erosion and sedimentation effects through 

storm water planning, development of adequate infrastructure, and the use of BMPs. During the 

initial development phase, proper erosion and sediment controls would be used to manage 

construction activities that could result in an increase in the sedimentation in adjacent 

waterbodies. A VPDES permit would be required for construction projects disturbing at least 

2,500 square feet. A soil erosion and sediment control plan and SWPPP would be required to 

provide guidance for reducing sedimentation effects during the construction process. In the longterm, an increase in storm water volume from impervious surfaces could result in an increase in 

erosion and sedimentation. Proper storm water controls, as discussed above, would be 

implemented as part of the development to minimize the potential effects of increased sediment 

loads during wet-weather events. 

Fort Belvoir was surveyed to characterize watershed conditions and identify erosion problem site 

locations in 1999, and monitoring of these sites has occurred since (Landgraf, 2003). Table 4.7-8 

lists the Preferred Alternative projects that are within close proximity (150 feet) of the previously 

identified erosion and other problem sites in each watershed. Construction activities and 

impervious surfaces could increase sediment and storm water runoff into waterbodies, thereby 

exacerbating erosion and other stream effects at these sites. Ten Preferred Alternative projects 

have existing erosion sites and other stream effects within 150 feet of their footprint. These 

projects could affect one or more existing problem areas due to an increase in impervious 

surfaces and resulting storm water from each site. Other projects have few or no erosion/problem 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-231

Table 4.7-8 

Projects located within proximity of erosion and other problem sites 

under the Preferred Alternative

Map number 

(see Table 2-3) 

Project 

description 

Watershed 

number Nearby watersheds 

Erosion and other problems noted 

within 150 feet 

1 NGA 53, 59 Accotink Creek 

1 blocked pipe, 3 corroded or corrupt pipe, 

1 gully, 1 scour hole, 3 undercut structure 

low 

2 WHS 58, 59 Field Lark Branch, trib. 

to Accotink Creek 

1 bank erosion medium, 2 blocked pipe, 2 

corroded or corrupt pipe, 10 down-cutting 

low, 3 down-cutting medium, 1 down-cutting 

severe, 2 scour hole, 1 sediment 

deposition, 1 undercut structure low, 2 

undercut structure medium, 1 undercut 

structure severe 

8 Infrastructure 

1, 3, 29, 30, 

53, 54, 55, 57, 

58, 59 

Accotink Creek, Field 

Lark Branch, trib. to 

Accotink Creek, Mason 

Run 

3 bank erosion low, 11 bank erosion 

medium, 6 bank erosion severe, 9 blocked 

pipe, 7 corroded or corrupt pipe, 1 corrected 

sites, 15 down-cutting low, 7 down-cutting 

medium, 4 down-cutting severe, 2 gully, 12 

scour hole, 4 sediment deposition, 1 

undercut structure low, 5 undercut structure 

medium, 3 undercut structure severe 

9 

Emergency 

Services 

Center 

(EPG) 

58, 59 Field Lark Branch, trib. 

to Accotink Creek 

1 bank erosion medium, 2 blocked pipe, 2 

corroded or corrupt pipe, 6 down-cutting 

low, 2 down-cutting medium, 1 down-cutting 

severe, 1 scour hole, 1 sediment 

deposition, 1 undercut structure low, 1 

undercut structure medium, 1 undercut 

structure severe 

10 Network Ops 

Center 14 Trib. to Accotink Creek, 

Accotink Creek 

1 blocked pipe, 2 down-cutting low, 1 downcutting medium, 1 scour hole 

12 

Child 

Development 

Center 

(NGA) 

53, 59 Accotink Creek, trib. to 

Accotink Creek 

1 blocked pipe, 3 corroded or corrupt pipe, 

1 gully, 1 undercut structure low 

13 

Child 

Development 

Center 

58, 59 Field Lark Branch, trib. 

to Accotink Creek 

1 bank erosion medium, 2 blocked pipe, 2 

corroded or corrupt pipe, 6 down-cutting 

low, 2 down-cutting medium, 1 down-cutting 

severe, 1 scour hole, 1 sediment 

deposition, 1 undercut structure low, 1 

undercut structure medium, 1 undercut 

structure severe 

16 AMC 

Relocatables 1 Trib. to Accotink Creek, 

trib. to Dogue Creek 

2 blocked pipe, 1 corroded or corrupt pipe, 

1 down-cutting low, 1 down-cutting medium, 

2 scour hole, 2 undercut structure low 

17 

PEO EIS 

Admin. 

Facility 

22 Trib. to Dogue Creek, 

trib. to Accotink Creek 

1 undercut structure low, 1 bank erosion 

medium, 1 down-cutting severe 

sites in the vicinity and would have minimal or no effect on stream bank erosion and other 

characteristics. 

Other Pollutants 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. During the initial development phase, construction 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-232

activities could result in an increase in sediment loading, dissolved solids, petroleum 

hydrocarbons, and other pollutants in adjacent waterbodies. Measurable effects would be 

expected to be minimal because the installation would comply with federal, state, and installation 

regulations, and necessary permits for storm water control would be obtained. Site-specific 

SWPPPs describing the BMPs to be used to minimize effects from increased runoff during site 

construction would be prepared. 

In the long-term, an increase in storm water volume from additional impervious surfaces could 

result in an increase in nutrients, metals, and other potential contaminants in waterbodies. Proper 

storm water controls, as discussed above, would be implemented as part of the development to 

minimize the potential effects of pollutant loading during wet-weather events. Implementation of 

low impact development (LID) techniques would also be used, where possible, to manage the 

hydrology and quality of storm water runoff from impervious surfaces to reduce this adverse 

effect. Examples of LID techniques include decreasing the connectivity and amount of 

impervious cover, limiting land clearing, and capturing runoff. 

Nutrients, such as total nitrogen and total phosphorus, are parameters of concern according to the 

Chesapeake Bay agreement. Total nitrogen loading from land to streams is influenced by the use 

of fertilizers, presence of animal waste, and faulty septic systems, as well as by natural sources. 

Urban, agricultural, and barren land uses are the primary contributors. Nitrogen contributes to low 

dissolved oxygen levels through bacterial activity and could be toxic to aquatic life. Total 

phosphorus loading from land to streams is influenced by the use of fertilizers and the presence of 

animal waste, as well as by natural sources. Urban and agricultural land uses are the primary 

contributors. Phosphorus is typically the limiting nutrient in freshwater systems and could 

accelerate waterbody eutrophication. 

Potential increases in nutrient loads in Fort Belvoir subwatersheds as a result of the Preferred 

Alternative were calculated using land use-specific loading coefficients. Loading coefficients 

were developed based on the watershed modeling results for Accotink Creek using the GWLF 

model (Haith and Shoemaker, 1987; Haith, Mandel, and Wu, 1992; Dai et al., 2000). GWLF was 

used to compute the nutrient loads contributed by various land uses in each of the subwatersheds 

that drain Fort Belvoir. A detailed description of the GWLF model and its capabilities is 

presented in Appendix F. 

Using the land use distributions and applying the associated loading ratios, the average annual 

percent change in total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) loading was calculated for each 

subwatershed. Subwatersheds with greater than a 10-percent change in nitrogen and phosphorus 

loads as a result of the proposed action are shown in Table 4.7-9. Proposed construction projects 

in each subwatershed that would affect nitrogen and phosphorus loading are also shown in this 

table. Table F-2 in Appendix F shows the percent change for each subwatershed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-233

Table 4.7-9 

Subwatersheds with greater than 10-percent increase in TN and TP loads 

under the Preferred Alternative 

Subwatershed 

number 

Percent 

increase in TP 

Percent 

increase in TN Affecting projects 

53 51% 68% NGA, Infrastructure 

54 8% 17% Infrastructure 

55 26% 39% Infrastructure 

57 19% 31% NGA, Infrastructure, CDC (NGA) 

58 22% 33% NGA, WHS, Infrastructure, Emergency Services 

Center (EPG) 

4.7.2.2 Groundwater Quality 

4.7.2.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects on groundwater quality would be expected, and 

localized effects (both temporal and spatial) could be more pronounced. Construction of facilities 

and infrastructure as a result of changes in land use designations could result in increased 

pollutant concentrations in runoff, which could contribute to ground water pollutant 

concentrations through infiltration. During initial development, construction activities could 

result in increased concentrations of dissolved solids, petroleum hydrocarbons, dissolved metals, 

and other potential pollutants. In the longer term, potential increases in impervious surfaces as a 

result of development could result in decreased infiltration recharge to groundwater storage. 

Measurable effects on short- and long-term adverse impacts would be minimized through the 

installation’s compliance with all applicable federal, state, and installation regulations and permit 

requirements. 

4.7.2.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term indirect minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. Approximately 183 acres, or about two percent of 

the installation, would be converted to impervious surfaces under the Preferred Alternative. Much 

of this acreage is on an upland plateau, which follows the I-95 corridor and serves as a 

groundwater recharge area. The reduction in pervious surfaces would reduce the absorption of 

runoff into the ground, and therefore reduce flow to existing groundwater seeps, such as the rare 

coastal plain/piedmont acidic seepage swamp communities scattered around the installation (Fort 

Belvoir DPW ENRD, 2002). Seepage swamp communities could be affected by projects within 

close proximity, depending on ground water flow patterns. Only one project site (part of 

Infrastructure, Project #8) is located within 200 feet of a seepage swamp community. In addition, 

infiltration of increased storm water runoff into the groundwater in other areas could increase 

nitrogen loads and other contaminants such as soluble metals. Absorption loss and infiltration of 

pollutants could partially be alleviated by installing BMPs that facilitate infiltration to 

groundwater, such as bioretention facilities planted with native, wet-tolerant plants (Davis, 2004; 

Fort Belvoir July 2003). By increasing infiltration, plant uptake and soil processes will filter and 

decrease pollutant loads. Groundwater withdrawal for potable water supply would not be 

adversely affected by the proposed action because, although an aquifer containing potentially 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-234

potable groundwater is present below Fort Belvoir, it is not used for drinking water supply. In 

addition, the proposed action would not include installation or removal of any septic tanks. With 

respect to stream crossings and their effect on drainage, the topography along Accotink Creek is 

already quite steep and, consequently, any change in runoff characteristics as a result of stream 

crossings is expected to be negligible. Any blasting that would occur would be of short duration 

and associated with construction activities covered by an erosion and sediment control plan for 

compliance with Virginia storm water requirements. 

4.7.2.3 Water Resources Protection 

4.7.2.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term effects on water resources protection are presented in Section 4.7.2.1.1 

4.7.2.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Chesapeake Bay 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects could be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. In the short-term, vegetation in the RPAs could be 

damaged or destroyed by construction activities in and near the RPAs. There is also potential for 

increased storm water flow and increased scouring in the RPAs along tributaries due to increased 

sedimentation from construction site runoff, and in the long-term, increased impervious surfaces. 

Pursuant to the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance amendments of 2003, 

storm water runoff must be controlled through the effective use of BMPs to avoid or minimize 

erosion and control sediment, nutrients, and other pesticides. 

In the long-term, approximately 12 acres of RPAs would be affected by six projects, and 

approximately 8.4 acres of floodplain would be affected by 3 projects, under the Preferred 

Alternative (Table 4.7-10 and Appendix J; Table J-2 provides impact acreages by project number, 

and project locations are indicated on Figures J-2, J-6, and J-10). The impact acreages were 

based on project footprint data provided by BRAC personnel. Prior to construction, project 

locations will be adjusted based on consultation between Army and federal/state regulators to 

avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts to wetlands and RPAs to the maximum extent 

practicable. Roadways may be permitted to be constructed in RPAs, if SWPPPs are completed 

and all other permits obtained. Final siting of all other projects should avoid or minimize effects 

to RPAs. For those projects, a Water Quality Impact Assessment would be required for 

development in RPAs because they do not qualify for the roadway or utility right-of-way 

exclusion. 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would occur in a manner consistent with the CZMA 

and the Commonwealth of Virginia’s CRMP. As discussed in Section 4.7.1.5.1, the CZMA 

requires identification of potential effects on storm water runoff, habitat protection, riparian 

buffers, RPAs, wetlands, fisheries, sustainable development, waterfront redevelopment and 

encroachment, septic systems, erosion and sediment control, and air pollution control. These 

resources, primarily storm water runoff, would be adversely affected by the proposed action. 

However, required mitigation for storm water management, wetland loss, and stream channel 

alteration as well as other efforts discussed in Section 4.7.2.4 (BMPs/Mitigation), would alleviate 

these concerns. Effects of the Preferred Alternative projects subject to federal consistency under 

the CZMA are described below. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-235

Table 4.7-10 

Water resources potentially affected by projects proposed 

under the Preferred Alternative (acres) 

North 

Post

Davison 

Army 

Airfield

South 

Post

Tompkins 

Basina Main 

Post EPG 

Infrastructurec

RPAs < 0.1 6.9 7.0 2.3 2.7 

100-year floodplain 4.3 4.3 < 0.1 4.1 

Notes: 

Empty cells indicate the lack of potential impact to water resources in the Post area. 

a

 Tompkins Basin impacts are attributable solely to the MWR Family Travel Camp. b

 The Main Post value represents a sum of the four columns to the left of it. 

c

 Infrastructure impacts are distributed among the North Post, South Post, and EPG. 

Increases in storm water runoff would be expected due to an increase in imperviousness as 

described in Section 4.7.2.1.2. Temporary increases in sediment loads in construction-site runoff 

would be expected during construction of individual projects. A VPDES permit would be 

required for those projects disturbing at least 2,500 square feet, and a soil erosion and sediment 

control plan as well as a SWPPP would be required to provide guidance for implementing 

sediment-laden runoff minimization techniques during the construction process (VDEQ, 2004). 

The proposed action would be expected to discharge wastewater into the Fort Belvoir sewer 

system, which is connected to the Fairfax County wastewater system and treated at the Noman M. 

Cole Jr. Pollution Control Plant (Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD, 2002). Discharge of wastewater to an 

existing treatment facility would be consistent with the CZMA. See Section 4.12 for information 

on Fort Belvoir utilities and existing deficiencies. 

Wetlands could also be affected under the Preferred Alternative. Effects on wetlands are further 

discussed in Section 4.8 (Biological Resources). In addition, approximately 14 acres of 

Chesapeake Bay RPAs would be affected by several projects, as discussed under the previous 

section. 

The CZMA requires that the following resources also be addressed: air quality, subaqueous lands, 

fisheries, primary sand dunes, and septic systems. As discussed in Section 4.4, effects to air 

quality are expected due to increases in transportation and other effects. Fort Belvoir has applied 

for a subaqueous bed permit for utility crossings across waterbodies as specified in Section 

4.7.2.4.1. No primary sand dunes occur on Fort Belvoir. The proposed action would not include 

installation or removal of any septic tanks. The CZMA Consistency Determination is provided in 

Appendix C. 

Floodplains 

Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, localized 

effects could be more pronounced. Under current National Flood Insurance Program limitations, 

no permanent dwellings are permitted to be constructed within the 100-year floodplain boundary, 

although roadways, athletic fields, and similar facilities are generally permitted (USACE, 2003). 

Fairfax County’s Zoning Ordinance significantly limits uses within floodplains, including active 

recreational uses. One project under the Preferred Alternative would affect floodplains. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-236

Approximately 2.9 acres of floodplains would fall within the footprint of the Infrastructure 

(Project #8) project sites. Although roadways are generally permitted in floodplains, roadways 

and infrastructure projects that might encroach into floodplain areas would be realigned or 

reconfigured where possible. No other conflicts with floodplains were identified; however, each 

of the individual Preferred Alternative construction projects would be evaluated for floodplain 

intrusion on a project-by-project basis to avoid or mitigate potential conflicts. In these cases 

where mitigation would be required and implemented, it is because no practicable alternative to 

the proposed locations of the projects exists.

4.7.2.4 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs and proposed mitigation measures are recommended as generally applicable practices that 

can help limit short- and long-term impacts on water resources that may be caused by site 

development and related activities. 

4.7.2.4.1 Surface Water Quality 

BMPs 

• Plan and construct BMPs in accordance with all applicable storm water, erosion control, 

and pollutant removal requirements. Ensure detention requirements are met for the 2- and 

10-year, 24-hour design storms, and outfall protection according to the 1-year, 24-hour 

extended detention method (re: Virginia’s SWM regulations [4 VAC 50-60], Virginia 

Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook [VDCR, 1992], Fairfax County PFM, and other 

applicable regulations). 

• During and following construction activities, continue to use construction-phase, enhanced 

erosion and sediment control BMPs beyond specifications and requirements, where 

possible, including staged development, prompt stabilization of exposed soil, silt fences, 

sediment traps, storm drain inlet filters, and sediment basins where practicable, to 

minimize erosion and sedimentation until the site has stabilized. Conduct regular 

maintenance of the construction phase erosion and sediment control BMPs as described in 

the erosion and sediment control plan for each project. For erosion prone areas, such as 

steep slopes, and runoff that could adversely affect highly sensitive environmental habitats, 

employ integrated BMPs to capture sediments that could enter streams, wetlands, and 

RPAs. 

• For each new development project, protect downstream water quality by treating the 

majority of the site with BMPs that are at least 40 percent efficient at removing 

phosphorus. Projects that qualify as redevelopment are also required to remove phosphorus 

by following methodologies identified in the Fairfax County PFM. 

• Address wetland and stream impacts that could result from the proposed projects by 

obtaining federal and state permits under CWA section 404/401 programs. This includes, 

but may not be limited to, acquiring a CWA Section 404(b)(1) wetland permit, Virginia 

Water Protection Permit and a Subaqueous Bed Permit, and contributing appropriate funds 

to the Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (VARTF) to achieve no net loss of wetlands 

functions and values (see Section 4.8.2.5). 

• Implement post-construction BMPs that exceed, where possible, state and local 

requirements for the management of storm water runoff. These BMPs could include the 

following: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-237

 LID management practices that seek to minimize land disturbance, preserve 

existing vegetation, minimize impervious surfaces, and control storm water runoff 

as close to the source as feasible, such as the following: 

o Reduce impervious cover during the design phase to narrow roads, shorten 

drives, and promote multiple uses of public facilities, so as to reduce the 

need for additional parking lots and structures 

o Disconnect imperviousness so that smaller impervious areas drain to 

pervious, generally vegetated, areas 

o Use permeable pavers for walkways and low-traffic areas 

o Capture runoff close to the source through the use of rain barrels, 

bioretention basins, pocket wetlands, grassed swales, flow spreaders and 

other BMPs that retain the storm water runoff from smaller, more frequent 

storms, thus reducing the size of regional storm water BMPs 

 Detention or retention storm water ponds 

 Restored riparian buffers for management of nonpoint (unconcentrated) runoff, 

following coordination with local regulators when within RPA 

 Site-specific controls, such as linear sand filters or biofilters for water quality 

management of hot spot areas such as parking lots 

• Incorporate stream restoration practices into designs of BRAC projects on Main Post 

• Fort Belvoir’s 2007 MS4 permit reissuance should continue to require technical review of 

construction projects for the evaluation of plans and design documents in accordance with 

Virginia’s SWM regulations (4 VAC 50-60), the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook (VDCR, 1992), Fairfax County’s PFM, and other applicable regulations. 

Mitigation 

Subwatersheds that would be expected to have increases in storm water runoff were identified in 

Section 4.7.2.1.2. The following measures could be used to mitigate potential problems.

• Develop a storm water drainage system master plan study. This study would identify 

current deficiencies (e.g. capacity problems, outfall problems, stream bank erosion) and 

determine infrastructure needs to meet BRAC requirements and long-term growth to 2030 

• Participate in Fairfax County’s Watershed Planning Process and in TMDL studies with 

VDEQ to identify potential sources of pollutants of concern and reduce pollutant loads as 

necessary to meet water quality standards. Watershed management plans will be developed 

for watersheds that drain Fort Belvoir in the future by Fairfax County in cooperation with 

local stakeholders 

• Once design studies are mature enough to quantify additional impervious cover resulting 

from BRAC construction at the facility level, identify candidate locations for removal of 

existing impervious cover to offset the increase. An initial action would be to remove 

closed section of Woodlawn Road from Kingman to Beulah Roads and revegetate the 

former roadbed in conjunction with the installation’s tree replacement program. 

Additional locations would be added as part of master planning process 

• The Army would design at least one new BRAC building project with a green roof 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-238

4.7.2.4.2 Groundwater Quality 

The potential for groundwater contamination and decreased recharge would be minimized by 

developing BMPs and LID practices designed to reduce pollutants and increase infiltration. Plant 

and soil processes can help reduce pollutant concentrations in groundwater. Bioretention facilities 

and other storm water treatment practices would be constructed where practicable to increase 

groundwater recharge and provide other water quality benefits. Since mitigation and BMPs for 

surface water would benefit groundwater, refer to Section 4.7.2.4.1 for specific measures. 

4.7.2.4.3 Water Resources Protection 

Final siting of Preferred Alternative projects would be outside of designated RPAs, wetlands, and 

floodplains to the maximum extent practicable. BMP and LID practices would include water 

quality control in their design, where possible. Long-term water resource and storm water 

protection strategies would incorporate structural, nonstructural, and policy strategies designed to 

mitigate storm water effects and encroachment into environmentally sensitive areas. Since 

mitigation and BMPs for surface water would benefit water resources protection, refer to Section 

4.7.2.4.1 for specific measures. 

4.7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE TOWN CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

4.7.3.1 Surface Water Quality 

4.7.3.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects to surface water quality, ground water quality, and 

water resources protection would be expected at the watershed scale; however, localized effects 

could be more pronounced. Construction of facilities and infrastructure as a result of changes in 

land use designations could result in increased runoff due to an overall increase in impervious 

surface area, increased erosion, and increased sediment and pollutant loads. A reduction in 

pervious area may reduce infiltration and groundwater levels which can cause increases in 

pollutant concentrations in surface runoff. Decreased infiltration can also lead to lower stream 

baseflow conditions during dry periods. RPAs and riparian buffers also extend into areas 

proposed for land use designation changes. Encroachment into these areas decreases the buffer 

between developed land and sensitive natural resources. 

Table 4.7-11 presents the land use changes that could have an impact on water resources (i.e., 

land use change from undeveloped to developed). Section 4.7.3.1.2 provides a detailed analysis of 

the potential effects to surface water quality from short- and long-range development projects. 

4.7.3.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects

Storm water 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. To comply with federal, state, and installation 

requirements, Fort Belvoir would minimize potential effects through effective storm water 

planning, developing adequate infrastructure, and using BMPs. Storm water requirements are 

addressed under the VPDES program, which includes the development of comprehensive 

SWPPPs that describe the BMPs to be used to minimize runoff and soil erosion from each 

construction site and Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. Fort Belvoir’s storm 

water permits (general permits and MS4) regulate storm water discharges on the installation. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-239

Table 4.7-11 

Potential land use plan effects to water resources under the Town Center Alternative 

Proposed change 

Water resources 

present in area Potential effects 

North Post–convert 

Environmentally Sensitive and 

Outdoor Recreation land uses to 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Training, and 

Residential

RPAs, riparian areas, 

and flood zones along 

Mason Run and 

tributaries 

Encroachment of development near RPAs and 

riparian areas. Increased area of impervious 

surfaces would increase runoff, erosion, and 

pollutant and sediment loads. 

Reduction in pervious surfaces would reduce ground 

absorption of runoff, thereby reducing flow to existing 

groundwater seeps, where present 

Convert South Post golf course 

(Recreation land use) on South 

Post into 

Professional/Institutional 

Storm water drainage 

features, no notable 

water resources present 

Increased area of impervious surfaces would 

increase runoff, erosion, and pollutant and sediment 

loads and would reduce ground absorption of runoff, 

thereby reducing flow to existing groundwater seeps, 

where present. 

South Post eastern and southern 

areas–convert Environmentally 

Sensitive and Outdoor 

Recreation land uses to 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Training, and 

Residential

On the South Post 

plateau, apart from 

storm water drainage 

features, no notable 

water resources present 

Increased area of impervious surfaces would 

increase runoff, erosion, and pollutant and sediment 

loads and would reduce ground absorption of runoff, 

thereby reducing flow to existing groundwater seeps, 

where present. 

state reviews and oversees implementation of the required storm water practices. Note that, in the 

absence of state-required storm water management practices and erosion control measures being 

implemented on a watershed basis, short- and long-term effects would be much greater in 

severity. 

Approximately 55 acres of high-intensity and 261 acres of medium-intensity development would 

be added to the installation by implementing the Town Center Alternative projects. High-intensity 

development includes areas where people work or reside in high numbers (e.g. apartment 

complexes and commercial/industrial areas). Medium-intensity includes a mixture of developed 

and nondeveloped land with impervious cover occupying 50-80 percent of the total land area. 

Impervious surfaces would increase substantially in Subwatersheds 1 (173 percent), 3 (36 

percent), 25 (82 percent), 29 (31 percent), 30 (53 percent), and 32 (75 percent). Increased 

impervious surface associated with development typically causes an increase in volume, velocity, 

and peak flow rates of runoff to nearby streams. Stream channels naturally attempt to 

accommodate the increased flows by increasing their cross-sectional area. This occurs through 

erosion of stream banks or down-cutting of the channel beds. 

Virginia’s Storm Water Management (SWM) Regulations specify evaluating storm water runoff 

using 2-year or 1-year storm event data in order to assess potential erosion problems and channel 

adequacy. These regulations also include the requirement for an adequate outfall analysis or use 

of 1-year, 24-hour extended detention to protect receiving waters. Increased volume might 

translate to flooding where the stream channel is not adequate to contain the flow. During the 10-

year, 24-hour storm event, an increase in volume increases the potential for bank overtopping and 

flooding. Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations (4VAC50-30-40.19) and SWM 

Regulations (4VAC3-20-81) require that, “downstream channels and properties be protected from 

erosion and damage due to increases in volume, velocity and peak flow rate.” Because of this, 

site-specific BMPs or mitigation measures would be required for each construction site. A 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-240

watershed-based approach would be implemented to evaluate upstream and downstream concerns 

and mitigate possible effects. As discussed above, BMPs and potential mitigation efforts were 

not included in the following analyses. The types of BMPs that will be implemented and other 

storm water control activities will depend on final site/parcel development plans. 

The 1-year and the 10-year, 24-hour storm events were modeled using the Technical Release 55 

(TR-55) model, developed by the NRCS (1986), to evaluate potential changes in peak flows as a 

result of the Town Center Alternative in each subwatershed. These storm events are identified in 

Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. These regulations require that properties 

and waterways be protected from damages from flooding due to increases in volume, velocity and 

peak flow rates. The 10-year, post-development peak discharge flow rate is not to exceed the 10-

year, pre-development peak rate (4VAC50-30-40.19). The threshold used to determine potential 

adverse effects for this analysis was a 10 percent increase in peak flow occurring from a 1-year, 

24-hour and a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Subwatersheds 1, 3, 25, 29, 30, and 32 would all be 

expected to have greater than a 10 percent increase in peak flow during the 1-year storm event 

under the Town Center Alternative, with Subwatershed 1 experiencing the highest percent 

increase (131 percent). Table 4.7-12 lists the percent increase in peak flow from a 1-year, 24-

hour storm event for each subwatershed and the proposed construction projects that would affect 

runoff. All these subwatersheds, except for Subwatershed 32 would also experience at least a 10 

percent increase in peak discharge during a 10-year, 24-hour storm event, indicating there would 

be a moderate to high increase in flood levels (Table 4.7-12). Table F-1 in Appendix F lists the 

peak flow percent increase for each subwatershed if the Town Center Alternative projects were 

implemented. 

Table 4.7-12 

Subwatersheds with greater than 10 Percent increase in 1-year or 10-year 

storm event peak discharge under the Town Center Alternative 

Subwatershed 

number 

Percent increase 

in 1-year storm 

event peak 

discharge 

Percent increase 

in 10-year storm 

event peak 

discharge Affecting projects 

1 131% 75% NGA, WHS, CDCs, AMC Relocatables, Infrastructure 

3 22% 10% NGA, WHS, CDCs, AMC Relocatables, Infrastructure 

25 36% 16% NGA, WHS 

29 25% 13% 

NGA, WHS, MDA, Hospital, Dental Clinic, NARMC HQ 

Bldg, Infrastructure, Network Ops–PEO EIS, PEO EIS 

Administrative Facility, 

30 24% 10% 

MDA, Hospital, Dental Clinic, NARMC HQ Bldg, 

Infrastructure, Network Ops–PEO EIS, Access Control 

Point, PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Modernize 

Barracks, Corps Integration Office 

Sediment 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. To comply with federal, state, and installation 

requirements, Fort Belvoir would minimize potential erosion and sedimentation effects through 

storm water planning, development of adequate infrastructure, and the use of BMPs. During the 

initial development phase, proper erosion and sediment controls would be used to manage 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-241

construction activities that could result in an increase in the sedimentation in adjacent 

waterbodies. A VPDES permit would be required for construction projects disturbing at least 

2,500 square feet. A soil erosion and sediment control plan as well as a SWPPP would be 

required to provide guidance for reducing sedimentation effects during the construction process. 

In the long-term, an increase in storm water volume from impervious surfaces could result in an 

increase in erosion and sedimentation. Proper storm water controls, as discussed above, would be 

implemented as part of the development to minimize the potential effects of increased sediment 

loads during wet-weather events. 

Fort Belvoir was surveyed to characterize watershed conditions and identify erosion problem site 

locations in 1999, and monitoring of these sites has occurred since (Landgraf, 2003). Table 4.7-13 

lists the Town Center Alternative projects that are within close proximity (150 feet) of the 

previously identified erosion and other problem sites in each watershed. Construction activities 

and impervious surfaces could increase sediment and storm water runoff into waterbodies, thereby 

exacerbating erosion and other stream effects at these sites. Eleven projects have existing erosion 

sites and other stream effects within 150 feet of their footprint. These projects could affect one or 

more existing problem areas due to an increase in impervious surfaces and resulting storm water 

from each site. Other projects have few or no erosion/problem sites in the vicinity and would have 

minimal or no effect on stream bank erosion and other characteristics. 

Table 4.7-13 

Projects located within proximity of erosion and other problem sites 

under the Town Center Alternative 

Project 

number (see 

Table 2-3)

Project 

description 

Watershed 

number 

Nearby 

watersheds 

Erosion impacted sites within 

150 feet 

1 NGA 1 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek 

2 blocked pipe, 1 corroded or corrupt pipe, 2 

down-cutting low, 1 down-cutting medium, 2 

gully, 3 scour hole, 2 undercut structure low 

3 MDA Facility 29 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek 

1 bank erosion medium, 1 blocked pipe, 1 down 

cutting low, 1 down-cutting medium, 1 downcutting severe, 1 gully, 1 undercut structure low 

4 Hospital 29, 30 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek, Mason Run 

3 bank erosion low, 3 bank erosion medium, 4 

blocked pipe, 2 corroded or corrupt pipe, 6 downcutting low, 6 down-cutting medium, 1 downcutting severe, 1 gully, 1 sediment deposition, 3 

undercut structure low 

5 Dental Clinic 29, 30 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek, Mason Run 

3 bank erosion low, 3 bank erosion medium, 4 

blocked pipe, 2 corroded or corrupt pipe, 6 downcutting low, 6 down-cutting medium, 1 downcutting severe, 1 gully, 1 sediment deposition, 2 

undercut structure low 

8 Infrastructure 1, 3, 29, 30 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek, Mason Run 

3 bank erosion low, 3 bank erosion medium, 2 

bank erosion severe, 8 blocked pipe, 2 corroded 

or corrupt pipe, 1 corrected sites, 10 down-cutting 

low, 10 down-cutting medium, 3 down-cutting 

severe, 1 gully, 3 scour hole, 2 sediment 

deposition, 3 undercut structure low, 3 undercut 

structure medium, 2 undercut structure severe 

10 Network Ops 

Center 29, 30 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek, Mason Run 

3 bank erosion low, 3 bank erosion medium, 4 

blocked pipe, 2 corroded or corrupt pipe, 6 downcutting low, 6 down-cutting medium, 1 downcutting severe, 1 gully, 1 sediment deposition, 2 

undercut structure low 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-242

Table 4.7-13 

Projects located within proximity of erosion and other problem sites 

under the Town Center Alternative (continued) 

Project 

number (see 

Table 2-3)

Project 

description 

Watershed 

number 

Nearby 

watersheds 

Erosion impacted sites within 

150 feet 

12 

Child 

Development 

Center (NGA) 

1 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek 

3 blocked pipe, 1 corroded or corrupt pipe, 3 

down-cutting low, 1 down-cutting medium, 2 

gully, 4 scour hole, 3 undercut structure low 

13 

Child 

Development 

Center 

1 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek 

2 blocked pipe, 1 corroded or corrupt pipe, 2 

down-cutting low, 1 down-cutting medium, 2 

gully, 3 scour hole, 2 undercut structure low 

16 AMC 

Relocatables 1 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek 

2 blocked pipe, 1 corroded or corrupt pipe, 2 

down-cutting low, 1 down-cutting medium, 2 

gully, 3 scour hole, 2 undercut structure low 

17 

PEO EIS 

Admin. 

Facility 

29, 30 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek, Mason Run 

3 bank erosion low, 3 bank erosion medium, 4 

blocked pipe, 2 corroded or corrupt pipe, 6 downcutting low, 6 down-cutting medium, 1 downcutting severe, 1 gully, 1 sediment deposition, 2 

undercut structure low 

Other Pollutants 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. During the initial development phase, construction 

activities could result in an increase in sediment loading, dissolved solids, petroleum 

hydrocarbons, and other pollutants in adjacent waterbodies. Measurable effects would be 

expected to be minimal because the installation would comply with federal, state, and installation 

regulations and necessary permits for storm water control would be obtained. Site-specific 

SWPPPs describing the BMPs to be used to minimize effects from increased runoff during site 

construction would be prepared. 

In the long-term, an increase in storm water volume from additional impervious surfaces could 

result in an increase in nutrients, metals, and other potential contaminants in waterbodies. Proper 

storm water controls, as discussed above, would be implemented as part of the development to 

minimize the potential effects of pollutant loading during wet-weather events. Implementing LID 

techniques would also be used, where possible, to manage the hydrology and quality of storm 

water runoff from impervious surfaces to reduce this adverse effect. 

Nutrients, such as TN and TP, are parameters of concern according to the Chesapeake Bay 

agreement. TN loading from land to streams is influenced by using fertilizers, presence of animal 

waste, and faulty septic systems, as well as by natural sources. Urban, agricultural, and barren 

land uses are the primary contributors. Nitrogen contributes to low DO levels through bacterial 

activity and could be toxic to aquatic life. TP loading from land to streams is influenced by using 

fertilizers and the presence of animal waste, as well as by natural sources. Urban and agricultural 

land uses are the primary contributors. Phosphorus is typically the limiting nutrient in freshwater 

systems and could accelerate waterbody eutrophication. 

Potential increases in nutrient loads in Fort Belvoir subwatersheds as a result of the Town Center 

Alternative were calculated using land use-specific loading coefficients. Loading coefficients 

were developed based on the watershed modeling results for Accotink Creek using the GWLF 

model (Haith and Shoemaker, 1987; Haith, Mandel, and Wu, 1992; Dai et al., 2000). GWLF was 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-243

used to compute the nutrient loads contributed by various land uses in each of the subwatersheds 

that drain Fort Belvoir. A detailed description of the GWLF model and its capabilities is 

presented in Appendix F. 

Using the land use distributions and applying the associated loading ratios, the average annual 

percent change in TN and TP loading was calculated for each subwatershed. Subwatersheds with 

greater than a 10-percent change in nitrogen and phosphorus loads as a result of the Town Center 

Alternative are shown in Table 4.7-14. Proposed construction projects in each subwatershed that 

would affect nitrogen and phosphorus loading are also shown in this table. Table F-2 in 

Appendix F shows the percent change for each subwatershed. 

Table 4.7-14 

Subwatersheds with greater than 10-percent increase in TN and TP loads 

under the Town Center Alternative 

Subwatershed 

number 

Percent 

increase in TP 

Percent 

increase in TN Affecting projects 

1 9% 15% NGA, WHS, CDCs, AMC Relocatables, Infrastructure 

4.7.3.2 Groundwater Quality 

4.7.3.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term effects on groundwater quality would be as described in Section 4.7.2.2.1. 

4.7.3.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects

Long-term indirect minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. Approximately 142 acres would be converted to 

impervious surfaces under the Town Center Alternative. Much of this acreage is on an upland 

plateau, which follows the I-95 corridor and serves as a groundwater recharge area. The reduction 

in pervious surfaces would reduce the absorption of runoff into the ground, and therefore reduce 

flow to existing groundwater seeps, such as the rare coastal plain/piedmont acidic seepage swamp 

communities scattered around the installation (Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD, 2002). Seepage swamp 

communities might be affected by projects within close proximity, depending on groundwater 

flow patterns. Only one project site (part of Infrastructure, Project #8) is located within 200 feet 

of a seepage swamp community. In addition, infiltration of increased storm water runoff into the 

groundwater in other areas could increase nitrogen loads and other contaminants such as soluble 

metals. Absorption loss and infiltration of pollutants could partially be alleviated through 

installing BMPs that facilitate infiltration to groundwater, such as bioretention facilities planted 

with native, wet-tolerant plants (Davis, 2004; Fort Belvoir 2003). Groundwater withdrawal for 

potable water supply would not be adversely affected by the Town Center Alternative because, 

although an aquifer containing potentially potable groundwater is present below Fort Belvoir, it is 

not used for drinking water supply. In addition, the Town Center Alternative would not include 

installation or removal of any septic tanks. 

4.7.3.3 Water Resources Protection 

4.7.3.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term effects on water resources protection are presented in Section 4.7.3.1.1. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-244

4.7.3.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects

Short and long-term effects on water resources regulated under Chesapeake Bay, CZMA, and 

floodplain protection programs would be similar to those described in Section 4.7.2.3.2. Longterm minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, localized effects 

could be more pronounced. New construction would be expected to increase impervious surfaces 

in several subwatersheds. Under the Town Center Alternative, approximately 14.4 acres of 

Chesapeake Bay RPAs would be encroached upon by nine projects, and approximately 4.3 acres 

of floodplain would be affected by 1 project (Table 4.7-15 and Appendix J; Table J-2 provides 

impact acreages by project number, and project locations are indicated on Figures J-13 and J-17). 

Wetlands could also be affected. Effects on wetlands are further discussed in Section 4.8 

(Biological Resources). 

Table 4.7-15 

Water resources potentially affected by projects proposed 

under the Town Center Alternative (acres) 

North 

Post

Davison 

Army 

Airfield

South 

Post

Tompkins 

Basina

Main 

Post EPG 

Infrastructureb

RPAs 4.8 < 0.1 6.9 11.7 2.7 

100-year floodplain 4.3 4.3 

Notes: 

Empty cells indicate the lack of potential impact to water resources in the Post area. 

a

 Tompkins Basin impacts are attributable solely to the MWR Family Travel Camp. b

 Infrastructure impacts are distributed among the North Post, South Post, and EPG. 

4.7.3.4 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs and proposed mitigation measures would be similar to those discussed under the Preferred 

Alternative (Section 4.7.2.4). 

4.7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CITY CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

4.7.4.1 Surface Water Quality 

4.7.4.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects to surface water quality, ground water quality, and 

water resources protection would be expected at the watershed scale; however, localized effects 

could be more pronounced. Construction of facilities and infrastructure as a result of changes in 

land use designations could result in increased runoff due to an overall increase in impervious 

surface area, increased erosion, and increased sediment and pollutant loads. A reduction in 

pervious area may reduce infiltration and groundwater levels which can cause increases in 

pollutant concentrations in surface runoff. Decreased infiltration can also lead to lower stream 

baseflow conditions during dry periods. RPAs and riparian buffers also extend into areas 

proposed for land use designation changes. Encroachment into these areas decreases the buffer 

between developed land and sensitive natural resources. In addition, proposed infrastructure 

projects include a new bridge crossing over Accotink Creek and the replacement of existing 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-245

bridges over Accotink Creek and Dogue Creek. Bridge construction and repairs will require the 

issuance of a Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit and a VWP permit by VDEQ. 

Table 4.7-16 presents the land use changes that could have an impact on water resources (i.e., 

land use change from undeveloped to developed). Section 4.7.4.1.2 provides a detailed analysis of 

the potential effects to surface water quality from short- and long-range development projects. 

Table 4.7-16 

Potential land use plan effects to water resources under the City Center Alternative 

Proposed change 

Water resources 

present in area Potential effects 

Develop Administrative Center on 

EPG for NGA as well as hospital 

complex; convert land use 

designation from Training to 

Professional/Institutional and 

Community 

RPAs and riparian areas extend 

into EPG east and the proposed 

Remote Delivery Facility on EPG 

west along tributaries of Accotink 

Creek and the creek along the 

eastern boundary of EPG 

Encroachment of development near RPAs and 

riparian areas. Increased area of impervious 

surfaces would increase runoff, erosion, and 

pollutant and sediment loads. 

Reduction in pervious surfaces would reduce 

ground absorption of runoff, thereby reducing flow to 

existing groundwater seeps, where present 

South Post–convert 

Environmentally Sensitive and 

Outdoor Recreation land uses to 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Training, and 

Residential 

On the South Post plateau, apart 

from storm water drainage 

features, no notable water 

resources present 

Increased area of impervious surfaces would 

increase runoff, erosion, and pollutant and sediment 

loads and would reduce ground absorption of runoff, 

thereby reducing flow to existing groundwater 

seeps, where present. 

North Post–convert Environmentally 

Sensitive and Outdoor Recreation 

land uses to 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Training, and 

Residential 

RPAs, riparian areas, and flood 

zones along Mason Run and 

tributaries 

Encroachment of development near RPAs and 

riparian areas. Increased area of impervious 

surfaces would increase runoff, erosion, and 

pollutant and sediment loads and would reduce 

ground absorption of runoff, thereby reducing flow to 

existing groundwater seeps, where present. 

GSA Parcel becomes 

Professional/Institutional 

Apart from storm water drainage 

features, no notable water 

resources present 

Increased area of impervious surfaces would 

increase runoff, erosion, and pollutant and sediment 

loads and would reduce ground absorption of runoff, 

thereby reducing flow to existing groundwater 

seeps, where present. 

4.7.4.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects

Storm water 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. To comply with federal, state, and installation 

requirements, Fort Belvoir would minimize potential effects through effective storm water 

planning, developing adequate infrastructure, and using BMPs. Storm water requirements are 

addressed under the NPDES program, which includes developing comprehensive SWPPPs that 

describe the BMPs to be used to minimize runoff and soil erosion from each construction site and 

Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. Fort Belvoir’s storm water permits 

(general permits and MS4) regulate storm water discharges on the installation. The state reviews 

and oversees implementation of the required storm water practices. Note that in the absence of 

state-required storm water management practices and erosion control measures being 

implemented on a watershed basis, short- and long-term effects would be much greater in 

severity. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-246

Approximately 86 acres of high-intensity and 173 acres of medium-intensity development would 

be added to the installation by implementing the City Center Alternative projects. High-intensity 

development includes areas where people work or reside in high numbers (e.g. apartment 

complexes and commercial/industrial areas). Medium-intensity includes a mixture of developed 

and nondeveloped land with impervious cover occupying 50-80 percent of the total land area. 

Impervious surfaces would increase substantially in Subwatersheds 1 (9 percent), 53 (938 

percent), 54 (321 percent), 55 (328 percent), 57 (288 percent), 58 (183 percent), and 59 (135 

percent). Increased impervious surface associated with development typically causes an increase 

in volume, velocity, and peak flow rates of runoff to nearby streams. Stream channels naturally 

attempt to accommodate the increased flows by increasing their cross-sectional area. This occurs 

through erosion of stream banks or down-cutting of the channel beds. 

Virginia’s Storm Water Management (SWM) Regulations specify evaluating storm water runoff 

using 2-year or 1-year storm event data in order to assess potential erosion problems and channel 

adequacy. These regulations also include the requirement for an adequate outfall analysis or use 

of 1-year, 24-hour extended detention to protect receiving waters. Increased volume might 

translate to flooding where the stream channel is not adequate to contain the flow. During the 10-

year, 24-hour storm event, an increase in volume increases the potential for bank overtopping and 

flooding. Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations (4VAC50-30-40.19) and SWM 

Regulations (4VAC3-20-81) require that, “downstream channels and properties be protected from 

erosion and damage due to increases in volume, velocity and peak flow rate.” Because of this, 

site-specific BMPs or mitigation measures would be required for each construction site. A 

watershed-based approach would be implemented to evaluate upstream and downstream concerns 

and mitigate possible effects. As discussed above, BMPs and potential mitigation efforts were 

not included in the following analyses. The types of BMPs that will be implemented and other 

storm water control activities will depend on final site/parcel development plans. 

The 1-year and the 10-year, 24-hour storm events were modeled using the Technical Release 55 

(TR-55) model, developed by the NRCS (1986), to evaluate potential changes in peak flows as a 

result of the City Center Alternative in each subwatershed. These storm events are identified in 

Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. These regulations require that properties 

and waterways be protected from damages from flooding due to increases in volume, velocity and 

peak flow rates. The 10-year, post-development peak discharge flow rate is not to exceed the 10-

year, pre-development peak rate (4VAC50-30-40.19). The threshold used to determine potential 

adverse effects for this analysis was a 10-percent increase in peak flow occurring from a 1-year, 

24-hour and a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Subwatersheds 1, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, and 59 would 

all be expected to have greater than a 10-percent increase in peak flow during the 1-year storm 

event under the City Center Alternative, with Subwatershed 57 experiencing the highest percent 

increase (93 percent). Table 4.7-17 lists the percent increase in peak flow from a 1-year, 24-hour 

storm event for each subwatershed and the proposed construction projects that would affect 

runoff. All these subwatersheds, except for Subwatersheds 1 and 54 would also experience at 

least a 10-percent increase in peak discharge during a 10-year, 24-hour storm event, indicating 

there would be a moderate to high increase in flood levels (Table 4.7-17). Table F-1 in Appendix 

F lists the peak flow percent increase for each subwatershed if the City Center Alternative 

projects were implemented. 

Sediment 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. To comply with federal, state, and installation 

requirements, Fort Belvoir would minimize potential erosion and sedimentation effects through 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-247

Table 4.7-17 

Subwatersheds with greater than 10 percent increase in 1-year or 10-year storm 

event peak discharge under the City Center Alternative 

Subwatershed 

number 

Percent increase in 

1-year storm event 

peak discharge 

Percent increase in 

10-year storm event 

peak discharge Affecting projects 

1 10% <10% AMC Relocatables, Infrastructure 

53 77% 22% NGA, Infrastructure 

54 14% <10% Infrastructure 

55 53% 17% Infrastructure 

57 93% 32% NGA, CDC (NGA), MDA, Infrastructure, 

Corps Integration Office 

58 70% 31% 

NGA, Hospital, Dental Clinic, NARMC HQ 

Bldg, Infrastructure, Emergency Services 

Center (EPG), WHS, PEO EIS 

Administrative Facility, Corps Integration 

Office 

59 82% 34% 

NGA, Hospital, Infrastructure, PEO EIS 

Administrative Facility, NARMC HQ Bldg, 

WHS, CDC (EPG) 

storm water planning, development of adequate infrastructure, and the use of BMPs. During the 

initial development phase, proper erosion and sediment controls would be used to manage 

construction activities that could result in an increase in the sedimentation in adjacent 

waterbodies. A VPDES permit would be required for construction projects disturbing at least 

2,500 square feet. A soil erosion and sediment control plan as well as a SWPPP would be 

required to provide guidance for reducing sedimentation effects during the construction process. 

In the long-term, an increase in storm water volume from impervious surfaces could result in an 

increase in erosion and sedimentation. Proper storm water controls, as discussed above, would be 

implemented as part of the development to minimize the potential effects of increased sediment 

loads during wet-weather events. 

Fort Belvoir was surveyed to characterize watershed conditions and identify erosion problem site 

locations in 1999, and monitoring of these sites has occurred since (Landgraf, 2003). Table 4.7-

18 lists the City Center Alternative projects that are within close proximity (150 feet) of the 

previously identified erosion and other problem sites in each watershed. Construction activities 

and impervious surfaces could increase sediment and storm water runoff into waterbodies, 

thereby exacerbating erosion and other stream effects at these sites. Ten City Center projects 

have existing erosion sites and other stream effects within 150 feet of their footprint. These 

projects could affect one or more existing problem areas due an increase in impervious surfaces 

and resulting storm water from each site. Other projects have few or no erosion/problem sites in 

the vicinity and would have minimal or no effect on stream bank erosion and other 

characteristics. 

Other Pollutants 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. During the initial development phase, construction 

activities could result in an increase in sediment loading, dissolved solids, petroleum 

hydrocarbons, and other pollutants in adjacent waterbodies. Measurable effects would be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-248

Table 4.7-18 

Projects located within proximity of erosion and other problem sites 

under the City Center Alternative 

Project 

number (see 

Table 2-3)

Project 

description 

Watershed 

number(s) 

Nearby 

watersheds Erosion impacted sites within 150 feet 

1 NGA 53, 59 Accotink Cr., trib. 

to Accotink Cr. 

1 blocked pipe, 4 corroded or corrupt pipe, 1 gully, 1 scour 

hole, 2 undercut structure low 

4 Hospital 58, 59 

Field Lark Branch, 

trib. to Accotink 

Creek 

1 bank erosion medium, 2 blocked pipe, 2 corroded or 

corrupt pipe, 8 down-cutting low, 3 down-cutting medium, 

1 down-cutting severe, 1 scour hole, 1 sediment 

deposition, 1 undercut structure low, 2 undercut structure 

medium, 1 undercut structure severe 

5 Dental Clinic 58, 59 

Field Lark Branch, 

trib. to Accotink 

Creek 

1 bank erosion medium, 2 blocked pipe, 2 corroded or 

corrupt pipe, 6 down-cutting low, 2 down-cutting medium, 

1 down-cutting severe, 1 scour hole, 1 sediment 

deposition, 1 undercut structure low, 1 undercut structure 

medium, 1 undercut structure severe 

6 

NARMC 

Headquarters 

Building 

58, 59 

Field Lark Branch, 

trib. to Accotink 

Creek 

1 bank erosion medium, 2 blocked pipe, 2 corroded or 

corrupt pipe, 6 down-cutting low, 2 down-cutting medium, 

1 down-cutting severe, 1 scour hole, 1 sediment 

deposition, 1 undercut structure low, 1 undercut structure 

medium, 1 undercut structure severe 

8 Infrastructure 

1, 3, 29, 30, 

53, 54, 55, 57, 

58, 59 

Accotink Creek, 

Field Lark Branch, 

trib. to Accotink 

Creek, Mason Run 

3 bank erosion low, 11 bank erosion medium, 6 bank 

erosion severe, 9 blocked pipe, 7 corroded or corrupt 

pipe, 1 corrected sites, 15 down-cutting low, 7 downcutting medium, 4 down-cutting severe, 2 gully, 12 scour 

hole, 4 sediment deposition, 1 undercut structure low, 5 

undercut structure medium, 3 undercut structure severe 

9 

Emergency 

Service Center 

(EPG) 

58, 59 

Field Lark Branch, 

trib. to Accotink 

Creek 

1 bank erosion medium, 2 blocked pipe, 2 corroded or 

corrupt pipe, 6 down-cutting low, 2 down-cutting medium, 

1 down-cutting severe, 1 scour hole, 1 sediment 

deposition, 1 undercut structure low, 1 undercut structure 

medium, 1 undercut structure severe 

10 Network Ops 

Center 53, 59 Accotink Cr., trib. 

to Accotink Cr. 

1 blocked pipe, 3 corroded or corrupt pipe, 1 gully, 1 scour 

hole, 2 undercut structure low 

12 

Child 

Development 

Center 

(NGA) 

53, 59 Accotink Cr., trib. 

to Accotink Cr. 

1 blocked pipe, 3 corroded or corrupt pipe, 1 gully, 1 scour 

hole, 2 undercut structure low 

17 PEO EIS 

Admin Facility 53, 59 Accotink Cr., trib. 

to Accotink Cr. 

1 blocked pipe, 3 corroded or corrupt pipe, 1 gully, 1 scour 

hole, 2 undercut structure low 

expected to be minimal because the installation would comply with federal, state, and installation 

regulations and necessary permits for storm water control would be obtained. Site-specific 

SWPPPs describing the BMPs to be used to minimize effects from increased runoff during site 

construction would be prepared. 

In the long-term, an increase in storm water volume from additional impervious surfaces could 

result in an increase in nutrients, metals, and other potential contaminants in waterbodies. Proper 

storm water controls, as discussed above, would be implemented as part of the development to 

minimize the potential effects of pollutant loading during wet-weather events. Implementing LID 

techniques would also be used, where possible, to manage the hydrology and quality of storm 

water runoff from impervious surfaces to reduce this adverse effect. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-249

Nutrients, such as TN and TP, are parameters of concern according to the Chesapeake Bay 

agreement. TN loading from land to streams is influenced by using fertilizers, presence of animal 

waste, and faulty septic systems, as well as by natural sources. Urban, agricultural, and barren 

land uses are the primary contributors. Nitrogen contributes to low DO levels through bacterial 

activity and could be toxic to aquatic life. TP loading from land to streams is influenced by using 

fertilizers and the presence of animal waste, as well as by natural sources. Urban and agricultural 

land uses are the primary contributors. Phosphorus is typically the limiting nutrient in freshwater 

systems and could accelerate waterbody eutrophication. 

Potential increases in nutrient loads in Fort Belvoir subwatersheds as a result of the City Center 

Alternative were calculated using land use-specific loading coefficients. Loading coefficients 

were developed based on the watershed modeling results for Accotink Creek using the GWLF 

model (Haith and Shoemaker, 1987; Haith, Mandel, and Wu, 1992; Dai et al., 2000). GWLF was 

used to compute the nutrient loads contributed by various land uses in each of the subwatersheds 

that drain Fort Belvoir. A detailed description of the GWLF model and its capabilities is 

presented in Appendix F.Using the land use distributions and applying the associated loading 

ratios, the average annual percent change in TN and TP loading was calculated for each 

subwatershed. Subwatersheds with greater than a 10-percent change in nitrogen and phosphorus 

loads as a result of the City Center Alternative are shown in Table 4.7-19. Proposed construction 

projects in each subwatershed that would affect nitrogen and phosphorus loading are also shown 

in this table. Table F-2 in Appendix F shows the percent change for each subwatershed. 

Table 4.7-19 

Subwatersheds with greater than 10-percent increase in TN and TP loads 

under the City Center Alternative 

Subwatershed 

number 

Percent 

increase 

in TP 

Percent 

increase 

in TN Affecting projects 

53 61% 83% NGA, Infrastructure 

54 7% 14% Infrastructure 

55 26% 39% Infrastructure 

57 11% 19% NGA, MDA, Infrastructure, CDC (NGA), Corps Integration 

Office 

58 13% 19% 

NGA, Hospital, Dental Clinic, NARMC HQ Bldg, 

Infrastructure, Emergency Services Center (EPG), WHS, 

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Corps Integration Office 

4.7.4.2 Groundwater Quality 

4.7.4.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term effects on groundwater quality would be as described in Section 4.7.2.2.1. 

4.7.4.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects

Long-term indirect minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. Approximately 131 acres would be converted to 

impervious surfaces under the City Center Alternative. Much of this acreage is on an upland 

plateau, which follows the I-95 corridor and serves as a groundwater recharge area. The reduction 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-250

in pervious surfaces would reduce the absorption of runoff into the ground, and therefore reduce 

flow to existing groundwater seeps, such as the rare coastal plain/piedmont acidic seepage swamp 

communities scattered around the installation (Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD, 2002). Seepage swamp 

communities could be affected by projects within close proximity, depending on groundwater 

flow patterns. Only one project site (part of Infrastructure, Project #8) is located within 200 feet 

of a seepage swamp community. In addition, infiltration of increased storm water runoff into the 

groundwater in other areas could increase nitrogen loads and other contaminants such as soluble 

metals. Absorption loss and infiltration of pollutants could partially be alleviated through 

installing BMPs that facilitate infiltration to groundwater, such as bioretention facilities planted 

with native, wet-tolerant plants (Davis, 2004; Fort Belvoir 2003). Groundwater withdrawal for 

potable water supply would not be adversely affected by the City Center Alternative because, 

although an aquifer containing potentially potable groundwater is present below Fort Belvoir, it is 

not used for drinking water supply. In addition, the City Center Alternative would not include 

installation or removal of any septic tanks. 

4.7.4.3 Water Resources Protection 

4.7.4.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term effects on water resources protection are presented in Section 4.7.4.1.1. 

4.7.4.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects

Short and long-term effects on water resources regulated under Chesapeake Bay, CZMA, and 

floodplain protection programs would be similar to those described in Section 4.7.2.3.2. Long-term 

minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, localized effects could be 

more pronounced. New construction would be expected to increase impervious surfaces in several 

subwatersheds. Under the City Center Alternative, approximately 12.6 acres of Chesapeake Bay 

RPAs would be affected by seven projects, and approximately 8.4 acres of floodplain would be 

affected by 3 projects (Table 4.7-20 and Appendix J; Table J-2 provides impact acreages by 

project number, and project locations are indicated on Figures J-21, J-25, and J-29). Wetlands 

could also be affected under the City Center Alternative. Effects on wetlands are further discussed 

in Section 4.8 (Biological Resources). 

Table 4.7-20 

Water resources potentially affected by projects proposed 

under the City Center Alternative (acres) 

North 

Post

Davison 

Army 

Airfield

South 

Post

Tompkins 

Basina

Main 

Post EPG 

Infrastructureb

RPAs < 0.1 6.9 7.0 3.0 2.7 

100-year floodplain 4.3 4.3 < 0.1 4.1 

Notes: 

Empty cells indicate the lack of potential impact to water resources in the Post area. 

No impacts to RPAs or floodplains were identified on the GSA Parcel a

 Tompkins Basin impacts are attributable solely to the MWR Family Travel Camp. b

 Infrastructure impacts are distributed among the North Post, South Post, and EPG. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-251

4.7.4.4 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs and mitigation measures would be similar to those discussed under the Preferred 

Alternative (Section 4.7.2.4). 

4.7.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SATELLITE CAMPUSES 

ALTERNATIVE 

4.7.5.1 Surface Water Quality 

4.7.5.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects to surface water quality, ground water quality, and 

water resources protection would be expected at the watershed scale; however, localized effects 

could be more pronounced. Construction of facilities and infrastructure as a result of changes in 

land use designations could result in increased runoff due to an overall increase in impervious 

surface area, increased erosion, and increased sediment and pollutant loads. A reduction in 

pervious area may reduce infiltration and groundwater levels which can cause increases in 

pollutant concentrations in surface runoff. Decreased infiltration can also lead to lower stream 

baseflow conditions during dry periods. RPAs and riparian buffers also extend into areas 

proposed for land use designation changes. Encroachment into these areas decreases the buffer 

between developed land and sensitive natural resources. Table 4.7-21 presents the land use 

changes that could have an impact on water resources (i.e., land use change from undeveloped to 

developed). Section 4.7.5.1.2 provides a detailed analysis of the potential effects to surface water 

quality from short- and long-range development projects. 

4.7.5.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects

Storm water 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. To comply with federal, state, and installation 

requirements, Fort Belvoir would minimize potential effects through effective storm water 

planning, developing adequate infrastructure, and using BMPs. Storm water requirements are 

addressed under the NPDES program, which includes developing comprehensive SWPPPs that 

describe the BMPs to be used to minimize runoff and soil erosion from each construction site and 

Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. Fort Belvoir’s storm water permits 

(general permits and MS4) regulate storm water discharges on the installation. The state reviews 

and oversees implementation of the required storm water practices. Note that in the absence of 

state-required storm water management practices and erosion control measures being 

implemented on a watershed basis, short- and long-term effects would be much greater in 

severity. 

Approximately 55 acres of high-intensity and 392 acres of medium-intensity development would 

be added to the installation by implementing the Satellite Campuses Alternative projects. Highintensity development includes areas where people work or reside in high numbers (e.g. 

apartment complexes and commercial/industrial areas). Medium-intensity includes a mixture of 

developed and nondeveloped land with impervious cover occupying 50-80 percent of the total 

land area. Impervious surfaces would increase substantially in Subwatersheds 1 (121 percent), 29 

(25 percent), 30 (40 percent), 32 (73 percent), 38 (116 percent), 42 (40 percent), and 43 (239 

percent). Increased impervious surface associated with development typically causes an increase 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-252

Table 4.7-21 

Potential long-range land use plan effects to water resources 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

Proposed change 

Water resources 

present in area Potential effects 

Convert South Post Golf Course 

(Recreation land use) on South 

Post into Professional/Institutional 

Apart from storm water 

drainage features, no 

notable water resources 

present 

Encroachment of development near RPAs and 

riparian areas. Increased area of impervious 

surfaces would increase runoff, erosion, and 

pollutant and sediment loads. 

Reduction in pervious surfaces would reduce 

ground absorption of runoff, thereby reducing flow 

to existing groundwater seeps, where present 

South Post eastern and southern 

areas–convert Environmentally 

Sensitive and Outdoor Recreation 

land uses to 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Training, and 

Residential 

On the South Post 

plateau, apart from storm 

water drainage features, 

no notable water 

resources present 

Increased area of impervious surfaces would 

increase runoff, erosion, and pollutant and 

sediment loads and would reduce ground 

absorption of runoff, thereby reducing flow to 

existing groundwater seeps, where present. 

North Post–convert 

Environmentally Sensitive and 

Outdoor Recreation land uses to 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Training, and 

Residential

RPAs, riparian areas, and 

flood zones along Mason 

Run and tributaries 

Encroachment of development near RPAs and 

riparian areas. Increased area of impervious 

surfaces would increase runoff, erosion, and 

pollutant and sediment loads and would reduce 

ground absorption of runoff, thereby reducing flow 

to existing groundwater seeps, where present. 

Davison Army Airfield (west of 

Fairfax County Parkway) 

converted from Airfield to 

Professional/Institutional

RPAs, riparian areas, and 

flood zones along 

Accotink Creek to north 

and east sides of airfield 

Encroachment of development near RPAs and 

riparian areas; no development would occur 

within these areas. Increased area of impervious 

surfaces would increase runoff, erosion, and 

pollutant and sediment loads and would reduce 

ground absorption of runoff, thereby reducing flow 

to existing groundwater seeps, where present. 

in volume, velocity, and peak flow rates of runoff to nearby streams. Stream channels naturally 

attempt to accommodate the increased flows by increasing their cross-sectional area. This occurs 

through erosion of stream banks or down-cutting of the channel beds. 

Virginia’s Storm Water Management (SWM) Regulations specify evaluating storm water runoff 

using 2-year or 1-year storm event data in order to assess potential erosion problems and channel 

adequacy. These regulations also include the requirement for an adequate outfall analysis or use 

of 1-year, 24-hour extended detention to protect receiving waters. Increased volume might 

translate to flooding where the stream channel is not adequate to contain the flow. During the 10-

year, 24-hour storm event, an increase in volume increases the potential for bank overtopping and 

flooding. Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations (4VAC50-30-40.19) and SWM 

Regulations (4VAC3-20-81) require that, “downstream channels and properties be protected from 

erosion and damage due to increases in volume, velocity and peak flow rate.” Because of this, 

site-specific BMPs or mitigation measures would be required for each construction site. A 

watershed-based approach would be implemented to evaluate upstream and downstream concerns 

and mitigate possible effects. As discussed above, BMPs and potential mitigation efforts were 

not included in the following analyses. The types of BMPs that will be implemented and other 

storm water control activities will depend on final site/parcel development plans. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-253

The 1-year and the 10-year, 24-hour storm events were modeled using the Technical Release 55 

(TR-55) model, developed by the NRCS (1986), to evaluate potential changes in peak flows as a 

result of the Satellite Campuses Alternative in each subwatershed. These storm events are 

identified in Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. These regulations require that 

properties and waterways be protected from damages from flooding due to increases in volume, 

velocity, and peak flow rates. The 10-year, post-development peak discharge flow rate is not to 

exceed the 10-year, pre-development peak rate (4VAC50-30-40.19). The threshold used to 

determine potential adverse effects for this analysis was a 10 percent increase in peak flow 

occurring from a 1-year, 24-hour and a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Subwatersheds 1, 29, 30, 

32, 38, 42, and 43 would all be expected to have greater than a 10-percent increase in peak flow 

during the 1-year storm event under the Satellite Campuses Alternative, with Subwatershed 43 

experiencing the highest percent increase (91 percent). Table 4.7-22 lists percent increase in peak 

flow from a 1-year, 24-hour storm event for each subwatershed and the proposed construction 

projects that would affect runoff. All these subwatersheds, except for Subwatersheds 32 and 42 

would also experience at least a 10-percent increase in peak discharge during a 10-year, 24-hour 

storm event, indicating there would be a moderate to high increase in flood levels (Table 4.7-22). 

Table F-1 in Appendix F lists the peak flow percent increase for each subwatershed if the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative projects were implemented. 

Table 4.7-22 

Subwatersheds with greater than 10-percent increase in 1-year or 10-year storm event 

peak discharge under the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

Subwatershed 

number 

Percent increase in 

1-year storm event 

peak discharge 

Percent increase in 

10-year storm event 

peak discharge Affecting projects 

1 54% 25% AMC Relocatables, Infrastructure 

29 25% 13% WHS, Infrastructure, CDC, AMC Relocatables 

30 25% 10% 

WHS, Hospital, Infrastructure, Access Control 

Point, Network Ops–PEO EIS, PEO EIS 

Administrative Facility, MDA, Modernize 

Barracks, Corps Integration Office 

32 15% < 10% PEO EIS Administrative Facility 

38 44% 16% Hospital, NARMC HQ Bldg 

42 17% < 10% NGA 

43 91% 42% NGA, CDC (NGA) 

Sediment 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. To comply with federal, state, and installation 

requirements, Fort Belvoir would minimize potential erosion and sedimentation effects through 

storm water planning, developing adequate infrastructure, using BMPs. During the initial 

development phase, proper erosion and sediment controls would be used to manage construction 

activities that could result in an increase in the sedimentation in adjacent waterbodies. A VPDES 

permit would be required for those projects disturbing at least one acre, and a soil erosion and 

sediment control plan as well as a SWPPP would be required to provide guidance for reducing 

sedimentation effects during the construction process. In the long-term, an increase in storm 

water volume from impervious surfaces could result in an increase in erosion and sedimentation. 

Proper storm water controls, as discussed above, would be implemented as part of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-254

development to minimize the potential effects of increased sediment loads during wet-weather 

events. 

Fort Belvoir was surveyed to characterize watershed conditions and identify erosion problem site 

locations in 1999, and monitoring of these sites has occurred since (Landgraf, 2003). Table 4.7-

23 lists the Satellite Campuses projects that are within close proximity (150 feet) of the 

previously identified erosion and other problem sites in each watershed. Construction activities 

and impervious surfaces could increase sediment and storm water runoff into waterbodies, 

thereby exacerbating erosion and other stream effects at these sites. Twelve Satellite Campuses 

projects have existing erosion sites and other stream effects within 150 feet of their footprint. 

These projects could affect one or more existing problem areas due to an increase in impervious 

surfaces and resulting storm water from each site. Other projects have few or no erosion/problem 

sites in the vicinity and would have minimal or no effect on stream bank erosion and other 

characteristics. 

Table 4.7-23 

Projects located within proximity of erosion and other problem sites 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

Project 

number (see 

Table 2-3) 

Project 

description 

Watershed 

number 

Nearby 

watersheds Erosion impacted sites within 150 feet 

1 NGA 42, 43, 44 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek 

1 bank erosion low, 2 bank erosion medium, 2 bank 

erosion severe, 5 blocked pipe, 6 down-cutting low, 1 

down-cutting medium, 1 down-cutting severe, 3 scour 

hole, 3 sediment deposition 

2 WHS 29, 30 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek, Mason Run 

1 corroded or corrupt pipe, 2 down-cutting low, 3 downcutting medium, 1 undercut structure low 

4 Hospital 38 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek 2 down-cutting low 

5 Dental Clinic 38 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek 1 down-cutting low 

6 

NARMC 

Headquarters 

Building 

38 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek 2 down-cutting low 

8 Infrastructure 1, 3, 29, 30 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek, Mason Run 

2 bank erosion severe, 4 blocked pipe, 1 corroded or 

corrupt pipe, 1 corrected sites, 5 down-cutting low, 7 

down-cutting medium, 2 down-cutting severe, 3 scour 

hole, 1 sediment deposition, 2 undercut structure low, 3 

undercut structure medium, 2 undercut structure severe 

10 Network Ops 

Center 30, 32 Mason Run, trib. To 

Dogue Creek 

4 blocked pipe, 2 down-cutting low, 2 down-cutting 

medium, 2 down-cutting severe, 3 gully, 1 scour hole, 1 

sediment deposition, 1 undercut structure medium 

12 

Child 

Development 

Center (NGA) 

42, 43, 44 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek 

1 bank erosion low, 2 bank erosion medium, 2 bank 

erosion severe, 5 blocked pipe, 6 down-cutting low, 1 

down-cutting medium, 1 down-cutting severe, 3 scour 

hole, 3 sediment deposition 

13 

Child 

Development 

Center 

29, 30 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek, Mason Run 

1 corroded or corrupt pipe, 1 down-cutting low, 3 downcutting medium, 1 undercut structure low 

16 AMC 

Relocatables 1 Trib. to Accotink 

Creek 

2 blocked pipe, 1 corroded or corrupt pipe, 2 down-cutting 

low, 1 down-cutting medium, 2 gully, 3 scour hole, 2 

undercut structure low 

17 PEO EIS 

Facility 30, 32 Mason Run, trib. To 

Dogue Creek 

4 blocked pipe, 2 down cutting low, 3 down cutting 

medium, 2 down cutting severe, 3 gully, 1 scour hole, 1 

sediment deposition, 1 undercut structure medium 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-255

Other Pollutants 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. During the initial development phase, construction 

activities could result in an increase in sediment loading, dissolved solids, petroleum 

hydrocarbons, and other pollutants in adjacent waterbodies. Measurable effects would be 

expected to be minimal because the installation would comply with federal, state, and installation 

regulations, and necessary permits for storm water control would be obtained. Site-specific 

SWPPPs describing the BMPs to be used to minimize effects from increased runoff during site 

construction would be prepared. 

In the long-term, an increase in storm water volume from additional impervious surfaces could 

result in an increase in nutrients, metals, and other potential contaminants in waterbodies. Proper 

storm water controls, as discussed above, would be implemented as part of the development to 

minimize the potential effects of pollutant loading during wet-weather events. Implementing LID 

techniques would also be used, where possible, to manage the hydrology and quality of storm 

water runoff from impervious surfaces to reduce this adverse effect. 

Nutrients, such as TN and TP, are parameters of concern according to the Chesapeake Bay 

agreement. TN loading from land to streams is influenced by using fertilizers, presence of animal 

waste, and faulty septic systems, as well as by natural sources. Urban, agricultural, and barren 

land uses are the primary contributors. Nitrogen contributes to low DO levels through bacterial 

activity and could be toxic to aquatic life. TP loading from land to streams is influenced by the 

use of fertilizers and the presence of animal waste, as well as by natural sources. Urban and 

agricultural land uses are the primary contributors. Phosphorus is typically the limiting nutrient 

in freshwater systems and could accelerate waterbody eutrophication. 

Potential increases in nutrient loads in Fort Belvoir subwatersheds as a result of the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative were calculated using land use-specific loading coefficients. Loading 

coefficients were developed based on the watershed modeling results for Accotink Creek using 

the GWLF model (Haith and Shoemaker, 1987; Haith, Mandel, and Wu, 1992; Dai et al., 2000). 

GWLF was used to compute the nutrient loads contributed by various land uses in each of the 

subwatersheds that drain Fort Belvoir. A detailed description of the GWLF model and its 

capabilities is presented in Appendix F 

Using the land use distributions and applying the associated loading ratios, the average annual 

percent change in TN and TP loading was calculated for each subwatershed. Subwatersheds with 

greater than a 10-percent change in nitrogen and phosphorus loads as a result of the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative are shown in Table 4.7-24. Proposed construction projects in each 

subwatershed that would affect nitrogen and phosphorus loading are also shown in this table. 

Table F-2 in Appendix F shows the percent change for each subwatershed. 

Table 4.7-24 

Subwatersheds with greater than 10-percent increase in TN and TP loads 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

Subwatershed 

number 

Percent 

increase in TP 

Percent 

increase in TN Affecting projects 

29 12% 13% WHS, CDC, Infrastructure, AMC Relocatables 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-256

4.7.5.2 Groundwater Quality 

4.7.5.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term effects on groundwater quality would be as described in Section 4.7.2.2.1. 

4.7.5.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects

Long-term indirect minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, 

localized effects could be more pronounced. Approximately 207 acres would be converted to 

impervious surfaces under the Satellite Campuses Alternative. Much of this acreage is on an 

upland plateau, which follows the I-95 corridor and serves as a groundwater recharge area. The 

reduction in pervious surfaces would reduce the absorption of runoff into the ground, and 

therefore reduce flow to existing groundwater seeps, such as the rare coastal plain/piedmont 

acidic seepage swamp communities scattered around the installation (Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD, 

2002). Seepage swamp communities could be affected by projects within close proximity, 

depending on groundwater flow patterns. Four projects are within 200 feet of a seepage swamp 

community: Network Ops-PEO EIS (Project #10), Infrastructure Improvements (Project #8) and 

PEO EIS Admin Facility (Project #17). In addition, infiltration of increased storm water runoff 

into the groundwater in other areas could increase nitrogen loads and other contaminants such as 

soluble metals. Absorption loss and infiltration of pollutants could partially be alleviated through 

installing BMPs that facilitate infiltration to groundwater, such as bioretention facilities planted 

with native, wet-tolerant plants (Davis, 2004; Fort Belvoir 2003). Groundwater withdrawal for 

potable water supply would not be adversely affected by the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

because, although an aquifer containing potentially potable groundwater is present below Fort 

Belvoir, it is not used for drinking water supply. In addition, the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

would not include installation or removal of any septic tanks. 

4.7.5.3 Water Resources Protection 

4.7.5.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term effects on water resources protection are presented in Section 4.7.5.1.1. 

4.7.5.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Short and long-term effects on water resources regulated under Chesapeake Bay, CZMA, and 

floodplain protection programs would be similar to those described in Section 4.7.2.3.2. Longterm minor adverse effects would be expected at the watershed scale; however, localized effects 

could be more pronounced. New construction would be expected to increase impervious surfaces 

in several subwatersheds. Approximately 46.9 acres of Chesapeake Bay RPAs would be affected 

by ten projects, and approximately 7.5 acres of floodplain would be affected by 2 projects, under 

the Satellite Campuses Alternative (Table 4.7-25 and Appendix J; Table J-2 provides impact 

acreages by project number, and project locations are indicated on Figures J-32 and J-36). 

Wetlands could also be affected under the Satellite Campuses Alternative. Effects on wetlands 

are further discussed in Section 4.8 (Biological Resources). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-257

Table 4.7-25 

Water resources potentially affected by projects proposed 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative (acres) 

North 

Post

Davison 

Army 

Airfield

South 

Post

Tompkins 

Basina Main 

Post EPG 

Infrastructureb

RPAs 6.5 30.8 < 0.1 6.9 44.3 2.6 

100-year floodplain 3.2 4.3 7.5 

Notes: 

Empty cells indicate the lack of potential impact to water resources in the Post area. 

a

 Tompkins Basin impacts are attributable solely to the MWR Family Travel Camp. b

 Infrastructure impacts are distributed among the North Post, South Post, and EPG. 

4.7.5.4 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs and mitigation measures would be similar to those discussed under the Preferred 

Alternative (Section 4.7.2.4). 

4.7.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

4.7.6.1 Surface Water Quality 

Storm water 

No effects on storm water quantity would be expected under the No Action Alternative. The 

percent of impervious surfaces for each subwatershed on Fort Belvoir would remain unchanged. 

The quantity of runoff to the surrounding receiving waterbodies would be expected to remain 

unchanged. The Army would continue to manage Fort Belvoir in accordance with the CWA, 

Virginia Stormwater Management Act, and act consistently with the Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Act, and other applicable laws, regulations, and Army Policy. 

Sediment 

No effects would be expected. Under the No Action Alternative, natural resources and land 

management programs would continue to maintain vegetative cover and erosion controls as 

required by federal, state, local, and Army regulations. Erosion problems on the installation 

would continue to be identified and remediated. 

Other Pollutants 

No effects would be expected. During the installation’s baseline aquatic survey of the five main 

perennial waterways, aluminum, manganese, and iron were detected. The USGS NAWQA 

station for the Potomac River Basin reported that it had high concentrations of nutrients and 

pesticides, although high levels were not found during the installation’s baseline aquatic survey. 

Existing levels of aluminum, manganese, iron, nutrients, and pesticides would remain unchanged 

under the No Action Alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-258

4.7.6.2 Groundwater Quality 

No effects on groundwater or sensitive seep communities would be expected. The groundwater 

system below Fort Belvoir is not used as a potable water supply. Effects from implementation of 

the proposed action on groundwater would not occur. 

4.7.6.3 Water Resources Protection 

Section 4.7.1.2 and Section 4.7.1.5 provide discussions of federal, state, and local regulations that 

help protect water resources on Fort Belvoir. 

Chesapeake Bay 

No effects would be expected. The Army would continue to manage Fort Belvoir in accordance 

with various Chesapeake Bay agreements as described in Section 4.7.1.5, as well as with federal, 

state, and local efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay. No RPAs would be disturbed under the No 

Action Alternative.

Coastal Zone Management Act 

No effects requiring a permit from the Commonwealth of Virginia regulatory programs pertinent 

to the CZMA would be expected. 

Floodplains 

No effects on floodplains would be expected under the No Action Alternative. 

4.7.6.4 BMPs/Mitigation 

Apart from existing mitigation in place, no mitigation measures would be implemented under the 

No Action Alternative. 

4.7.7 SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Regardless of the land use alternative selected, the BRAC action would have minor short- and 

long-term adverse effects on water resources at the watershed scale, with localized effects that 

could be more pronounced during the implementation of proposed changes. Each alternative 

would have varying effects due to the siting of each of the agencies affected by the BRAC action. 

For example, the Preferred Alternative’s land use plan concentrates most of the new development 

onto EPG with some increases to South Post. The Town Center Alternative’s land use plan 

places all development on Main Post, on either side of Route 1. Thus, the effects on water 

resources caused by the new developments would vary to some degree by location. 

Effects on water resources resulting from the BRAC action relate to the potential for increases in 

storm water runoff, associated physical effects, and associated pollutants from land disturbance 

activities. These effects would be expected to occur during construction activities and their 

associated land disturbance as well as for a longer term as a result of increased impervious 

surfaces because of development. As summarized in Table 4.7-26, the number of acres of 

increased high- and medium-intensity development would be greatest under the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative (447 acres) as compared with increases of about 348 acres under the 

Preferred Alternative, about 202 acres under the Town Center Alternative, and about 259 acres 

under the City Center Alternative. Correspondingly, the amount of land area expected to be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-259

converted from pervious to impervious surface is greatest under the Satellite Campuses 

Alternative (207 acres), as compared with increases of about 183 acres under the Preferred 

Alternative, about 142 acres under the Town Center Alternative, and about 131 acres under the 

City Center Alternative. Similarly, the Satellite Campuses Alternative would be expected to 

result in the greatest disturbance to Chesapeake Bay RPAs (46.9 acres), compared with 12 acres 

under the Preferred Alternative, 12.6 acres under the City Center Alternative, and 14.4 acres of 

disturbed RPAs under the Town Center Alternative. The Preferred and City Center alternatives 

would be expected to disturb the greatest amount of floodplain area (about 8.4 acres), compared 

with 7.4 acres under the Satellite Campuses Alternative and 4.3 acres under the Town Center 

Alternative. The greatest potential expected increases in TN and TP pollutant loading to surface 

waters would be expected to occur under the Preferred Alternative and the City Center 

Alternative, with five subwatersheds expecting to increase their loads by more than 10 percent. 

This compares with an expected increase of more than 10 percent in only one subwatershed under 

both the Town Center Alternative and the Satellite Campuses Alternative. Refer to Section 4.7.2 

for a description of the methodology and assumptions used for the storm water and pollutant 

loading analyses. 

Table 4.7-26 

Summary of effects of BRAC implementation on water resources 

Alternative 

Acreage 

increase in 

high- and 

mediumintensity 

developmenta

Acreage 

converted to 

impervious 

surfacesa

Number of 

watersheds 

with a > 10 

percent 

increase in 

total nitrogen 

Number of 

watersheds 

with a > 10 

percent 

increase in 

total 

phosphorous 

Acreage of 

RPAs 

affected 

Acreage of 

floodplains 

affected 

Preferred 348 183 5 5 12 8.4 

Town 

Center 202 142 1 1 14.4 4.3 

City Center 259 131 5 5 12.6 8.4 

Satellite 

Campuses 447 207 1 1 46.9 7.4 

a Acreages in this column do not represent total disturbed acreages; rather, they represent acreages converted from 

undeveloped to high- and medium-intensity development. Some project areas that are already developed are not included 

in this column. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-260

4.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Fort Belvoir is in an ecologically complex area where three ecological subregions converge. The 

Outer Piedmont subregion of the Piedmont Plateau lies west of the installation, the western edge 

of the Coastal Plain ecoregion lies east of the installation, and the southern extent of the Upper 

Atlantic Coastal Plain subregion of the Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic) ecoregion lies to the 

north. Fort Belvoir also occupies an important location for many species of birds. The Atlantic 

Flyway, a major North American bird migration route, passes to the east along the Atlantic Ocean 

coast, and a principal migratory route from the southeastern Great Lakes region connects to the 

Atlantic Flyway along the Delaware River corridor. Northeast of Fort Belvoir is the Huntley 

Meadows Park, which is adjacent to the Jackson Miles Abbott Wetland Refuge (JMAWR) on 

Fort Belvoir (Figure 4.8-1). The Accotink Bay Wildlife Refuge (ABWR) borders Accotink Bay 

on the Southwest Area and South Post of the installation. The ABWR contains foraging habitat 

for the state-threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), the federally 

threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), habitat for the state-threatened North American 

wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta), and Partners in Flight (PIF) priority bird species habitat. 

Huntley Meadows Park also has a population of wood turtles. A Forest and Wildlife Corridor 

extends from the installation’s boundary with the Huntley Meadows Park to the installation’s 

Southwest Area. The corridor provides a connection between the two refuges. Together, the 

JMAWR, the ABWR, and the Forest and Wildlife Corridor are Fort Belvoir’s three designated 

Special Natural Areas (SNA), all of which are protected from development so that the ecological 

integrity of the areas is maintained. 

EPG also has habitat for PIF species, and it is the only location in Fairfax County where the 

federally and state-listed species, the small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) has been found 

(WSSI, 2005a; 2006). On EPG, Fairfax County’s Comprehensive Plan recommends for 

preserving and protecting the Accotink Creek Environmental Quality Corridor (EQC) from 

development. The Environmental Quality Corridor System, as defined by the Fairfax County 

Comprehensive Plan, is an open space system designed to link and preserve natural resource 

areas and provide passive recreation. The EQC policy recommends protection and restoration of 

environmentally sensitive lands, including 100-year floodplains, steep slopes (gradients of 15 

percent or greater) in stream valleys, wetlands connected to the stream valleys, minimum buffer 

areas, and upland habitats that augment the habitats and buffers provided by stream valleys 

(Fairfax County, 2003). 

EQC protection and enhancement is not a regulation but a policy that is triggered when the 

county has a development review (though federal projects do not go through development 

review). 

As a consequence, management of the biological resources of Fort Belvoir requires consideration 

of migrating birds, threatened and endangered species, rare species and habitats, and both 

terrestrial and aquatic species and habitats. This section provides descriptions of the biological 

resources of the installation that are pertinent to the proposed action analyzed in this EIS. The 

2001 Fort Belvoir INRMP (Horne, 2001) contains detailed descriptions and information about the 

biological resources of Fort Belvoir, and it is incorporated by reference into this EIS. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-262

 4.8.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.8.1.1 Plant Communities 

Main Post. Fifteen native plant community types have been identified on the undeveloped parts 

of Fort Belvoir’s Main Post. Table 4.8-1 lists the plant communities in order of their abundance 

and provides information about the general distribution of the community types. Land cover on 

the Main Post is shown in Figure 4.2-2. Three types of hardwood forest, each with nearly 1,000 

acres or more, are the most abundant natural plant communities. Some of the communities, such 

as the Oak/Ericad Forest, occur as relatively large, contiguous areas, while others occur as 

smaller areas intermixed with other community types. A few plant communities have been 

planted (loblolly pine, white pine), while the majority occur according to natural constraints of 

soil type, topography, and moisture. The intermixing of habitats is an important natural aspect 

that is partially responsible for the richness of the biotic resources that occur on the installation. 

EPG. Table 4.8-1 lists the acreages of plant communities at EPG. A vegetation survey of EPG 

conducted in 1999 identified 12 plant community types on EPG (Paciulli, Simmons & Associates, 

Ltd., 1999; Tetra Tech, 2006a). Oak forests, the most common plant community type on EPG, 

occur primarily on the steep slopes abutting Accotink Creek and its tributaries. Beech/mixed oak 

forest occurs on gradual ravine slopes adjoining Accotink Creek, and tulip poplar/mixed hardwood 

Table 4.8-1 

Plant communities of Fort Belvoir 

Acreage 

Plant community 

Main 

Post EPG Distribution 

Oak/Ericad (Heath family) forest 1,253 227 Upland areas of gravelly ridges and dry slopes 

Beech mixed oak forest 1,146 12 Upland areas of gradual, well-drained ravine 

slopes 

Tulip poplar mixed hardwood forest 987 75 Moist, fertile ravine slopes and ravine bottoms 

Virginia pine forests 425 185 Previously-disturbed areas in mid-succession 

Poorly drained floodplain hardwood 

forest 422 13 Somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained floodplain bottomlands and sloughs 

Loblolly pine forest 245 11 Planted stands 

Old field grassland 233 53 Previously disturbed areas in early 

successional stages 

Mixed pine hardwood forest 196 49 Previously disturbed areas in late succession 

Moderately well-drained floodplain 

hardwood forest 173 40 Moderately well-drained to somewhat poorlydrained floodplain bottomland 

Nontidal marsh/beaver pond 131 3 Above tidal limits of Accotink, Pohick, and 

Dogue Creeks 

Tidal marsh 96 0 

Shallow tidal areas of Accotink and Pohick 

Creeks and at the mouths of several small 

streams 

Freshwater tidal swamp forest 45 0 Tidally influenced palustrine areas 

Seep forest 39 1 Groundwater-saturated flats and slopes 

Tidal scrub/shrub wetland 16 0 Edges of tidal swamp forests near the transition 

to tidal marsh 

White pine forest 6 0 Planted stands 

Sources: Horne 2001; Paciulli, Simmons & Associates, Ltd. 1999; Tetra Tech, 2006a. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-263

forest is found on moist fertile ravine slopes and in ravine bottoms; substantial areas of tulip 

poplar/mixed hardwood forest occur in the western and southern areas of EPG. Most land near 

the outer perimeter of Heller Loop and on the former airstrip north of the loop supports dense, 

nearly pure stands of Virginia pine saplings. Mixed stands of Virginia pine and upland hardwoods 

occupy areas outside the Heller Loop and in the western part of EPG. Most old-field grassland is 

on the former training ranges in the western part of EPG, but some open areas in Heller Loop still 

support grassland that has not yet been encroached upon by Virginia pine. Floodplain hardwood 

forest occurs primarily in narrow strips of low land separating the banks of Accotink Creek from 

the toe of steep slopes to the east and west in the central part of EPG. 

GSA Parcel. The GSA parcel is nearly entirely developed except for the occasional landscaping 

features, and it supports no natural vegetative communities. 

4.8.1.2 Wetlands 

Main Post. Baseline wetland inventories have identified approximately 1,245 acres of wetlands 

on Fort Belvoir’s Main Post, which is approximately 12 percent of the land area (Table 4.8-2). 

The predominant wetland type on Fort Belvoir is palustrine forested, which tends to occur in 

association with the riparian areas of Accotink, Dogue, and Pohick creeks. Wetlands generally 

occur along the permanent and intermittent streams that are drainages of these creeks. 

EPG. EPG supports approximately 27 acres of wetlands. Table 4.8-2 lists the acreages of 

wetlands at EPG. As on the Main Post, wetlands on EPG generally occur along permanent and 

intermittent streams associated with Accotink Creek. EPG wetlands provide for flood flow 

alteration, sediment and shoreline stabilization, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities. The 

preservation of adjoining forested slopes and stream channels are important to the continuation of 

these wetland functions. 

GSA Parcel. No wetlands are present on the GSA Parcel (Secretary of the Army, 2007). 

Table 4.8-2 

Wetlands of Fort Belvoir 

Wetland type 

Main Post 

acreage 

EPG 

acreage 

Palustrine emergent 141.9 0.1 

Palustrine forested 855.6 10.8 

Palustrine open water 31.9 0.2 

Palustrine scrub-shrub 0.1 0.1 

Riverine tidal 165.4 0.0 

Riverine, lower perennial, open water, permanent-tidal 23.7 7.2 

Riverine emergent, permanently flooded 26.5 1.4 

Other riverine (EPG only) N/A 5.7 

Non-jurisdicitional (EPG only) N/A 1.5 

TOTAL 1,245.1 27.0 

Sources: Horne, 2001; USACE, 2007. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-264

4.8.1.3 Rare Plant Communities 

Main Post. A recent ecological communities assessment identified 17 community types on Fort 

Belvoir Main Post. Four of the communities are ranked very rare or extremely rare, and three are 

ranked as rare to uncommon. The rare communities are listed below. 

• Tidal Freshwater Marsh: Spikerush—Golden-club: extremely rare 

• Tidal Freshwater Marsh—Mixed: extremely rare 

• Coastal Plain/Piedmont Acidic Seepage Swamp: very rare 

• Tidal Shrub Swamp: very rare 

• Tidal Freshwater Marsh—Wild Rice-Smartweed: rare to uncommon 

• Tidal Freshwater Marsh—Mud Flat: rare to uncommon 

• Tidal Hardwood Swamp: rare to uncommon 

Marsh and swamp areas act as natural filters and sediment traps and absorb flood waters. They 

also provide vital ecological functions that are critical to several wetland-dependent animal and 

plant species. Many human activities—such as agriculture, urbanization, and forestry—can affect 

these areas and reduce the ecological functions that they provide. 

The most significant threat to the communities arises from invasive and exotic species. Wetlands 

are also vulnerable to storm water-related problems (e.g., sedimentation), which could be 

exacerbated by development near watercourses when adequate mitigation is not used. 

The Potomac River in the vicinity of the Main Post contains shallow water that is habitat for 

various types of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). SAV includes both marine angiosperms 

(true sea grasses) and freshwater macrophytes, which are typically found in shallow waters with 

depths of 10 feet or less (VIMS, 2007). SAV contribute to the health of estuary systems by 

providing habitat for many fish and shellfish species, creating food for waterfowl, erosion control, 

and absorbing excess nutrients. A dramatic baywide decline of all SAV species in the late 1960s 

and 1970s was correlated with increasing nutrient and sediment inputs from development of the 

surrounding watersheds. Through recent restoration and mitigation, SAV populations have begun 

to rebound (MDNR, 2007). 

EPG. An ecological communities survey performed on EPG did not identify any of the 

communities listed above, primarily because EPG is outside the tidal zone (Tetra Tech, 2006a). 

Therefore apart from small whorled pogonia habitat, no rare plant communities have been 

identified on EPG. Rare or protected species supported on EPG are discussed in Section 4.8.1.5. 

GSA Parcel. No rare plant communities are known to exist on the GSA Parcel. 

4.8.1.4 Animals 

4.8.1.4.1 Mammals 

Main Post. A series of baseline small mammal field surveys that covered representative areas of 

all habitat types on-post was conducted from 1987 through 1994. Mammal surveys have given 

the installation a good idea of the mammal species on the installation. The surveys provided 

general information regarding the abundance and habitat usage of each species on-post, but not 

population levels and trends. Forty-three species—those typical of what would be expected for 

the habitat mix and abundance of the installation—have been identified as occurring or potentially occurring on Fort Belvoir. Within the mix of species are those that could be found in a variety 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-265

of habitats (e.g., the northern short-tailed shrew [Blarina brevicauda]), and those that prefer 

habitat types that the installation provides (e.g., the woodland vole [Microtus pinetorum] in 

undisturbed mature forest and the meadow vole [Microtus pennsylvanicus] of grassy old fields). 

Some mammal species present management concerns. Beaver (Castor canadensis) can 

significantly alter habitat conditions through tree removal and dam building, and their 

impoundments can be responsible for the presence of extensive areas of palustrine wetland along 

Dogue Creek and within drainages to Accotink and Pohick Creeks. The river otter (Lutra 

canadensis) is a state species of concern and a management concern because of habitat loss and 

water pollution, which are the major threats to the species’ survival. River otter have not been 

seen frequently on Fort Belvoir, though there is some evidence that their abundance is increasing 

along Fort Belvoir waterways. White-tailed deer (Odocoilus virginiana) is the installation’s 

largest mammal and it is found throughout the installation in nearly all habitats. The population is 

dense, which is of concern to management because of the potential for disease in the herd, habitat 

loss through overbrowsing, and the increased chance of collisions with vehicles. 

EPG. A wildlife survey was conducted on EPG in 2006. Mammals at EPG were described as 

consisting predominantly of white-tailed deer, Virginia opossums (Didelphis marsupialis), and 

gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) (Tetra Tech, 2006b; USATHAMA, 1990). The brushy, open 

areas surrounding the abandoned Heller Loop buildings might have recently provided habitat for 

grassland species, but establishment and growth of Virginia pine trees has converted much of this 

area to habitat for mammal species favoring old fields such as eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus 

floridanus), field mice (Peromyscus sp.), opossums, and groundhogs (Marmota monax). Acorns 

from the dominant oaks in hardwood and mixed-hardwood forests provide a food source for 

mammals such as gray squirrels, whose diets depend on mast (heavy nutlike seeds). 

4.8.1.4.2 Birds 

Main Post. Bird surveys are conducted on the installation annually, and those surveys have 

identified 275 bird species including resident, temperate migrant, and neotropical migrants. 

Ninety-nine species are common or abundant on the installation during the seasons when they 

occur on-post, indicating that the mix of habitats on the installation and the extensive areas of 

natural habitat provide suitable habitat for many bird species. Habitat features on Fort Belvoir 

that support so many bird species include the large, contiguous areas of undeveloped land; the 

variety of ecological communities; and abundance of food sources (e.g., insects, seeds, berries, 

aquatic invertebrates). 

Bird species of management concern include those considered by the VDCR-NHP to be rare in 

Virginia and the PIF priority species for conservation that exist on Fort Belvoir. Fort Belvoir’s 

ENRD intends to actively preserve and enhance habitat for some of these species, and it is in the 

process of preparing a Bird Conservation Plan for the installation. The PIF program is discussed 

above. High-priority PIF species that have been known to breed on Fort Belvoir include the 

American black duck (Anas rubripes), American woodcock (Philohela minor), whip-poor-will 

(Caprimulgus vociferus), yellow-throated vireo (Vireo flavifrons), wood thrush (Hylocichla 

mustelina), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor), worm-eating 

warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), Kentucky warbler 

(Opororins formosus), scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea), and field sparrow (Spizella pusilla). 

The brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) is a nest parasite that poses a significant threat to 

nesting migrants, including several of the PIF priority species breeding on Fort Belvoir. It occurs 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-266

throughout the installation and extends into all forest tracts on-post. Cowbirds benefit from 

habitat fragmentation. Installation bird surveys have recommended minimizing fragmentation to 

control cowbird intrusion into the installation’s forest tracts and to protect vulnerable migratory 

bird species from nest predation. 

EPG. Information on birds at EPG includes that from annual bird surveys and observations of 

PIF species. Data through the 2006 PIF species observations were available for incorporation into 

the EIS. Additionally, other bird surveys have been conducted in nearby similar habitats. The 

Fairfax Audubon Society reported numerous bird species in forested land in nearby Wakefield 

Park, on Accotink Creek upstream of EPG, in 1998 and 1999, including many species of warbler, 

Philadelphia vireo (Vireo philadelphicus), black-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus), 

Lincoln’s sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii), sedge wren (Cistothorus platensis), sora (Porzana 

carolina), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) (Collins, 2000). The forest clearings associated with former training ranges west 

of Accotink Creek appear to provide good habitat for bird species favoring grassland and old field 

habitats such as the prairie warbler and field sparrow. The oak-heath forest and other mature 

upland forests on the slopes adjoining Accotink Creek provide good habitat for bird species 

favoring forest interior habitat such as cerulean warblers (Dendroica cerulea), American redstarts 

(Setophaga ruticilla), hooded warblers, red-eyed vireos (Vireo olivaceus), ovenbirds (Seiurus 

aurocapillus), wood thrushes, scarlet tanagers, and pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus). 

Establishment and growth of Virginia pine seedlings has converted much of the brushy, open 

areas surrounding Heller Loop buildings to habitat for species favoring old fields such as 

mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos), American 

robins (Turdus migratorius), and brown thrashers (Toxostoma rufum). The dense Virginia pine 

saplings around the perimeter of Heller Loop and other scattered locations on EPG might provide 

some of the best habitat in the region for species favoring coniferous forests, such as Carolina 

wrens (Thryothorus ludovicianus), red-breasted nuthatches (Sitta canadensis), prairie warblers, 

and field sparrows. 

4.8.1.4.3 Reptiles 

Main Post. Numerous field surveys of reptile species have been conducted on Fort Belvoir, 

providing data on those species that either occur or are potentially occurring on the installation, 

although not on their individual abundances or distributions. Thirty-two species of reptiles have 

been identified as occurring or likely to occur on Fort Belvoir, including 10 species of turtle, 18 

species of snake, and 4 species of lizard. All the species are typical of the northern Virginia, 

upper-Coastal Plain, although several are at the limits of their ranges (e.g., the North American 

wood turtle, more on which is given in Section 4.8.1.5.1). The 10 species of turtles occur in 

association with shallow, slow-moving waters with mud bottoms. The most common turtle onpost is the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). The snake species occur in all habitat types at 

Fort Belvoir, including aquatic species such as the northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon). The 

only venomous snake endemic to Fort Belvoir is the copperhead (Agkistrodon contortix), which 

occurs in moist deciduous/mixed woods. Three of the four lizard species occur in mesic, 

deciduous, or deciduous/mixed woods; the fourth occupies dry, open areas. 

EPG. The upland and wetland habitats on EPG provide good habitat for many reptile species. 

The former ranges and the old-field habitat provide good habitat for snakes common to brushy 

upland areas such as eastern garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis), and black racers (Coluber 

constrictor constrictor), and for turtles common to upland areas, such as the eastern box turtle 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-267

(Terrapene carolina carolina). The dry, rocky slopes adjoining Accotink Creek and the remains 

of abandoned buildings might provide habitat for copperheads. 

4.8.1.4.4 Amphibians 

Main Post. Twenty-seven amphibian species have been identified as occurring or potentially 

occurring on Fort Belvoir, including 11 species of frog, 3 species of toad, and 13 species of 

salamander. They are all typical of the northern Virginia, upper-Coastal Plain, and several are at 

the limits of their range. The varied aquatic and terrestrial habitats on the installation, including 

the wetland areas, wooded drainage areas, and ephemeral ponds, provide extensive areas of 

suitable amphibian habitat. Development, loss of cover, loss of surface waters, habitat 

fragmentation, and disruption of natural travel corridors are threats to the amphibian populations 

on the installation. 

EPG. The small and narrow areas of wetlands on EPG adjoining Accotink Creek and its 

tributaries provide favorable habitat for amphibians such as spring peepers (Pseudacris crucifer), 

chorus frogs (Pseudacris sp.), American toads (Bufo americanus), Fowler’s toads (Bufo 

woodhousii fowleri), and bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). The EPG wetlands are surrounded by 

undeveloped forested uplands, making them better amphibian habitat than wetlands outside EPG 

that lie in close proximity to developed areas. 

4.8.1.5 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species 

Main Post. Fort Belvoir supports habitat for the federally listed bald eagle and small whorled 

pogonia. Additionally, inventories conducted by VDCR-NHP identified seven Virginia state rare 

animal species and four Virginia state rare plant species on the installation. The inventory also 

identified 16 state watchlist animal species and 3 state watchlist plant species on Fort Belvoir. 

Each of these species was documented as occurring in aquatic or wetland habitats on Fort 

Belvoir. Numerous other species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians that have been 

documented as occurring on the installation and that have been designated as a Virginia state-rare 

species with a state rarity rank of S1 (critically imperiled), S2 (imperiled), or S3 (vulnerable). 

Figure 4.8-2 depicts the locations of habitats on Fort Belvoir. A complete listing of rare species 

can be found in the Fort Belvoir INRMP. Fort Belvoir’s location at the intersection of three 

ecoregion subtypes and the variety of habitats that its location, topography, and water resources 

provide, as well as the protection afforded to the land by the military presence in an otherwise 

rapidly-developing area, make it possible for these species to exist on the installation. 

EPG. The inventories mentioned above include EPG. Only two rare or protected species are 

considered to occur or potentially occur on EPG. Details are provided below. 

GSA Parcel. No rare or protected species are known to exist on the GSA Parcel. 

4.8.1.5.1 Wood Turtle 

Main Post. The North American wood turtle, a state-listed threatened species, has been observed 

at Fort Belvoir at various locations along the Dogue Creek and Accotink Creek drainages, which 

indicates an on-post population and that the wooded streams of the installation provide habitat for 

the species. The species occurs in a relatively small area of eastern Canada and the northeastern 

United States. Its geographic range extends from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick south to 

northern Virginia and west to eastern Minnesota. At Fort Belvoir, the species is near the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-269

southeastern extent of its range. Within its range, the turtle is generally uncommon to rare 

(Harding, 2002). Wood turtles are generally found near moving water, though they would use 

areas at considerable distances from water, and in some places they appear to use riparian woods, 

shrub or berry thickets, swamps, and open, grassy areas. Some unvegetated or sparsely vegetated 

patches are needed for nesting. The turtles use stream valleys as dispersal corridors. Wood turtles 

are a conservation concern because their populations have been depleted from collecting for the 

pet trade and habitat destruction. A naturally low reproductive rate and continued habitat loss 

keep turtle populations from recovering. 

EPG. An installation-wide field survey for wood turtles was performed for Fort Belvoir, 

including EPG, from April to June in 2002 (Paciulli, Simmons, and Associates, Ltd., and Mitchell 

Ecological Research, LLC, 2002). The survey included 8 days of visual encounter survey work 

and 46 days of turtle trapping activities along Accotink Creek, including the reach crossing EPG. 

No wood turtles were found. The survey noted that some areas on Accotink Creek within EPG 

possess physical characteristics similar to suitable wood turtle habitat in more rural settings, but it 

concluded that those areas are not optimal wood turtle habitat because of the narrow floodplain, 

presence of exotic riparian vegetation, and runoff from dense, upstream development. 

4.8.1.5.2 Bald Eagle 

Main Post. The bald eagle is listed federally and in Virginia as threatened. Fort Belvoir has 

active nests and designated bald eagle habitat and nest buffer areas on the southeastern part of the 

Southwest Area and along Dogue Creek on the South Post. Bald eagles require nest trees, roosts, 

and feeding grounds. The installation shoreline along Pohick Creek, Pohick Bay, Accotink Bay, 

Accotink Creek, Gunston Cove, the Potomac River, and Dogue Creek is designated as foraging 

and resting habitat for the birds and is used year-round by bald eagles. Bald eagles also forage in 

the JMAWR. The shoreline extending from Pohick Creek and around Accotink Creek within the 

ABWR is a high-use foraging area where eagle activity is concentrated in the winter. Bald eagles 

feed primarily on fish, though they also take small mammals, seabirds, and waterfowl, and they 

are opportunistic in that they steal the prey of other animals (Harris, 2002). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries (VDGIF) developed general guidelines for the protection of bald eagles (USFWS and 

VDGIF 2000). The guidelines establish buffer zones around eagle nests and activity areas and 

state what activities are acceptable within those buffer zones. A bald eagle Primary Management 

Zone extends for 750 feet around an occupied nest. Activities within this zone that should not 

occur at any time include land clearing, clear cutting, mining, and other habitat modification 

activities; and development of structures, power lines, roads, trails, or any other construction 

activity. Activities that should not occur during the breeding/nesting season around an occupied 

nest (December 15–July 15), include maintenance of existing buildings and roads; use of 

motorized vehicles and heavy equipment; and human entry and activities, including recreational 

activities. A Secondary Management Zone extends from 750 feet to 1,320 feet around the nest. 

Activities that should generally not occur within this zone at any time include construction of 

multi-story buildings (though construction of single story, low-density residential houses may be 

acceptable). Activities that should not occur in the Secondary Management Zone during the 

breeding/nesting season, include construction activities and loud recreational activities. 

VDGIF/USFWS should be consulted for any activities proposed in bald eagle nesting and activity 

areas to ensure compliance with the guidelines and minimal disturbance of the birds. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-270

EPG. As noted above, the Fairfax Audubon Society reported sighting bald eagles in forested land 

on Accotink Creek upstream of EPG. The creek can provide habitat for bald eagles where it 

passes through EPG. Bald eagles historically nested on EPG in the Accotink Creek riparian 

corridor. 

4.8.1.5.3 American Peregrine Falcon 

Main Post. The American peregrine falcon is a state-listed threatened species that also occurs 

seasonally at Fort Belvoir but is not considered a resident species. Falcons forage along the 

Accotink Creek/Accotink Bay stream corridor and JMAWR during fall migration. 

EPG. The peregrine falcon has been recorded on the Main Post during migration, when the birds 

take advantage of foraging habitat along the Accotink Creek corridor (U.S. Army, 2001). The 

Accotink Creek corridor crosses the central part of EPG, and the species can occur transiently on 

EPG, especially in trees on the forested slopes. 

4.8.1.5.4 Small Whorled Pogonia 

Main Post. The small whorled pogonia, a perennial terrestrial orchid, is a federally listed 

threatened species and Virginia state-listed endangered species. Although it has not been recorded 

on the Main Post, USFWS considers the installation to possess potential habitat for this species. 

The species is generally known from open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil (USFWS, 1996). 

Surveys for rare plant species have been conducted on Fort Belvoir (the first surveys were 

conducted in the mid-1990s), including on the proposed sites for the PX expansion, INSCOM 

Information Dominance Center, and DCEETA T-Block on the North Post, as well as the Grays 

Hill area. No small whorled pogonias were found during the surveys (Bedker, 2005; WSSI, 

2005b). 

EPG. The small whorled pogonia was observed in the summer of 2005 on steep, oak-dominated 

forested slopes on a first order tributary of Accotink Creek in the southwestern part of EPG. EPG 

is the only location in Fairfax County where the species has been found. Areas of EPG that have 

been rated as high-, medium-, and low-quality habitat for the small whorled pogonia are along the 

western and southern boundaries of EPG. The plant is herbaceous and orchid-like and typically 

occurs in oak-dominated upland hardwood forests with a relatively open understory and sparse 

groundcover or in shaded openings in mixed hardwood-pine woods (WSSI, 2005a; 2006). 

4.8.1.5.5 Northern Virginia Well Amphipod 

Main Post. The northern Virginia well amphipod (Stygobromus phreaticus) is a federal species 

of concern, is under consideration by the USFWS for listing under the ESA, and is listed by 

Virginia as extremely rare; it is considered to be globally rare. It is a shrimp-like crustacean that 

lives in groundwater. It has been found in T-17 training area ravine seeps on the South Post 

(VDGIF, 2002), and the T-17 training area is the only location where the species has been 

documented to occur (Culver, personal communication, 2007; Hobson, personal communication, 

2007). 

EPG. The northern Virginia well amphipod is not known to occur on EPG. Seep habitat suitable 

to the species occurs on EPG in the Accotink Creek riparian corridor, and specimens of the genus 

Stygobromus have been found in the seeps. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-271

4.8.1.5.6 Shortnose Sturgeon 

Main Post. The only fish identified in the Fort Belvoir region that has federal or state threatened 

or endangered designation is the federally endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum), which has been documented in the Potomac River in recent years (FHWA, 2003). 

According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the farthest north on the Potomac 

River that the shortnose sturgeon has been sighted is approximately 25 miles south of the 

installation (Mangold, 2005). Between 1998 and 2004, seven shortnose sturgeon were captured in 

the Potomac River as a result of the USFWS Atlantic Sturgeon Reward Program (FHWA, 2003; 

Mangold, 2005), and a prespawning female was captured at Craney Island in September 2005. 

While sturgeon populations were abundant and stable in the past, overfishing depleted local 

stocks in the late 19th century, and the remnant population in the Chesapeake Bay estuary is 

small (Secor, 2002). NMFS developed a Fisheries recovery plan in 1998 indicating that shortnose 

sturgeon found in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries (including the Potomac River) are 

considered part of the Chesapeake Bay distinct population segment. A Fisheries Recovery Plan 

aims to restore the species to its historic range in the Potomac River. 

The shortnose sturgeon is an anadromous bony fish. Anadromous fish travel from saline waters 

into fresh waters to spawn. Shortnose sturgeon of the Chesapeake Bay spend much of their life in 

slow-moving tidal rivers of the bay or in nearshore marine waters and spawn in upstream fresh 

waters. Anadromous Fish Use Areas of the Chesapeake Bay area include Accotink Creek, Dogue 

Creek, Pohick Creek, and the Potomac River. Anadromous fish are particularly sensitive to 

sedimentation and noise, and activities that lead to these impacts can adversely affect the species’ 

ability to migrate through and spawn in fresh waters. 

EPG. EPG does not support habitat for the shortnose sturgeon. 

4.8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

4.8.2.1 Vegetation 

4.8.2.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on vegetation would be expected. All areas designated as 

Environmentally Sensitive or Outdoor Recreation under the 1993 land use plan—the land use 

areas of most concern to natural resource management—would be redesignated under the 

Preferred Alternative, as listed in Table 4.8-3. Note, however, that the three SNAs on the Main 

Post (the JMAWR, the ABWR, and the Forest and Wildlife Corridor) are protected from 

development regardless of their land use designation in the Fort Belvoir Master Plan. 

While changes in land use designation alone would not have consequences for vegetation, areas 

previously designated as Environmentally Sensitive or Outdoor Recreation could potentially be 

used for purposes incompatible with natural resources management goals under the new land use 

designations. For instance, the Community land use designation under the Preferred Alternative 

land use plan is the land use designation for outdoor recreation areas and buffer areas, but the 

Community land use designation also includes use for retail stores, libraries, PX, clubs, and town 

centers. Areas designated Outdoor Recreation or Environmentally Sensitive under the 1993 land 

use plan (except for the SNAs), if changed to Community, might remain as outdoor recreation 

areas or environmentally protected buffer areas but could be used for purposes less protective of 

natural vegetation. Other land use designation changes from the 1993 land use plan to the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-272

Table 4.8-3 

Environmentally sensitive and outdoor recreation land use designation changes 

under the Preferred Alternative land use plan 

1993 land use designations and 

Preferred Alternative land use designations 

General area of Post 

1993 Environmentally 

Sensitive land use 

designation changed to: 

1993 Outdoor Recreation, 

land use designation 

changed to: 

EPG n/a n/a 

Davison Army Airfield (West of 

Fairfax County Parkway) 

Airfield Airfield 

Central and Western Southwest 

area 

Training n/a 

Eastern Southwest area 

(bordering Accotink Creek) 

Community n/a 

Fort Belvoir North Post Golf 

Course (north of Kingman Road 

and west of HEC) 

Community Community 

Northeast North Post and North 

Post areas near Route 1 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Training, Residential 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community 

South Post bordering Accotink 

Bay 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community 

Community 

South Post golf course n/a Professional/Institutional, 

Community 

South Post Eastern and 

Southern areas 

n/a Community, Residential 

 

Preferred Alternative land use plan that could create vegetation management issues similar to the 

above example are discussed below. 

• Environmentally Sensitive redesignated as Range/Training. Range/Training land use 

includes use of land for ranges, maneuver areas, and vehicle maneuver areas. While areas 

designated as Environmentally Sensitive in the land use plan have always been operational 

training areas or closed training areas, the redesignation as Range/Training could be less 

protective of natural vegetation than a specific Environmentally Sensitive land use 

designation. 

• Environmentally Sensitive or Outdoor Recreation redesignated as Professional/ 

Institutional or Residential. Professional/Institutional and Residential land use designations 

support development. Development could be designed to protect natural vegetation, but 

some vegetation clearing and effects to vegetative community functioning would result 

from any development in a previously undeveloped area. Development in an 

environmentally sensitive area would be expected to have a level of adverse consequence 

on vegetation. 

• Environmentally Sensitive or Outdoor Recreation redesignated as Airfield. This land use 

designation change would probably be of the least concern on Fort Belvoir. Areas 

surrounding Davison Army Airfield that are currently designated as Environmentally 

Sensitive and Outdoor Recreation serve as safety and noise buffer areas between other land 

use areas and the airfield where constraints on development would still be necessary. It 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-273

would be anticipated that these buffer areas would continue to be necessary and protected 

under the Preferred Alternative land use plan. 

Changes in the land use designation of areas adjoining Environmentally Sensitive and Outdoor 

Recreation areas would not have an effect on vegetation. Areas with all other land use 

designations under the 1993 land use plan currently adjoin Environmentally Sensitive and 

Outdoor Recreation areas and are therefore subject to development. The situation would not 

change under the Preferred Alternative land use plan. 

4.8.2.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on vegetation would be expected. Areas of the Main Post 

that would be disturbed by the construction are largely not within areas specifically managed for 

natural resources conservation, such as the Forest and Wildlife Corridor. The estimated 495 acres 

of project footprints under the Preferred Alternative includes approximately 310 acres of 

vegetated land, and approximately 34 acres of the vegetated land would be on the Main Post. All 

but one acre of the vegetated land in proposed project footprints on the Main Post would be on 

the South Post (which in Table 4.8-4 includes the South Post and Tompkins Basin). Tompkins 

Basin is the proposed location of the MWR Family Travel Camp. Though the proposed camp 

contains 19 acres of vegetated land in its footprint, much of that footprint would not be disturbed 

for development of the camp. The area proposed for development on EPG under the Preferred 

Alternative includes almost 200 acres of vegetated land (Table 4.8-4). An additional 78 acres of 

vegetated land on the Main Post and EPG would be disturbed by infrastructure (road and utility) 

construction and expansion. Table 4.8-4 identifies the types of vegetative communities that lie 

within proposed project footprints under the Preferred Alternative and the maximum estimated 

impact on those communities. 

Sensitive vegetative community types that occur within proposed project footprints include 

floodplain hardwood forest, of which half an acre lies within project footprints on the Main Post, 

and tidal marsh, of which 0.7 acre occurs within the proposed boundary of the MWR Family 

Travel Camp. 

The large amount of development associated with the Preferred Alternative would require the 

conversion of much vegetated area on the Main Post and EPG to developed areas, would increase 

habitat fragmentation and reduce habitat connectivity, would be expected to increase the 

occurrence of invasive species in fragmented habitats, and could reduce the overall ecological 

integrity of the installation’s natural habitats. Implementation of BRAC at Fort Belvoir would 

further reduce the quantities of a variety of vegetative communities in a region that has already 

lost a large quantity of its natural landscape: Fairfax County, once nearly 95 percent forested, had 

tree cover of 50 percent or more on less than one third of its land in 1999 (Lammers and Knapp 

1999). Fort Belvoir would compensate for losses of forested areas, to the extent practicable, by 

adherence to the tree replacement policy in its INRMP, which calls for a two-to-one replacement 

for trees cut for development. 

Fort Belvoir’s shoreline along the Potomac River contains shallow water that is habitat for 

various types of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Table 4.7-9 lists five subwatersheds on 

Fort Belvoir that would carry at least 10 percent greater loads of nitrogen and phosphorus 

nutrients into the Potomac River due to the proposed action and adversely affect SAV habitat of 

the SAV. Nutrient loadings of nitrogen and phosphorus to the watersheds have biological 

impacts on submerged aquatic vegetation. Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus 

increase the growth of algae in the water column. Large amounts of algae cloud the water 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-274

Table 4.8-4 

Vegetative community types potentially impacted by projects 

proposed under the Preferred Alternative (acres) 

Vegetative 

community type

North 

Post 

South 

Post 

Tompkins 

Basina Main 

Post EPG 

Infrastructureb

Beech/mixed oak forest 0.1 8.7 10.5 19.3 0.2 

Floodplain hardwood 

forest 0.1 0.1 0.4 

Loblolly pine forest 4.3 4.3 4.7 

Mixed pine/hardwood 

forest 0.7 0.7 14.0 4.7 

Oak/ericad forest 9.1 5.8 

Old-field grassland 6.7 6.7 32.6 7.6 

Tidal freshwater marsh 0.7 0.7 

Tulip popular/mixed 

hardwood forest 0.8 0.9 0.3 2.0 15.5 39.5 

Virginia pine forest 97.4 12.1 

Virginia pine/old-field 

grassland 25.0 7.9 

AREA SUBTOTALS 0.9 13.9 19.0 33.8 198.3 78.2

Notes: 

Empty cells indicate the lack of potential impact to the vegetative community in the Post area. 

a

 Tompkins Basin impacts are attributable solely to the MWR Family Travel Camp. b

 Infrastructure impacts are distributed among the North Post, South Post, and EPG. 

and coat the leaves of SAV, which decreases the amount of light available for SAV 

survival (MDNR, 2006). However, state-required BMPs on each project site would reduce 

phosphorous loadings by at least 40 percent as discussed in Section 4.7.4.2. 

4.8.2.2 Wildlife 

4.8.2.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse effects on wildlife would be expected. Impacts of the land use plan 

update on wildlife would generally be similar to those on vegetation—that is, areas previously 

designated as Environmentally Sensitive or Outdoor Recreation (except the SNAs) could 

potentially be used for purposes incompatible with natural resources management goals under the 

new land use designations. Protection of the most important wildlife areas on the Main Post, 

however—the three SNAs on Fort Belvoir—and the limited amount of development in the 

Southwest Area and shoreline zones of the South Post, would be expected to limit the impact of 

land use designation changes on wildlife species. 

4.8.2.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on wildlife would be expected. Effects on wildlife species—

not including endangered, threatened, or sensitive species (which are discussed below)—of the 

implementation of BRAC projects would largely parallel changes to natural vegetation. Loss of 

natural vegetation would impact wildlife as a loss of habitat and the potential negative 

consequences of BRAC implementation on vegetative communities (i.e., fragmentation, loss of 

connectivity, increases of invasive species) would also adversely affect wildlife species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-275

Restricted wildlife movements between areas that provide different life-history necessities can 

limit a population’s viability, and isolated populations of a species can suffer from reduced 

genetic interchange. Projects proposed under the Preferred Alternative would not directly affect 

critical wildlife management areas such as the Forest and Wildlife Corridor and areas bordering 

Accotink Bay. The most important effects of BRAC development on wildlife, therefore, would 

predominantly be the impacts from losses of habitat on the eastern half of EPG. 

4.8.2.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species 

4.8.2.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse effects on sensitive species would be expected. A change in land use 

designation from Environmentally Sensitive or Outdoor Recreation to any land use designation 

under the Preferred Alternative land use plan could have adverse consequences for protected or 

sensitive species. Other land use designation changes under the Preferred Alternative land use 

plan would not be expected to affect sensitive or protected species because development is 

already a potential on land designated as anything other than Environmentally Sensitive. EPG 

was not covered under the 1993 land use plan. 

4.8.2.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on sensitive species would be expected. Projects proposed 

under the Preferred Alternative could have an impact on areas that support fauna and flora special 

species on EPG and on areas that support fauna special species on the South Post. Projects 

proposed on EPG could reduce the quantity of habitat for the following PIF species: field 

sparrow, prairie warbler, wood thrush, and worm-eating warbler. A maximum of 250 acres of PIF 

habitat, 4 acres of sensitive flora habitat, and 21 acres of sensitive fauna habitat could be affected 

under the alternative. Table J-2 in Appendix J quantifies the acreage impact of each BRAC 

project on sensitive species habitat. Appendix J also contains maps showing BRAC project 

footprints and impacts to biological resources. 

The small whorled pogonia has been found on the western portion of EPG and it is the only 

known location of the species in Fairfax County (WSSI, 2005a). EPG has numerous areas rated 

as medium- and high-quality small whorled pogonia habitat and could harbor the species in a 

dormant state in the soil or serve as an expansion area for the species’ recovery. Small whorled 

pogonias can remain dormant for several years in the soil between aboveground appearances of 

the plant (WSSI, 2006). EPG was surveyed for the small whorled pogonia in preparation for the 

BRAC development, and it is anticipated that impacts on the species would be negligible because 

the survey results would be used in final project layouts to minimize impacts. On the Main Post, 

additional surveys are ongoing during the summer of 2007 to determine the presence or absence 

of small whorled pogonias. Projects would be adjusted based on the results of the surveys as 

appropriate during the design phase and consultation with USFWS would occur to avoid or 

mitigate potential conflicts. 

A project for the South Post, a MWR Family Travel Camp, is proposed for an area identified as 

an occasional-use foraging area for bald eagles. This occasional-use foraging area extends from 

the mouth of Accotink Bay to Dogue Creek. Additionally, the MWR Family Travel Camp would 

be created in an area designated as habitat for the worm-eating warbler, a PIF species. 

Management guidelines in the Fort Belvoir INRMP for PIF species and the bald eagle, and 

USFWS guidelines for activities near bald eagle use areas would be observed during construction 

to the extent practicable to limit impacts on the species, and the Army would coordinate with 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-276

USFWS and VDGIF during design and construction of the camp to avoid unnecessary impacts on 

the species. 

The MWR Family Travel Camp project area is near an area where seeps of the type that support 

the northern Virginia well amphipod exist, though no impacts on that species would be 

anticipated from development of the camp. 

Finally, road improvement projects pass through wood turtle habitat, and the Army would 

observe recommended measures to protect the species from impacts and would design road and 

utility crossings to accommodate the species. 

Fort Belvoir is currently engaged in the informal Section 7 consultation process with USFWS 

regarding potential effects from BRAC projects on sensitive species. Based on the outcome of 

the consultation, projects would be adjusted during the design phase as appropriate to further 

minimize impacts. 

4.8.2.4 Sensitive Natural Areas 

4.8.2.4.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on sensitive natural areas would be expected. Sensitive 

natural areas on Fort Belvoir include the three SNAs, grassland management areas, wetlands, and 

riparian buffers. Under the 1993 land use plan, these areas occur under several land use 

designations. As with vegetation, wildlife, and protected and sensitive species, only sensitive 

natural areas (other than the three SNAs) that occur on land designated as Environmentally 

Sensitive or Outdoor Recreation under the 1993 land use plan would potentially be affected under 

the Preferred Alternative land use plan. Adverse effects on all types of sensitive natural areas on 

Fort Belvoir, therefore, are possible under the Preferred Alternative land use plan. 

4.8.2.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on sensitive natural areas would be expected. Projects 

proposed for EPG are in or near the EQC and in areas with wetlands; projects proposed for the 

South Post could affect wetlands, riparian buffers, and RPAs; and projects in the North Post could 

indirectly encroach upon the Forest and Wildlife Corridor and create additional edge effect and 

invasive species incursions. Approximate acreages of natural resources that could be directly 

affected under the proposed action are 29 acres of the EQC, 3 acres of wetlands, 7 acres of 

riparian buffers, and 12 acres of RPAs. The Army has submitted a CWA Section 404(b)(1) Joint 

Permit Application (JPA) for EPG, which states that 2.3 acres (5,942 linear feet) of jurisdictional 

wetlands will be impacted by proposed development (Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD, 2007). Figure J10 in Appendix J shows impacts to wetlands within project footprints on EPG. Disturbance 

within RPAs will be limited to the construction of roads and utility corridors, in accordance with 

the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. 

4.8.2.5 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs. Measures that the Army may consider to reduce the impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

on biological resources include: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-277

• Acquire a CWA Section 404(b)(1) wetland permit, Virginia Water Protection Permit and a 

Subaqueous Bed Permit, and contribute appropriate funds to the Virginia Aquatic 

Resources Trust Fund (VARTF) to achieve no net loss of wetlands functions and values 

• Ensure no development occurs in SNAs 

• Minimize impacts on the habitats of sensitive species and on sensitive vegetative or 

ecological communities by designing facilities, roads, and construction staging areas to 

locate them as far away from these sensitive areas as practicable. Areas to be avoided 

include habitats suitable for endangered, threatened, and rare species; the regulatory buffer 

zones for these species; areas that ENRD has demarcated as ecologically sensitive areas 

and habitats; the Forest and Wildlife Corridor; RPAs; and wetlands 

• Comply with general performance criteria found in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area 

Designation and Management Regulations (9 VAC 10-20-10 et seq.; see 9 VAC 10-20-

120) as they apply to RPAs and RMAs 

• Adhere to Fort Belvoir Natural Resources management policies and goals, as specified in 

the INRMP, including compliance with Fort Belvoir’s two-to-one tree replacement policy 

• Replace any lost wetlands as close as possible to and within the same watershed as the 

affected wetland 

• Avoid or minimize construction in identified PIF breeding bird sensitive areas during the 

potentially affected species’ breeding season (generally May to June). 

• Place signage identifying the EQC, SNAs, endangered and threatened species habitats and 

use areas, and riparian corridors in newly developed areas near these sensitive natural areas 

• Use low-impact development techniques to limit the loss of natural vegetation 

• Design road and utility crossings in EQCs to minimize the environmental disturbance 

associated with the crossings 

• Enforce USFWS guidelines for activities around bald eagle nests and activity areas 

• Identify and mark bald eagle perch trees to avoid their being removed for development 

• Consult with VDGIF and USFWS (informally) concerning ways to limit impacts on listed 

and rare species and habitats, and consult with VDGIF concerning ways to limit impacts on 

vegetative communities and nearby natural areas 

• Offset habitat lost on EPG by creating and maintaining grassland habitats on the Main 

Post. 

Mitigation. Mitigation would address a range of BRAC-related effects to Fort Belvoir’s natural 

resources. These effects include habitat loss and fragmentation, introduction and spread of 

invasive species, and loss of tree coverage. The mitigation measures would rectify impacts to 

biological resources by repairing and restoring habitat where possible. Where habitat is 

irreversibly lost to BRAC construction, compensatory mitigation would provide additional habitat 

resources on-post. Compensatory mitigation is based on initial estimates of lost and fragmented 

habitat based on available phases of design. Specific mitigation measures would include: 

• Protect mature and significant trees during construction by limiting grading in wooded 

areas 

• Replace trees that are 4 inches or greater in diameter with two new trees. The Army 

would conduct tree surveys and develop a Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for each 

BRAC construction project. Construction contractors would follow the installation’s 

tree protection policies as specified by requirements in the 2001 Fort Belvoir INRMP. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-278

The initial location for tree planting would be the closed section of Woodlawn Road 

between Kingman and Beulah Roads 

• Implement an invasive/exotic vegetation control plan. The Army would develop and 

implement such a plan that would focus on controlling invasives in ecologically 

sensitive areas, such as the kudzu in bald eagle habitats and Phragmites in wetlands. 

Annually treat 100 acres of area impacted by invasive vegetation. Remove invasive 

vegetation from approximately 450 acres on-post in the following areas: the forest and 

wildlife corridor, EPG, EQC, and the installation wildlife refuges 

• Compensate for habitat loss by repairing and restoring habitat conditions in about 2.5 

miles of degraded/impacted streams on EPG and the Main Post. Restoration projects 

would: 

o Correct existing stormwater management problems 

o Stabilize eroded and undercut stream channels 

o Remove unnecessary impervious surfaces within riparian areas 

o Revegetate disturbed and cleared portions of riparian areas 

o Remove invasive and exotic vegetation from riparian areas and adjoining 

uplands 

• Expand the boundary of the Accotink Bay Wildlife Refuge (ABWR) in the Southwest 

Area of the installation to the 125-foot contour to include bald eagle habitat, steep 

slopes, wetlands, sensitive watershed and rare species habitats. This expansion would 

add approximately 520 acres to the ABWR 

• Expand the boundary of the Jackson Miles Abbott Wetland Refuge (JMAWR) 

westward to the proposed connector road corridor to include additional watershed area 

and rare species habitat. This expansion would add approximately 45 acres to the 

JMAWR 

• Designate steep slopes within the T-17 training area as an additional refuge area to 

protect the candidate species Stygobromus phreaticus as recommended by the VDCRNHP and as addressed in the 2001 Fort Belvoir INRMP 

• Designate area below 100-ft contour of T-17 as new refuge area to protect bald eagle 

and Stygobromus phreaticus habitat. This designation would add about 60 acres 

• Formally establish and dedicate the EQC at EPG as a Special Natural Area. Develop a 

Memorandum of Agreement between the Installation Commander and the NGA 

Commander that would provide the same level of protection and land management of 

the existing EQC within the NGA fenced complex. Preserve forest habitat of this area 

and provide roadside signage noting designation 

• Establish and maintain habitat for PIF priority species on Fort Belvoir. Compensate for 

approximately 300 acres of PIF priority grassland species habitat and 250 acres of PIF 

priority forest species habitat that would be lost to BRAC development. Maintain a 

100 to 200 acre parcel in the Southwest Area (to include the Cullum Woods landfill 

and T-6 site) as grassland habitat 

• Remove Cissna Road roadbed throughout EPG and the bridge across Accotink Creek. 

Revegetate the old roadbed 

• Incorporate wildlife crossing structure on all road crossings of RPAs. Twelve 

crossings on EPG and eight culvert crossings on the Main Post are estimated. Wildlife 

crossing structures would include construction and installation techniques to facilitate 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-279

wildlife crossing. Where feasible, include bridges instead of culverts, and daylighting 

on long culverts. 

4.8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE TOWN CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

4.8.3.1 Vegetation 

4.8.3.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on vegetation would be expected. The discussion in Section 

4.8.2.1.1 applies equally to a change from the 1993 land use plan to the Town Center Alternative 

land use plan. In terms of the potential effect on vegetation, the differences between the Preferred 

Alternative land use plan and the Town Center Alternative land use plan are negligible. All areas 

designated as Environmentally Sensitive or Outdoor Recreation—the land use areas of most 

concern to natural resource management—under the 1993 land use plan would be redesignated 

under the Town Center Alternative land use plan, as listed in Table 4.8-5. 

Table 4.8-5 

Environmentally Sensitive and Outdoor Recreation land use designation changes 

under the Town Center Alternative land use plan 

1993 land use designations and 

Town Center Alternative land use designations 

General area of Post 

1993 Environmentally 

Sensitive land use 

designation changed to: 

1993 Outdoor Recreation, 

land use designation 

changed to: 

EPG n/a n/a 

Davison Army Airfield (west of 

Fairfax County Parkway) 

Airfield, Professional/Institutional Airfield 

Central and Western Southwest 

area 

Range/Training n/a 

Eastern Southwest area 

(bordering Accotink Creek) 

Community n/a 

Fort Belvoir North Post Golf 

Course (north of Kingman Road 

and west of HEC) 

Community Community 

Northeast North Post and North 

Post areas Near Route 1 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Residential 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community 

South Post bordering Accotink 

Bay 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community 

Community 

South Post golf course n/a Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Residential 

South Post Eastern and 

Southern areas 

n/a Community, Residential 

4.8.3.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on vegetation would be expected. Effects on vegetation of 

the BRAC construction proposed under the Town Center Alternative would be less than those for 

the Preferred Alternative (see Section 4.8.2.1.2). The total footprint area of projects under the 

Town Center Alternative would be approximately 262 acres, including approximately 32 acres of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-280

vegetated land. Most vegetated land disturbance would occur on the South Post (Table 4.8-6). As 

discussed under the Preferred Alternative (4.8.2.1.2), the 19 acres of vegetated land accounted for 

by the MWR Family Travel Camp in Tompkins Basin is the project footprint but not an accurate 

indication of the amount of land that would be disturbed by creation of the camp. Less than one 

acre of disturbance would result from infrastructure improvements. Table 4.8-6 identifies the 

types of vegetative communities that would be disturbed under the Town Center Alternative and 

the maximum area of disturbance in different areas of the Post. 

Sensitive vegetative community types that would be disturbed include bottomland hardwood 

forest, of which one-tenth of an acre lies within proposed project footprints on the Main Post, and 

tidal marsh, of which 0.7 acre lies within the footprint of the MWR Family Travel Camp. 

Table 4.8-6 

Vegetative community types potentially affected by projects proposed under the 

Town Center Alternative (acres) 

Vegetative 

community type

North 

Post 

South 

Post 

Tompkins 

Basina

Main 

Post EPG 

Infrastructureb

Beech/mixed oak forest 0.6 7.9 10.5 19.0 0.2 

Floodplain hardwood 

forest 0.1 0.1 

Loblolly pine forest 1.5 1.5 

Mixed pine/hardwood 

forest 0.7 0.7 

Oak/ericad forest 

Old-field grassland 6.7 6.7 

Tidal freshwater marsh 0.7 0.7 

Tulip popular/mixed 

hardwood forest 0.8 0.9 0.3 2.0 0.7 

Virginia pine forest 

Virginia pine/old-field 

grassland 

AREA SUBTOTALS 1.4 10.3 19.0 30.7 0.0 0.9

Notes: 

Empty cells indicate the lack of potential impact to the vegetative community in the Post area. 

a

 Tompkins Basin impacts are attributable solely to the MWR Family Travel Camp. b

 Infrastructure impacts are distributed among the North Post, South Post, and EPG. 

4.8.3.2 Wildlife 

4.8.3.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse effects on wildlife would be expected. The discussion in Section 

4.8.2.2.1 applies equally to a change from the 1993 land use plan to the Town Center Alternative 

land use plan. In terms of the potential effect on wildlife, the differences between the Preferred 

Alternative land use plan and Town Center Alternative land use plan are negligible. 

4.8.3.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on wildlife would be expected. As with the Preferred 

Alternative, projects proposed under the Town Center Alternative would not affect critical 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-281

wildlife management areas such as the SNAs and areas bordering Accotink Bay, and the Town 

Center Alternative would result in a maximum loss of only 32 acres of vegetated areas that 

support wildlife species. Indirect effects on wildlife such as habitat loss and fragmentation and 

could adversely affect some wildlife species, but these effects would not be expected to be 

pronounced under this alternative. Most habitats directly affected under the Town Center 

Alternative would be in or near previously disturbed areas. 

4.8.3.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species 

4.8.3.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse effects on sensitive species would be expected. The discussion in 

Section 4.8.2.3.1 applies equally to a change from the 1993 land use plan to the Town Center 

Alternative land use plan. In terms of the potential effect on protected and sensitive species, the 

differences between the Preferred Alternative land use plan and the Town Center Alternative land 

use plan are negligible. 

4.8.3.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term minor adverse effects on sensitive species would be expected. Projects proposed under 

the Town Center Alternative could have a minor effect on fauna special species areas on the 

South Post. One project proposed on the South Post, a MWR Family Travel Camp, is proposed 

for an area that is occasionally used by bald eagles for foraging and an area designated as habitat 

for the worm-eating warbler, a PIF species. A maximum of 12 acres of PIF habitat and 21 acres 

of sensitive fauna habitat would be affected under the alternative. The proposed projects would 

not affect the habitats of other protected or sensitive species on the South Post or any protected or 

sensitive species on the North Post, Southwest Area, or EPG. 

4.8.3.4 Sensitive Natural Areas 

4.8.3.4.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse effects on sensitive natural areas would be expected. The discussion in 

Section 4.8.2.4.1 applies equally to a change from the 1993 land use plan to the Town Center 

Alternative land use plan. In terms of the potential effect on sensitive natural areas, the 

differences between the Preferred Alternative land use plan and the Town Center Alternative land 

use plan are negligible. 

4.8.3.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on sensitive natural areas would be expected. Some projects 

proposed for the North Post and South Post would be near wetlands, riparian buffers, and RPAs. 

Approximate acreages of natural resources that could be affected under the Town Center 

Alternative are one acre of wetlands, 11 acres of riparian buffers, and 14 acres of RPAs. 

4.8.3.5 BMPs/Mitigation 

The BMPs and mitigation listed for the Preferred Alternative apply equally to the Town Center 

Alternative to reduce the adverse effects of the Town Center Alternative on biological resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-282

4.8.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CITY CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

4.8.4.1 Vegetation 

4.8.4.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on vegetation would be expected. The discussion in Section 

4.8.2.1.1 applies equally to a change from the 1993 land use plan to the City Center Alternative 

land use plan. In terms of the potential effect on vegetation, the differences between the Preferred 

Alternative land use plan and the City Center Alternative land use plan are negligible. All areas 

designated as Environmentally Sensitive or Outdoor Recreation—the land use areas of most 

concern to natural resource management—under the 1993 land use plan would be redesignated 

under the City Center Alternative land use plan, as listed in Table 4.8-7. 

Table 4.8-7 

Environmentally Sensitive and Outdoor Recreation land use designation changes 

under the City Center Alternative land use plan 

1993 land use Designations and 

City Center Alternative land use designations 

General area of Post 

1993 Environmentally 

Sensitive land use 

designation changed to: 

1993 Outdoor Recreation 

land use designation 

changed to: 

EPG n/a n/a 

Davison Army Airfield (west of Fairfax 

County Parkway) 

Airfield, Professional/Institutional Airfield 

Central and Western Southwest area Range/Training n/a 

Eastern Southwest Area (bordering 

Accotink Creek) 

Community n/a 

Fort Belvoir North Post golf course (north 

of Kingman Road and west of HEC) 

Community Community 

Northeast North Post and North Post 

Areas Near Route 1 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Residential 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community 

South Post bordering Accotink Bay Professional/Institutional, 

Community 

Community 

South Post golf course n/a Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Residential 

South Post Eastern and Southern areas n/a Community, Residential 

 

4.8.4.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on vegetation would be expected. Impacts on vegetative 

communities under the City Center Alternative would be concentrated on EPG. The alternative 

would impact a total project footprint area of approximately 365 acres, of which approximately 

295 acres would be on vegetated land. The Main Post would have approximately 21 acres of 

vegetated land in project footprints, almost all of which would be in Tompkins Basin for the 

MWR Family Travel Camp. As discussed under the Preferred Alternative (section 4.8.2.1.2), the 

19 acres of vegetated land accounted for by the MWR Family Travel Camp in Tompkins Basin is 

the project footprint but not an accurate indication of the amount of land that would be disturbed 

by creation of the camp. More than 200 acres of vegetated land on EPG would be affected under 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-283

the alternative. Additionally, nearly 71 vegetated acres would be affected by infrastructure 

improvements. Fort Belvoir would compensate for losses of forested areas, to the extent 

practicable, by adherence to the tree replacement policy in its INRMP, which calls for a two-toone replacement for trees cut for development. Table 4.8-8 identifies the types of vegetative 

communities that lie within proposed project footprints under the City Center Alternative and the 

maximum area of vegetated communities potentially lost in each area of the Post. 

Sensitive vegetative community types that lie within proposed project footprints include 

bottomland hardwood forest (0.4 acre) and tidal marsh (0.7 acre within the proposed footprint of 

the MWR Family Travel Camp). 

No impacts on vegetation at the GSA parcel would be expected, as the area does not support 

natural vegetative communities. 

Table 4.8-8 

Vegetative community types potentially affected by projects proposed 

under the City Center Alternative (acres) 

Vegetative 

community type

North 

Post 

South 

Post 

Tompkins 

Basina Main 

Post EPG 

Infrastructureb

Beech/mixed oak forest 0.2 1.1 10.5 11.8 0.1 

Floodplain hardwood 

forest 0.1 0.1 0.4 

Loblolly pine forest 4.7 

Mixed pine/hardwood 

forest 0.7 0.7 15.9 2.8 

Oak/ericad forest 7.6 7.3 

Old-field grassland 6.7 6.7 29.9 10.4 

Tidal freshwater marsh 0.7 0.7 

Tulip popular/mixed 

hardwood forest 0.8 0.3 1.1 50.7 4.3 

Virginia pine forest 69.1 40.4 

Virginia pine/old-field 

grassland 27.6 5.2 

AREA SUBTOTALS 1.0 1.1 19.0 21.1 205.5 70.9

Notes: 

Empty cells indicate the lack of potential impact to the vegetative community in the Post area. No large 

vegetated areas are present on the GSA Parcel. 

a

 Tompkins Basin impacts are attributable solely to the MWR Family Travel Camp. b

 Infrastructure impacts are distributed among the North Post, South Post, and EPG. 

4.8.4.2 Wildlife 

4.8.4.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse effects on wildlife would be expected. The discussion in Section 

4.8.2.2.1 applies equally to a change from the 1993 land use plan to the City Center Alternative 

land use plan. In terms of the potential effect on wildlife, the differences between the Preferred 

Alternative land use plan and the City Center Alternative land use plan are negligible. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-284

4.8.4.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on wildlife would be expected. Projects proposed under the 

City Center Alternative would result in the loss of a substantial amount of PIF habitat on eastern 

EPG and could affect the habitats of the EQC, and could result in the loss of nearly 300 acres of 

vegetated areas that support wildlife species. Indirect effects on wildlife such as habitat loss and 

fragmentation and could adversely affect some wildlife species. Critical wildlife management 

areas such as the SNAs and areas bordering Accotink Bay would not be affected. 

No impacts on wildlife at the GSA parcel would be expected, as the area does not support natural 

wildlife habitats. 

4.8.4.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species 

4.8.4.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse effects on sensitive species would be expected. The discussion in 

Section 4.8.2.3.1 applies equally to a change from the 1993 land use plan to the City Center 

Alternative land use plan. In terms of the potential impact on protected and sensitive species, the 

differences between the Preferred Alternative land use plan and the City Center Alternative land 

use plan are negligible. 

4.8.4.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on sensitive species would be expected. Projects proposed 

under the City Center Alternative could affect fauna special species areas on EPG and the South 

Post. Projects proposed on EPG would affect the habitats of the following PIF species: field 

sparrow, prairie warbler, wood thrush, and worm-eating warbler. The proposed MWR Family 

Travel Camp on the South Post is proposed for an area occasionally used by bald eagles for 

foraging and designated as habitat for the worm-eating warbler, a PIF species. The proposed 

camp area is near an area where seeps of the type that support the northern Virginia well 

amphipod occur, though no impacts on that species would be expected from development of the 

camp. The City Center Alternative would have an adverse effect on PIF species equal to that of 

the Preferred Alternative. A maximum of 250 acres of PIF habitat could be adversely affected 

under the alternative, as well as 4 acres of sensitive flora habitat and 21 acres of sensitive fauna 

habitat. The proposed projects would not affect the habitats of other protected or sensitive species 

on the South Post or any protected or sensitive species on the North Post or Southwest Area. 

No impacts on endangered, threatened, or sensitive species at the GSA parcel would be expected, 

as the area does not support such species. 

4.8.4.4 Sensitive Natural Areas 

4.8.4.4.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on sensitive natural areas would be expected. The discussion 

in Section 4.8.2.4.1 applies equally to a change from the 1993 land use plan to the City Center 

Alternative land use plan. In terms of the potential impact on sensitive natural areas, the 

differences between the Preferred Alternative land use plan and the City Center Alternative land 

use plan are negligible. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-285

4.8.4.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on sensitive natural areas would be expected. Projects 

proposed under the City Center Alternative are in areas with wetlands, riparian buffers, and 

RPAs. Approximate acreages of natural resources that could be affected under the City Center 

Alternative include 2 acres of wetlands, 6 acres of riparian buffers, and 13 acres of RPAs. 

No impacts on sensitive natural areas at the GSA parcel would be expected, as the area does not 

support such areas. 

4.8.4.5 BMPs/Mitigation 

The BMPs and mitigation listed for the Preferred Alternative apply equally to the City Center 

Alternative to reduce the adverse effects of the City Center Alternative on biological resources. 

4.8.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SATELLITE CAMPUSES 

ALTERNATIVE 

4.8.5.1 Vegetation 

4.8.5.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on vegetation would be expected. The discussion in Section 

4.8.2.1.1 largely applies to a change from the 1993 land use plan to the Satellite Campuses 

Alternative land use plan. In terms of the potential effect on vegetation, the differences between 

the Preferred Alternative land use plan and the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan are 

negligible, with one exception: under the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan the 

designation of the entire Davison Army Airfield and its buffer area as Professional/Institutional 

could lead to a loss of natural vegetation in the area in the future if, without the need for airfield 

buffer areas, development were to occur in the area. All areas designated as Environmentally 

Sensitive or Outdoor Recreation—the land use areas of most concern to natural resource 

management—under the 1993 land use plan would be redesignated under the Satellite Campuses 

Alternative land use plan, as listed in Table 4.8-9. 

4.8.5.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on vegetation would be expected. Approximately 470 acres 

would be in proposed project footprints under the Satellite Campuses Alternative, and of that 

approximately 124 acres would be vegetated. Impacts on vegetated land would be concentrated in 

the North Post in the golf course area and Davison Army Airfield. Development of the MWR 

Family Travel Camp would result in some loss of vegetated land in the Tompkins Basin of the 

South Post, and approximately one acre of vegetated land would be affected by infrastructure 

improvements (Table 4.8-10). Fort Belvoir would compensate for losses of forested areas, to the 

extent practicable, by adherence to the tree replacement policy in its INRMP, which calls for a 

two-to-one replacement for trees cut for development. 

Table 4.8-10 identifies the types of vegetative communities that would be disturbed under the 

Satellite Campuses Alternative and the maximum area of vegetated land that could be impacted in 

different areas of the Post. Sensitive vegetative community types that could be disturbed include 

bottomland hardwood forest (2.6 acres on the Davison Army Airfield) and tidal marsh (0.7 acre 

in Tompkins Basin). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-286

Table 4.8-9 

Environmentally Sensitive and Outdoor Recreation land use designation changes 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan 

1993 land use designations and 

Satellite Campuses Alternative land use designations 

General area of post 

1993 Environmentally 

Sensitive land use 

designation changed to: 

1993 Outdoor Recreation 

land use designation 

changed to: 

EPG n/a n/a 

Davison Army Airfield (west of Fairfax County 

Parkway) 

Professional/Institutional Professional/Institutional 

Central and Western Southwest area Range/Training n/a 

Eastern Southwest area (bordering Accotink Creek) Community n/a 

Fort Belvoir North Post golf course (north of Kingman 

Road and west of HEC) 

Community Community, 

Professional/Institutional 

Northeast North Post and North Post areas Near 

Route 1 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Residential 

Professional/Institutional, 

Community 

South Post bordering Accotink Bay Community, Industrial, Troop Community 

South Post golf course n/a Professional/Institutional, 

Community, Residential 

South Post Eastern and Southern areas n/a Community, Residential 

Table 4.8-10 

Vegetative community types potentially affected by projects proposed under the 

Satellite Campuses Alternative (acres) 

Vegetative 

community type

North 

Post 

Davison 

Army 

Airfield

South 

Post

Tompkins 

Basina Main 

Post EPG 

Infrastructureb

Beech/mixed oak forest 8.7 0.1 0.1 10.5 19.4 0.2 

Floodplain hardwood 

forest 2.6 0.1 2.7 

Loblolly pine forest 4.4 21.9 26.3 

Mixed pine/hardwood 

forest 2.4 13.2 0.7 16.3 

Oak/ericad forest 1.4 1.4 

Old-field grassland 1.8 6.7 8.5 

Tidal freshwater marsh 0.7 0.7 

Tulip popular/mixed 

hardwood forest 3.3 18.6 0.8 0.3 23.0 0.7 

Virginia pine forest 9.1 15.3 24.4 

Virginia pine/old-field 

grassland 0 

AREA SUBTOTALS 31.1 71.7 0.9 19.0 122.7 0.0 0.9

Notes: 

Empty cells indicate the lack of potential impact to the vegetative community in the Post area. 

a

 Tompkins Basin impacts are attributable solely to the MWR Family Travel Camp. b

 Infrastructure impacts are distributed among the North Post, South Post, and EPG. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-287

4.8.5.2 Wildlife 

4.8.5.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse effects on wildlife would be expected. The discussion in Section 

4.8.2.2.1 applies equally to a change from the 1993 land use plan to the Satellite Campuses 

Alternative land use plan. In terms of the potential effect on wildlife, the differences between the 

Preferred Alternative land use plan and the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan are 

negligible. 

4.8.5.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on wildlife would be expected. Projects proposed under the 

Satellite Campuses Alternative would result in the loss of as much as 124 acres of.vegetated land 

that supports a variety of wildlife species. Indirect effects on wildlife such as habitat loss and 

fragmentation and could also adversely affect wildlife species. Critical wildlife management areas 

such as the SNAs and areas bordering Accotink Bay would not be affected. 

4.8.5.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species 

4.8.5.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse effects on sensitive species would be expected. The discussion in 

Section 4.8.2.3.1 applies equally to a change from the 1993 land use plan to the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative land use plan. In terms of the potential effect on protected and sensitive 

species, the differences between the Preferred Alternative land use plan and the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative land use plan are negligible. 

4.8.5.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term minor adverse effects on sensitive species would be expected. Projects proposed under 

the Satellite Campuses Alternative could affect fauna special species areas on EPG and the South 

Post. The effect of implementing the Satellite Campuses Alternative on sensitive and protected 

species would be similar to the effect under the Town Center Alternative. Projects proposed on 

EPG could affect habitat of the prairie warbler, a PIF species, and a project on the South Post is 

proposed for an area that is occasionally used by bald eagles for foraging and that is designated as 

habitat for the worm-eating warbler, a PIF species. A maximum of 47 acres of PIF habitat, 21 

acres of sensitive fauna habitat, and 2 acres of grassland management areas could be adversely 

affected under the alternative. The proposed projects would not affect the habitats of other 

protected or sensitive species on the South Post or any protected or sensitive species on the North 

Post or Southwest Area. 

4.8.5.4 Sensitive Natural Areas 

4.8.5.4.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on sensitive natural areas would be expected. The discussion 

in Section 4.8.2.4.1 applies equally to a change from the 1993 land use plan to the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative land use plan. In terms of the potential effect on sensitive natural areas, the 

differences between the Preferred Alternative land use plan and the Satellite Campuses 

Alternative land use plan are negligible. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-288

4.8.5.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term moderate adverse effects on sensitive natural areas would be expected. Projects 

proposed for the North Post and South Post are in areas with wetlands, riparian buffers, and 

RPAs. Approximate acreages of natural resources that could be affected under the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative are 3 acres of wetlands, 24 acres of riparian buffers, and 47 acres of RPAs. 

4.8.5.5 BMPs/Mitigation 

The BMPs and mitigation listed for the Preferred Alternative apply equally to the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative to reduce the adverse effects of the Satellite Campuses Alternative on 

biological resources. 

4.8.6 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No Action Alternative, no effects would be expected on the biological resources of the 

installation. 

4.8.7 SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Tables 4.8-11 and 4.8-12 summarize the overall impact of the Preferred Alternative and the other 

alternatives relative to each other on natural resources. The alternatives would all reduce 

vegetated areas on the post (Table 4.8-12). The Preferred Alternative and City Center Alternative 

would result in the greatest adverse impact on vegetated land, with approximately 300 acres 

affected under each alternative. The Satellite Campuses Alternative would impact less than half 

(approximately 123 acres) of the amount of vegetated land as either the Preferred or City Center 

alternatives. The Town Center Alternative would adversely affect just less than 30 acres of 

vegetated land on the installation. All losses of vegetation would be expected to indirectly affect 

vegetative communities and wildlife through habitat fragmentation and isolation and increased 

occurrences of invasive species, and the adverse effect of any alternative would be expected to be 

proportional to the total loss of vegetated land under the alternative. 

Main Post. The primary areas of biological resources concentration on the Main Post are the 

Southwest Area, land bordering the shores of the South Post, and the SNAs. All alternatives were 

conceived to avoid substantial development encroachment in the Southwest Area, and the SNAs 

are protected from development, so it is the amount of development in the shoreline areas of the 

South Post that primarily determines the severity of the impact of each alternative on biological 

resources of the Main Post. Apart from the proposed MWR Family Travel Camp (see Section 

4.8.2.3.2), none of the alternatives have concentrations of development near the shoreline of the 

South Post. 

EPG. Natural habitat on EPG has been re-establishing itself since the 1970s, when intensive 

training activities on EPG ceased. West of Accotink Creek, development has been minimal, and 

east of Accotink Creek, the developed areas have not been used intensively in recent years. 

Natural aspects of the area east of Accotink Creek—such as woody growth and the use of 

undisturbed open areas by breeding birds—have increased. The Preferred and City Center 

Alternatives would have the greatest adverse effect on the biological resources on EPG because 

they have more project development in EPG, while the Town Center and Satellite Campuses 

Alternatives concentrate development off of EPG. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-289

Overall, therefore, the City Center and Preferred alternatives would have the greatest adverse 

effect on the biological resources of Fort Belvoir. The Satellite Campuses Alternative would have 

less impact on biological resources than the City Center or Preferred alternatives,and the Town 

Center Alternative would have the least impact on biological resources. Non-BRAC projects, 

discussed in Section 5, Cumulative Effects, would increase the effects on biological resources 

under all alternatives approximately equally. 

Table 4.8-11 

Potential BRAC project effects (in acres) on natural resources 

under all alternatives 

Natural Resource 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Town Center 

Alternative 

City Center 

Alternative 

Satellite 

Campuses 

Alternative 

Wetlands 2.7 0.6 1.8 2.9 

RPAs 12 14.4 12.6 46.9 

Riparian buffers 7.1 10.6 6.0 23.9 

Wildlife corridor 0 0 0 0 

Grassland management 

areas 

0 0 0 1.8 

PIF breeding bird habitat 246.7 11.7 246.7 47.3 

Sensitive flora habitat 4.2 0 4.3 0 

Sensitive fauna habitat 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 

EPG EQC 28.6 0 28.6 0 

Table 4.8-12 

Maximum losses of vegetative community, by alternative 

Vegetative community type Preferred 

City 

Center 

Town 

Center 

Satellite 

Campuses

Beech/mixed oak forest 19.5 11.9 19.2 19.5 

Floodplain hardwood forest 0.5 0.5 0.1 2.7 

Loblolly pine forest 9.1 4.7 1.5 26.4 

Mixed pine/hardwood forest 0.7 18.8 0.7 16.2 

Oak/ericad forest 14.9 14.9 0.0 1.4 

Old-field grassland 46.9 46.9 6.7 8.5 

Tidal freshwater marsh 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 

Tulip poplar/mixed hardwood forest 57.0 56.1 0.0 23.7 

Virginia pine forest 109.5 109.5 0.0 24.4 

Virginia pine/old-field grassland 32.8 32.8 0.0 0.0 

ALTERNATIVE TOTALS 291.6 296.8 28.9 123.5
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-290

4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resources are aspects of the physical environment that relate communities to their culture 

and history. They provide definition for communities and link them to their surroundings. 

Cultural resources include tangible remains of past activities that show use or modification by 

people. This type of cultural resource can include prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, 

buildings, structures, objects, or districts. Cultural resources can also include aspects of the 

natural environment, such as landscapes, specific places, topographic features, or biota, which are 

part of traditional lifeways and practices and are associated with community values and 

institutions. 

4.9.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.9.1.1 Prehistoric and Historic Contexts of Fort Belvoir 

The importance or significance of a historic property can be explained only when it is evaluated 

within its prehistoric or historic context. Contexts are those patterns or trends in history by which 

a specific resource is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) within 

prehistory and history is made clear (NPS, 1997). The following section describes the major 

patterns of prehistory and history for Fort Belvoir and its vicinity. 

4.9.1.1.1 Prehistoric Period 

The Paleoindian Period represents the earliest known human occupation of North America, in the 

Mid-Atlantic region dating from 12,000 to 8,000 B.C., thus artifacts and sites from this time 

period are rare and very important. A fluted projectile point from this period has been found near 

Davison Army Airfield on Fort Belvoir (Fort Belvoir, 2006b). The Archaic Period dates from 

8,000 to 1,000 B.C. and is noted by a shift to a heavier reliance on small game and an increased 

emphasis on plant foods compared to the Paleoindian Period. The Woodland Period dates from 

1,000 B.C. to A.D. 1,600. Greater sedentism continued to develop, with two prominent site 

types––large base camps and small, briefly occupied foray camps. Artifacts from the Early 

Archaic through Woodland Period have been recovered at Fort Belvoir, including identifiable 

projectile points and ceramic fragments. The most common type of prehistoric site identified at 

Fort Belvoir is the lithic artifact scatter (Goodwin & Associates, 2001). Most of these sites were 

found on upland terraces and bluffs overlooking the three creeks (Accotink, Dogue, Pohick) and 

the Potomac River. 

4.9.1.1.2 Historic Period 

European Contact 

Native Americans who lived in the region in which Fort Belvoir is located during the historical 

period include the Doeg (also spelled as Dogue) Indians, who controlled the middle portion of the 

Potomac River. The earliest Europeans to visit the area were Captain John Smith and his crew, 

whose expedition sailed up the Potomac River in 1608 as far as what is now Arlington County. 

Smith’s famous map shows the main Doeg town of Tauxenent located on the Occoquan River, 

south of Fort Belvoir (Goodwin & Associates, 2001; Fort Belvoir, 2006b). 

17th through 19th Centuries 

European settlers arrived in present-day Fairfax County around 1664. Much of Northern Virginia, 

including the present location of Fort Belvoir, came under the ownership of a single family, the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-291

Fairfaxes, after whom Fairfax County, Virginia, was named. By the mid 18th century, multiple 

estates were established within and adjacent to present-day Fort Belvoir, including: Dennis 

McCarty’s Cedar Grove and Mount Air (ca. 1718); William Fairfax’s Belvoir (1741); George 

Washington’s Mount Vernon (1742; 1757; 1787); and George Mason’s Gunston Hall (1755) 

(Fort Belvoir, 2006b). Churches also were built in the area, including Pohick Church, which was 

constructed between 1769−1774 by the Anglican Truro Parish at the present-day intersection of 

U.S. Route 1 and Old Colchester Road. Industrial enterprises, such as George Washington’s grist 

mill, were established in the area during the late 18th century, indicating that the surrounding 

population was substantial enough to require these services. 

In 1783 the Belvoir estate was destroyed by fire. During the Battle of the White House in the War 

of 1812, the White House, another Fairfax family property, and the remains of Belvoir were 

shelled by British forces. By the 1820s, the estate had moved out of Fairfax family ownership. 

McCarty’s Cedar Grove and Mount Air estates similarly changed hands and declined in those 

years. During this period, however, George Washington’s nephew constructed Woodlawn 

Plantation (1800−1805) on a site that overlooked the Potomac River, near present-day Fort 

Belvoir. At about the same time, the village of Accotink developed around a grist mill near the 

intersection of Accotink Creek and Colchester Road (Fort Belvoir, 2006b). 

In the mid 19th century, settlers hailing from northern states moved to the area of present-day Fort 

Belvoir. Members of the Society of Friends, or Quakers, from the Delaware Valley were among 

these. These Quaker families began settling Woodlawn in 1846 and administratively became a 

part of the Alexandria Monthly Meeting. The Woodlawn Tract was purchased from the Mount 

Vernon estate and smaller tracts were sold to individual families for farming. By 1859, over forty 

families had purchased Woodlawn farmland or additional acreage from George Washington’s 

heirs and others. The flurry of economic activity gave the nearby village Accotink renewed life as 

the commercial center for the area (Woodlawn Friends Meeting 2006). The Quakers were 

committed to nonviolence, education, and the use of progressive farming methods, and they 

opposed slavery. Before the Civil War, they established the Woodlawn Friends Meeting House 

and Burial Ground along present-day U.S. Route 1. The Civil War was difficult for the Friends 

Meeting in Virginia; however, many of the families in the Woodlawn Friends Meeting chose not 

to move north. By 1869, the Woodlawn Meetinghouse has doubled in size, whereas the 

Alexandria Meetinghouse was no longer needed. By 1885, the Woodlawn Meetinghouse became 

the site of the Alexandria Monthly Meeting (Woodlawn Friends Meeting 2006). 

During the Civil War, the Belvoir area, removed from the major theater of operations, continued 

to develop in relative stability (Fort Belvoir, 2006b). The subdivision of some tobacco 

plantations, coupled with poor soil conditions and difficult economic times affected settlement 

patterns in the region. In the post-Civil War era, black and white communities developed strong 

social and cultural institutions in the area, including churches, schools, and clubs (Goodwin & 

Associates, 2001). 

4.9.1.1.3 Federal Acquisition of Fort Belvoir 

In 1910 the federal government acquired a 1,500-acre tract on the Belvoir peninsula. The property 

eventually came under control of the War Department for use by the U.S. Army as a training site 

for the U.S. Army Engineer School. Following the U.S. entry into World War I in 1917, a 

temporary cantonment, named Camp A.A. Humphreys in honor of Civil War Commander and 

former Chief of Engineers, Andrew A. Humphreys, was established in 1918 in the general 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-292

vicinity of the present-day South Post. At that time, additional parcels were purchased, resulting 

in a dramatic transformation for this traditionally agrarian area (Fort Belvoir, 2006b). 

To make the area suitable for military activity, roads, railroads, temporary buildings, and a water 

system were built. A water filtration plant, known as Camp A.A. Humphreys Pump Station and 

Filter Building, was erected on the site of the former Accotink Mill and survives today. By the 

end of World War I, nearly 55,000 personnel had been trained at the camp’s multiple schools, 

including the Engineer Replacement and Training Camp, the Engineer Officers’ Training Center, 

the Army Gas School and the School of Military Mining. At the conclusion of the war, the camp 

became a demobilization center for troops making their way home. By 1919 the camp 

encompassed 6,000 acres, including the newly acquired area comprising the present-day North 

Post and Davison Army Airfield, and became the permanent home of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, relocated from present-day Fort McNair in Washington, DC (Fort Belvoir, 2006b). 

4.9.1.1.4 Interwar Period 

In 1922 the camp was designated a permanent post and renamed Fort Humphreys. The Engineers 

School offered training in a variety of fields, including forestry, road and railroad construction, 

camouflage, mining, surveying, pontoon construction, photography, printing, and cooking, and 

included the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) programs. The Engineer Board, a 

forerunner to the research and development (R&D) center at Fort Belvoir, was relocated to Fort 

Humphreys during this period (Fort Belvoir, 2006b). At this time, temporary, Craftsman-style, 

wood-frame houses (commonly referred to as T-400s housing) were designed and constructed 

(USACE, 2003). 

During the interwar years, Fort Humphreys further evolved as it became the focus of an intense 

Army-wide building program designed to replace the majority of temporary buildings hastily 

constructed during World War I. Around 1926, the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps developed 

standardized architectural plans for installations throughout the nation. The plans were adapted to 

local climatic and building traditions. In the Mid-Atlantic region, where Fort Humphreys was 

located, they included red brick, Georgian-Colonial-Revival-style buildings (Fort Belvoir, 

2006b). 

From the mid 1920s to the mid 1930s, most, but not all, of Fort Humphrey’s temporary buildings 

were replaced with permanent construction, including officers’ housing, barracks, and a hospital 

designed in the Colonial Revival style. The site plan of the installation was redesigned, creatively 

combining contemporary design philosophies of City Beautiful and Garden City influences with a 

more traditional collegiate approach, resulting in a landscape that maintained practicality while 

responding to natural surroundings in a flexible and aesthetic manner. Designed by George Ford 

and Howard Nurse, the layout focused on a structured, hierarchical collegiate center surrounded 

by residential areas with curvilinear streets. Support buildings were placed at the edge of the post 

plan. The Long Parade Field served as the anchor of the site, with administrative and classroom 

buildings along the east side, and barracks, a theater, gym, exchange, and post office on the west 

side (Fort Belvoir, 2006b). A cluster of two-story Colonial Revival-Style administrative and 

service buildings, originally constructed as barracks, separated the parade ground from the 

noncommissioned officers’ housing. The park-like Belvoir Village, Gerber Village, Rossell Loop 

Village, and Jadwin Loop Village were characterized by curving streets and cul-de-sacs that 

limited traffic flow and promoted a secluded atmosphere. These residential areas, evocative of an 

early 20th-century garden suburb, included common green spaces and took advantage of natural 

landscape features and vistas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-293

In 1935 following a period of renewed interest in the history of the area, Fort Humphreys was 

officially renamed Fort Belvoir in reference to its historic association with William Fairfax’s 

Belvoir Manor (Fort Belvoir, 2006b). The majority of the 1930s-era buildings at Fort Belvoir 

survives today, and forms the core of the Fort Belvoir Historic District (USACE, 2003), which is 

eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Despite significant expansion 

throughout the 20th century, particularly in the northern portion of the installation, the historic 

landscape plan of the southern core has remained intact. 

World War II 

During the early 1940s, as the US was gearing up for entry into World War II, Fort Belvoir was 

expanded again through the acquisition of 3,000 acres north of U.S. Route 1 for the Engineer 

Replacement Training Center (ERTC). This expansion displaced the small, historic AfricanAmerican community at Woodlawn (Fort Belvoir, 2006b). ERTC provided basic military 

engineer training to draftees. By 1942 when the United States had officially entered the war, it 

trained personnel to construct and operate Army installations and weapon operations, and an 

officer candidate school was established at Fort Belvoir. 

As the nation approached involvement in World War II, the Corps’ Engineer Board at Fort 

Belvoir coordinated a program of specialized equipment development and then led an effort to 

increase the number of laboratories and proving grounds available to test modern military 

equipment. By 1940 the Engineer Board secured Fort Belvoir’s EPG property from local 

landowners. EPG’s facilities started with ranges and buildings for landmine deployment and 

detection; however, during the war years, these facilities expanded to include vehicle testing 

buildings and structures, an airfield, laboratories and offices, range observation buildings, and 

ammunition storage magazines (New South Associates, 2006). 

During World War II, another wave of temporary construction accommodated the massive influx 

of male and female inductees. Wood-frame housing was constructed for approximately 24,000 

men and officers. Unlike their World War I era counterparts, these units were equipped with 

indoor plumbing, central heating, and electricity. At the conclusion of World War II in 1945, Fort 

Belvoir reprised its role as a demobilization center for the troops. After 1945 activity waxed and 

waned in accordance with peacetime policies (Fort Belvoir, 2006b). 

1946–Present 

During the height of the Cold War in the 1950s, Fort Belvoir became heavily involved in R&D, 

to complement its original training mission. Many R&D activities were undertaken by the 

Engineer Research & Development Laboratories (ERDL), which became involved in a wide 

range of activities, including testing new techniques for electric power generation, camouflage 

and deception, fuel and materials handling, mine detection, and other projects. 

Cold War-era innovation was reflected in numerous aspects of the built environment at Fort 

Belvoir. For example, in 1948–49, Albert Kahn & Associates, the Detroit-based architecture firm 

well known for its U.S. auto industry work, designed the prototype Thermo-Con House, a 

building that employed chemically treated concrete that rose from its foundation. The house, 

which survives today on Fort Belvoir’s South Post, was touted as a demonstration of a method to 

rapidly construct low-cost, mass-produced housing (Fort Belvoir, 2006b). 

During this period, Fort Belvoir experienced another housing construction boom following 

congressional passage of military housing construction bills sponsored by Senator Wherry and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-294

Congressman Capehart in 1949 and 1955, respectively. The purpose of the legislation was to 

provide federal funding to upgrade the living conditions of military personnel through the 

creation of additional Army family housing units. Other developments at Fort Belvoir during 

those years included the construction of the U.S. Army Package Power Reactor in 1957. 

Designed as the Army’s first prototype nuclear generating plant, SM-1 (Stationary, Medium 

Power–First Prototype) Nuclear Plant was used to generate electricity for commercial use and cut 

back on fossil fuel consumption. The plant was the first nuclear training facility for military 

personnel. The plant, which is still extant, operated from 1957 to 1973 (Fort Belvoir, 2006b) 

when the reactor was deactivated and the nuclear fuel removed. The plant was decommissioned 

in 1998. 

Fort Belvoir’s mission continued to expand during the Cold War with the establishment of 

multiple Army and DoD entities including DeWitt Hospital (1957), the Defense Systems 

Management College (1971) and the Defense Mapping School (1972). In 1988 the U.S. Army 

Engineer School transferred to Fort Leonard Wood. The MDW assumed operational control of 

Fort Belvoir. Since the conclusion of the Cold War in 1989, Fort Belvoir has continued to 

function as a key U.S. Army installation, hosting multiple tenants that support the Army’s 

mission and providing essential administrative and basic operations support to these tenant 

organizations (Fort Belvoir, 2006b). 

Development of ranges and facilities at EPG was most heavy from 1940 through the 1960s. The 

munitions-testing facility at EPG followed the U.S. Army Engineer School that left Fort Belvoir 

and transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, in 1988, leaving the EPG largely unused since 

that time. Currently the only tenant at EPG is the U.S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency 

(USANCA), which occupies one building. The EPG landscape is gradually being reclaimed by 

nature (New South Associates, 2006). 

4.9.1.2 Cultural Resources Compliance at Fort Belvoir 

4.9.1.2.1 Statutes, Regulations, and Policy 

A number of federal statutes address cultural resources and federal responsibilities regarding 

them. The long history of legal jurisdiction over cultural resources, dating back to the 1906 

passage of the Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431-433), demonstrates a continuing concern on the 

part of Americans for their cultural resources. Cultural resources include historic properties, as 

defined in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); archaeological and historical data, as 

defined in the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA); cultural items as defined in 

the, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA); archaeological 

resources, as defined by the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA); Indian-sacred sites 

to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), as 

defined in Executive Order (EO) 13007; and collections and associated records, as defined at 36 

CFR Part 79, Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Collections. Requirements set forth 

in this legislation, and their implementing regulations, define Fort Belvoir’s responsibilities for 

management of cultural resources. Regulations applicable to the management of cultural 

resources include those promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

and the National Park Service (NPS). 

Foremost among these statutes is the NHPA of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470). Section 106 of 

the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of federal undertakings on 

historic properties. Historic properties are districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects that are 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-295

included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. To be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, a 

historic property must demonstrate a significant degree of physical integrity and meet one or 

more of the NRHP criteria for significance with respect to historical associations, cultural 

characteristics, and future research potential. The regulations that implement Section 106 (36 

CFR Part 800) describe the process for identifying and evaluating cultural resources; assessing 

effects of federal actions on historic properties; and consulting to avoid, reduce, or mitigate 

adverse effects. The NHPA does not require preservation of historic properties, but it does ensure 

that federal agency decisions concerning the treatment of these resources result from meaningful 

consideration of cultural and historic values, and identification of options available to protect the 

resources. 

In addition, Army Regulation (AR) 200-4, Cultural Resources Management, and Department of 

the Army Pamphlet (PAM) 200-4, Cultural Resources Management, delineate the Army’s policy 

for managing cultural resources to meet legal compliance requirements and to support the 

military mission. Fort Belvoir complies with these regulations as well. 

4.9.1.2.2 Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) 

In February 2001, Fort Belvoir adopted its ICRMP in compliance with AR 200-4, which requires 

that installations prepare plans, every 5 years, to assist them in appropriately managing and 

maintaining archaeological and historic architectural resources (Goodwin & Associates, 2001). 

The goals of the 2001 ICRMP include the following: 

• Integrate cultural resources management into Fort Belvoir’s operations and mission, 

consistent with federal, DoD, and Army regulations 

• Develop programs to enhance project coordination, planning, and compliance 

• Provide a basis for Programmatic Agreements (PAs) developed in compliance with Section 

106 of NHPA 

• Provide installation-specific procedures and recommendations for cultural resources 

management 

The ICRMP establishes management strategies and standard operating procedures to assist Fort 

Belvoir in complying with federal laws and regulations concerning cultural resources 

management. The standards set forth procedures for dealing with archaeological and historic 

architectural resources largely based on Section 106 of NHPA and other federal laws and 

regulations protecting cultural resources. 

4.9.1.2.3 Fort Belvoir Historic District Maintenance Plan 

In April 2001, a maintenance plan was prepared to provide proper maintenance guidance for 

multiple barracks, administrative, institutional, and recreational buildings in the Fort Belvoir 

Historic District. The maintenance plan includes existing conditions surveys. It outlines building 

maintenance issues and recommends historically appropriate repair schemes with their costs, in 

accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.

4.9.1.2.4 Programmatic Agreements 

A program-specific PA was signed by Fort Belvoir and the Virginia State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) in August 2003 to mitigate the adverse effects that implementing RCI would 

have on important historic resources both on and near the Main Post. The PA stipulates 

incorporation of multiple mitigation measures into the RCI development plans, including: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-296

context-sensitive design within and adjacent to National Register-eligible and -listed resources; 

historic property management procedures; alternatives to demolition; archaeological survey 

procedures; and documentation of historic resources. 

A PA that addresses assessment and mitigation of potential adverse effects to historic properties 

from undertakings at Fort Belvoir’s Main Post is being developed for signature by Fort Belvoir, 

the USACE, the Virginia SHPO, and the ACHP. The proposed BRAC action and land use plan 

update will fall under this PA. This PA will de developed in consultation with interested parties. 

4.9.1.2.5 Status of Cultural Resource Identification Efforts at Fort Belvoir 

Archaeological Investigations 

Archaeological surveys have been completed for the entire installation at the Main Post and EPG, 

except for areas that have been identified as disturbed and thereby not likely to contain such 

resources. In 1994 the Virginia SHPO concurred that all required archaeological identification 

studies had been satisfactorily completed at the Main Post and EPG (Goodwin & Associates, 

2001). More than 47 archaeological surveys and excavations had been conducted within the Main 

Post since the 1930s (Goodwin & Associates, 2001), including compliance surveys and 

excavations to comply with NHPA Sections 106 and 110. One comprehensive archaeological 

survey was conducted at EPG to comply with NHPA Section 110 (MAAR Associates, 1993). 

The survey concluded that there are no archaeological properties present at EPG. No 

archaeological studies have been completed at the GSA Parcel, which has been completely 

disturbed by construction activities. 

Architectural Investigations 

More than 16 architectural studies and evaluations have been conducted of buildings and 

structures at the Main Post. Reconnaissance-level survey of all pre-1946 properties has occurred, 

as well as recording and evaluation of 245 resources (Goodwin & Associates, 2001). A historic 

resource survey and evaluation was also conducted in 2006 (Milner & Associates, 2006) ; this 

report is under review by Fort Belvoir and will be submitted to the Virginia SHPO for 

consultation.. One comprehensive architectural survey has recently been conducted at EPG; this 

survey includes recording and evaluation of all extant properties (New South Associates, 2006). 

This report has been submitted to the Virginia SHPO for review and the SHPO has concurred 

with its findings. No architectural studies have been completed at the GSA Parcel. 

Cultural Landscape and Viewshed Investigations 

In compliance with the RCI PA, a cultural landscape survey of the Main Post was recently 

completed and has received concurrence from the Virginia SHPO (Gray & Pape, 2004). Two 

viewshed impact studies have been conducted at Fort Belvoir, one of the Woodlawn Friends 

Meeting House (Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD, 2005b) and one for placement of equipment on top of 

the DeWitt Hospital (Fort Belvoir, 2005b). No landscape or viewshed studies have been 

conducted at the EPG or the GSA Parcel. 

Future Planned Investigations 

Survey and cultural resources documentation efforts outlined in the RCI PA and planned for 

future implementation include 

• Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation of each type of National 

Register-eligible housing resource to be affected by implementation of RCI, including 

setting and surrounding landscape features 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-297

• Existing conditions survey of National Register-eligible housing, including interiors, 

exteriors and landscape features in historic housing areas 

• Creation of an Internet-ready, multimedia presentation on the history of Army Family 

Housing at Fort Belvoir 

In addition, Fort Belvoir also plans the following cultural resources initiatives over the next few 

years: 

• Ongoing evaluation of resources that attain the National Register 50-year age criterion to 

be considered for inclusion in the NRHP-eligible Fort Belvoir Historic District 

• Ongoing archaeological investigations to determine the significance of known sites, as 

appropriate, in accordance with NHPA Section 106 regulations and other authorities 

• Historic building and district evaluation of approximately 50 buildings in the 300 Area in 

the southwest portion of the South Post 

4.9.1.3 Archaeological Resources 

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) under the NHPA is equivalent to the ROI under NEPA. For 

the proposed project and alternatives, the APE for archaeological resources includes areas within 

the external boundaries of the Main Post, EPG, and the GSA Parcel. The following sections 

present information on archaeological resources on these three parcels. 

4.9.1.3.1 Known Archaeological Sites 

A total of 301 archaeological sites, both prehistoric and historic, have been identified at the Main 

Post. Only one archaeological resource, an isolated prehistoric artifact evaluated as not eligible to 

the NRHP, has been discovered at EPG. Table 4.9-1 provides a summary of the sites’ National 

Register status. A complete list of the sites is provided in the ICRMP (Goodwin & Associates, 

2001). 

Table 4.9-1 

Eligibility status of known archaeological 

sites on Fort Belvoir 

NRHP status Number Percent 

Not eligible 114 37.4% 

Potentially eligible; not evaluated 176 58.6% 

Determined eligible 11 3.5% 

NRHP listed 1 0.5% 

Total 302 100.0% 

Source: Goodwin & Associates, 2001. 

Both prehistoric and historic archaeological sites are throughout the Main Post with the most 

intensive concentration on Pohick Neck. Archaeological sites are most often along watercourses 

including creeks and larger rivers like those that run through or border Fort Belvoir. 

One site, 44FX4, is listed on the NRHP. This site is the Fairfax plantation complex, which 

includes the Belvoir Mansion Ruins and adjacent Fairfax Grave Site. Phase II archaeological 

excavations were completed at the site in 1976 and additional excavations were completed in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-298

1994 (Goodwin & Associates, 2001). The site consists of remnants of the main plantation house, 

associated outbuildings, and the gravesite. 

Although the GSA Parcel has not been surveyed for archaeological resources, the parcel has been 

heavily disturbed by construction of the buildings (all warehouses) and parking areas, and by 

construction of the adjacent I-95 corridor. There are no recorded archaeological resources there, 

and because of the extent of disturbance, it is unlikely that intact archaeological resources are 

present. 

4.9.1.3.2 Cemeteries 

Six historic cemeteries are within the external boundaries of the Main Post. They are listed in 

Table 4.9-2 and shown on Figure 4.9-1. No cemeteries are at EPG or the GSA Parcel. Three of 

the cemeteries, Woodlawn United Methodist, Lacey Hill, and Society of Friends Quaker, are 

located on outgrants and not on land administered by Fort Belvoir. 

Three archaeological investigations have been completed at three of the cemeteries. One study, 

completed in 1997, assessed the Lacey Hill and Woodlawn United Methodist cemeteries and 

concluded that although neither of the cemeteries was individually eligible for the National 

Register, they might contribute to a future Woodlawn African-American historic district 

(Goodwin & Associates, 2001). Another survey was completed at the Lacey Hill Cemetery, 

during the course of which 22 grave shafts were identified. The cemetery was identified as having 

been used until the late 1800s (Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD, 2002). Testing excavations were 

conducted at the Potter Family cemetery in 2005 and concluded that the cemetery is not eligible 

for the National Register. The Fairfax Ruins Cemetery is part of the National Register listing for 

Belvoir Mansion Ruins. The Quaker Cemetery is part of the Woodlawn Friends Meeting House 

property, which is individually National Register-eligible and a contributing resource to the 

National Register-eligible Woodlawn Historic District and the Fairfax County Woodlawn 

Historic Overlay District. The McCarty Family Cemetery has not been evaluated, and as such, is 

treated as potentially eligible until it is formally evaluated. 

Table 4.9-2 

Historic cemeteries at Fort Belvoir 

Cemetery Site number Location 

Ownership/ 

responsibility National Register status 

Woodlawn United 

Methodist 

Cemetery 

44FX1210 Adjacent to North 

Post 

Private 

congregation, outgrant 

Not eligible individually; 

may be part of future 

historic district 

Lacey Hill 

Cemetery 

44FX1208 Adjacent to North 

Post 

Private, out-grant Not eligible individually; 

may be part of future 

historic district 

Society of Friends 

Quaker Cemetery 

44FX1211 Adjacent to North 

Post 

Private 

congregation, outgrant 

Contributes to the 

National Register-eligible 

Woodlawn Historic District 

Potter Family 

Cemetery 

44FX459 North Post Fort Belvoir Not eligible 

Fairfax Ruins 

Cemetery 

44FX4 South Post Fort Belvoir Listed as part of Belvoir 

Mansion Ruins property 

McCarty Family 

Cemetery 

44FX680 Southwest Area Fort Belvoir Not evaluated; potentially 

eligible 

Sources: Goodwin & Associates, 2001; Fort Belvoir, GIS, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-300

4.9.1.4 Architectural Resources 

For the proposed project and alternatives, the APE for architectural resources includes those 

resources within the external boundaries of the Main Post, EPG, and the GSA Parcel that are 

listed, eligible for listing, or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register. Also included 

are resources in close proximity to the Main Post, EPG, and the GSA Parcel that are listed, 

eligible for listing, or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register and have been 

designated at the federal, state, or local levels (e.g.., National Register, Virginia Landmarks 

Register, Fairfax County Inventory of Historic Sites, or Fairfax County Historic Overlay 

Districts). Close proximity is defined as properties that are located near enough to the Fort 

Belvoir boundaries that they could possibly be affected by the proposed land use changes or 

BRAC projects. 

The Main Post contains a number of historic architectural resources and additional resources in 

close vicinity. Table 4.9-3 lists these resources and Figure 4.9-1 shows the location of each 

resource. Not all Main Post architecture has been evaluated, thus there is the potential for 

additional resources to be found eligible for listing on the National Register. Pending completion 

of formal evaluation, Fort Belvoir is treating approximately 50 buildings in the 300 Area 

(southwest portion of the South Post) as potentially eligible until a formal evaluation can be 

conducted. These buildings are potentially eligible because of their role in Army research and 

development during the Cold War-era. There is the potential for a historic railway corridor with 

scattered associated railway resources that could form a multiple property resource eligible for 

listing on the National Register. And resources associated with Davison Army Airfield could be 

potentially eligible individually or as a district. 

All extant properties within EPG have been recorded and evaluated. None are considered eligible 

for the National Register and none are designated on any state or local registers (New South 

Associates, 2006). A review of the Fairfax County Inventory of Historic Sites, current Fairfax 

County Historic Overlay Districts, the Virginia Landmarks Register, and the National Register 

shows that no listed resources or historic overlay districts are in close proximity to EPG. 

The buildings and structures on the GSA Parcel are warehouses with small administrative offices 

and were constructed in 1953. None of these buildings has been evaluated for eligibility for 

listing on the National Register. Because of their age (54 years), these buildings would need to be 

evaluated before conducting any activities that would affect them. A review of the Fairfax County 

Inventory of Historic Sites, current Fairfax County Historic Overlay Districts, the Virginia 

Landmarks Register, and the National Register shows that no listed resources or overlay districts 

are in close proximity to the GSA Parcel. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-301

Table 4.9-3 

Historic architectural resources within and near Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Resource name Location Designation status 

Virginia Department 

of Historic Resources 

(VDHR) /Fairfax 

County tax parcel 

number 

Historic Resources within Fort Belvoir 

Fort Belvoir Historic 

District 

South Post National Register-eligible District; Virginia 

Landmarks Register; 

Fairfax County Historic Site 

VDHR # 029-0209 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 109-1,2,3,4 

Army Family 

Housing at Rossell 

Loop, Jadwin Loop, 

and Park villages 

South Post Contributes to National Register-eligible 

/Virginia Landmarks Register-listed Fort Belvoir 

Historic District 

VDHR # 029-0209-0312 

(Rossell Loop Village) 

VDHR # 029-0209-311 

(Jadwin Loop Village) 

VDHR # 029-0209-310 

(Park Village) 

Capehart-Wherry 

Era Army Family 

Housing 

South Post: 

Dogue Creek Village 

Colyer Village 

George Washington 

Village 

River Village 

Fairfax Village 

North Post: 

Lewis Heights Village 

National Register-eligible in accordance with 

Program Comment for Capehart-Wherry-Era 

Family Housing and Associated Structures and 

Landscape Features (1949–62) adopted by 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, May 

31, 2002 

Program comment fulfills Fort Belvoir’s 

compliance obligations under Section 106 of 

NHPA for all actions that may affect CapehartWherry-Era housing at Fort Belvoir 

Not applicable 

Camp A.A. 

Humphreys Pump 

Station and Filter 

Building 

South Post National Register-eligible; Virginia Landmarks 

Register 

VDHR # 029-0096 

U.S. Army Package 

Power Reactor 

Multiple Property 

South Post National Register-eligible; Virginia Landmarks 

Register 

VDHR # 029-0193 

Thermo-Con House South Post National Register-eligible; Virginia Landmarks 

Register 

VDHR # 029-5001 

Belvoir Mansion 

Ruins and Fairfax 

Grave Site 

South Post National Register-listed; Virginia Landmarks 

Register 

VDHR # 029-0041 

Fairfax Chapel South Post Contributes to National Registereligible/Virginia Landmarks Register-listed Fort 

Belvoir Historic District; Individually-designated 

Fairfax County Historic Site 

VDHR # 029-0209 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 115-2 ((1)) 1 

Historic districts in close proximity to Fort Belvoir 

Mount Air historic overlay district 

Mount Air North of North Post, 

bounded by Telegraph 

Road to the north, Fort 

Belvoir Military 

Railroad to the south 

and Accotink Road 

(Highway 637) to the 

east 

Fairfax County Mount Air Historic Overlay 

District 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 099-4 ((9)) A 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-302

Table 4.9-3 

Historic architectural resources within and near Fort Belvoir, Virginia (continued)

Resource name Location Designation status 

Virginia Department 

of Historic Resources 

(VDHR) /Fairfax 

County tax parcel 

number 

Pohick Church historic overlay district 

Pohick Church West of Fort Belvoir 

Southwest Area at 

junction of U.S. Route 

1 and Old Colchester 

Road 

National Register-listed; Virginia Landmarks 

Register; Fairfax County Pohick Church 

Historic Overlay District 

VDHR # 029-0046 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 108-1 ((1)) 27 

Woodlawn historic district and historic overlay district 

Woodlawn 

Plantation 

East of North Post, at 

junction of U.S. Route 

1 and VA 235, Mount 

Vernon, VA 

National Historic Landmark; National Registerlisted; Contributes to National Register-eligible 

Woodlawn Historic District; Virginia Landmarks 

Register; Contributes to Fairfax County 

Woodlawn Historic Overlay District 

VDHR # 029-0056 

VDHR # 029-5181 

(Historic District) 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 109-2 ((1)) 4 

Pope-Leighy House On grounds of 

Woodlawn Plantation 

(see above) 

National Register-listed; Contributes to 

National Register-eligible Woodlawn Historic 

District; Virginia Landmarks Register; 

Contributes to Fairfax County Woodlawn 

Historic Overlay District 

VDHR # 029-0058 

VDHR # 029-5181 

(Historic District) 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 109-2 ((1)) 4 

George Washington 

Grist Mill 

East of South Post, on 

east side of VA 235 

Mount Vernon, VA 

National Register-listed; Contributes to 

National Register-eligible Woodlawn Historic 

District; Virginia Landmarks Register; 

Contributes to Fairfax County Woodlawn 

Historic Overlay District 

VDHR # 029-0330 

VDHR # 029-5181 

(Historic District) 

Alexandria 

(Woodlawn) Friends 

Meeting House and 

Burial Ground 

Surrounded by North 

Post, at southwestern 

corner of Woodlawn 

Road and Lampert 

Road 

National Register-eligible; Contributes to 

National Register-eligible Woodlawn Historic 

District; Contributes to Fairfax County 

Woodlawn Historic Overlay District 

VDHR # 029-0172 

VDHR # 029-5181 

(Historic District) 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 109-2 ((1)) 38 

Woodlawn Baptist 

Church 

East of South Post, on 

southeastern corner of 

Woodlawn Road and 

Richmond Highway 

Contributes to Fairfax County Woodlawn 

Historic Overlay District; Individuallydesignated Fairfax County Historic Site. 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 109-2 ((1)) 1 

VDHR # 029-5181 

(Historic District) 

Woodlawn Stables East of South Post, on 

southern side of U.S. 

Route 1 

Contributes to National Register-eligible 

Woodlawn Historic District; Contributes to 

Fairfax County Woodlawn Historic Overlay 

District 

VDHR # 029-5181 

(Historic District) 

Grandview (Jacob 

Troth House) 

On grounds of 

Woodlawn Plantation 

(see above) 

Contributes to National Register-eligible 

Woodlawn Historic District and Fairfax County 

Woodlawn Historic Overlay District 

VDHR # 029-0062 

VDHR # 029-5181 

(Historic District) 

Otis Tufton Mason 

House 

8907 Richmond 

Highway, on grounds 

of Woodlawn 

Plantation 

Fairfax County Historic Site; potentially eligible 

to NRHP (not yet evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility); Contributes to Fairfax County 

Woodlawn Historic Overlay District 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 109-2 ((1)) 2 

Individual historic resources in close proximity to Fort Belvoir 

Accotink United 

Methodist Church 

9401 Backlick Road; 

surrounded by North 

Post 

Fairfax County Historic Site; potentially eligible 

to NRHP (not yet evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility) 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 100-1 ((1)) 25 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-303

Table 4.9-3 

Historic architectural resources within and near Fort Belvoir, Virginia (continued)

Resource name Location Designation status 

Virginia Department 

of Historic Resources 

(VDHR) /Fairfax 

County tax parcel 

number 

Carlby 4509 Carlby Lane; 

Alexandria, east of 

South Post 

Fairfax County Historic Site; potentially eligible 

to NRHP (not yet evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility) 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 110-3 ((1)) 10 

Cranford Methodist 

Church & Lewis 

Chapel 

9912 Old Colchester 

Road, Lorton; west of 

Southwest Area 

Fairfax County Historic Site; potentially eligible 

to NRHP (not yet evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility) 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 114-1 ((1)) 1 

Gunston Hall 10709 Gunston Road, 

Lorton; southwest of 

South Post 

National Historic Landmark; National Registerlisted; 

Virginia Landmarks Register; 

Fairfax County Historic Site 

VDHR # 029-0050 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

#119-1 ((1)) 1 

Indian Spring Farm 

(Oak Grove) 

9829 Gunston Road, 

Lorton; west of 

Southwest Area 

Fairfax County Historic Site; potentially eligible 

to NRHP (not yet evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility) 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 113-2 ((1)) 11, 11A 

Lebanon House 10301 Gunston Road, 

Lorton; west of 

Southwest Area 

Fairfax County Historic Site; potentially eligible 

to NRHP (not yet evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility) 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 114-1 ((1)) 16 

Marshall Hall 5 mi north of MD 210 

and MD 227, Bryan’s 

Road, MD; east of 

South Post 

National Register-listed 

Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties 

(MIHP) 

MIHP # CH-54 (A, B, C) 

Mount Vernon East of Fort Belvoir on 

Potomac River; 3200 

Mount Vernon 

Memorial Highway, 

Mount Vernon, VA 

National Historic Landmark; National Registerlisted; 

Virginia Landmarks Register; 

Fairfax County Historic Site 

VDHR # 029-0054 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 110-2 ((1)) 12 

Old Colchester 

Road 

Borders western side 

of Southwest Area 

National Register-eligible VDHR # 029-0953 

Otis Tufton Mason 

House 

8907 Richmond 

Highway, on grounds 

of Woodlawn 

Plantation 

Fairfax County Historic Site; potentially eligible 

to NRHP (not yet evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility) 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 109-2 ((1)) 2 

Overlook Farm 

(Bienvenue) 

10711 Gunston Road, 

Lorton; west of 

Overlook Area 

Fairfax County Historic Site; potentially eligible 

to NRHP (not yet evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility) 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 119-1 ((1)) 2 

Shiloh Baptist 

Church 

10226 Gunston Road, 

Lorton; west of 

Southwest Area 

Fairfax County Historic Site; potentially eligible 

to NRHP (not yet evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility) 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 114-3 ((1)) 2 

Union Farm 9150 Union Farm 

Road, Lorton; east of 

Fort Belvoir 

Fairfax County Historic Site; potentially eligible 

to NRHP (not yet evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility) 

Fairfax County Tax Parcel 

# 110-1 ((1)) 10 

 

4.9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on 

any district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-304

AR 200-4 also requires the Army to adhere to Section 106 of NHPA for all federal undertakings. 

Implementing regulations for Section 106 established by the ACHP are contained in 36 CFR Part 

800; Protection of Historic Properties, as amended in 2004. These regulations provide specific 

criteria for identifying effects on historic properties. Effects to cultural resources listed in, or 

eligible for listing in, the National Register are evaluated with regard to the Criteria of Adverse 

Effect set forth in 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1) (Table 4.9-4). The Fort Belvoir ICRMP provides further 

guidance in assessing effects of undertakings on cultural resources as shown in Table 4.9-5. The 

installation is fully enganged in the Section 106 process and is working through determining 

adverse effects and mitigation measures. A PA being developed for Fort Belvoir would stipulate 

the procedures to be followed in implementing these measures. 

There are 302 known archaeological sites in the APE. Of these, 188 sites are either listed on, 

eligible for, or potentially eligible for the National Register, and thereby fall under the purview of 

Section 106 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800. There are six cemeteries in the APE; one is listed 

on the National Register, one is eligible for listing, and three are potentially eligible for listing. 

These five cemeteries are considered as archaeological sites and fall under the purview of Section 

106 of the NHPA. All the architectural resources in the APE and discussed in Section 4.9.1.4 fall 

under the purview of Section 106 of the NHPA. All NHL properties are listed on the National 

Register; all the Virginia Landmarks Register properties are National Register-eligible; and 

properties listed on the Fairfax County Inventory of Historic Sites qualify as potentially eligible, 

though formal evaluation is yet to be completed in consultation with the Virginia SHPO. The 

three Fairfax County Historic Overlay Districts are centered on historic district cores that are 

listed on, eligible for, or potentially eligible for the National Register and are designed to protect 

the settings of their associated historic properties. 

Table 4.9-4 

Criteria of adverse effect 

Definition 

“An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic 

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

property’s location, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying 

characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation 

of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused 

by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.” (36 CFR 800.5[a][1]) 

Examples of adverse effects 

Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to the following 

• Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property 

• Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material 

remediation and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 68) and applicable guidelines 

• Removal of the property from its historic location 

• Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its 

historic significance 

• Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic 

features 

• Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized 

qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization 

• Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable 

restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property’s historic significance (36 CFR 800.5[a][2])
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-305

Table 4.9-5 

Potential effects on cultural resources 

Type of 

undertaking 

Potential effect on 

architectural 

Potential effect on 

archaeological 

Building demolition Demolition of a historic property is, by 

definition, an adverse effect. 

Building demolition could adversely 

affect subsurface archaeological 

features and deposits through related 

actions, such as utility line removal and 

heavy machinery traffic. 

New construction New construction could introduce 

architectural, visual, audible or 

atmospheric elements that are out of 

character with adjacent or surrounding 

historic properties. 

New construction generally involves 

site grading and excavation to 

accommodate the building and any 

ancillary utilities, parking areas, and 

other associated infrastructure. Any 

undertaking involving surface or 

subsurface disturbance of 

archaeological historic properties 

constitutes an adverse effect. 

Building maintenance/repair Maintenance and repair work on 

interiors generally would have no 

adverse effect. Repairs to exteriors of 

historic buildings generally would 

have no adverse effect if the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for Rehabilitation and other design 

guidelines are followed. 

Grounds maintenance that involves 

surface or subsurface disturbance 

could affect archaeological resources. 

Rehabilitation/major repair Rehabilitation or major repairs would 

have an effect on historic buildings; 

however, that effect generally is not 

adverse if the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation

are followed. 

Excavation or other activity in 

connection with building rehabilitation 

could affect archaeological resources if 

it involves subsurface disturbance. 

Ground disturbance/cleanup Could adversely affect historic 

landscapes or introduce visual 

elements that are out of character with 

adjacent or surrounding historic 

properties. 

Excavation or other activity involving 

surface or subsurface disturbance 

could affect archaeological resources. 

Examples of potentially harmful 

undertakings include utility line 

replacement or construction; fuel tank 

or other removal of environmental 

contaminants; parking lot construction; 

building construction. 

Training activities Could adversely affect historic 

landscapes by introducing visual or 

audible elements out of character with 

surrounding historic properties. 

Depending on nature of activity, training 

could impact archaeological resources. 

Source: Goodwin & Associates, 2001. 

Before initiating projects in accordance with the Preferred Alternative, Fort Belvoir would 

determine if any eligible or potentially eligible archaeological sites would be adversely affected 

by the project, in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800. Fort Belvoir 

would consult with the Virginia SHPO on its determination. If adverse effects would occur, Fort 

Belvoir would continue consultation with the Virginia SHPO and other interested parties to 

develop mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-306

NHPA also includes provisions that specifically address lead agencies’ responsibilities when their 

activities involve NHL properties, a few of which are near Fort Belvoir. Section 110(f) of NHPA 

outlines specific action that these agencies must take when NHLs could be directly and adversely 

affected by an undertaking. Section 110(f) states: 

Prior to the approval of any Federal undertaking which may directly and 

adversely affect any National Historic Landmark, the head of the responsible 

federal agency shall, to the maximum extent possible, undertake such planning 

and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to such landmark, and shall 

afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity 

to comment on the undertaking. 

ACHP must be included in any consultation following a determination by the lead agency that the 

undertaking would have an adverse effect on an NHL (36 CFR 800.10(c)). ACHP must notify the 

Secretary of the Interiorand may request the Secretary of the Interior to provide a report to ACHP 

detailing the significance of the affected NHL under Section 213 of the NHPA, including 

measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. ACHP would report the outcome of the 

Section 106 process to the Secretary of the Interior and the head of the agency responsible for the 

undertaking. 

4.9.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects could occur to historic properties as a result of 

implementing the Preferred Alternative land use plan. The determination of these effects is detailed 

below. The potential adverse effects to historic properties would include direct and indirect effects 

to their integrity (i.e., physical harm or change) and direct visual or noise effects to their setting. 

These adverse effects would arise from changing land use designations from nondevelopment to 

development and subsequent implementation of projects in accordance with the new land use 

designations. Historic properties that could be adversely affected include one eligible and nineteen 

potentially eligible archaeological sites, Pohick Church, Pohick Church Historic Overlay District, 

Old Colchester Road, the Mount Air Historic Overlay District, a potentially eligible railroad 

multiple property resource, the Friends Meeting House and Burial Ground, Woodlawn Historic 

Overlay District, Woodlawn Historic District, the potentially eligible South Post golf course, and 

the eligible Fort Belvoir Historic District. 

The potential beneficial effects to historic properties would include prevention of direct and 

indirect effects to their integrity (i.e., physical harm or change) and direct visual effects to their 

setting. This protection would arise from changing land use designations from development to 

nondevelopment and subsequent restriction of projects in accordance with the new land use 

designations. Historic properties that could be beneficially affected include thirteen potentially 

eligible archaeological sites, Pohick Church, Pohick Church Historic Overlay District, Old 

Colchester Road, potentially eligible airfield historic resources, the Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground, Woodlawn Historic Overlay District, Woodlawn Historic District, Carlby, Union 

Farm, and Mount Vernon. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, the Troop Housing on the North Post would change to 

Professional/Institutional uses and an Industrial area on the South Post would be converted to 

Troop uses. However, implementation of these changes could be delayed because of funding 

concerns, resulting in the current uses of these areas being continued indefinitely. The following 

analysis of the adverse and beneficial effects of the Preferred Alternative includes both situations. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-307

4.9.2.1.1 EPG 

There are no historic properties within or near the EPG; therefore, changes in planned land use 

would have no effect on historic properties. 

4.9.2.1.2 Southwest Area 

Adverse Effects. A portion of the area designated as Environmentally Sensitive in 1993 would be 

changed to Training. This area contains potentially eligible archaeological sites. Although the 

proposed designation would not allow development, training use of the area could result in direct 

and indirect adverse physical effects to fourteen of the potentially eligible sites (site numbers 

44FX705, -1077, -1078, -1644, -1645, -1646, -1649, -1650, -1658, -1659, -1688, -1689, -1694, 

and -1697). Training in this area could also result in direct adverse auditory effects to Pohick 

Church, Pohick Church Historic Overlay District, and Old Colchester Road. 

Beneficial Effects. Areas designated as Industrial and Administration & Education in 1993 would 

be changed to Training. These areas are adjacent to Pohick Church, Pohick Church Historic 

Overlay District, and Old Colchester Road. The proposed change would prevent development 

near these historic properties, protecting them from direct adverse visual effects. Also, these areas 

contain eleven potentially eligible archaeological sites (site numbers 44FX667, -1642, -1643, -

1679, -1687, -1693, -1704, -1705, -1707, -1711, and -1719). While training use of the areas could 

result in adverse effects to these sites, the Training designation would prevent development in 

these areas. 

4.9.2.1.3 Davison Army Airfield 

Adverse Effects. Areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive in 1993 would be changed to 

Airfield. The area includes three potentially eligible archaeological sites (44FX35, -1938, and -

1949). The new designation would allow for development, thus making direct and indirect 

adverse physical effects to these sites possible. Also, lack of development along the Fort Belvoir 

Military Railroad has maintained the potentially eligible status of a railroad-themed multiple 

property resource. However, changing the designation to Airfield would allow for development 

and direct visual adverse effects to this resource. The Mount Air Historic Overlay District lies 

adjacent to the airfield. The change to Airfield would allow for development and direct visual 

adverse effects to this resource. 

Beneficial Effects. The Davison Army Airfield would maintain its designation and use as an 

airfield. By maintaining the historic use of Airfield, these potentially eligible resources are likely 

to be used for their original purposes and are less likely to undergo major renovations. 

4.9.2.1.4 North Post 

Adverse Effects. The proposed southernmost Professional/Institutional area would contain an 

area previously designated in 1993 as Environmentally Sensitive. This area contains a potentially 

eligible archaeological site, 44FX1914. With the Professional/Institutional designation, this area 

would be open for development, making direct and indirect adverse physical effects to this site 

possible. The area northwest of Fort Belvoir Elementary School would be redesignated from 

Environmentally Sensitive to Residential, taking a protected area and opening it up for possible 

development. This area contains an eligible archaeological site, 44FX1942, and redesignation 

would make direct and indirect adverse physical effects to this site possible. The area to the east 

of the school would also change from Environmentally Sensitive to Residential. This area is 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-308

adjacent to the Woodlawn Historic Overlay District and Woodlawn Historic District and 

development here could result in direct adverse visual effects to these districts. 

Beneficial Effects. The northeast portion of the North Post has a 1993 designation of two Family 

Housing areas with a total of four potentially eligible archaeological sites (44FX461, -1946, -

1947, and -1498). Under the Preferred Alternative, these areas would be redesignated as 

Community, which is less likely to be developed. Thus, the four sites are less likely to be 

adversely effected. This change would also make less likely the potential for direct adverse visual 

effects to the Woodlawn Historic Overlay District and Woodlawn Historic District from 

developments in these areas. A very small area just north of the Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground and surrounding the Center for Army Analysis would be changed from 

Administration & Education to Community. This change would make development less likely in 

this area and protect this historic property, and the Woodlawn Historic District of which it is a 

part, from direct adverse visual effects. 

4.9.2.1.5 South Post 

Adverse Effects. The South Post golf course would be redesignated as Professional/Institutional, 

opening this open space to development. Development here could result in direct and indirect 

adverse physical effects to the potentially eligible golf course, which is a contributing resource to 

the Fort Belvoir Historic District. Development in this area along Route 1 could also result in 

direct adverse visual effects to the Friends Meeting House and Burial Ground, a National 

Register-eligible property and contributing property to the Woodlawn Historic District. East of 

Jadwin Loop along the river shore, an area designated in 1993 as Outdoor Recreation would be 

redesignated as Residential. This area contains a potentially eligible archaeological site, 

44FX1341, and with the proposed designation, this site would be at risk for direct and indirect 

adverse physical effects from development. In the southwest portion of the South Post, an area 

currently designated as Outdoor Recreation and Environmentally Sensitive would be changed to 

Community, opening this area to development. This could have an adverse visual effect on the 

viewshed of Overlook Farm and Gunston Hall. 

Beneficial Effects. The eastern portion of the South Post would be redesignated from 

Administration & Education to Residential. The types of development likely under Residential 

are much less likely to be visible from historic properties across Dogue Creek and the Potomac 

River (such as Carlby, Union Farm, and Mount Vernon) than the types of construction likely 

under the 1993 designation. Also, landscaping and open spaces associated with residential 

developments could mimic natural open spaces, thereby disguising developments. The area 

adjacent to the southern end of the Woodlawn Historic Overlay District and Woodlawn Historic 

District is one of the areas that would be redesignated as Residential. Residential developments in 

this location would be easier to screen from view from the districts. This change could result in 

protection of these historic properties from direct adverse visual effects. The area north of the 

proposed Troop area would be redesignated from Supply Storage to Community. This area 

contains one potentially eligible archaeological site, 44FX1903, which could be more easily 

protected from development and direct adverse physical effects under the proposed designation. 

4.9.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term minor adverse effects could occur to historic properties as a result of some of the 20 

proposed projects under the Preferred Alternative. The potential adverse effects to historic 

properties would include direct and indirect effects to their integrity (i.e., physical harm or 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-309

change) and direct visual effects to their setting. Historic properties that could be adversely 

affected include the Fort Belvoir Historic District, one eligible archaeological site, and the 

Friends Meeting House and Burial Ground. 

Assessment of adverse effects depends on the exact location of the proposed projects and the 

specific design details of the projects. These details include such things as building materials, 

construction footprint, height of buildings, and building design. Many of these project details 

cannot be determined until Fort Belvoir initiates the project design process. Until these details are 

developed, the exact nature and extent of adverse effects cannot be determined. However, on the 

basis of general locations and characteristics of the proposed projects, as compared with 

information on historic property locations, a broad assessment of potential effects could be made. 

The results of this assessment are presented in Table 4.9-6, which lists those proposed projects 

that have a potential to adversely affect cultural resources. 

There are no historic properties, architectural or archaeological, on the EPG. There are no historic 

properties listed on national, state, or county registers in close proximity to the EPG boundaries. 

Although proposed projects 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13 are the types of projects that could affect 

cultural resources, because they are on the EPG, they would have no potential to affect cultural 

Table 4.9-6 

Proposed projects with potential adverse effects to cultural resources 

under the Preferred Alternative 

Project 

number Project description Description of potential effects 

3 MDA Facility Potential adverse visual effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District 

from construction of new building 

4 Hospital Potential adverse direct effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District 

(specifically the South Post golf course, which is a contributing 

property) from construction of new building and ancillary 

facilities 

6 NARMC HQ Building Potential adverse direct effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District 

(specifically the South Post golf course, which is a contributing 

property) from construction of new building 

10 Network Operations Center Potential adverse visual effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District 

from construction of new building, storage, and satellite yard 

11 USANCA Support Facility Potential adverse visual effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District 

from building renovation 

14 Administrative Facility Potential adverse direct and visual effects to Fort Belvoir 

Historic District from renovation of four existing buildings 

15 Access Control Point Potential adverse visual effect to Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground from new construction 

17 PEO EIS Administrative 

Facility and Network 

Enterprise 

Communications Facility 

Potential adverse visual effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District 

from construction of three new buildings and two parking 

garages 

18 Structured Parking Facility, 

200 Area 

Potential adverse visual effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District 

from construction of parking garage 

20 MWR Family Travel Camp Potential adverse direct and indirect effects to nearby eligible 

archaeological site (44FX1328) from construction of family 

camp and associated infrastructure and increased access to 

the site by the public 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-310

resources. Proposed projects 5, 16, and 19 are either not activities that could affect cultural 

resources, or are in an area removed from historic properties. However, when conducting grounddisturbing activities, there is always the possibility that buried archaeological resources could be 

discovered. 

Projects 3, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 18 would include construction of buildings, parking structures, and 

a satellite yard and renovation of existing buildings, all in the administrative area of the Fort 

Belvoir Historic District. Although the types of new facilities would fit within the current and 

historic administrative use of this area, the introduction of new buildings and especially parking 

structures and a satellite yard could adversely affect the setting of the district. Renovation of 

existing buildings could adversely affect those buildings and could affect the district if the 

exteriors of the buildings are changed; however, because the use of the buildings would stay 

administrative, it is possible the changes could be minimal, thereby minimizing those effects. 

Projects 4 and 6 would include construction of new medical and dental services buildings and 

associated parking and access, all on the current South Post golf course. The golf course is a 

contributing property to the Fort Belvoir Historic District. Construction of the new buildings 

would directly affect the golf course and the Historic District. 

Project 15 would include construction of a controlled access point, with a small building, 

inspection station, addition of turning lanes, and other ancillary improvements. Although the 

development would be small, it would be very close to the Friends Meeting House and Burial 

Ground and would introduce potential adverse visual effects. Project 20 would include RV 

campsites, cabins, tent sites, a support facility, relocation of Johnson Road, and utility upgrades. 

This project would introduce potential direct and indirect effects to a nearby eligible 

archaeological site. Figures J-4 and J-8 in Appendix J show cultural resources in the vicinity of 

the Preferred Alternative project footprints. 

4.9.2.3 BMPs/Mitigation 

Implementing the Preferred Alternative and the 20 proposed projects would have long-term minor 

adverse and beneficial effects on cultural resources. There are a number of measures that would 

be implemented in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800 that would 

avoid the adverse effects, or mitigate the adverse effects and reduce them to a minor level. These 

measures would be implemented through the PA being developed for Fort Belvoir. These 

measures are discussed below. 

4.9.2.3.1 Mitigation 

In addition to the provisions of the PA, the following specific mitigation measures would 

compensate for the impacts to the historic and cultural resources at Fort Belvoir that would be lost 

through BRAC development. 

• Fort Belvoir would update the existing conditions survey of all of the National 

Register-eligible buildings on Fort Belvoir, excluding family housing. Based on 

survey results, Fort Belvoir would rehabilitate the exterior of all historic buildings that 

would be affected by BRAC in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-311

• Fort Belvoir would update the Fort Belvoir Historic District National Register 

eligibility form to capture changes to the district that have occurred since it was first 

identified in 1986. 

4.9.2.3.2 General BMPs 

Certain standard BMPs are considered to be part of all projects conducted under this alternative. 

The BMPs that relate specifically to protecting cultural resources from adverse effects include the 

following: 

• All National Register listed, eligible, and potentially eligible archaeological sites that are 

near proposed construction areas would be fenced during construction activities to 

prevent inadvertent effects. 

• All National Register listed, eligible, and potentially eligible archaeological sites that are 

near proposed construction areas would undergo periodic monitoring to ensure fencing 

and avoidance measures are adequate in protecting the sites. 

• Inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials, human remains, or associated 

funerary objects would be treated in accordance with the NHPA, 36 CFR 800, and 

NAGPRA. Requirements for notification and security and protection of any discoveries 

would be included in construction contractors’ contracts. 

4.9.2.3.3 BMPs for Potential Adverse Effects to Archaeological Resources 

Before initiating projects in accordance with the Preferred Alternative, Fort Belvoir would 

determine if any eligible or potentially eligible archaeological sites would be adversely affected 

by the project, in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800. Fort Belvoir 

would consult with the Virginia SHPO on its determination. If adverse effects would occur, Fort 

Belvoir would continue consultation with the Virginia SHPO and other interested parties to 

develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. 

Facility construction usually causes ground disturbance to much more area than just the building 

footprint. These additional areas could include construction zones surrounding the facility, 

staging areas for equipment and machinery storage, parking areas, and rights-of-way for utilities 

including gas, electric, telephone, fiber optic, water, and sewer. Construction and use of these 

additional areas could cause direct and indirect adverse physical effects to archaeological sites. 

Any such areas would be included in project reviews and determinations conducted by Fort 

Belvoir in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800, as described above. 

Potential adverse effects to archaeological resources that are identified for the proposed projects 

include direct physical effects from construction activities, and indirect physical effects from 

increased access by the public. The following measures would address these potential adverse 

effects and reduce them to a minor level. 

• If avoidance and protection of archaeological sites are not feasible, measures would be 

implemented to mitigate the adverse effects, per the PA being developed between Fort 

Belvoir, the USACE, the Virginia SHPO, and the ACHP. The PA would be developed in 

consultation with interested parties. Measures could include the following: 

o Conducting data recovery excavation of prehistoric and historic deposits 

o Including a process in the PA to be followed for any inadvertent discoveries of 

archaeological materials, human remains, or associated funerary objects. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-312

o Developing public interpretation materials regarding cultural resources of the 

installation or region 

When conducting ground-disturbing activities, there is always the possibility that buried 

archaeological resources would be discovered or unanticipated adverse effects would occur on 

sites that were to be avoided. All contracts for construction activities would include a process to 

be followed for any inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials, human remains, or 

associated funerary objects. Although unanticipated adverse effects on historic properties from 

implementation of the Preferred Alternative are possible, compliance with Section 106 of the 

NHPA, 36 CFR Part 800, the installation’s ICRMP, and the PA would be expected to mitigate 

any unanticipated effects. 

4.9.2.3.4 BMPs for Potential Adverse Effects to Architectural Resources 

Potential adverse effects to architectural resources that are identified for the Preferred Alternative 

and its 20 proposed projects include direct physical effects from construction, demolition, and 

renovation activities, and direct visual effects from renovation and construction within historic 

property settings and viewsheds. The following measures would address these potential adverse 

effects and reduce them to a minor level. 

Fort Belvoir would complete compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800. 

Historic building surveys and evaluations would be conducted in proposed project areas where no 

such studies have been conducted, to determine if historic properties are in the APE of the 

proposed projects. This process would use more detailed project information and would result in 

a determination of any adverse effects. If there are adverse effects, project-specific measures 

would be developed to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects. This process would be conducted in 

consultation with the Virginia SHPO and interested parties. The PA being developed between 

Fort Belvoir, the USACE, the Virginia SHPO, and the ACHP would define the measures to be 

implemented. Development of the PA also would include consultation with interested parties. 

Measures could include the following: 

• Conducting renovation activities in a manner that preserves the historical and architectural 

value of the property through compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings

• Using context-sensitive design for new buildings by using materials, scale, colors, etc. 

similar to the surrounding historic buildings to allow the new structure to clearly reflect its 

own time. 

• Visual impacts can be avoided by specifying hieght limitations to proposed construction. 

Designing buildings, landscapes, streetscapes, lighting, and signage to minimize visual, 

audible, and atmospheric intrusions 

• Using vegetation, topography, and other methods to screen the views of new buildings 

from historic properties 

• Conducting detailed recording of adversely affected historic properties in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering 

Documentation to include detailed historic contexts, plans, drawings, and photographs 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-313

4.9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE TOWN CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

4.9.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects could occur to historic properties as a result of 

implementing the Town Center Alternative land use plan. The determination of these effects is 

detailed below. The potential adverse effects to historic properties would include direct and 

indirect effects to their integrity (i.e., physical harm or change) and direct visual or noise effects 

to their setting. These adverse effects would arise from changing land use designations from 

nondevelopment to development and subsequent implementation of projects in accordance with 

the new land use designations. Historic properties that could be adversely affected include one 

eligible and nineteen potentially eligible archaeological sites, Pohick Church, Pohick Church 

Historic Overlay District, Old Colchester Road, the Mount Air Historic Overlay District, a 

potentially eligible railroad multiple property resource, Woodlawn United Methodist Church 

Cemetery, the Friends Meeting House and Burial Ground, Woodlawn Historic Overlay District, 

Woodlawn Historic District, the potentially eligible South Post golf course, and the eligible Fort 

Belvoir Historic District. 

The potential beneficial effects to historic properties would include prevention of direct and 

indirect effects to their integrity (i.e., physical harm or change) and direct visual effects to their 

setting. This protection would arise from changing land use designations from development to 

nondevelopment and subsequent restriction of projects in accordance with the new land use 

designations. Historic properties that could be beneficially affected include thirteen potentially 

eligible archaeological sites, Pohick Church, Pohick Church Historic Overlay District, Old 

Colchester Road, potentially eligible airfield historic resources, the Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground, Woodlawn Historic Overlay District, Woodlawn Historic District, Carlby, Union 

Farm, and Mount Vernon. 

Under the Town Center Alternative, the Troop Housing on the North Post would change to 

Professional/Institutional uses, and an Industrial area on the South Post would be converted to 

Troop uses. However, implementation of these changes could be delayed because of funding 

concerns, resulting in the current uses of these areas being continued indefinitely. The following 

analysis of the adverse and beneficial effects of the Town Center Alternative includes both 

situations. 

4.9.3.1.1 EPG 

There are no historic properties within or near the EPG; therefore, changes in planned land use 

would have no effect on historic properties. 

4.9.3.1.2 Southwest Area 

Adverse Effects. A portion of the area designated as Environmentally Sensitive in 1993 would be 

changed to Training. This area contains potentially eligible archaeological sites. Although the 

proposed designation would not allow development, training use of the area could result in direct 

and indirect adverse physical effects to fourteen of the potentially eligible sites (site numbers 

44FX705, -1077, -1078, -1644, -1645, -1646, -1649, -1650, -1658, -1659, -1688, -1689, -1694, 

and -1697). Training in this area could also result in direct adverse auditory effects to Pohick 

Church, Pohick Church Historic Overlay District, and Old Colchester Road. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-314

Beneficial Effects. Areas designated as Industrial and Administration & Education in 1993 would 

be changed to Training. These areas are adjacent to Pohick Church, Pohick Church Historic 

Overlay District, and Old Colchester Road. The proposed change would prevent development 

near these historic properties, protecting them from direct adverse visual effects. Also, these areas 

contain eleven potentially eligible archaeological sites (site numbers 44FX667, -1642, -1643, -

1679, -1687, -1693, -1704, -1705, -1707, -1711, and -1719). While training use of the areas could 

result in adverse effects to these sites, the Training designation would prevent development in 

these areas. Both of these would be beneficial effects. 

4.9.3.1.3 Davison Army Airfield 

Adverse Effects. Areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive in 1993 would be changed to 

Airfield. The area includes three potentially eligible archaeological sites (44FX35, -1938, and -

1949). The new designation would allow for development, thus making direct and indirect 

adverse physical effects to these sites possible. Also, lack of development along the Fort Belvoir 

Military Railroad has maintained the potentially eligible status of a railroad-themed multiple 

property resource. However, changing the designation to Airfield would allow for development 

and direct visual adverse effects to this resource. The Mount Air Historic Overlay District lies 

adjacent to the airfield. The change in designation to Airfield would allow for development and 

direct visual adverse effects to this resource. 

Beneficial Effects. The Davison Army Airfield would maintain its designation and use as an 

airfield. By maintaining the historic use of the airfield, these potentially eligible resources are 

likely to be used for their original purposes and are less likely to undergo major renovation. 

4.9.3.1.4 North Post 

Adverse Effects. The proposed southernmost Professional/Institutional area would contain an 

area previously designated in 1993 as Environmentally Sensitive. This area contains a potentially 

eligible archaeological site, 44FX1914. With the Professional/Institutional designation, this area 

would be open for development, making direct and indirect adverse physical effects to this site 

possible. The area surrounding Woodlawn United Methodist Church Cemetery would be changed 

from Community to Professional/Institutional. This change would make development around the 

cemetery more likely, thereby increasing the risk for direct adverse visual effects. The area 

northwest of Fort Belvoir Elementary School would be redesignated from Environmentally 

Sensitive to Residential, taking a protected area and opening it up for possible development. This 

area contains an eligible archaeological site, 44FX1942, and redesignation would make direct and 

indirect adverse physical effects to this site possible. The area to the east of the school would also 

change from Environmentally Sensitive to Residential. This area is adjacent to the Woodlawn 

Historic Overlay District and Woodlawn Historic District, and development here could result in 

direct adverse visual effects to these districts. 

Beneficial Effects. In the 1993 land use plan, the northeast portion of the North Post has a Family 

Housing area that has not been developed. This area contains one potentially eligible 

archaeological site, 44FX461. Under the Town Center Alternative, this area would be 

redesignated as Community, which is less likely to be developed; thus, the site would be less 

likely to be adversely effected. This change would also make less likely the potential for direct 

adverse visual effects to the Woodlawn Historic Overlay District and Woodlawn Historic District 

from developments in this area. An area north of the Friends Meeting House and Burial Ground 

would be changed from Administration & Education to Community. This change would make 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-315

additional development less likely in this area and protect this historic property, and the 

Woodlawn Historic District of which it is a part, from direct adverse visual effects. 

4.9.3.1.5 South Post 

Adverse Effects. The South Post golf course would be redesignated as Professional/Institutional, 

opening this open space to development. Development here could result in direct and indirect 

adverse physical effects to the potentially eligible golf course, which is a contributing resource to 

the Fort Belvoir Historic District. Development in this area along Route 1 could also result in 

direct adverse visual effects to the Friends Meeting House and Burial Ground, a National 

Register-eligible property and contributing property to the Woodlawn Historic District. East of 

Jadwin Loop along the river shore, an area designated in 1993 as Outdoor Recreation would be 

redesignated as Residential. This area contains a potentially eligible archaeological site, 

44FX1341, and with the proposed designation, this site would be at risk for direct and indirect 

adverse physical effects from development. In the southwest portion of the South Post, an area 

currently designated as Outdoor Recreation and Environmentally Sensitive would be changed to 

Community, opening this area to development. This could have an adverse visual effect on the 

viewshed of Overlook Farm and Gunston Hall. 

Beneficial Effects. The eastern portion of the South Post would be redesignated from 

Administration & Education to Residential. The types of development likely under Residential 

are much less likely to be visible from historic properties across Dogue Creek and the Potomac 

River (such as Carlby, Union Farm, and Mount Vernon) than the types of construction likely 

under the 1993 designation. Also, landscaping and open spaces associated with residential 

developments could mimic natural open spaces, thereby disguising developments. The area 

adjacent to the southern end of Woodlawn Historic Overlay District and Woodlawn Historic 

District is one of the areas that would be redesignated as Residential. Residential developments in 

this location would be easier to screen from view from these districts. This change could result in 

protection of these historic properties from direct adverse visual effects. The area north of the 

proposed Troop area would be redesignated from Supply Storage to Community. This area 

contains one potentially eligible archaeological site, 44FX1903, which could be more easily 

protected from development and direct adverse physical effects under the proposed designation. 

4.9.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term minor adverse effects could occur to historic properties as a result of some of the 19 

proposed projects under the Town Center Alternative. The potential adverse effects to historic 

properties would include direct and indirect effects to their integrity (i.e., physical harm or 

change) and direct visual effects to their setting. Historic properties that could be adversely 

affected include the Fort Belvoir Historic District, Friends Meeting House and Burial Ground, 

and one eligible archaeological site. 

On the basis of general locations and characteristics of the proposed projects, as compared with 

information on historic property locations, a broad assessment of potential effects could be made. 

The results of this assessment are presented in Table 4.9-7, which lists those proposed projects 

that have a potential to adversely affect cultural resources. 

Proposed projects 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 16, and 19 either are not activities that could affect cultural 

resources, or are in an area removed from historic properties. However, when conducting ground-
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-316

disturbing activities, there is always the possibility that buried archaeological resources could be 

discovered. 

4.9.3.3 BMPs/Mitigation 

Implementing of the Town Center Alternative and the 19 proposed projects would likely result in 

long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects on cultural resources. The nature of the potential 

adverse effects is the same as that identified for the Preferred Alternative; thus, the BMPs that 

would be implemented to address the adverse effects would be the same as those described for the 

Preferred Alternative (see Section 4.9.2.3). These measures would be implemented in compliance 

with Section 106 of the NHPA, 36 CFR Part 800, and the PA to avoid or mitigate the adverse 

effects and reduce them to a minor level. 

Table 4.9-7 

Proposed projects with potential adverse effects to cultural resources 

under the Town Center Alternative 

Project 

number Project description Description of potential effects 

2 Secure Administration 

Facility 

Potential adverse direct effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District 

(specifically the South Post golf course, which is a contributing 

property) from construction of new building 

4 Hospital Potential adverse visual effect to Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground from construction of new building 

6 NARMC HQ Building Potential adverse visual effect to Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground from construction of new building 

8 Infrastructure Potential adverse visual effect to Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground from construction of new buildings 

11 USANCA Support Facility Potential adverse visual effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District 

from building renovation 

13 Child Development Center Potential adverse direct effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District 

(specifically the South Post golf course, which is a contributing 

property) from construction of new building 

14 Administrative Facility Potential adverse direct and visual effects to Fort Belvoir 

Historic District from renovation of four existing buildings 

15 Access Control Point Potential adverse visual effect to Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground from new construction 

17 PEO EIS Administrative 

Facility and Network 

Enterprise 

Communications Facility 

Potential adverse visual effect to Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground from new construction 

18 Structured Parking Facility, 

200 Area 

Potential adverse visual effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District 

from construction of parking facility 

20 MWR Family Travel Camp Potential adverse direct and indirect effects to nearby eligible 

archaeology (44FX1328) site from construction of family camp 

and associated infrastructure and increased access to the site 

by the public 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-317

4.9.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CITY CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

4.9.4.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects could be expected to historic properties as a result 

of implementing the City Center Alternative land use plan. The determination of these effects is 

detailed below. The potential adverse effects to historic properties would include direct and 

indirect effects to their integrity (i.e., physical harm or change) and direct visual or noise effects 

to their setting. These adverse effects would arise from changing land use designations from 

nondevelopment to development and subsequent implementation of projects in accordance with 

the new land use designations. Historic properties that could be adversely affected include one 

eligible and nineteen potentially eligible archaeological sites, Pohick Church, Pohick Church 

Historic Overlay District, Old Colchester Road, the Mount Air Historic Overlay District, a 

potentially eligible railroad multiple property resource, Woodlawn Historic Overlay District, 

Woodlawn Historic District, and the eligible Fort Belvoir Historic District. 

The potential beneficial effects to historic properties would include prevention of direct and 

indirect effects to their integrity (i.e., physical harm or change) and direct visual effects to their 

setting. This protection would arise from changing land use designations from development to 

nondevelopment and subsequent restriction of projects in accordance with the new land use 

designations. Historic properties that could be beneficially affected include thirteen potentially 

eligible archaeological sites, Pohick Church, Pohick Church Historic Overlay District, Old 

Colchester Road, potentially eligible airfield historic resources, the Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground, Woodlawn Historic Overlay District, Woodlawn Historic District, Carlby, Union 

Farm, and Mount Vernon. 

Under the City Center Alternative, the Troop Housing on the North Post would change to 

Professional/Institutional uses and an Industrial area on the South Post would be converted to Troop uses. 

However, implementing these changes could be delayed due to funding concerns, resulting in the current 

uses of these areas being continued indefinitely. The following analysis of the adverse and beneficial effects 

of the City Center Alternative includes both situations. 

4.9.4.1.1 GSA Parcel 

There is little potential for archaeological resources on the GSA Parcel, and there are no historic 

properties listed on national, state, or county registers near the GSA Parcel boundaries. Formal 

evaluation of the buildings on the GSA Parcel would need to be completed before initiating any 

projects; thus, the buildings are treated as potentially eligible in this EIS. The GSA Parcel was not 

included in the 1993 land use plan. Designation of the GSA Parcel as Professional/Institutional 

would allow for development, making direct adverse physical effects to these properties likely. 

4.9.4.1.2 EPG 

There are no historic properties within or near the EPG; therefore, changes in planned land use 

would have no effect on historic properties. 

4.9.4.1.3 Southwest Area 

Adverse Effects. A portion of the area designated as Environmentally Sensitive in 1993 would be 

changed to Training. This area contains potentially eligible archaeological sites. Although the 

proposed designation would not allow development, training use of the area could result in direct 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-318

and indirect adverse physical effects to fourteen of the potentially eligible sites (site numbers 

44FX705, -1077, -1078, -1644, -1645, -1646, -1649, -1650, -1658, -1659, -1688, -1689, -1694, 

and -1697). Training in this area could also result in direct adverse auditory effects to Pohick 

Church, Pohick Church Historic Overlay District, and Old Colchester Road. 

Beneficial Effects. Areas designated as Industrial and Administration & Education in 1993 would 

be changed to Training. These areas are adjacent to Pohick Church, Pohick Church Historic 

Overlay District, and Old Colchester Road. The proposed change would prevent development 

near these historic properties, protecting them from direct adverse visual effects. Also, these areas 

contain eleven potentially eligible archaeological sites (site numbers 44FX667, -1642, -1643, -

1679, -1687, -1693, -1704, -1705, -1707, -1711, and -1719). While training use of the areas could 

result in adverse effects to these sites, the Training designation would prevent development in 

these areas. Both of these would be beneficial effects. 

4.9.4.1.4 Davison Army Airfield 

Adverse Effects. Areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive in 1993 would be changed to 

Airfield. The area includes three potentially eligible archaeological sites (44FX35, -1938, and -

1949). The new designation would allow for development, thus making direct and indirect 

adverse physical effects to these sites possible. Also, lack of development along the Fort Belvoir 

Military Railroad has maintained the potentially eligible status of a railroad-themed multiple 

property resource. However, changing the designation to Airfield would allow for development 

and direct visual adverse effects to this resource. The Mount Air Historic Overlay District lies 

adjacent to the airfield. The change to Airfield would allow for development and direct visual 

adverse effects to this resource. 

Beneficial Effects. The Davison Army Airfield would maintain its designation and use as an 

airfield. By maintaining the historic use of the airfield, these potentially eligible resources are 

likely to be used for their original purposes and are less likely to undergo major renovation. 

4.9.4.1.5 North Post 

Adverse Effects. The proposed southernmost Professional/Institutional area would contain an 

area previously designated in 1993 as Environmentally Sensitive. This area contains a potentially 

eligible archaeological site, 44FX1914. With the Professional/Institutional designation, this area 

would be open for development, making direct and indirect adverse physical effects to this site 

possible. The area northwest of Fort Belvoir Elementary School would be redesignated from 

Environmentally Sensitive to Residential, taking a protected area and opening it up for possible 

development. This area contains an eligible archaeological site, 44FX1942, and redesignation 

would make direct and indirect adverse physical effects to this site possible. The area to the east 

of the school would also change from Environmentally Sensitive to Residential. This area is 

adjacent to the Woodlawn Historic Overlay District and Woodlawn Historic District, and 

development here could result in direct adverse visual effects to these districts. 

Beneficial Effects. In the 1993 land use plan, the northeast portion of the North Post has a Family 

Housing area that has not been developed. This area contains one potentially eligible 

archaeological site, 44FX461. Under the City Center Alternative, this area would be redesignated 

as Community, which is less likely to be developed; thus, the site would be less likely to be 

adversely effected. This change would also make less likely the potential for direct adverse visual 

effects to the Woodlawn Historic Overlay District and Woodlawn Historic District from 

developments in this area. A very small area just north of the Friends Meeting House and Burial 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-319

Ground and surrounding the Center for Army Analysts would be changed from Administration & 

Education to Community. This change would make development less likely in this area and 

protect this historic property, and the Woodlawn Historic District of which it is a part, from direct 

adverse visual effects. 

4.9.4.1.6 South Post 

Adverse Effects. An area just north of Gerber Village would be redesignated from Community to 

Residential. This change would make development in this area likely. Because the area is 

adjacent to the Fort Belvoir Historic District, potential adverse visual effects could occur. East of 

Jadwin Loop along the river shore, an area designated in 1993 as Outdoor Recreation would be 

redesignated as Residential. This area contains a potentially eligible archaeological site, 

44FX1341, and with the proposed designation, this site would be at risk for direct and indirect 

adverse physical effects from development. In the southwest portion of the South Post, an area 

currently designated as Outdoor Recreation and Environmentally Sensitive would be changed to 

Community, opening this area to development. This could have an adverse visual effect on the 

viewshed of Overlook Farm and Gunston Hall. 

Beneficial Effects. The eastern portion of the South Post would be redesignated from 

Administration & Education to Residential. The types of development likely under Residential 

are much less likely to be visible from historic properties across Dogue Creek and the Potomac 

River (such as Carlby, Union Farm, and Mount Vernon) than the types of construction likely 

under the 1993 designation. Also, landscaping and open spaces associated with residential 

developments could mimic natural open spaces, thereby disguising developments. The area 

adjacent to the southern end of the Woodlawn Historic Overlay District and Woodlawn Historic 

District is one of the areas that would be redesignated as Residential. Residential developments in 

this location would be easier to screen from view from these districts. This change could result in 

protection of these historic properties from direct adverse visual effects. The area north of the 

proposed Troop area would be redesignated from Supply Storageto Community. This area 

contains one potentially eligible archaeological site, 44FX1903, which could be more easily 

protected from development and direct adverse physical effects under the proposed designation. 

4.9.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term minor adverse effects could be expected to historic properties as a result of some of the 

20 proposed projects under the City Center Alternative. The potential adverse effects to historic 

properties would include direct and indirect effects to their integrity (i.e., physical harm or change) 

and direct visual effects to their setting. Historic properties that could be adversely affected include 

the Fort Belvoir Historic District, Friends Meeting House and Burial Ground, potentially eligible 

buildings in the GSA Parcel, and one eligible archaeological site. 

On the basis of general locations and characteristics of the proposed projects, as compared with 

information on historic property locations, a broad assessment of potential effects could be made. 

The results of this assessment are presented in Table 4.9-8, which lists those proposed projects that 

have a potential to adversely affect cultural resources. 

There are no historic properties, architectural or archaeological, on the EPG. There are no historic 

properties listed on national, state, or county registers near the EPG boundaries. Although 

proposed projects 1, 3, 4, 6 through 10, 12, and 17 are the types of project that could affect 

cultural resources, because they are on the EPG, they would have no potential to affect cultural 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-320

Table 4.9-8 

Proposed projects with potential adverse effects to cultural resources 

under the City Center Alternative 

Project 

number Project description Description of potential effects 

2 Secure Administrative 

Facility 

Potential adverse direct effect to potentially eligible buildings in GSA 

Parcel from demolition of all existing structures 

11 USANCA Support Facility Potential adverse visual effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District from 

building renovation 

13 Child Development Center Potential adverse direct effect to potentially eligible buildings in GSA 

Parcel from demolition of all existing structures 

14 Administrative Facility Potential adverse direct and visual effects to Fort Belvoir Historic 

District from renovation of four existing building 

15 Access Control Point Potential adverse visual effect to Friends Meeting House and Burial 

Ground from new construction 

18 Structured Parking Facility, 

200 Area 

Potential adverse visual effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District from 

construction of parking facility 

20 MWR Family Travel Camp Potential adverse direct and indirect effects to nearby eligible 

archaeology site (44FX1328) from construction of family camp and 

associated infrastructure and increased access to the site by the public 

 

resources. Proposed projects 5, 16, and 19 are either not activities that could affect cultural 

resources, or are in an area removed from historic properties. However, when conducting grounddisturbing activities, there is always the possibility that buried archaeological resources could be 

discovered. 

There is little potential for archaeological resources on the GSA Parcel, and there are no historic 

properties listed on national, state, or county registers near the GSA Parcel boundaries. Formal 

evaluation of the buildings on the GSA Parcel would need to be completed before demolition; 

thus, they are treated as potentially eligible in this EIS. It is likely that these warehouses are not 

eligible, and in this case, projects 2 and 13 would not adversely affect any historic properties. 

4.9.4.3 BMPs/Mitigation 

Implementing the City Center Alternative and the 20 proposed projects would likely result in 

long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects on cultural resources. The nature of the potential 

adverse effects is the same as that identified for the Preferred Alternative; thus, the BMPs that 

would be implemented to address the adverse effects would be the same as those described for the 

Preferred Alternative (see Section 4.9.2.3). These measures would be implemented in compliance 

with Section 106 of the NHPA, 36 CFR Part 800, and the PA to avoid or mitigate the adverse 

effects. 

4.9.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SATELLITE CAMPUSES 

ALTERNATIVE 

4.9.5.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects could be expected to historic properties as a result 

of implementing the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. The determination of these 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-321

effects is detailed below. The potential adverse effects to historic properties would include direct 

and indirect effects to their integrity (i.e., physical harm or change) and direct visual or noise 

effects to their setting. These adverse effects would arise from changing land use designations 

from nondevelopment to development and subsequent implementation of projects in accordance 

with the new land use designations. Historic properties that could be adversely affected include 

one eligible and nineteen potentially eligible archaeological sites, Pohick Church, Pohick Church 

Historic Overlay District, Old Colchester Road, the Mount Air Historic Overlay District, a 

potentially eligible railroad multiple property resource, potentially eligible airfield historic 

resources, the Woodlawn United Methodist Church Cemetery, and Woodlawn Historic Overlay 

District, Woodlawn Historic District. 

The potential beneficial effects to historic properties would include prevention of direct and 

indirect effects to their integrity (i.e., physical harm or change) and direct visual effects to their 

setting. This protection would arise from changing land use designations from development to 

nondevelopment and subsequent restriction of projects in accordance with the new land use 

designations. Historic properties that could be beneficially affected include thirteen potentially 

eligible archaeological sites, Pohick Church, Pohick Church Historic Overlay District, Old 

Colchester Road, the Friends Meeting House and Burial Ground, Woodlawn Historic Overlay 

District, Woodlawn Historic District, Carlby, Union Farm, and Mount Vernon. 

Under the Satellite Campuses Alternative, the Troop Housing on the North Post would change to 

Professional/Institutional uses and an Industrial area on the South Post would be converted to Troop 

uses. However, implementing these changes could be delayed due to funding concerns, resulting in 

the current uses of these areas being continued indefinitely. The following analysis of the adverse 

and beneficial effects of the Satellite Campuses Alternative includes both situations. 

4.9.5.1.1 EPG 

There are no historic properties within or near the EPG; therefore, changes in planned land use 

would have no effect to historic properties. 

4.9.5.1.2 Southwest Area 

Adverse Effects. A portion of the area designated as Environmentally Sensitive in 1993 would be 

changed to Training. This area contains potentially eligible archaeological sites. Although the 

proposed designation would not allow development, training use of the area could result in direct 

and indirect adverse physical effects to fourteen of the potentially eligible sites (site numbers 

44FX705, -1077, -1078, -1644, -1645, -1646, -1649, -1650, -1658, -1659, -1688, -1689, -1694, 

and -1697). Training in this area could also result in direct adverse auditory effects to Pohick 

Church, Pohick Church Historic Overlay District, and Old Colchester Road. 

Beneficial Effects. Areas designated as Industrial and Administration & Education in 1993 would 

be changed to Training. These areas are adjacent to Pohick Church, Pohick Church Historic 

Overlay District, and Old Colchester Road. The proposed change would prevent development 

near these historic properties, protecting them from direct adverse visual effects. Also, these areas 

contain eleven potentially eligible archaeological sites (site numbers 44FX667, -1642, -1643, -

1679, -1687, -1693, -1704, -1705, -1707, -1711, and -1719). While training use of the areas could 

result in adverse effects to these sites, the Training designation would prevent development in 

these areas. Both of these would be beneficial effects. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-322

4.9.5.1.3 Davison Army Airfield 

Adverse Effects. Areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive in 1993 would be changed to 

Professional/Institutional. The area includes three potentially eligible archaeological sites 

(44FX35, -1938, and -1949). The new designation would allow for development, thus making 

direct and indirect adverse physical effects to these sites possible. Also, lack of development 

along the Fort Belvoir Military Railroad has maintained the potentially eligible status of a 

railroad-themed multiple property resource. However, changing the designation to 

Professional/Institutional would allow for development and direct visual adverse effects to this 

resource. Changing the Airfield to a designation of Professional/Institutional would allow for 

incompatible development and risk direct adverse physical and visual effects to the potentially 

eligible airfield historic resources. The Mount Air Historic Overlay District lies adjacent to the 

airfield. The change to Professional/Institutional would allow for development near this historic 

property and direct adverse visual effects to this resource. 

Beneficial Effects. There would be no beneficial effects to cultural resources from the land use 

change at Davison Army Airfield. 

4.9.5.1.4 North Post 

Adverse Effects. The proposed southernmost Professional/Institutional area would include an 

area previously designated in 1993 as Environmentally Sensitive. This area contains a potentially 

eligible archaeological site, 44FX1914. With the Professional/Institutional designation, this area 

would be open for development, making direct and indirect adverse physical effects to this site 

possible. The area surrounding Woodlawn United Methodist Church Cemetery would be changed 

from Community to Professional/Institutional. This change would make development around the 

cemetery more likely, thereby increasing the risk for direct adverse visual effects. The area 

northwest of Fort Belvoir Elementary School would be redesignated from Environmentally 

Sensitive to Residential, taking a protected area and opening it up for possible development. This 

area contains an eligible archaeological site, 44FX1942, and redesignation would make direct and 

indirect adverse physical effects to this site possible. The area to the east of the school would also 

change from Environmentally Sensitive to Residential. This area is adjacent to the Woodlawn 

Historic Overlay District and Woodlawn Historic District, and development here could result in 

direct adverse visual effects to these districts. 

Beneficial Effects. In the 1993 land use plan, the northeast portion of the North Post has a Family 

Housing area that has not been developed. This area contains one potentially eligible 

archaeological site, 44FX461. Under the Satellite Campuses Alternative, this area would be 

redesignated as Community, which is less likely to be developed; thus, the site would be less 

likely to be adversely effected. This change would also make less likely the potential for direct 

adverse visual effects to the Woodlawn Historic Overlay District and Woodlawn Historic District 

from developments in this area. A very small area just north of the Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground, and surrounding the Center for Army Analysis would be changed from 

Administration & Education to Community. This change would make development less likely in 

this area and protect this historic property, and the Woodlawn Historic District of which it is a 

part, from direct adverse visual effects. 

4.9.5.1.5 South Post 

Adverse Effects. East of Jadwin Loop along the river shore, an area designated in 1993 as 

Outdoor Recreation would be redesignated as Residential. This area contains a potentially eligible 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-323

archaeological site, 44FX1341, and with the proposed designation, this site would be at risk for 

direct and indirect adverse physical effects from development. In the southwest portion of the 

South Post, and area currently designated as Outdoor Recreation and Environmentally Sensitive 

would be changed to Community, opening this area to development. This could have an adverse 

visual effect on the viewsheds of Overlook Farm and Gunston Hall. 

Beneficial Effects. The eastern portion of the South Post would be redesignated from 

Administration & Education to Residential. The types of development likely under Residential 

are much less likely to be visible from historic properties across Dogue Creek and the Potomac 

River (such as Carlby, Union Farm, and Mount Vernon) than the types of construction likely 

under the 1993 designation. Also, landscaping and open spaces associated with residential 

developments could mimic natural open spaces, thereby disguising developments. The area 

adjacent to the southern end of Woodlawn Historic Overlay District and Woodlawn Historic 

District is one of the areas that would be redesignated as Residential. Residential developments in 

this location would be easier to screen from view from these districts. This change could result in 

protection of these historic properties from direct adverse visual effects. The area north of the 

proposed Troop area would be redesignated from Supply Storage to Community. This area 

contains one potentially eligible archaeological site, 44FX1903, which could be more easily 

protected from development and direct adverse physical effects under the proposed designation. 

4.9.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term minor adverse effects could occur to historic properties as a result of some of the 19 

proposed projects under the Satellite Campuses Alternative. The potential adverse effects to 

historic properties would include direct and indirect effects to their integrity (i.e., physical harm 

or change) and direct visual effects to their setting. Historic properties that could be adversely 

affected include the Fort Belvoir Historic District, Friends Meeting House and Burial Ground, 

potentially eligible buildings in Davison Army Airfield, one eligible archaeological site, Lacey 

Hill Cemetery, and Woodlawn United Methodist Church Cemetery. 

On the basis of general locations and characteristics of the proposed projects, as compared with 

information on historic property locations, a broad assessment of potential effects could be made. 

The results of this assessment are presented in Table 4.9-9, which lists those proposed projects 

that have a potential to adversely affect cultural resources. 

Proposed projects 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, and 19 are either not activities that could affect cultural 

resources, or are in an area removed from historic properties. However, when conducting grounddisturbing activities, there is always the possibility that buried archaeological resources could be 

discovered. 

Projects 1 and 12 would include construction of two new buildings at Davison Army Airfield. 

The buildings at the airfield have not been formally evaluated for historic significance. The 

introduction of new buildings could adversely affect the setting of any potentially eligible 

properties. 

4.9.5.3 BMPs/Mitigation 

Implementing the Satellite Campuses Alternative and the 19 proposed projects would likely result 

in long-term minor adverse effects and beneficial effects on cultural resources. The nature of the 

potential adverse effects is the same as that identified for the Preferred Alternative; thus, the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-324

Table 4.9-9 

Proposed projects with potential adverse effects to cultural resources 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

Project 

number Project description Description of potential effects 

1 NGA Administrative Facility Potential adverse visual effect to potentially eligible buildings in 

Davison Army Airfield from construction of new building 

2 Secure Administrative 

Facility 

Potential adverse visual effect to Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground from construction of a new building 

3 MDA Facility Potential adverse visual effect to Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground from construction of a new building 

8 Infrastructure Potential adverse visual effect to Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground from construction of new buildings and bridge 

10 Network Operations Center Potential adverse visual effect to Lacey Hill Cemetery and 

Woodlawn United Methodist Church Cemetery from 

construction of new building, storage center, and satellite yard 

11 USANCA Support Facility Potential adverse visual effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District 

from building renovation 

12 Child Development Center Potential adverse visual effect to potentially eligible buildings in 

Davison Army Airfield from construction of new building 

13 Child Development Center Potential adverse visual effect to Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground from construction of a new building 

14 Administrative Facility Potential adverse direct and visual effects to Fort Belvoir 

Historic District from renovation of four existing building 

15 Access Control Point Potential adverse visual effect to Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground from new construction 

17 PEO EIS Administrative 

Facility and Network 

Enterprise 

Communications Facility 

Potential adverse visual effects to Lacey Hill Cemetery and 

Woodlawn United Methodist Church Cemetery from 

construction of three new buildings and two parking garage 

18 Structured Parking Facility, 

200 Area 

Potential adverse visual effect to Fort Belvoir Historic District 

from construction of parking facility 

20 MWR Family Travel Camp Potential adverse direct and indirect effects to nearby eligible 

archaeology site (44FX1328) from construction of family camp 

and associated infrastructure, and increased access to the site 

by the public 

BMPs that would be implemented to address the adverse effects would be the same as those 

described for the Preferred Alternative (see Section 4.9.2.3). These measures would be 

implemented in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, 36 CFR Part 800, and the PA to 

avoid or mitigate the adverse effects. 

4.9.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No Action Alternative, future development at the installation would be conducted in 

accordance with the 1993 master plan, as amended in 2002. No adverse effects to cultural 

resources would occur if the BRAC action was not implemented. The Fort Belvoir ICRMP would 

continue to provide strategic guidance for development of real property assets to ensure potential 

effects to historic properties are identified and mitigated. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-325

4.9.7 SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

4.9.7.1 Comparison of Land Use Plan Alternatives 

Each alternative discussed above was analyzed to identify potential effects arising from changing 

the land use plan from the 1993/2002 plan to the proposed plan. Analysis focused on changes 

from nondevelopment designations to development, and vice versa. Table 4.9-10 compares the 

three action alternatives to the Preferred Alternative, with regard to the identified potential 

effects, to provide a basis for comparison. 

Minor adverse effects, including direct and indirect physical effects and direct visual and noise 

effects, could occur to both archaeological sites and historic resources under each of the 

alternatives. The nature of the effects is the same from one alternative to the next. Mitigation 

measures common to all the alternatives would avoid or reduce the adverse effects. Thus, from a 

general perspective, the alternatives are very similar. Specific comparison of the land use 

alternatives at an impact-by-impact level is not possible until certain planned studies have been 

completed, including historic resource surveys in areas proposed for development. 

Table 4.9-10 

Comparison of land use plan alternatives against the Preferred Alternative 

Area 

Town Center 

Alternative 

City Center 

Alternative 

Satellite Campuses 

Alternative 

GSA Parcel Not applicable Adverse effects to potentially 

eligible historic buildings 

Not applicable 

EPG Same as Preferred Same as Preferred Same as Preferred 

Southwest Area Same as Preferred Same as Preferred Same as Preferred 

Davison Army 

Airfield 

Same as Preferred Same as Preferred Same as Preferred except: 

(1) potentially eligible airfield 

historic structures could be 

adversely affected; (2) there 

would be no beneficial effects 

North Post Same as Preferred except: 

(1) Woodlawn United 

Methodist Church Cemetery 

could have adverse visual 

effects; (2) three fewer 

potentially eligible sites would 

be protected 

Same as Preferred except: 

(1) three fewer potentially 

eligible sites would be 

protected 

Same as Preferred except: 

(1) Woodlawn United 

Methodist Church Cemetery 

could have adverse visual 

effects; (2) three fewer 

potentially eligible sites would 

be protected 

South Post Same as Preferred Same as Preferred except: 

(1) the potentially eligible golf 

course and Fort Belvoir 

Historic District would not 

have adverse physical 

effects; (2)Friends Meeting 

House and Burial Ground 

would not have adverse 

visual effects; (3) Fort Belvoir 

Historic District would have 

adverse visual effects 

Same as Preferred except: 

(1) the potentially eligible golf 

course and Fort Belvoir 

Historic District would not 

have adverse physical 

effects; (2)Friends Meeting 

House and Burial Ground 

would not have adverse 

visual effects 

Note: The No Action Alternative has no potential effects; thus, it is not included in this table. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-326

4.9.7.2 Comparison of BRAC Project Alternatives 

Assessment of specific adverse effects to historic properties from the proposed BRAC projects 

depends on the exact location of the proposed projects and the specific design details of the 

projects. These details include such things as building materials, construction footprint, height of 

buildings, and building design. Many of these project details cannot be determined until Fort 

Belvoir initiates the project design process. Until these details are developed, the exact nature and 

extent of adverse effects cannot be determined. However, for each of the alternatives, a broad 

assessment of potential effects was based on general locations and characteristics of the proposed 

projects, as compared with information on historic property locations. 

A simple tally of the number of proposed projects under each alternative that could result in 

adverse effects shows that the Preferred Alternative has 10 such projects, Town Center 

Alternative has 11, City Center Alternative has 7, and Satellite Campuses Alternative has 13. 

However, this tally alone does not provide information on the number of resources that could be 

affected by each project or the type or extent of effects. A more detailed comparison of BRAC 

project alternatives is provided in Table 4.9-11. 

Minor adverse effects could occur to archaeological sites and historic resources under all the 

BRAC project alternatives. The nature of the effects is the same between alternatives, and the 

same mitigation measures would be applied to avoid or reduce the effects. As such, like the land 

use plan alternatives, the BRAC project alternatives are also very similar. 

Table 4.9-11 

Potential effects to cultural resources from BRAC project alternatives 

Cultural Resource 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Town 

Center 

Alternative 

City 

Center 

Alternative 

Satellite 

Campuses 

Alternative 

Fort Belvoir Historic District 

(eligible) 

3v, 10v, 11v, 

14d, 14v, 

17v, 18v 

11v, 14d, 

14v, 18v 

11v, 14d, 

14v, 18v 

11v, 14d, 

14v, 18v 

Fort Belvoir Historic District golf 

course (potentially eligible) 

4d, 6d 2d, 13d 

Friends Meeting House and 

Burial Ground (eligible) 

15v 4v, 6v, 8v, 

15v, 17v 

15v 2v, 3v, 8v, 

13v, 15v 

Lacey Hill Cemetery 

(potentially eligible) 

 10v, 17v 

Woodlawn United Methodist 

Cemetery (potentially eligible) 

10v, 17v 

archaeological site 44FX1328 

(eligible) 

20d, 20i 20d, 20i 20d, 20i 20d, 20i 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-327

Table 4.9-11 

Potential effects to cultural resources from BRAC project alternatives

(continued) 

Cultural Resource 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Town 

Center 

Alternative 

City 

Center 

Alternative 

Satellite 

Campuses 

Alternative 

GSA buildings (potentially 

eligible) 

2d, 13d 

Davison Army Airfield buildings 

(potentially eligible) 

 1v, 12v 

Note: The number refers to the Project Number and the letter refers to the type of effect as listed here: 

d = direct physical effects 

i = indirect physical effects 

v = visual effects 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-328

4.10 SOCIOECONOMICS 

4.10.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This section describes the contribution of Fort Belvoir to the economy and social conditions in 

the region (National Capital Region). . The socioeconomic indicators used for this study include 

regional economic activity, population, housing, and quality of life. These indicators characterize 

the region of influence (ROI) that would be most affected by the proposed action at Fort Belvoir. 

An ROI is a geographic area selected as a basis on which economic and social impacts of the 

proposed action are analyzed. The criteria used to determine the ROI are the residency 

distribution of Fort Belvoir employees, the commuting patterns (distances and times), and the 

location of businesses providing goods and services to Fort Belvoir, its personnel, and their 

dependents. Fort Belvoir sits in Fairfax County, Virginia; part of the National Capital Region 

(NCR) and Fort Belvoir functions as an administrative support center for the NCR. The federal 

government is the core of the region, providing jobs and procuring goods and services throughout 

the area, of which Fort Belvoir is a part. This explains the high degree of economic and social 

integration of Washington, DC and the adjacent communities. Employees of Fort Belvoir and 

other federal agencies that would relocate to Fort Belvoir because of the BRAC action, reside 

throughout the NCR. On the basis of these criteria, the ROI for the socioeconomic environment is 

composed of the following counties and cities: Alexandria City, Arlington County, Fairfax City, 

Fairfax County, Falls Church City, Loudoun County, Manassas City, Manassas Park City, Prince 

William County, and Stafford County in Virginia; Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and 

Prince George’s Counties in Maryland; and Washington, DC. The ROI encompasses a large land 

area of 2,782 square miles (Figure 1-3). 

The baseline year for socioeconomic data presented here is 2005, the date of the BRAC 

Commission’s announcement of the Fort Belvoir realignment. Where 2005 data are not available, 

the most recent data available are presented. Projections beyond 2005 are also provided, as 

appropriate, to illustrate trends. 

4.10.1.1 Economic Development 

4.10.1.1.1 Employment and Industry 

The Fort Belvoir installation supports a working population of approximately 22,000, about 6,400 

of which are military personnel, and the remainder is civilians and contractors. Fort Belvoir is 

home to 2 Army major command headquarters and elements of 10 others; 19 different agencies 

and direct reporting units of the Army; 8 elements of the U.S. Army Reserve and the Army 

National Guard; 26 DoD agencies; a Marine Corps detachment; a U.S. Air Force activity; and a 

Department of the Treasury agency (Fort Belvoir, 2006c). 

The ROI supports a working population of more than 2.7 million. The number of jobs in the ROI 

increased by about 119,000 between 2001 and 2005 (Table 4.10-1). The largest employment 

sectors in the ROI are the professional and business services sector, which accounts for 23 

percent of total ROI employment, and the government sector (federal, state, and local), which 

accounts for 22 percent of total ROI employment. Of that 22 percent, 12 percent are federal 

civilian jobs and 9 percent are state and local government jobs. While direct federal government 

jobs have fallen from about 22 percent of total employment in 1980, sharp increases in federal 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-329

Table 4.10-1 

ROI Employment by Industry 

 Change 2001–2005 

NAICS Industry Year 2001 Year 2005 Number Percent 

Natural Resources & Mining 1,406 1,671 265 19% 

Manufacturing 70,083 59,622 (10,461) -15% 

Construction 152,561 168,598 16,037 11% 

Trade, Transport, & Utilities 361,180 366,652 5,472 2% 

Information 128,118 97,224 (30,894) -24% 

Financial Activities 143,313 153,396 10,083 7% 

Professional and Business Services 558,579 611,099 52,520 9% 

Educational & Health Services 256,776 275,852 19,076 7% 

Leisure & Hospitality 209,201 233,742 24,541 12% 

Other Services 138,789 145,617 6,828 5% 

Government 571,587 599,543 27,956 5% 

 Federal 324,842 336,969 12,127 4% 

 State 68,510 67,353 (1,157) -2% 

 Local 178,235 195,221 16,986 10% 

Unclassified/Other 2,954 873 (2,081) -70% 

Total 2,594,547 2,713,889 119,342 5% 

Source: MWCOG, 2006a 

government contracting has more than offset this decline in direct employment and helped push 

up ROI wages, home prices, and cost of living (McMillion, 2006). 

Employment forecasts estimate that ROI employment would increase by almost 322,000 jobs or 

11 percent between 2005 and 2010, and by about 1,186,000 jobs or 39 percent between 2005 and 

2030 (Table 4.10-2). The jurisdictions projected to have the highest percentage growth are 

Loudoun County, Falls Church City, Stafford County, and Prince William County. The highest 

increases in the number of jobs are forecast for Fairfax County, Prince George’s County, 

Montgomery County, and Loudoun County. 

The ROI 2005 annual unemployment rate was 3.4 percent (or about 93,000 persons unemployed) 

lower than the national unemployment rate of 5.1 percent (BLS, 2006). The ROI’s 

unemployment rate was relatively stable between 2001 and 2005, averaging a low 3.7 percent. 

The presence of the federal government provides some stability to the ROI during periods of 

economic recession, resulting in less fluctuation in unemployment than may be experienced in 

other regions or on a national level. 

4.10.1.1.2 Income 

The ROI had a per capita personal income (PCPI) of about $47,500 in 2004, one of the highest in 

the nation. This PCPI ranks in the top 5 in the United States and was 144 percent of the national 

average of $33,050. The ROI 2004 PCPI reflects an increase of 6.6 percent from 2003, compared 

to the national change of 5.0 percent. The 1994–2004 average annual growth rate of the ROI 

PCPI was 4.4 percent. The national average annual PCPI growth rate for the same time period 

was 4.1 percent (BEA, 2006). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-330

Table 4.10-2 

Employment forecast 

 Number of jobs Change 2005–2010 Change 2005-2030 

 Year 2005 Year 2010 Year 2030 Number Percent Number Percent 

Alexandria City, VA 105,600 113,300 148,000 7,700 7% 42,400 40% 

Arlington County, VA 195,200 217,800 275,800 22,600 12% 80,600 41% 

Fairfax City, VA 29,200 31,300 39,300 2,100 7% 10,100 35% 

Fairfax County, VA 600,500 683,900 844,600 83,400 14% 244,100 41% 

Falls Church City, VA 9,500 11,800 20,300 2,300 24% 10,800 114% 

Loudoun County, VA 122,700 153,700 271,200 31,000 25% 148,500 121% 

Manassas City, VA 23,300 24,600 26,800 1,300 6% 3,500 15% 

Manassas Park City, VA 3,000 4,500 4,900 1,500 50% 1,900 63% 

Prince William County, VA 111,600 128,600 186,000 17,000 15% 74,400 67% 

Stafford County, VA 38,300 46,100 73,400 7,800 20% 35,100 92% 

Calvert County, MD 29,400 32,900 35,600 3,500 12% 6,200 21% 

Charles County, MD 56,500 62,900 69,100 6,400 11% 12,600 22% 

Frederick County, MD 122,200 142,400 167,300 20,200 17% 45,100 37% 

Montgomery County, MD 500,000 545,000 670,000 45,000 9% 170,000 34% 

Prince George’s County, MD 358,700 390,000 544,700 31,300 9% 186,000 52% 

Washington, DC 745,000 783,600 860,000 38,600 5% 115,000 15% 

ROI 3,050,700 3,372,400 4,237,000 321,700 11% 1,186,300 39% 

Source: MWCOG, 2006a 

4.10.1.1.3 Population 

Table 4.10-3 presents population statistics for the ROI. Fort Belvoir is in a densely populated and 

robust region. In 2005 the ROI population was more than 4.9 million (Table 4.10-3), a 9 percent 

increase over the 2000 population of about 4.5 million. Fairfax County population alone exceeds 

one million. ROI population density is about 1,600 persons per square mile; the population 

density of the United States is about 80 persons per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006b). 

Three counties in the ROI were among the fastest-growing counties in the nation between 2000 

and 2005: Loudoun, Stafford, and Prince William Counties in Virginia (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2006a). Strong population growth is expected through 2030 (MWCOG, 2005a). This projected 

population growth is based on the anticipated long-term strength of the region’s economy, high 

rates of inmigration and international migration, and declines in average household size less rapid 

than previously expected (MWCOG, 2005a). 

Fort Belvoir is in Fairfax County and Northern Virginia’s I-95 corridor. Fairfax County’s 

population (including Fairfax City and Falls Church City) is forecast to increase by about 95,000 

persons (9 percent) between 2005 and 2010. Northern Virginia’s I-95 corridor (including Fairfax 

County, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Prince William County, Manassas and Manassas Park 

City, and Stafford County) is forecast to increase its population by about 177,000 persons (11 

percent) by 2010. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-331

Table 4.10-3 

Population projections 

 Number of persons Change 2005–2010 Change 2005-2030 

 Year 2005 Year 2010 Year 2030 Number Percent Number Percent 

Alexandria City, VA 135,900 143,900 169,400 8,000 6% 33,500 25% 

Arlington County, VA 198,300 212,200 249,600 13,900 7% 51,300 26% 

Fairfax City, VA 22,100 23,500 26,500 1,400 6% 4,400 20% 

Fairfax County, VA 1,040,900 1,132,500 1,330,900 91,600 9% 290,000 28% 

Falls Church City, VA 10,600 12,300 15,400 1,700 16% 4,800 45% 

Loudoun County, VA 247,300 318,100 480,600 70,800 29% 233,300 94% 

Manassas City, VA 37,600 38,600 41,900 1,000 3% 4,300 11% 

Manassas Park City, VA 12,900 15,000 16,800 2,100 16% 3,900 30% 

Prince William County, VA 352,100 416,800 556,300 64,700 18% 204,200 58% 

Stafford County, VA 107,100 121,700 195,800 14,600 14% 88,700 83% 

Calvert County, MD 82,800 91,000 101,400 8,200 10% 18,600 22% 

Charles County, MD 138,000 147,400 204,200 9,400 7% 66,200 48% 

Frederick County, MD 220,900 243,200 339,700 22,300 10% 118,800 54% 

Montgomery County, MD 942,000 1,000,000 1,155,800 58,000 6% 213,800 23% 

Prince George’s County, MD 852,900 872,600 993,100 19,700 2% 140,200 16% 

Washington, DC 577,500 608,700 733,800 31,200 5% 156,300 27% 

ROI 4,978,700 5,397,600 6,609,900 418,900 8% 1,632,600 33% 

Source: MWCOG, 2005b 

4.10.1.2 Sociological Environment 

4.10.1.2.1 Housing 

On-post Housing. Fort Belvoir has 2,070 family-housing units. The housing units are mainly at 

the southern edge of the South Post, with the exception of Lewis Heights and Woodlawn Village, 

which are at the North Post’s eastern edge. The installation has barracks that house about 1,200 

single enlisted personnel and 462 temporary units for visitors and new arrivals (USACE, 2002). 

Off-Post Housing. There were about 1,920,000 housing units in the ROI in 2005 (Table 4.10-4). 

Of these units, about 1,808,000 (94 percent) were occupied. Of the vacant housing units, about 

31,000 were identified as available to rent and about 11,000 were for sale (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2006c). 

The number of housing units in the ROI increased by 7 percent (about 130,300 units) between 

1990 and 2000. The largest numbers of housing units were built in Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince 

William, and Montgomery Counties. More than 30,000 housing units were constructed in 

Loudoun County and about 27,000 were built in Fairfax and Prince William Counties. 

Housing costs in the ROI are considerably higher than the national averages. The median value 

of owner-occupied housing units in the region was about $388,000, or 232 percent of the national 

average of $167,500. Median rent was about $862, or 143 percent of the national median rent of 

$602 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006c). The average sales price for homes in the ROI has increased 

significantly over the past 6 years. Since 1999, the region’s average home sales price has more 

than doubled, appreciating by 119 percent, equating to almost a $250,000 increase in price. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-332

Table 4.10-4 

Number of housing units 

City or county Year 2000 Year 2005 

Change in 

number of units 

Percent 

change 

ROI 1,790,464 1,920,723 130,259 7% 

Alexandria City, VA 64,251 68,406 4,155 6% 

Arlington County, VA 90,426 92,622 2,196 2% 

Fairfax County, VA 359,411 386,856 27,445 8% 

Loudoun County, VA 62,160 93,374 31,214 50% 

Prince William County, VA 98,052 125,667 27,615 28% 

Stafford County, VA 31,405 40,220 8,815 28% 

Calvert County, MD 27,576 31,652 4,076 15% 

Charles County, MD 43,903 50,154 6,251 14% 

Frederick County, MD 73,017 83,173 10,156 14% 

Montgomery County, MD 334,632 356,603 21,971 7% 

Prince George’s County, MD 302,378 314,221 11,843 4% 

Washington, DC 274,845 277,775 2,930 1% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006c 

Notes: 

Fairfax County includes Fairfax City and Falls Church City. 

Prince William County includes Manassas City and Manassas Park City. 

average home sales price in 2005 for all types of housing units in the metropolitan Washington, 

DC area was $454,000. Demand for housing is forecast to grow through 2010, though not at the 

rates experienced in the first half of the decade. The key factor in housing demand is job growth 

(GMU, 2006), and the ROI would grow by about 321,000 jobs between 2005 and 2010 (see Table 

4.10-2). 

The number of homes sold in the region jumped dramatically between 2001 and 2005, from 

86,966 in 2001 to 106,920 units in 2005 (Table 4.10-5) (MWCOG, 2006a). Fairfax County had 

the most homes sold in the region in 2005, with 23,114, followed by Montgomery, Prince 

George’s, and Prince William counties (Table 4.10-5) (MWCOG, 2006a). 

The number of new, privately owned housing unit (single family and multi-unit) construction 

permits authorized in the region decreased from 34,646 in 2004 to 32,849 in 2005 (MWCOG, 

2006a). The average number of permits issued between 2001 and 2005 was 33,387. Of the 

construction permits that were issued in 2005, 59 percent were issued in the Virginia counties of 

the ROI, 33 percent were issued in the Maryland counties, and 9 percent were in Washington, 

DC. Fairfax County (including Fairfax City and Falls Church City), Prince William County, and 

Stafford County had a total of 11,471 permits issued (Table 4.10-6). In the first quarter of 2006, 

6,909 residential construction permits were issued in the ROI (MWCOG 2006d). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-333

Table 4.10-5 

Net home sales in 2001 and 2005 

Jurisdiction 2001 2005 

ROI 86,966 106,920 

Alexandria City, VA 2,975 3,256 

Arlington County, VA 3,086 3,490 

Fairfax City, VA 332 424 

Fairfax County, VA 21,205 23,114 

Falls Church City, VA 172 196 

Loudoun County, VA 6,190 9,123 

Manassas City, VA 890 1,194 

Manassas Park City, VA 270 480 

Prince William County, VA 7,687 11,920 

Stafford County, VA 2,035 2,962 

Calvert County, MD 1,620 1,675 

Charles County, MD 2,201 3,157 

Frederick County, MD 3,807 4,672 

Montgomery County, MD 15,543 17,011 

Prince George’s County, MD 11,270 15,067 

Washington, DC 7,683 9,179 

Source: MWCOG, 2006a. 

Table 4.10-6 

New privately owned housing units authorized in 2005 

Jurisdiction Total Single family 

ROI 32,849 22,145 

Alexandria City, VA 1,017 195 

Arlington County, VA 1,275 166 

Fairfax City, VA 28 28 

Fairfax County, VA 4,353 2,276 

Falls Church City, VA 24 24 

Loudoun County, VA 5,199 4,716 

Manassas City, VA 154 154 

Manassas Park City, VA 188 81 

Prince William County, VA 5,427 5,140 

Stafford County, VA 1,639 1,452 

Calvert County, MD 488 488 

Charles County, MD 1,309 931 

Frederick County, MD 1,872 1,414 

Montgomery County, MD 3,591 1,700 

Prince George’s County, MD 3,425 3,255 

Washington, DC 2,860 125 

Source: MWCOG, 2006a. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-334

4.10.1.2.2 Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, and Medical Services 

The Fort Belvoir Directorate of Emergency Services (DES) oversees professional law 

enforcement, and fire protection and response for the installation. Law enforcement is provided 

by the 212th Military Police (MP) Detachment. The MP provides physical security and performs 

community law enforcement operations including specialized traffic, canine, and investigation 

operations (Fort Belvoir, PAO 2004). Fort Belvoir has three fire stations: No. 465 on the South 

Post, No. 463 on the North Post, and No. 466 at Davison Army Airfield. These stations are 

staffed by five fire companies (three engine companies, one ladder truck company, and one 

airport crash company) with a total staff of about 65 firefighters (Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD, 

2002). The South Post fire station has been identified as inadequate in terms of configuration and 

condition and needs to be renovated or replaced. The Fort Belvoir Fire Department is in need of 

one additional engine company (Sullivan, personal communication, 2007). There are no police, 

fire, or emergency services on EPG. Because of the physical separation, Main Post facilities are 

not adequate to support EPG because they cannot meet adequate emergency response times. Fort 

Belvoir’s Fire Station No. 463 takes about 10 minutes to respond to EPG. The closest fire station 

to EPG is Fairfax County’s Station No. 422 on Backlick Road, which can respond to EPG in 

about 3 to 5 minutes (Sullivan, personal communication, 2007). 

Fort Belvoir has automatic and mutual aid police and fire service agreements with Fairfax 

County. Fort Belvoir is also a party to the Northern Virginia Emergency Services Mutual 

Response Agreement. This memorandum of agreement provides for the automatic mutual 

response of fire, rescue, and emergency services among Northern Virginia jurisdictions including 

Arlington County, City of Alexandria, City of Fairfax, Fairfax County, Fort Belvoir, Metropolitan 

Washington Airports Authority, and Loudoun County (Northern Virginia Emergency Services, no 

date). The closest civilian fire stations to Fort Belvoir are Fairfax County Fire Stations No. 424 

on Lukens Lane, No. 437 off of Telegraph Road, and No. 419 in Lorton. Their response time to 

Fort Belvoir is about 5 to 8 minutes (Sullivan, personal communication, 2007). 

City, county, and state police departments from other agencies provide law enforcement in the 

ROI. The ROI had more than 20,000 law enforcement employees (about 15,000 officers and 

5,000 civilians) as of 2004 (DOJ–FBI, 2006). Fire protection in the ROI is provided by 111 career 

or volunteer fire departments with a total of 501 fire stations. The majority of the fire departments 

(86 departments or 77 percent) are volunteer and the remaining 25 departments are staffed by 

career or mostly career firefighters (NFPA, 2005; USFA, 2006). 

The DeWitt Army Community Hospital on Fort Belvoir provides health care services to active 

and retired military personnel and their families residing in Northern Virginia. DeWitt Hospital is 

a 43-bed facility with an intensive care unit, medical/surgical ward, labor and delivery, 

mother/baby ward, a pharmacy and a pharmacy refill annex at the main PX on-post, and an 

emergency room. It is the only military inpatient facility in Northern Virginia and operates a 24-

hour emergency room. However, DeWitt Hospital does not meet the requirements of a modern 

medical treatment facility. The hospital’s utility systems require renovation, and there are patient 

privacy issues throughout the facility. Dental care on Fort Belvoir is provided at the on-post 

dental clinic, Building 1099. This facility is considered substandard because of poor facility 

conditions. 

The DeWitt Health Care Network is recognized as the primary care base for the Walter Reed 

Health Care System. The DeWitt Health Care Network operates two Family Health Care Clinics 

on military installations, at Fort Belvoir and Fort Myer, as well as two off-post Family Health 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-335

Care Clinics in Fairfax and Woodbridge, Virginia. Adult inpatient and partial programs are 

provided through Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The National Naval Medical Center in 

Bethesda, Maryland, provides adolescent inpatient services. Malcolm Grow Medical Center at 

Andrews Air Force Base offers substance abuse inpatient and partial hospitalization programs. 

There are more than 50 medical facilities in the ROI, including hospitals, medical centers, and 

special care facilities such as hospices and mental health institutes, and more than 9,000 patient 

beds (AHD, 2006; GUH, 2007; WHS, 2007). Virtually all modern medical services are available 

in the ROI. The civilian hospital nearest Fort Belvoir is the Inova Mount Vernon Hospital, a 140-

bed facility about 5 miles northeast of the installation. 

4.10.1.2.3 Schools 

The U.S. Department of Education provides federal impact aid to school districts that have 

federal lands within their jurisdiction as authorized under Public Law 103-282. The mission of 

the Federal Impact Aid program is to disburse Impact Aid payments to local educational agencies 

that are financially burdened by federal activities. The program supports local school districts 

with concentrations of children who reside on Indian lands, military bases, low-rent housing 

properties, and other federal properties, or who have parents in the uniformed services or 

employed on eligible federal properties. The Federal Impact Aid Basic Supports Payments 

(Section 8003[b]) help local school districts that educate federally connected children (U.S. 

Department of Education 2006). When military children attend public schools, enrollment is 

increased, but local tax revenue is lessened because military families live or shop on federal 

property, which is not taxed. The federal government acts as the local taxpayer by funding the 

Federal Impact Aid program for local school districts (DoD, 2005a). Total federal impact aid 

varies year by year according to congressional appropriations for the program. In FY 2004 federal 

impact aid ranged from $450 to $2,200 per student (DoD, 2005a). 

Children living on Fort Belvoir attend schools that are part of the Fairfax County Public School 

System (FCPS). The FCPS has a total of 228 schools including elementary, middle, and high 

schools; alternative high schools; and special education, alternative program, and alternative 

learning centers. Student enrollment is about 166,500, making it the largest school system in 

Virginia and the 13th largest in the United States (FCPS, 2006). FCPS has been challenged to 

meet the demand for new schools and additional classroom space generated by the county’s 

continuing population growth. Consequently, many schools are operating at or near full capacity. 

Mobile classrooms are used to provide additional classroom space. 

As of the 2000 Census, 87 percent of school-aged children living on Fort Belvoir (Census tracts 

4162 and 4219) attended public schools. From Fairfax County enrollment data, about 74 percent 

of students from Fort Belvoir were in grades kindergarten through sixth grade (elementary 

school) (USACE, 2003). 

The Fort Belvoir Elementary School, located on the installation, is one of the largest elementary 

schools in FCPS, serving more than 1,200 students from kindergarten through sixth grade (FCPS, 

2006). Projected enrollment for September 2006 is 1,258 students (FCPS, 2006). Like many 

schools in Fairfax County, Fort Belvoir Elementary has experienced an effective reduction in 

capacity because of reduced class sizes and the space needed by special programs. As a result, 

although the design capacity of the school was for 1,500 students, the school is functionally over 

capacity and mobile classrooms are used to provide necessary extra space (USACE, 2003). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-336

Fort Belvoir middle and high school students attend off-post FCPS schools. Fort Belvoir 

Elementary feeds into the Mount Vernon High School pyramid, and students attend the Whitman 

Middle School. Total enrollment projected for September 2006 is 933 for Whitman Middle 

School and 1,769 students for Mount Vernon High School. Both of these schools are close to Fort 

Belvoir, and students are bused to the schools. Students living on Fort Belvoir also have access to 

other Fairfax County schools through countywide programs and authorized transfers, as well as 

private and religious schools in the area (USACE, 2003). 

Children of military personnel residing off-post attend the school district for the area in which 

they live. In addition to FCPS, the following public school districts serve the ROI: Alexandria 

City School District, Arlington County Public Schools, Falls Church City Public Schools, 

Loudoun County Public Schools, Manassas City Public Schools, Manassas Park City Public 

Schools, Prince William County Public Schools, Stafford County Public Schools, Calvert County 

Public Schools, Charles County School District, Frederick County School District, Montgomery 

County Public Schools, Prince George’s County Public Schools, and the District of Columbia 

Pubic Schools. Together these school districts have more than 1,100 schools, and total enrollment 

was almost 758,000 students (NCES, 2005). The median student-to-teacher ratio was 13.5:1, 

lower than the U.S. average of 15.9:1 (NCES, 2005). Some of these school districts, those in 

counties experiencing strong population growth in particular, have schools operating at or above 

capacity. Portable classrooms are used to house the students to maintain low student-to-teacher 

ratios and small class sizes. Having sufficient funding to meet the needs of enrollment growth, 

building new schools, hiring new teachers and other support staff such as guidance counselors, 

teacher salary agreements and instructional materials continues to be a challenge because of 

budget constraints and the rising cost of education. 

4.10.1.2.4 Family Support and Social Services 

Army Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) is a comprehensive network of support and leisure 

services designed to enhance the lives of Soldiers (active, Reserve, and Guard), their families, 

civilian employees, military retirees, and other eligible participants. MWR contributes to the 

Army’s strength and readiness by offering services to support Soldiers and their families, which 

helps Army recruitment and retention (U.S. Army MWR, 2007). MWR is funded by revenues 

earned from the purchase of MWR services financed through Nonappropriated Funds (NAF); that 

is, MWR is not financed by Congress through taxpayer dollars. 

MWR provides programs and services at each installation including family, child, and youth 

programs. MWR family support programs at Fort Belvoir are Army Community Service (ACS); 

Army Family Action Plan; Army Family Team Building; Family Advocacy Program; and Child 

and Youth Services. Fort Belvoir’s ACS program provides a variety of Soldier and family 

support services programs, including relocation assistance; the Exceptional Family Member 

Program; the Consumer Affairs/Financial Assistance Program; and newcomer Orientation (Fort 

Belvoir PAO, 2004). Fort Belvoir’s personnel and social service activities are in two buildings 

on-post. This causes customers to travel to different locations to receive services, which has a 

negative impact on customer service and Soldier and family morale. The current space is also 

inadequate to support the required ACS programs. Additionally parking is insufficient to allow 

clients, especially Exceptional Family Member clients, easy access to services. 

Child and youth services are available through MWR for military families that need child care 

and preschool educational services. The ROI has many child day care facilities as well as in-home 

child care options. The North Post Child Development Center (CDC) offers about 200 full-day 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-337

care spaces (including kindergarten) and 60 part-day preschool spaces. The South Post CDC 

offers 190 full-day care spaces and about 25 hourly care spaces. These CDCs are at or near 

capacity, with waiting lists for some categories of service. 

The region also has a number of shelters and assistance programs for individuals and families in 

need of the following: temporary placement because of a lack of fixed, regular, or adequate 

residence; financial assistance; protection from abuse or neglect; and assistance to persons with 

disabilities. The Virginia Department of Social Services operates through the county or city local 

social service departments and provides assistance to all citizens of Virginia, including active 

duty military personnel stationed in the state and their families. Virginia Department of Social 

Service provide adult and child protective services, child care, adult day care, assisted living 

facilities, financial assistance, food stamps, low-income energy assistance, support for adults and 

children with special health care needs or disabilities, domestic violence, and substance abuse 

counseling (VDSS, 2006). 

4.10.1.2.5 Shops, Services, and Recreation 

Fort Belvoir’s primary shopping area is the PX Mall on North Post, a discount retail store run by 

the Army and Air Force Exchanges Services (AAFES). that provides goods and services to active 

duty military, their families, retirees, and reservists (ALA, 2007). The AAFES is self-funded 

(NAFs), paying operating costs from revenues. AAFES earnings are also used to fund MWR 

programs, build new stores, or renovate existing facilities without expense to the Federal 

government (AAFES 2007). With the exception of the Commissary the AAFES oversees 

operation of all other retail establishments on the installation, including shoppettes, Class VI, 

tailor shop, military clothing store, service stations (gasoline and automobile maintenance), dry 

cleaner, and barber and beauty shops. The Fort Belvoir Commissary, operated by the Defense 

Commissary Agency (DeCA), sells groceries and health and beauty aids. DeCA is funded with 

appropriated (tax-payer) dollars (ALA, 2007). 

Other shops and service establishments on Fort Belvoir include SunTrust Bank, the Fort Belvoir 

Credit Union, the Religious Education Center, the Chaplain Family Life Center, the Joint 

Personal Property Shipping Office, the Barden Education Center, the Van Noy Library, the 

Veterinary Clinic, and the Self-Help Center (USACE, 2003). 

Fort Belvoir’s MWR program also provides many recreation, sports, entertainment, travel, and 

leisure activities for Soldiers, their families, retirees, and civilians. Facilities include an officer’s 

club, community club, 45-hole golf complex (a 9-hole golf course on the South Post with club 

house and snack bar, and a 36-hole golf course on the North Post with full service golf club and 

dining facilities), tennis courts, swimming pools, athletic fields, archery range, picnic areas, 

playgrounds, soccer fields, football fields, softball fields, walking and running trails, youth 

services center, a 24-lane bowling center with snack bar, and the Sosa Community Center. The 

Fort Belvoir Marina has wet slips and dry-storage facilities that can be rented on an annual basis. 

Some of Fort Belvoir’s undeveloped areas are open to recreational use for fishing, bow hunting, 

bird watching, nature hiking, and environmental education programs (Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD, 

2002). As noted earlier, revenues from the use of these facilities provides for the continued 

operation of MWR and its programs. 

The ROI has ample opportunity for shopping, sightseeing, and recreation. The DC area offers 

numerous museums and historic sites, including the Smithsonian Institution and its many 

museums; historic buildings and monuments; parks and recreation centers; and many performing 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-338

arts centers such as the Kennedy Center. There are boating, kayaking, and sightseeing tours 

conducted on the Potomac River. Washington, DC has professional baseball, basketball, football, 

hockey, and soccer teams. Other financial, real estate, automotive, travel, and service 

establishments are readily available. There are many plazas, malls, and downtown shopping 

areas. The Springfield Mall and Landmark Mall are closest to Fort Belvoir. 

Counties and cities within the ROI offer public parks, recreation facilities, and recreational 

programs including athletic fields for baseball, softball and soccer leagues, basketball courts, golf 

courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, and playgrounds. Fairfax County has identified that 

some of their parks, including those in the Lee and Mount Vernon Districts, are deficient in 

providing needed park athletic and playground facilities for the resident population (Fairfax 

County Board of Supervisors 2007). 

4.10.1.3 Environmental Justice 

Environmental justice addresses the race, ethnicity, and poverty status of populations within the 

ROI. On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The order is 

designed to focus the attention of federal agencies on the human health and environmental 

conditions in minority and low-income communities. Environmental justice analyses are 

performed to identify potential disproportionately high and adverse effects from proposed actions 

and to identify alternatives that might mitigate these effects. 

To identify potential environmental-justice areas, data was collected on minority and low-income 

populations for Census block groups in the ROI. Block groups are subdivisions of a census tract 

and represent the level at which disproportionate impacts would be most noticeable. Table 4.10-7 

lists the block groups that correspond to the Fort Belvoir, EPG, or GSA Parcel and block groups 

that are contiguous with the boundaries of those three areas. Census block groups 4219-1 and 

4162-1 coincide with the land area of the Fort Belvoir installation. Block group 4220-2 coincides 

with Accotink Village, an enclave within Fort Belvoir. 

Minority populations should be identified for environmental justice analyses where either the 

minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or the minority population percentage 

of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general 

population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis (CEQ, 1997). The latter guidance was 

used for this analysis, identifying Census block groups with minority or low-income population 

percentages exceeding the state levels, which have a lower threshold (the percentage of minority 

populations in the state is 30 percent, and the percentage of persons below poverty level is 9.6 

percent). Table 4.10-7 lists minority-population and low-income statistics for these block groups 

and for Virginia. Figure 4.10-1 depicts the minority and low-income block groups. 

Of the 16 block groups identified in the Fort Belvoir affected area, 9 of them, or 56 percent, had a 

higher percentage of minority residents compared to the state, and 1 of the block groups, or 6 

percent, had a higher percentage of low-income residents, compared to the state of Virginia. 

Of the 5 block groups identified for EPG affected area, 4 of them, or 80 percent, had a higher 

percentage of minority residents compared to the state. None of the block groups exceeded the 

state poverty rate. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-339

Of the two block groups identified for the GSA Parcel affected area, both had a higher percentage 

of minority residents compared to the state. Neither of the block groups exceeded the state 

poverty rate. 

In summary, on the basis of Census data, there are areas with high percentages of minority or 

low-income populations that could potentially be affected by the proposed action. Potential 

disproportionate effects on minority or low-income populations are identified and addressed in 

Section 4.10.2 of this EIS. 

Table 4.10-7 

Minority or low-income population 

 Minority Low-income 

Corresponding 

land area 

Census tractblock group Percent 

minority 

Census tractblock group Percent below 

poverty level 

Fort Belvoir 4161-1 13% 4161-1 1% 

Fort Belvoir 4161-2 12% 4161-2 2% 

Fort Belvoir 4162-1 46% 4162-1 5% 

Fort Belvoir 4163-1 8% 4163-1 4% 

Fort Belvoir 4211-4 30% 4211-4 3% 

Fort Belvoir 4211-6 30% 4211-6 0% 

Fort Belvoir 4211-7 32% 4211-7 6% 

Fort Belvoir 4212-1 20% 4212-1 0.2% 

Fort Belvoir 4213-2 29% 4213-2 0.8% 

Fort Belvoir 4217-1 45% 4217-1 6% 

Fort Belvoir 4218-1 55% 4218-1 6% 

Fort Belvoir 4218-2 67% 4218-2 6% 

Fort Belvoir 4219-1 53% 4219-1 8% 

Fort Belvoir 4220-1 44% 4220-1 4% 

Fort Belvoir 4220-2 56% 4220-2 16% 

Fort Belvoir 4221-4 46% 4221-4 6% 

EPG 4315-2 26% 4315-2 1% 

EPG 4316-1 42% 4316-1 5% 

EPG 4316-2 68% 4316-2 9% 

EPG 4327-1 33% 4327-1 0% 

EPG 4328-1 40% 4328-1 5% 

GSA Parcel 4210-1 39% 4210-1 4% 

GSA Parcel 4210-4 47% 4210-4 3% 

Virginia Virginia 30% Virginia 9.6% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-341

4.10.1.4 Protection of Children 

On April 21, 1997, President Clinton issued EO 13045, Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This EO directs each federal agency to ensure that 

its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate environmental health or 

safety risks to children that may result from the agency’s actions. EO 13045 recognizes that a 

growing body of scientific knowledge demonstrates that children may suffer disproportionately 

from environmental health and safety risks. These risks arise because of the following facts: 

• Children’s neurological, immunological, digestive, and other bodily systems are still 

developing 

• Children eat more food, drink more fluids, and breathe more air in proportion to their body 

weight than adults; 

• Children’s size and weight may diminish their protection from standard safety features 

• Children’s behavior patterns make them more susceptible to accidents because they are less 

able to protect themselves 

Therefore, to the extent permitted by law, appropriate and consistent with the agency’s mission, 

the President directed each federal agency: to 1) make it a high priority to identify and assess 

environmental health risks and safety risks that might disproportionately affect children; and 2) 

ensure that the agency’s policies, programs, and standards address disproportionate 

environmental health risks or safety risks to children. Examples of risks to children include 

increased traffic volumes and industrial- or production-oriented activities that would generate 

substances or pollutants that children could come into contact with and ingest. 

Historically, children have been present at Fort Belvoir as residents and visitors (e.g., living in 

family housing, attending schools, using recreational facilities). The Army has taken precautions 

for their safety by a number of means, including using fencing, limiting access to certain areas, 

and providing adult supervision. Potentially disproportionate risks to children are identified and 

addressed in Section 4.10.2 of this EIS. 

4.10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

4.10.2.1 Economic Development (Employment, Industry, Income, Population) 

4.10.2.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term minor beneficial effects could occur. The Preferred Alternative land use 

plan would increase the number of acres on Fort Belvoir and EPG designated as 

Professional/Institutional, Community, Residential, and Troop Housing, providing the 

opportunity for development (or redevelopment) of this land. The construction or renovation of 

facilities occuring on the land, would generate short-term construction employment, income, and 

increased spending in the region from the purchase of construction and other materials. In 

addition, operation of new facilities would result in an increase in the numbers of maintenance, 

administrative, and professional personnel working at Fort Belvoir in the long-term. 

4.10.2.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Table 4.10-8 presents impacts of each of the proposed BRAC action projects on economic and 

sociological resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-342

Table 4.10-8 

Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social resources 

under the Preferred Alternative 

Project # 

BRAC 

project Economic Change Social change 

1 NGA 

Administrative 

Facility 

2 WHS 

Administrative 

Facility 

3 MDA 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand

4 Hospital Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on 

beneficiaries due to availability of new, 

state-of-the-art hospital; long-term 

significant adverse effects due to loss of 

South Post Golf Course which would be 

closed to accommodate hospital and 

NARMC 

5 Dental Clinic Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on 

beneficiaries from availability of expanded 

dental clinic 

6 NARMC HQ 

Bldg. 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term significant adverse effects due to 

loss of South Post Golf Course which would 

be closed to accommodate hospital and 

NARMC 

7 COE 

Integration 

Offices 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

No effect 

8 Infrastructure Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

No effect 

9 Emergency 

Services 

Center (EPG) 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects due to 

center which would provide rapid response 

to structural fires and medical emergencies 

in support of the agencies and activities on 

EPG 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-343

Table 4.10-8 

Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social resources 

under the Preferred Alternative (continued)

Project # 

BRAC 

project Economic Change Social change 

10 Network 

Operations 

Center 

11 USANCA 

Support Facility 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand 

12 Child 

Development 

Center (NGA) 

13 Child 

Development 

Center 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects from 

additional child day care facility 

14 Admin Facility 

(211, 214, 215, 

220) 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand 

15 Access 

Road/Control 

Point 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term significant adverse effects due to 

impact on recreational fields and loss of 

revenue to MWR 

16 AMC 

Relocatables 

No effect No effect 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-344

Table 4.10-8 

Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social resources 

under the Preferred Alternative (continued)

Project # 

BRAC 

project Economic Change Social change 

17 PEO EIS 

Admin Facility 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand 

18 Structured 

Parking, 200 

Area 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

No effect 

19 Modernize 

Barracks 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects due to 

new barracks for Soldiers 

20 MWR Facility 

Travel Camp 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on 

quality of life from new travel camp 

 

Methodology. Economic effects of Fort Belvoir’s proposed BRAC implementation and other 

facilities projects have been estimated using the Economic Impacts Forecast System (EIFS) 

model. The EIFS model is a computer-based economic tool that calculates multipliers to estimate 

the direct and indirect effects of a given action. Changes in installation employment and 

expenditures represent the direct effects of the action. On the basis of the input data and the 

model’s calculated multipliers, the model estimates ROI changes in sales volume, income, 

employment, and population for the direct and indirect effects of the action. Note that the model 

does not project a specific distribution of population by age, it does not project a specific 

distribution of the population among the counties and cities composing the ROI, and nor does it 

project distribution of employees among occupational categories. The model projects estimated 

total changes in sales volume, income, employment, and population for the ROI as a whole. 

For purposes of the EIFS analysis, a change is considered significant if it falls outside the 

historical range of ROI economic variation. To determine the historical range of economic 

variation, the EIFS model calculates a rational threshold value (RTV) profile for the ROI. This 

analytical process uses historical data for the ROI and calculates fluctuations in sales volume, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-345

income, employment, and population patterns. The positive and negative historical extremes for 

the ROI become the thresholds of significance (i.e., the RTVs) for economic change. If the 

estimated effect of an action falls above the positive RTV or below the negative RTV, the effect 

could be considered significant. Appendix G.1 discusses this methodology in more detail and 

presents the RTV’s for the ROI and the model input and output tables developed for this analysis. 

Note that the EIFS model output assumes that changes occur at one time, when in fact, the effects 

of the proposed Fort Belvoir BRAC action would be spread out over several years. 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 spending for 

the BRAC action and associated other facility projects were input into the model as the change in 

local expenditures. The estimated number of separated or newly added military or civilian jobs to 

the ROI were entered into the model as the changes in employment. Jobs that represent 

employees shifting from one location to another within the same geographic area (i.e., the ROI) 

are not included because they do not result in change in ROI employment. Only jobs that are 

coming into or leaving the ROI because of the Fort Belvoir BRAC action are entered in the EIFS 

model. Appendix G.1 discusses further the inputs and outputs of the EIFS model for this 

proposed action. 

Economic impacts (employment, industry, income, population). Short-term minor beneficial 

effects would be expected. The installation would construct about 6.2 million square feet of new 

space and renovate about 320,000 square feet of existing space between 2007 and 2011 (see 

Table 2-3 in Section 2.2.2.3). These facilities would be new work space for the incoming 

personnel and general support to meet the needs of the larger working population. The 

construction and renovation expenditures would result in beneficial increases in ROI sales 

volume, income, and employment. The EIFS model outputs for each project year are presented in 

Appendix G.1 and Table 4.10-9. Although the proposed action’s expenditures would be quite 

substantial, Fort Belvoir is in such an economically large and robust region that the magnitude of 

the expenditures relative to the regional demographic and economic forces would still fall within 

historical fluctuations for the ROI and therefore be considered minor. For each project year, the 

proposed action would result in minor economically beneficial increases in sales volume, income, 

and employment for the ROI. Because construction projects are, by nature, temporary, the 

economic stimulus from construction of the proposed BRAC and associated facilities would 

diminish over time as the projects reach completion in 2011. 

The peak year of expenditures would be 2008, when sales volume increases directly attributable 

to the proposed action would be more than $2.1 billion (Table 4.10-9). Indirect sales volume 

would be about $3.7 billion, for a total sales volume increase of about $5.8 billion. About 9,300 

jobs would be created as a result of direct expenditures associated with the BRAC action. About 

16,000 indirect jobs would be created, for a total increase in ROI employment of about 25,000. 

ROI income would increase by about $453 million because of the creation of direct jobs, and 

indirect expenditures would increase income by about $797 million, for a total increase in ROI 

income (direct and indirect) of about $1.25 billion. 

Direct employment generated by the proposed action’s construction projects would peak at about 

9,300 in 2008 (Table 4.10-9). This would increase demand for construction workers. The types 

of direct jobs created would include construction managers, laborers, surveyors, electricians, 

painters, heavy equipment operators, and brick masons, along with a variety of other trades. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-346

Table 4.10-9 

EIFS model output for the proposed BRAC Action at Fort Belvoir 

 Projected Change 

Indicator 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Direct sales volume $161,337,500 $2,134,221,000 $655,818,800 $578,870,800 $194,528,500 

Induced sales volume $283,954,000 $3,756,228,000 $1,154,241,000 $1,018,813,000 $342,370,200 

Total sales volume $445,291,500 $5,890,449,000 $1,810,060,000 $1,597,683,000 $536,898,700 

Direct income $34,259,020 $453,188,500 $139,259,000 $122,919,600 -$22,554,060 

Induced income $60,295,860 $797,611,700 $245,095,900 $216,338,500 $72,700,180 

Total income $94,554,870 $1,250,800,000 $384,354,900 $339,258,100 $50,146,120 

Direct employment 702 9,286 2,853 2,519 -924 

Induced employment 1,235 16,343 5,022 4,433 1,490 

Total employment 1,937 25,628 7,875 6,951 566 

Local population 0 0 0 0 -2,465 

 

ROI has a civilian labor force of about 2,700,000 individuals, with about 2,600,000 employed and 

93,000 unemployed (BLS, 2006). The construction industry employs about 168,000 people in the 

ROI and is a growing industry. ROI employment forecasts project about 11 percent job growth 

(or about 321,700 jobs) between 2005 and 2010. During the peak year of 2008 (Table 4.10-9) 

about 9,300 direct jobs would be created, primarily in construction; this equates to about 5 

percent of the 168,000 persons currently employed in the ROI construction industry. Although 

the construction industry is projected to grow, the current ROI construction labor force might not 

be sufficient to fill the jobs. Employment growth is beneficial to an economy, and expansion of 

the industry base confers economic benefits on the region. The primary socioeconomic concerns 

would materialize if expansion occurs in a short time frame, or if other aspects of the economy 

also undergo a rapid expansion during the same time period. Possible labor shortages could 

occur, resulting in a rise in labor costs and ultimately a rise in overall project cost. The market 

would respond to a shortage with new workers entering the construction industry from other 

industries, or new workers coming from outside the region to fill available jobs. 

In addition to direct employment, construction activity also generates indirect and induced jobs. 

This is employment generated by increased business activities associated with the construction of 

the facilities on Fort Belvoir (business to business transactions) and consumer spending by the 

workforce. Table 4.10-9 (and Appendix G.1) shows estimates of secondary employment 

generated by the construction activity for each year, listed as induced employment in the table. In 

the peak year of 2008, and there would be an estimated 16,000 indirect jobs. These jobs, unlike 

the construction jobs, would be less specialized and would be generated in a variety of sectors 

including, but not limited to, services, retail trade, and transportation. Given the size of the 

workforce in the ROI (about 2.7 million), the unemployed labor pool of about 93,000, and the 

projected growth of the population and workforce, it is anticipated that these jobs would be filled 

by persons in the ROI. 

The BRAC Commission’s recommendations would generate a net increase of 22,000 people in 

the workforce on Fort Belvoir. The vast majority of these personnel would be federal civilian and 

contractor employees already residing in the ROI. These jobs would be shifted from one location 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-347

to another within the NCR (e.g., jobs at NGA in Bethesda, Walter Reed in Washington, DC, and 

leased space in Crystal City would be transferred to Fort Belvoir), and therefore would not result 

in a change in ROI employment. On the basis of the employee’s home zip codes, most reside 

within a one-hour’s drive to Fort Belvoir. It is reasonable to assume that some of the affected 

personnel might change their home residence within the ROI to improve their commute to Fort 

Belvoir. Based on a survey of current Fort Belvoir, WHS, and NGA employees, it was estimated 

that about 50 percent of the existing WHS, other DoD, and NGA employees might change their 

home residence because their job would be transferred to Fort Belvoir, and it was further assumed 

that these employees would be redistributed within the region as the current Fort Belvoir employees 

are distributed (see Figures 4.3-6, 4.3-17, and 4.3-18 in Section 4.3, Transportation) and that there 

would be available housing in these areas. These assumptions were used to determine the 

redistribution of personnel within the ROI. It should be noted that these employees in the NCR that 

would be affected by the Fort Belvoir BRAC action would not be required to move. An 

employee’s decision to move could depend on factors such as the location of a spouse’s place of 

employment or changing a child’s school district. Where an employee might decide to move also 

would be constrained by available housing and influenced by the cost of housing and household 

income. 

WHS and other DoD agencies that would be realigned to Fort Belvoir employ about 9,200 

people, and the NGA employs about 8,500. Applying the assumption that 50 percent would 

move because of the Fort Belvoir realignment, about 4,600 of the WHS and DoD employees and 

about 4,200 of the NGA employees would relocate within the ROI (see Appendix G.2 for 

additional data and calculations). Table 4.10-10 lists the projected redistribution of these 

employees within the region on the basis of the distribution of the current Fort Belvoir 

employees. These projections indicate that many of the employees could relocate to the Northern 

Virginia I-95 corridor including Fairfax County, Prince William County, and Stafford County and 

the city of Fredericksburg. 

Demographic characteristics from the U.S. Census Bureau 2005 American Community Survey 

for the Washington, DC Metropolitan Statistical Area on family and non family households and 

average family size were used to estimate the total population relocation within the ROI (Table 

4.10-11 and Appendix G.2). The BRAC action could result in the relocation of about 21,600 

persons within the ROI (employees and their families; see Appendix G.2 for calculations), of 

which about 10,200 would be children (under the age of 18). Fairfax County would be expected 

to receive the largest share of the population (about 9,200), followed by Prince William County 

(about 5,000 people), then Stafford County and the city of Fredericksburg (about 1,900 people). 

The BRAC actions at Fort Belvoir must be completed no later than September 15, 2011, so the 

population shift would be expected to begin in late 2011, as employees would decide whether to 

relocate relative to their new place of employment. Population projections were available for the 

year 2010. Table 4.10-12 shows a comparison between the anticipated population increase from 

2005 to 2010 with and without the Fort Belvoir BRAC action. The estimated population 

increases with the Fort Belvoir BRAC action would be slightly above current projected levels. 

Most jurisdictions within the ROI would experience only about a 1 percent increase or less over 

current population projections. For example, the estimated potential population growth for 

Fairfax County (about 9,200 people) would be 0.8 percent of Fairfax County’s projected 2010 

population (1,168,300 people) (Table 4.10-12). These population forecasts are estimates of the 

potential population change that could occur under the proposed action. Estimated population 

projections in Table 4.10-11 are conservative estimates. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-348

Table 4.10-10 

Redistribution of WHS, other DoD, and NGA employees by location 

District a Location 

Fort Belvoir % 

number of 

employees by 

ROI locationb

Redistribution 

of 50% of WHS 

and other DoD 

employees by 

locationc

Redistribution 

of 50% of the 

NGA 

employees by 

locationc

Total 

employees 

redistributedc

A Arlington/Alexandria 4% 205 165 370 

B Northern Fairfax 

County/Loudoun County 

7% 330 290 620 

C Southern Fairfax County 38% 1,770 1,590 3,360 

D Prince William County 23% 1,050 965 2,015 

E Near South 

(Fredericksburg/Stafford 

County) 

9% 425 380 805 

F Remainder of Virginia 7% 330 295 625 

G District of Columbia 1% 55 40 95 

H Prince Georges County 5% 215 210 425 

I Montgomery County 1% 50 40 90 

J Remainder of Maryland 4% 195 170 365 

Total 4,625 4,145 8,770 

Source: VHB, 2006 

Notes: 

a

District corresponds to districts shown in Section 4.3, Transportation, Figures 4.3-6, 4.3-17, and 4.3-18. b

About 1 percent of the Fort Belvoir employees work offsite outside the ROI. c

Numbers are rounded. 

Table 4.10-11 

Redistribution of Population by Location 

Districta Location 

Number of 

Adultsb

Number of 

Childrenb Total 

A Arlington/Alexandria 460 410 870 

B Loudoun Countyc 320 290 610 

C Fairfax County 4,865 4,340 9,205 

D Prince William County 2,650 2,365 5,015 

E Near South (Fredericksburg/Stafford County) 1,040 925 1,965 

F Remainder of Virginia 805 720 1,525 

G District of Columbia 115 105 220 

H Prince Georges County 575 515 1,090 

I Montgomery County 115 105 220 

J Remainder of Maryland 460 410 870 

Total 11,405 10,185 21,590 

Notes: 

a

District corresponds to districts shown in Section 4.3, Transportation, Figures 4.3-6, 4.3-17, and 4.3-18. b

Numbers are rounded. 

C

Loudoun County was broken out from Fairfax County. It was assumed that 40% of the projected Northern Fairfax 

County/Loudoun County redistributed population would live in Loudoun, and 60% would live in Northern Fairfax County. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-349

The ability of the ROI to accommodate this economic and population growth would depend on 

many factors, including the degree to which local infrastructure—including roads, environmental 

management systems, and public services—is enhanced to meet the demand of the additional 

population. As mentioned previously, the ROI is an economically robust region that has 

experienced strong growth in the past 5 years and, on the basis of current population and 

employment projections, is anticipated to continue to grow. Growth is largely beneficial to the 

economy; however, labor, material, and housing shortages could result if expansion occurred too 

rapidly or if increases in infrastructure investment, including housing, lagged behind employment 

and population growth. However, the potential population relocation in the ROI associated with 

the Fort Belvoir BRAC action would regionally contribute to but not significantly increase the 

already projected job and population growth (Table 4.10-12). The ROI economy would respond 

to new demands by increasing the labor force and supply of goods and services and housing, as is 

currently occurring in the ROI. The production of new residential housing is directly related to 

the availability and cost of the land, by public infrastructure requirements, and by permit and 

other fees to local governments (ODU 2005). With the construction of new, permitted housing 

developments, the local government has committed to contributing to the public infrastructure 

requirements to support the population, and the homeowner has committed to supporting these 

services through the payment of taxes. 

Table 4.10-12 

Comparison of projected population growth by location 

Districta Location 

A: 

Projected 2010 

population, 

without 

proposed 

action 

B: 

Projected 

population 

change, due to 

proposed 

action (see 

Table 4.10-11) 

C: 

Projected 

2010 

population, 

with 

proposed 

action 

(column A + 

B) 

Percentage 

increase 

over current 

2010 

projections 

with 

proposed 

action 

A Arlington/Alexandria 356,100 870 356,970 0.24 

B Loudoun County 318,100 610 318,710 0.19 

C 

Fairfax County (Fairfax County, Fairfax City, 

and Falls Church City) 1,168,300 9,205 1,177,505 0.79 

D 

Prince William County (Prince William County, 

Manassas City, Manassas Park City) 470,400 5,015 475,415 1.07 

E Near South (Fredericksburg/Stafford County) 121,700 1,965 123,665 1.61 

F Remainder of Virginia 225,693 1,525 227,218 0.68 

G District of Columbia 608,700 220 608,920 0.04 

H Prince Georges County 872,600 1,090 873,690 0.12 

I Montgomery County 1,000,000 220 1,000,220 0.02 

J Remainder of Maryland 481,600 870 482,470 0.18 

Notes: 

a

District corresponds to districts shown in Section 4.3, Transportation, Figures 4.3-6, 4.3-17, and 4.3-18. b

Numbers are rounded. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-350

4.10.2.2 Sociological Environment 

4.10.2.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Housing. Long-term beneficial effects would be expected for on-post Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing. Under the Preferred Alternative land use plan, a new Troop land use area would be 

designated on South Post, west of Gunston Road. However, current land uses, with Troop 

housing in the 2100 Area on the North Post, would continue until such time as the Army could 

construct and occupy troop facilities in the new area on South Post. An eventual relocation of the 

Troop area to the South Post would be beneficial to the troops, placing them in close proximity to 

installation services such as healthcare, shopping, service, and recreation facilities. 

Police, Fire, Medical. Short-term minor beneficial effects would be expected on-post. The land 

use plan designates acreage as Professional/Institutional land use on the South Post. New 

medical facilities could be constructed on this land area. Land on EPG also would be designated 

as Professional/Institutional. Police, fire, or medical emergency facilities could be constructed on 

this land. 

Schools. No effects would be expected. 

Family Support, Shops, Services, and Recreation. Long-term beneficial and adverse effects 

would be expected. The land use plan would reduce the number of acres designated as Outdoor 

Recreation, resulting in long-term adverse effects. Fort Belvoir would lose a significant amount 

of valuable recreational acreage. Although some of the acreage would be incorporated into 

Community and Open Space, the proposed land use plan would change a portion of the land use 

designation of the South Post golf course from Outdoor Recreation to Professional/Institutional. 

Also, the North Post playing field along Route 1 across from Pence Gate would change from 

Outdoor Recreation to Community, and hunting grounds on EPG would be lost because the land 

use designation would change to Professional/Institutional. The four McNaughton ballfields 

along Pole Road on the South Border of Woodlawn Village for the Berman Tract immediately 

east of Woodlawn Village would be designated as Community land use. 

The proposed land use plan does include Community land use designation on the South Post, 

where the development of a town center could occur. A town center could consist of mixed-use 

development that could include recreational facilities such as a fitness center and ballfields. 

4.10.2.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Housing. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected on Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing. The troop housing on the North Post would be replaced with a new facility in the newly 

designated Troop area on the South Post. The new barracks would provide quality, affordable 

housing accommodations for Soldiers that would be in close proximity to installation services 

such as healthcare, shopping, service, and recreation facilities. 

No effects would be expected to off-post housing. It was estimated that about 8,800 employees 

could change their home residence within the ROI because their job would be transferred to Fort 

Belvoir (see Table 4.10-10). It is assumed that each employee would represent one household. 

As of 2005, the ROI housing stock had an estimated 42,000 vacant housing units, of which about 

31,000 were available for rent and about 11,000 units were available for sale (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2006c). Data was not yet available for several of the counties in the ROI; thus, the 

number of housing units in the ROI available for sale or rent would be greater than the listed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-351

42,000 units. The ROI experienced a surge in the housing market between 2000 and 2005, with 

an average of 33,000 permits issued per year for new residential housing construction. More than 

100,000 home sales transactions occurred in 2005 (Table 4.10-5). 

The highest percentage of employees is expected to relocate along Virginia’s I-95 corridor in 

Fairfax, Prince William, and Stafford Counties. As shown in Table 4.10-10, a potential 3,900 

employees could relocate to Fairfax County, about 2,000 in Prince William County, and about 

800 in Stafford County (assuming each employee represents one household). Between 2000 and 

2005, Prince William County’s and Stafford County’s housing stock increased by more than 25 

percent, and Fairfax County’s increased by 8 percent (Table 4.10-4). Fairfax County had more 

than 23,000 net home sales in 2005, with a housing inventory of more than 386,000 units, and 

more than 4,300 new housing units permitted. In the three Fairfax County supervisor districts in 

the vicinity of Fort Belvoir (Lee, Mount Vernon, and Springfield Districts), an estimated 

additional 17,235 housing units will be built by 2010 (Fairfax County Department of Systems 

Management for Human Services 2004). The number of housing units for all of Fairfax County is 

forecast to increase by about 35, 255 units between 2005 and 2010 to about 419,900 units. The 

number of households (occupied housing units) in the county is forecast to be 411,500 by 2010 

(Fairfax County Department of Systems Management for Human Services 2004). Therefore, 

there would be about 8,400 vacant housing units in Fairfax County in 2010, more than the 

estimated 3,900 employees potentially looking for housing. 

As of 2005 Prince William County had almost 12,000 net home sales, a housing inventory of 

more than 125,000 housing units, and about 5,400 new units permitted. About 27,900 new 

housing units are expected to be built in Prince William County between 2005 and 2010 (Prince 

William County Department of Finance 2007). Stafford County had almost 3,000 home sales in 

2005, a housing inventory of about 40,000, and more than 1,600 new homes authorized. 

On the basis of these market housing projections, the housing stock is forecast to continue to 

increase with demand. The vast majority of the employees that would be affected by the Fort 

Belvoir BRAC action would be federal civilian and contractor employees already residing in the 

ROI. These personnel would not be required to move. However, if they do choose to relocate 

within the NCR, there should be sufficient housing available. Factors that could reduce the 

housing forecasts and limit housing growth are availability of land, the county zoning and 

permitting process for new housing development, and housing costs. 

Police, Fire, Medical. Long-term beneficial effects and short-term minor adverse effects on onpost police, fire, or medical services would be expected. The proposed action would result in 

about 6.3 million square feet of additional built space and 22,000 additional people working on 

the installation. Fort Belvoir plans to construct additional emergency and medical facilities, 

purchase the appropriate equipment, and bring on additional personnel to provide sufficient 

police, fire, and medical emergency response to the new structures and to support the 

installation’s increased population under the BRAC action. 

As part of the BRAC action, under the Preferred Alternative a new emergency services center 

would be constructed on EPG by September 2011. This center would provide required military 

police, Enhanced 911, hazardous materials response, and fire prevention and protection services 

for the proposed facilities that would be constructed on EPG and for the associated personnel that 

would be stationed at EPG. The emergency services center would provide a combined police and 

fire station to provide traffic control, law enforcement, and provide rapid response to structural 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-352

fires and medical emergencies in support of the agencies and activities on EPG. Staffing of the 

facilities would be done in accordance with Army Regulations. 

A new hospital would be built on the South Post to replace the Dewitt Army Community 

Hospital. This project would provide a hospital to support BRAC 2005 restationing actions within 

the ROI affecting WRAMC, National Naval Medical Center (NNMC), Malcolm Grow Medical 

Center (MGMC), and Dewitt Army Community Hospital at Fort Belvoir. The NCR Medical 

Service Market supports care for more than 439,000 beneficiaries. A larger Dewitt Community 

Hospital is required to support the relocation of nontertiary patient care functions consequent to 

the BRAC 2005 restationing actions, which includes the closure of WRAMC and closure of 

inpatient care at MGMC. In addition, an expanded dental clinic and a NARMC HQ building 

would be sited on the South Post. Locating these medical facilities in close proximity with one 

another would provide convenience for patients and staff. These facilities would be necessary 

under the proposed BRAC action to support the increase in medical and dental workload 

generated by the projected increase of active-duty Soldiers and civilians eligible for medical 

benefits at Fort Belvoir. 

Short-term minor adverse effects would be expected on on-post fire and police services. The 

South Post Fire Station is inadequate and needs to be replaced. The existing fire station, Building 

191, is inadequate for provision of fire protection for training, research and development, family 

housing, and administrative buildings on South Post. Continued use of this inadequate pre-WWII 

facility would degrade response times and quality of fire protection for Soldiers, DA civilians, 

and family members who live and work on Fort Belvoir’s South Post. The MP station is also in 

need of expansion to adequately serve the incoming BRAC population. The ability to provide 

proper service fire protection and law enforcement would continue to degrade because of 

continued use of inadequate facilities and increased demand from the additional population. 

However, future Master planning actions (non-BRAC) provide for the construction and staffing 

of new fire stations on the South Post and EPG and an expanded MP station. These actions are 

addressed under cumulative effects. 

Short- and long term minor adverse effects would be expected on off-post police, fire, and 

medical services. The population shift under the BRAC action would result in minor increases in 

the forecast population of the counties and cities composing the ROI (see Table 4.10-12). The 

ROI is already a densely populated area that is projected to continue to experience strong 

population growth. Additional public safety personnel and new facilities (e.g., fire stations, 

police stations, healthcare clinics, hospitals) are needed to accommodate future population levels. 

The potential population increases in each jurisdiction due to the Fort Belvoir BRAC action 

would be minor relative to the already projected population growth (about 1 percent or less of the 

current 2010 population projections; see Table 4.10-12). The majority of the people who would 

relocate would be federal civilian and contract employees who would buy or rent property in the 

community in which they live and pay taxes. New tax revenues would provide funding for law 

enforcement, fire-fighting, and medical services (i.e., increasing staff or acquiring new facilities 

or equipment). To accommodate the sustained increase in demand that would occur under the 

proposed action, coordination with ROI planning officials would need to be implemented so 

adequate and timely planning could be conducted to ensure that public sector capacity is not 

exceeded. 

Schools. Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected on off-post schools. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-353

As stated above in the population analysis, the Fort Belvoir BRAC action would not require the 

affected personnel in the NCR to relocate. It is reasonable to assume that some of the affected 

personnel might choose to relocate within the region for the purpose of improving their commute 

to Fort Belvoir; however, even if personnel do relocate, most jurisdictions within the ROI would 

see less than a 1 percent increase above their 2010 population projections (see Table 4.10-12), a 

very minor increase over current forecasted population growth. In addition, the vast majority of 

these persons would be federal civilian employees and contractors. These persons would buy or 

rent property in the community in which they live and their tax dollars would support public 

services, including public schools. 

The potential population that might relocate within the ROI because of the proposed Fort Belvoir 

BRAC action would affect the number of primary and secondary school-age children in each 

jurisdiction. Census data was used to estimate the number of families, number of children, and 

age of the children (see Appendix G.2). For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that all of 

the children would attend public school; however, it is possible that some of the children would 

attend private school or be home schooled. Also, it is quite probable a family moving into an area 

would be replacing a family moving out of the region. Thus, projections presented in Table 4.10-

13 are conservative estimates; actual impacts on schools would most likely be less than projected 

levels. 

Table 4.10-13 lists the estimated number of new children by location and school age. On the 

basis of Census data, the population under age 18 is about evenly divided between four age 

groups: nursery/preschool (25 percent); elementary school (25 percent); middle school (25 

percent); and high school (25 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006c). Fairfax County and Prince 

William County would be expected to receive the highest number of children. Fairfax County 

would receive an estimated 3,258 school age children (1,086 each in elementary, middle, and 

high school), which would be about a 2 percent increase over the current total FCPS student 

enrollment of about 166,500. Prince William County would receive about 1,773 school age 

children (591each in elementary, middle, and high school), about 2.5 percent more than the 

current enrollment of 72,500 students. The impact of these additional students would depend on 

how they are distributed among the schools. An increase of 20 to 30 students in a school could 

mean a new classroom, and an increase of 300 students could mean a new school (DoD, 2005b). 

If a school is operating at or above capacity, portable classrooms or other accommodations would 

be needed until schools can be expanded or new schools can be constructed. 

The BRAC actions at Fort Belvoir must be completed no later than September 15, 2011, so the 

population shift would be expected to begin in late 2011, as employees would decide whether to 

relocate relative to their new place of employment. The potential impact of the Fort Belvoir 

BRAC action on schools would be lower that what is projected because some children would 

attend private school, some would be home schooled, and some families would replace families 

moving out of the ROI. Where families relocate within the ROI also would be constrained by 

available housing and influenced by housing cost and household income, which could deter a 

family from moving, or from moving into a certain area. 

New residents that would possibly relocate within the ROI because of the proposed action 

primarily would be federal civilian employees. An increase in population would cause an increase 

in the demand for public education services; however, services would be funded by tax revenue 

from new civilian population. In addition, the Federal Impact Aid Program, through Basic 

Support Payments (Section 8003[b]) would continue to help local school districts that educate 

federally connected children. To qualify for Section 8003(b) funding, a local education 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-354

Table 4.10-13 

Estimated redistribution of children 

Districta Location 

Number of 

children 

redistributed 

by locationb

Nursery or 

preschool 

ageb

Elementary 

schoolb

Middle 

schoolb

High 

schoolb

A Arlington/Alexandria 410 103 103 103 103 

B Loudoun Countyc 290 73 73 73 73 

Northern Fairfax County 430 108 108 108 108 

C Southern Fairfax County 3,910 978 978 978 978 

D Prince William County 2,365 591 591 591 591 

E Near South 

(Fredericksburg/Stafford 

County) 

925 231 231 231 231 

F Remainder of Virginia 720 180 180 180 180 

G District of Columbia 105 26 26 26 26 

H Prince George’s County 515 129 129 129 129 

I Montgomery County 105 26 26 26 26 

J Remainder of Maryland 410 103 103 103 103 

Total 10,185 2,546 2,546 2,546 2,546 

Notes: 

a

District corresponds to districts shown in Section 4.3, Transportation, Figures 4.3-6, 4.3-17, and 4.3-18. b

Numbers are rounded. 

c

Loudoun County was broken out from Fairfax County. It was assumed that 40 percent of the projected Northern Fairfax 

County/Loudoun County redistributed population would live in Loudoun County, and 60 percent would live in Northern Fairfax 

County. 

agency must meet threshold eligibility requirements and submit an electronic application (U.S. 

Department of Education 2006). The Army would continue to confer with the potentially 

affected school districts on potential student increases that could occur under the Preferred 

Alternative. Advance notice would give the schools time to secure funding, add facilities, and 

hire new teachers, as necessary. 

No effects would be expected on-post schools. The BRAC action would not change the number 

of on-post family housing units, and therefore would not change the on-post population or student 

enrollments. 

Family Support and Social Services. Long-term significant adverse and long-term minor 

beneficial effects would occur. The proposed action would increase the on-post population 

resulting in a significant increase in demand for MWR family support and social services, while 

at the same time causing financial losses to MWR due to the loss of revenue-generating 

recreational facilities (e.g., the South Post golf course would be closed to accommodate the new 

hospital and NARMC headquarters). Adverse effects would occur because Fort Belvoir MWR 

would not have sufficient funds, facilities, or staff to support required MWR programs. The 

ability to provide proper service and meet customer demands would degrade because of 

continued use of inadequate facilities, continued fragmentation of services, and increased demand 

from the additional population. Future Master planning actions (non-BRAC) provide for the 

construction and staffing of a consolidated Soldier Support Center (this action is addressed under 

cumulative effects), but MWRs ability to build the facility would depend on their available NAF, 

which would be reduced by BRAC actions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-355

Long-term minor beneficial effects would occur from additional child day care facilities. The 

BRAC action includes the addition of 2 CDCs on EPG. Existing facilities would not be able to 

support the children of the incoming population. The new childcare facilities would be sufficient 

to accommodate children of the additional military and civilian personnel that would be stationed 

at Fort Belvoir as a consequence of BRAC. Off-post, there are many child day care facilities and 

in-home child care options, as well as potential future facilities that would be market driven. 

Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected on off-post family and social 

services. The population shift under the BRAC action would result in minor increases in the 

forecast population of some of the counties and cities composing the ROI (see Table 4.10-12). 

Expansion of social services would be necessary to maintain service levels. However, the 

population changes due to BRAC would be minor relative to the ROI’s current projected 

population growth. Tax revenues from new residents would provide funding for social services. 

Shops, Services, and Recreation. Long-term minor beneficial and long-term significant adverse 

effects would be expected. A new family travel camp would be established on the South Post in a 

Community land use area. Currently, there are no family travel campgrounds on-post. This 

project would provide some outdoor camping facilities for the high demand within DoD for RV 

campsites and cabin sites. This project would be financed through MWR NAF. 

Long-term significant adverse would occur from the loss of recreational facilities, which would 

impact MWR NAF in several ways: loss of assets, revenues, and staff. Facilities affected would 

include the South Post golf course and the playing field on Route 1 across from Pence Gate. 

Proposed BRAC construction projects would site the new hospital and NARMC headquarters on 

the South Post golf course. MWR would have a one-time bottom-line income loss due to the loss 

of the South Post golf course’s undepreciated fixed assets of about $1.5 million. Loss of golf 

course revenue is estimated at about $500,000 annually beginning in FY08, with more than $2.6 

million projected over 5 years. Theses losses could result in layoffs, with an estimated one-time 

severance pay for current employees of about $70,000. In addition to the loss of the South Post 

golf course, the Access Control Point would affect Fort Belvoir’s single largest playing field area 

on North Post (across from the Pence Gate). The field is used for community wide celebrations 

(such as the 4th of July and Oktoberfest) and sporting events. No alternate location has been 

identified for these events. If these events would no longer be held, it would also reduce MWR 

revenue (MWR, 2007). 

Loss of these MWR facilities also would adversely impact quality of life. The South Post golf 

course attracts inexperienced golfers, families, and seniors because it is a flat, relatively easy 

course compared to the North Post golf courses. About 20 percent of the Fort Belvoir golf course 

members exclusively play the South Post course, and would not play the North courses due to its 

level of difficulty. Closure of the South Post course would result in a 30 percent reduction in 

overall rounds played at Fort Belvoir’s 45-hole golf complex. The increase in use of the North 

Post courses would cause peak period tee-time competition, frustrating patrons and reducing their 

opportunity to play golf. Loss of the playing field and its events would adversely impact quality 

of life for on-post Soldiers and their families, as well as the installation’s opportunity to enhance 

positive community relations with off-post neighbors (MWR, 2007). 

The impact of BRAC on the demand for services and the MWR NAF would adversely affect 

many other on-post MWR service and recreation facilities. The existing Religious Education 

Center is inadequate to serve the anticipated population increase. Additional physical fitness 

centers and outdoor recreation fields also would be required. The Main Post library would need 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-356

to be expanded, as well as the Community Recreation Center, the arts and crafts and automotive 

centers, the bowling center, the North Post golf club house, and the Veterinary Clinic. All these 

facilities would be inadequate to accommodate the incoming BRAC workforce. Levels of service 

would decrease, causing customers to have long wait times or to return at other times. Future 

Master planning actions (non-BRAC) plan for the construction and staffing of these facilities 

(these actions are addressed under cumulative effects in Section 5.0), but MWR’s ability to build 

and operate these facilities depends on their available NAF, which would be significantly reduced 

by BRAC actions. 

Currently, there are no sites identified to relocate or rebuild, replace, or refit impacted MWR 

services and recreational areas, with the exception of building a new on-post ballfield near 

Markham School on Mount Vernon Road. The estimated worst-case scenario impact of BRAC 

on MWR NAF is about $5 million during the first year (this includes expenses such as program 

closure, disposal and termination of assets, personnel severance pay, losses on undepreciated 

NAF assets, and lost revenue) which in turn decreases funding for capital reinvestments on Fort 

Belvoir (MWR, 2007). 

Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected on off-post recreation facilities. Some 

Fairfax County park facilities and programs do not have sufficient athletic or playground facilities 

to meet the current demand for park programs. Personnel affected by the BRAC action that 

might relocate from within the ROI to Fairfax County would add to this demand. 

Short-term minor adverse effects would be expected to off-post shopping and services. The 

increased Fort Belvoir work force would create a demand for additional shopping and services in 

the immediate vicinity of the installation (e.g., restaurants, gas stations, convenience stores, 

grocery stores, dry cleaning). Service levels would be expected to decrease as population 

increased, causing customers to have long wait times or to return at other times. The number and 

type of shopping and service businesses in proximity to Fort Belvoir would be expected to 

increase with demand as they would be market driven. 

4.10.2.3 Environmental Justice 

4.10.2.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. Implementing the Preferred Alternative land use plan would not 

result in disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations. The action would not be an action that has the potential to substantially 

affect human health or the environment by excluding persons, denying persons benefits, or 

subjecting persons to discrimination because of their race, color, national origin, or income level. 

4.10.2.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

No effects would be expected. The proposed BRAC action at Fort Belvoir would not result in 

disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or lowincome populations. Although the proposed action would create additional traffic concerns, these 

effects would be felt throughout the region; the minority and low-income communities would not 

bear a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences resulting from the action. 

Low-income populations could benefit from the creation of new jobs associated with 

implementing this alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-357

4.10.2.4 Protection of Children 

4.10.2.4.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. Implementing the Preferred Alternative land use plan would not 

result in environmental health and safety risks that might disproportionately affect children. 

4.10.2.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term minor adverse effects on the protection of children would be expected to occur. 

During the development period (2007 through 2011) there would be many construction sites in 

the installation cantonment area. Because construction sites can be enticing to children, 

construction activity could pose an increased safety risk. During construction, safety measures 

stated at 29 CFR Part 1926, Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, and Army 

Regulation 385-10, Army Safety Program, would be followed to protect the health and safety of 

on- and off-post resident, as well as construction workers. It is recommended that barriers and 

“No Trespassing” signs be placed around construction sites to deter children from playing in 

these areas and that construction vehicles and equipment be secured when not in use. 

4.10.2.5 BMPs/Mitigation 

4.10.2.5.1 Economic Development (Employment, Industry, Income, Population) 

No BMPs or mitigation would be required. 

4.10.2.5.2 Sociological Environment (Housing, Police, Fire, Medical, Schools, Family 

Support and Social Services, and Shops Services and Recreation) 

BMP (Liaison). The relocation of personnel to Fort Belvoir would be expected to result in the 

movement of some of these employees, and their families, to communities closer to the 

installation. This would affect enrollment in primary and secondary schools. The Army should 

confer with potentially affected school districts on estimated student enrollment increases that 

could occur if the Preferred Alternative is implemented. 

Mitigation. The National Scenic Trail on Fort Belvoir would be completed to offset loss of 

recreational opportunities due to BRAC realignment. 

4.10.2.5.3 Environmental Justice 

No BMPs or mitigation would be required. 

4.10.2.5.4 Protection of Children 

BMPs. Secure construction vehicles and equipment when not in use and place barriers and “No 

Trespassing” signs around construction sites. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-358

4.10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF TOWN CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

4.10.3.1 Economic Development (Employment, Industry, Income, Population) 

4.10.3.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected to occur. The Town Center 

Alternative land use plan would redesignate acreage on Fort Belvoir North and South Posts as 

Professional/Institutional, Community, Residential, and Troop, providing the opportunity for 

development (or redevelopment) of this land. If construction or renovation of facilities occurs on 

the land, it would generate short-term construction jobs, income, and increased spending in the 

region from the purchase of construction and other materials. In the long-term, operation of new 

facilities would result in an increase in employment, income, and spending from personnel 

working at the new facilities, including maintenance, administrative, and professional staff. 

4.10.3.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Effects would be the same as or similar to those stated in Section 4.10.2.1.2. Under the Town 

Center Alternative, the siting of the BRAC facilities on Fort Belvoir would vary from the 

Preferred Alternative, but the economic effects from construction expenditures and the increase 

of Fort Belvoir personnel would be the same. Table 4.10-14 presents impacts of each of the 

proposed BRAC action projects on economic and sociological resources. 

Table 4.10-14 

Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social resources 

under the Town Center Alternative 

Project # 

BRAC 

project Economic Change Social change 

1 NGA 

Administrative 

Facility 

2 WHS 

Administrative 

Facility 

3 MDA 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand

4 Hospital Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on 

beneficiaries due to availability of new, 

state-of-the-art hospital; long-term 

significant adverse effects due to loss of 

South Post Golf Course which would be 

closed to accommodate hospital and 

NARMC 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-359

Table 4.10-14 

Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social resources 

under the Town Center Alternative (continued)

Project # 

BRAC 

project Economic Change Social change 

5 Dental Clinic Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on 

beneficiaries from availability of expanded 

dental clinic 

6 NARMC HQ 

Bldg. 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term significant adverse effects due to 

loss of South Post Golf Course which would 

be closed to accommodate hospital and 

NARMC 

7 COE 

Integration 

Offices 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

No effect 

8 Infrastructure Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

No effect 

9 Emergency 

Services 

Center (EPG) 

No effect No effect 

10 Network 

Operations 

Center 

11 USANCA 

Support Facility 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand 

12 Child 

Development 

Center (NGA) 

13 Child 

Development 

Center 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects from 

additional child day care facility 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-360

Table 4.10-14 

Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social resources 

under the Town Center Alternative (continued)

Project # 

BRAC 

project Economic Change Social change 

14 Admin Facility 

(211, 214, 215, 

220) 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand 

15 Access 

Road/Control 

Point 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term significant adverse effects due to 

impact on recreational fields and loss of 

revenue to MWR 

16 AMC 

Relocatables 

No effect No effect 

17 PEO EIS 

Admin Facility 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand 

18 Structured 

Parking, 200 

Area 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

No effect 

19 Modernize 

Barracks 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects due to 

new barracks for Soldiers 

20 MWR Facility 

Travel Camp 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on 

quality of life from new travel camp 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-361

4.10.3.2 Sociological Environment 

4.10.3.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Housing. Long-term beneficial effects would be expected for on-post Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing. Under the Town Center land use plan, a new Troop land use area would be designated 

on South Post, west of Gunston Road. However, current land uses, with Troop housing in the 

2100 Area on the North Post, would continue until such time as the Army could construct and 

occupy troop facilities in the new area on South Post. An eventual relocation of the Troop area to 

the South Post would be beneficial to the troops, placing them in close proximity to installation 

services such as healthcare, shopping, service, and recreation facilities. 

Police, Fire, Medical. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected on-post. The Town 

Center Alternative land use plan designates acreage on the North Post as 

Professional/Institutional. New medical facilities could be constructed in this land area, which 

would provide improved facilities and service to beneficiaries. 

Schools. No effects would be expected. 

Family Support, Shops, Services, and Recreation. Long-term minor beneficial and adverse 

effects would be expected. The land use plan would reduce the number of acres designated as 

Outdoor Recreation, resulting in long-term adverse effects. Fort Belvoir would lose a significant 

amount of valuable recreational acreage. Although some of the acreage would be incorporated 

into Community and Open Space, the proposed land use plan would change a majority of the land 

use designation to non-recreational land uses. For example, the land use of the South Post golf 

course would change from Outdoor Recreation to Professional/Institutional. The North Post 

playing field across from Pence Gate would change from Outdoor Recreation to Community. 

4.10.3.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Effects on the sociological environment would be the same or similar to those stated in Section 

4.10.2.2.2. Under the Town Center Alternative, the siting of the BRAC facilities on Fort Belvoir 

would vary from the Preferred Alternative; however, the effects on sociological resources from 

BRAC implementation and the effect on population and demand for housing and public services 

would be similar. The significant adverse impact on MWR facilities and funds (and therefore 

Soldier’s quality of life) also would occur under the Town Center Alternative, with the loss of the 

South Post golf course to accommodate the NGA and WHS administrative and parking facilities, 

and the impact on the North Post playing field across from Pence Gate to accommodate the 

Access Control Point. In addition, the Town Center Alternative also would result in the possible 

loss of 4 tennis courts, 3 basketball courts, picnic and park site, the Better Opportunities for 

Single Soldiers building, and a physical fitness facility with softball and football fields. Future 

Master planning actions (non-BRAC) plan for the construction and staffing of new or 

replacement MWR recreational and service facilities (these actions are addressed under 

cumulative effects in Section 5.0). 

4.10.3.3 Environmental Justice 

Effects on environmental justice would be the same as those stated in Section 4.10.2.3. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-362

4.10.3.4 Protection of Children 

Effects on protection of children would be the same as those stated in Section 4.10.2.4. 

4.10.3.5 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs or mitigation measures would be the same as those stated in Section 4.10.2.5. 

4.10.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CITY CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

4.10.4.1 Economic Development (Employment, Industry, Income, Population) 

4.10.4.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected. The City Center Alternative 

land use plan would redesignate acreage on Fort Belvoir, EPG, and the GSA Parcel as 

Professional/Institutional, Community, Residential, and Troop, providing the opportunity for 

development (or redevelopment) of this land. If construction or renovation of facilities would 

occur on the land, it would generate short-term construction jobs, income, and increased spending 

in the region from the purchase of construction and other materials. In the long-term, operation of 

new facilities would result in an increase in employment, income, and spending from personnel 

working at the new facilities, including maintenance, administrative, and professional staff. 

4.10.4.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Effects would be the same as or similar to those stated in Section 4.10.2.1.2. Under the City 

Center Alternative, the siting of the BRAC facilities on Fort Belvoir would vary from the 

Preferred Alternative, but the economic effects from construction expenditures and the increase 

of Fort Belvoir personnel would be the same. . Table 4.10-15 presents impacts of each of the 

proposed BRAC action projects on economic and sociological resources. 

Table 4.10-15 

Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social resources 

under the City Center Alternative 

Project # 

BRAC 

project Economic Change Social change 

1 NGA 

Administrative 

Facility 

2 WHS 

Administrative 

Facility 

3 MDA 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-363

Table 4.10-15 

Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social resources 

under the City Center Alternative (continued)

Project # 

BRAC 

project Economic Change Social change 

4 Hospital Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on 

beneficiaries due to availability of new, 

state-of-the-art hospital 

5 Dental Clinic Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on 

beneficiaries from availability of expanded 

dental clinic 

6 NARMC HQ 

Bldg. 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects due to 

new facility 

7 COE 

Integration 

Offices 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

No effect 

8 Infrastructure Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

No effect 

9 Emergency 

Services 

Center (EPG) 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects due to 

center which would provide rapid response 

to structural fires and medical emergencies 

in support of the agencies and activities on 

EPG 

10 Network 

Operations 

Center 

11 USANCA 

Support Facility 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand 

12 Child 

Development 

Center (NGA) 

13 Child 

Development 

Center 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects from 

additional child day care facility 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-364

Table 4.10-15 

Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social resources 

under the City Center Alternative (continued)

Project # 

BRAC 

project Economic Change Social change 

14 Admin Facility 

(211, 214, 215, 

220) 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand 

15 Access 

Road/Control 

Point 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term significant adverse effects due to 

impact on recreational fields and loss of 

revenue to MWR 

16 AMC 

Relocatables 

No effect No effect 

17 PEO EIS 

Admin Facility 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand 

18 Structured 

Parking, 200 

Area 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

No effect 

19 Modernize 

Barracks 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects due to 

new barracks for Soldiers 

20 MWR Facility 

Travel Camp 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on 

quality of life from new travel camp 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-365

4.10.4.2 Sociological Environment 

4.10.4.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Housing. Long-term beneficial effects would be expected for on-post Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing. Under the City Center land use plan, a new Troop land use area would be designated on 

South Post, west of Gunston Road. However, current land uses, with Troop housing in the 2100 

Area on the North Post, would continue until such time as the Army could construct and occupy 

troop facilities in the new area on South Post. An eventual relocation of the Troop area to the 

South Post would be beneficial to the troops, placing them in close proximity to installation 

services such as healthcare, shopping, service, and recreation facilities. 

Police, Fire, Medical. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected on-post. EPG land 

use would change from Training Ranges to Professional/Institutional. New emergency and 

medical service facilities could be constructed on EPG in this land area., which would provide 

improved facilities and services to beneficiaries. 

Schools. No effects would be expected. 

Family Support, Shops, Services, and Recreation. Long-term minor beneficial and adverse 

effects would be expected. The land use plan would redesignate acreage on the North Post that is 

identified as Outdoor Recreation. Some of the acres would change to Professional/Institutional, 

but most would be incorporated into Community land use. For example, the North Post playing 

field across from Pence Gate would change from Outdoor Recreation to Community, which could 

adversely impact recreational use of that field. Long-term beneficial effects from the City Center 

land use plan would result from the designation of Community land use on Main Post, which 

could allow for the development of new service, shopping, or recreational facilities, which would 

provide improved facilities and services to beneficiaries. 

4.10.4.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Effects on the sociological environment would be the same as or similar to those stated in Section 

4.10.2.2.2. Under the City Center Alternative, the siting of the BRAC facilities on Fort Belvoir 

would vary from the Preferred Alternative; however, the effects on sociological resources from 

BRAC implementation and the effect on population and demand for housing and public services 

would be similar. The adverse impact on MWR under the City Center Alternative would not be 

as severe as under the Preferred or Town Center Alternative because the majority of the proposed 

BRAC facilities would be sited on EPG and GSA, and would not impact North and South Post 

facilities, such as the golf courses. 

4.10.4.3 Environmental Justice 

Effects on environmental justice would be the same as that stated in Section 4.10.2.3. 

4.10.4.4 Protection of Children 

Effects on protection of children would be the same as that stated in Section 4.10.2.4. 

4.10.4.5 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs or mitigation measures would be the same as that stated in Section 4.10.2.5. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-366

4.10.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SATELLITE CAMPUSES 

ALTERNATIVE 

4.10.5.1 Economic Development (Employment, Industry, Income, Population) 

4.10.5.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Short- and long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected. The Satellite Campuses land 

use plan would redesignate acreage on Fort Belvoir as Professional/Institutional, Community, 

Residential, and Troop, providing the opportunity for development (or redevelopment) of this 

land. If construction or renovation of facilities on the land occurs, it would generate short-term 

construction jobs, income, and increased spending in the region from the purchase of construction 

and other materials. In the long-term, operation of the facilities would result in an increase in 

employment, income, and spending from personnel working at the new facilities, including 

maintenance, administrative, and professional staff. 

4.10.5.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Effects would be the same as or similar to those stated in Section 4.10.2.1.2. Under the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative, the siting of the BRAC facilities on Fort Belvoir would vary from the 

Preferred Alternative, but the economic effects from construction expenditures and the increase 

of Fort Belvoir personnel would be the same. . Table 4.10-16 presents impacts of each of the 

proposed BRAC action projects on economic and sociological resources. 

Table 4.10-16 

Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social resources 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

Project # 

BRAC 

project Economic Change Social change 

1 NGA 

Administrative 

Facility 

2 WHS 

Administrative 

Facility 

3 MDA 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand

4 Hospital Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on 

beneficiaries due to availability of new, 

state-of-the-art hospital; long-term 

significant adverse effects due to loss of 

part of North Post Golf Course which would 

be closed to accommodate hospital and 

NARMC 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-367

Table 4.10-16 

Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social resources 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative (continued)

Project # 

BRAC 

project Economic Change Social change 

5 Dental Clinic Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on 

beneficiaries from availability of expanded 

dental clinic 

6 NARMC HQ 

Bldg. 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term significant adverse effects due to 

loss of part of North Post Golf Course 

which would be closed to accommodate 

hospital and NARMC 

7 COE 

Integration 

Offices 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

No effect 

8 Infrastructure Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

No effect 

9 Emergency 

Services 

Center (EPG) 

No effect No effect 

10 Network 

Operations 

Center 

11 USANCA 

Support Facility 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand 

12 Child 

Development 

Center (NGA) 

13 Child 

Development 

Center 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects from 

additional child day care facility 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-368

Table 4.10-16 

Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social resources 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative (continued)

Project # 

BRAC 

project Economic Change Social change 

14 Admin Facility 

(211, 214, 215, 

220) 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand 

15 Access 

Road/Control 

Point 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term significant adverse effects due to 

impact on recreational fields and loss of 

revenue to MWR 

16 AMC 

Relocatables 

No effect No effect 

17 PEO EIS 

Admin Facility 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Short-term minor adverse effects on on-and 

off-post police, fire, and medical services 

and shopping and other services due to 

increased demand; short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on off-post police, 

fire, and medical services due to increased 

demand; short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on off-post schools from 

increased student enrollments; long-term 

significant adverse effects on on-post social 

services and recreational facilities due to a 

significant increase in demand; short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on off-post 

family and social services and recreational 

facilities due to increased demand 

18 Structured 

Parking, 200 

Area 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

No effect 

19 Modernize 

Barracks 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects due to 

new barracks for Soldiers 

20 MWR Facility 

Travel Camp 

Short-term minor beneficial effects 

due to construction expenditures that 

would result in beneficial increases in 

ROI sales volume, income, and 

employment 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on 

quality of life from new travel camp 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-369

4.10.5.2 Sociological Environment 

4.10.5.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Housing. Long-term beneficial effects would be expected for on-post Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing. Under the Satellite Campuses land use plan, a new Troop land use area would be 

designated on South Post, west of Gunston Road. However, current land uses, with Troop 

housing in the 2100 Area on the North Post, would continue until such time as the Army could 

construct and occupy troop facilities in the new area on South Post. An eventual relocation of the 

Troop area to the South Post would be beneficial to the troops, placing them in close proximity to 

installation services such as healthcare, shopping, service, and recreation facilities. 

Police, Fire, Medical. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected on-post. The 

Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan designates acreage as Professional/Institutional on 

the North Post. New medical facilities could be constructed on this land area, which would 

provide improved facilities and service to beneficiaries. 

Schools. No effects would be expected. 

Family Support, Shops, Services, and Recreation. Long-term minor beneficial and adverse 

effects would be expected. The land use plan would reduce the number of acres designated as 

Outdoor Recreation, resulting in long-term adverse effects. Fort Belvoir would lose a significant 

amount of valuable recreational acreage. Although some of the acreage would be incorporated 

into Community and Open Space, the proposed land use plan would change at least half of the 

land use designation of the North Post golf course from Outdoor Recreation to 

Professional/Institutional. Long-term beneficial effects from the Satellite Campus land use plan 

could result from the designation of land on the North and South Post as Community, where new 

or expanded service, shopping, or recreational facilities could be constructed or established, 

which would provide improved facilities and service to beneficiaries. 

4.10.5.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Effects on the sociological environment would be the same as or similar to those stated in Section 

4.10.2.2.2. Under the Satellite Campuses Alternative, the siting of the BRAC facilities on Fort 

Belvoir would vary from the Preferred Alternative; however, the effects on sociological resources 

from BRAC implementation and the effect on population and demand for housing and public 

services would be similar. The significant adverse impact on MWR facilities and funds (and 

therefore Soldier’s quality of life) also would occur under the Satellite Campus Alternative, with 

the loss of at least half of the North Post golf course to accommodate the new hospital and 

NARMC headquarters. The North Post playing field across from Pence Gate would be impacted 

to accommodate the Access Control Point. Future Master planning actions (non-BRAC) plan for 

the construction and staffing of new or replacement MWR recreational and service facilities 

(these actions are addressed under cumulative effects in Section 5.0), but MWR’s ability to build 

these facilities depends on their available NAF, which would be significantly reduced by BRAC 

actions. 

4.10.5.3 Environmental Justice 

Effects on environmental justice would be the same as that stated in Section 4.10.2.3. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-370

4.10.5.4 Protection of Children 

Effects on protection of children would be the same as that stated in Section 4.10.2.4. 

4.10.5.5 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs or mitigation measures would be the same as that stated in Section 4.10.2.5. 

4.10.6 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

4.10.6.1 Economic Development (Employment, Industry, Income, Population) 

4.10.6.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. A land use plan update would not be implemented under the No 

Action Alternative. 

4.10.6.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

No effects would be expected. The changes in population and economic activity that would occur 

under the proposed action would not be implemented under the No Action Alternative. The 

housing market and public services (e.g., schools, police, fire, medical, social services) would 

continue to respond as they have in the past to ROI population changes as needed. 

4.10.6.2 Sociological Environment 

4.10.6.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. A land use plan update would not be implemented under the No 

Action Alternative. 

4.10.6.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

No effects would be expected. The BRAC action would not be implemented under the No Action 

Alternative. The housing supply and public services (e.g., schools, police, fire, medical, social 

services) would continue to respond to market demand. 

4.10.6.3 Environmental Justice 

No effects would be expected. The BRAC action would not be implemented under the No Action 

Alternative. 

4.10.6.4 Protection of Children 

No effects would be expected. The BRAC action would not be implemented under the No Action 

Alternative. 

4.10.6.5 BMPs/Mitigation 

No BMPs or mitigation measures would be required. The BRAC action would not be 

implemented under the No Action Alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-371

4.10.7 SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

The BRAC action would have minor beneficial economic effects, regardless of the land use 

alternative selected. The BRAC action, in general, would have the same economic effects under 

each alternative from construction expenditures and the increase of Fort Belvoir personnel. 

Estimated construction expenditures would be similar under each alternative, with variations 

among the alternatives for demolition and infrastructure. The construction and renovation 

expenditures would result in beneficial increases in ROI business sales volume, income, and 

employment. Although the proposed action’s expenditures would be quite substantial, Fort 

Belvoir is in such an economically large and robust region that the magnitude of the expenditures 

relative to the regional demographic and economic forces would be considered minor. Because 

construction projects are, by nature, temporary, the economic stimulus from construction of the 

proposed BRAC and associated facilities would diminish over time as the projects reach 

completion in 2011. 

The social effects of the BRAC action would range from short-term minor adverse to long-term 

significant adverse and long-term minor beneficial effects, regardless of the land use alternative 

selected. The siting of the BRAC facilities on Fort Belvoir would vary with each land use 

alternative; however, the effects on sociological resources from BRAC implementation and the 

effect on population and demand for housing and public services would be similar. On-post 

facilities would be inadequate to accommodate the incoming BRAC workforce. Additional 

police, fire, medical, shopping, and MWR sponsored programs and facilities would be needed. If 

facilities were not improved, levels of service would decrease. The ability to provide proper 

service and meet customer demands would degrade because of continued use of inadequate 

facilities, continued fragmentation of services, and increased demand from the additional 

population. Long-term significant adverse effects would be expected on MWR sponsored 

programs, such as Soldier and family support and recreational facilities and activities, because 

Fort Belvoir’s MWR would not have sufficient funds, facilities, or staff to support required MWR 

programs. Additional Fort Belvoir actions (BRAC and non-BRAC) plan for the construction and 

staffing of on-post facilities such as a new hospital, new emergency services center, CDCs, 

relocated/new sports fields, and Family Travel Camp area. These new or expanded facilities 

would be designed to adequately serve the incoming BRAC population, resulting in long-term 

beneficial effects. MWR’s ability to build and operate these new recreational facilities depends 

on their available NAF, which would be significantly reduced by BRAC actions. 

From a regional perspective, the social effects of the BRAC action would have short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on regional services. The BRAC Commission’s recommendations would 

generate a net increase of 22,000 people in the workforce on Fort Belvoir. However, most of these 

personnel already reside within a one-hour drive to Fort Belvoir. It is reasonable to assume that 

some of the affected personnel would change their home residence within the ROI to improve their 

commute to Fort Belvoir, in particular moving to areas along the Northern Virginia I-95 corridor 

including Fairfax County, Prince William County, and Stafford County, and the city of 

Fredericksburg. This would increase the population in these jurisdictions and the demand for 

services such as police, fire, and medical care; schools; social services; and shopping facilities. In 

the short-term, services would be expected to decrease as population increased. Expansion of 

services would be necessary to maintain levels of service. However, the population increases 

because of the BRAC action would be minor relative to projected regional population growth. In 

addition, population changes would occur over a number of years. The BRAC action would not be 

fully implemented until 2011. Tax revenues from new residents would provide funding for public 

services (police, fire, medical, schools, social services). The number and type of shopping and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-372

service businesses and community support morale, welfare, and recreation facilities and services 

would be expected to increase with demand as they would be market driven. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-373

4.11 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

Aesthetics and visual resources are the natural and man-made features of a landscape. They 

include cultural and historic landmarks, landforms of particular beauty or significance, water 

surfaces, and vegetation. Together these features form the overall impression that a viewer 

receives of an area or its landscape. 

Visual environments are key contributors to people’s daily experiences and life styles and can 

significantly affect moods and feelings of well-being. Major public improvement projects and 

facilities can have varying degrees and types of effects on the visual environments. The effects 

can range from very significant to hardly noticeable. Visual environments could be viewed as 

negative, or they could improve and contribute in a positive way to the appearance and image of 

communities. Although there is an inherent subjective nature to aesthetic evaluation, this section 

aims to qualify change by looking at noticability, level of upkeep of structures, and integration 

into the natural environment. 

Visual effects on historic resources are protected under federal law through Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implementing regulations under 36 

CFR 800. 

4.11.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fort Belvoir consists of two geographically separate areas, the Main Post and the EPG, which are 

both along the western shore of the Potomac River, approximately 85 miles upstream of the 

Chesapeake Bay. Main Post is bisected by U.S. Route 1 creating two large areas that are referred 

to as North Post (north of U.S. Route 1) and the South Post (south of U.S. Route 1). 

The Main Post is characterized by a diverse topography, which includes uplands and plateaus, 

lowlands, and steeply sloped terrain. The uplands and plateaus make up approximately 40 percent 

of the installation. The predominant lowland areas on Fort Belvoir, approximating 40 percent of 

Fort Belvoir land, are associated with the floodplains of Accotink Creek, Pohick Creek, and 

Dogue Creek. Steeply sloped terrain is the primary component of the remaining 20 percent of the 

land of the Main Post. (U.S. Army, 1989) (for additional information on Topography, Geology, 

and Soils see Section 4.6). 

Installation-wide Family Housing is being upgraded under the U.S. Army’s Residential 

Communities Initiative (RCI). Plans include the demolition and replacement of 1,900 homes and 

the renovation of 170 historically significant homes on Fort Belvoir. The final vision replaces or 

renovates 2,070 homes on 576 acres of Fort Belvoir developed and operated by a private entity 

known as Fort Belvoir Residential Communities Limited Liability Company (Clark Pinnacle, 

2006). The family housing areas are landscaped to create visual enhancement to entries and 

provide visual screens between units. Fort Belvoir’s troop housing occupies 72 acres (Landgraf, 

2000). Landscaping around troop housing areas creates visual enhancement and visual transition 

to surrounding structures. 

Even though Fort Belvoir was used for training purposes starting in 1915, the majority of the 

original structures were built in response to World Wars I and II. Remnants of these historic 

landscapes with a variety of cultural/historic structures still remain on-post. Additional 

development over the decades on the installation reflects various architectural styles that were 

current for the period in which they were built. Historic sites are further described under Section 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-374

4.9, Cultural Resources. For Belvoir and properties being analyzed in this EIS can be divided 

into six planning areas to be described here: South Post, North Post, Southwest Area, Davison 

Army Airfield, EPG, and the GSA Parcel. 

4.11.1.1 South Post 

The South Post is bounded by U.S. Route 1 to the north; the Noman M. Cole, Jr. Pollution 

Control Plant (formerly the Lower Potomac Pollution Control Plant), the Woodrow Wilson Boy 

Scout Reservation, and private development to the west; and waterways related to the Potomac 

River to the south and east. The South Post is broken into two areas for planning purposes: the 

South Post and the South Post Core Area. 

The South Post contains research and development facilities, family housing, community 

facilities, recreation, administrative/education, supply/storage and maintenance facilities. The 

South Post peninsula is separated from the Southwest Area by Accotink Bay and Accotink Creek. 

The peninsula borders Accotink Bay, Dogue Creek, Gunston Cove, and the Potomac River. The 

central section of South Post contains the Core Area planning district with the highest density of 

buildings and includes most of the Fort Belvoir historic district. The parade grounds, as the 

largest open space with mature trees along the edges, serve as the focal point for the historic 

district. Administrative buildings in the Core Area planning district are separated with 

landscaping or lawns. The community and administrative area is usually viewed only by 

personnel and family members stationed at Fort Belvoir, students and other temporary personnel, 

and federal employees. These are generally people accustomed to the aesthetics of a military 

installation. 

The family housing units surround the core planning district on the east. These vary from single 

family homes with landscaped entries and visual screens between properties to modern connected 

row houses with integrated shops and community areas. The Belvoir Ruins Trail is in the vicinity 

of the Fairfax Mansion Ruins and allows public enjoyment of the cultural resources and 

numerous trails through open spaces and natural areas. The Dogue Creek Marina is south of the 

Mount Vernon Road bridge. The marina has 105 wet slips and 300 dry-storage facilities and 

offers basic marina services except for fueling (King, 1999). All marina facilities are open to 

active and retired military and their families, and civilian personnel. The South Post golf 

course—a nine-hole course—tennis courts, and baseball fields are to the north of the core 

planning district. 

The peninsula also contains a third of the 1,360 acre Accotink Bay Wildlife Refuge, which is 

accessed through the Tompkins Basin area. The Basin Trail, starting in the Tompkins Basin area, 

connects to approximately 9 miles of wildlife viewing trails through the Accotink Bay Wildlife 

Refuge. The trail is open to public access for hiking, bird watching, wildlife/nature watching and 

fishing. Tompkins Basin area is a recreation area bordering Gunston Cove, Accotink Bay, and the 

Potomac River allowing shoreline fishing and picnicking for public and installation residents. 

The recreation area has picnic pavilions, archery ranges, and an outdoor recreation facility. 

Access to ABWR along Pohick Road includes the main entrance and the 0.5-mile Pohick Loop 

Trail. 

The Fairfax County Lower Potomac Planning District connects Fort Belvoir’s open space to other 

sensitive areas in Fairfax County such as floodplains, stream influence zones, and tidal and 

nontidal wetlands associated with major watercourses, including the Potomac River. Significant 

portions of the Mason Neck peninsula immediately south of Fort Belvoir are held in public 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-375

ownership and are managed for the protection of important wildlife habitats and wetlands, with 

public recreation as a secondary use. Fort Belvoir’s water resources are further described under, 

Water Resources, Section 4.7. 

4.11.1.2 Southwest Area 

The Southwest Area borders Accotink Bay, Pohick Bay, and Pohick Creek. The Southwest Area 

is undeveloped land composed of woodland, wetland, and riparian ecosystems. This area 

encompasses training areas, most of the 1,360-acre Accotink Bay Wildlife Refuge, and a portion 

of Fort Belvoir’s Forest and Wildlife Corridor. The natural areas designated as the Accotink Bay 

Wildlife Refuge serve as a buffer for the training areas adjacent to them. Wildlife viewing trails 

through the Refuge (approximately 9 miles total) are open to the public for hiking, bird watching, 

wildlife/nature watching, and fishing. The hunting program for white-tailed deer, turkey, and 

waterfowl uses natural areas found on North and South Post and includes areas designated as 

training or wildlife refuge. Military personnel and civilian employees associated with Fort 

Belvoir access training areas through a network of gravel maintenance and access roads for 

activities including land-navigation training, explosive ordnance disposal, or management of 

natural resources. There is a gated access point on Poe Road to training areas and the Accotink 

Bay Wildlife Refuge for maintenance or special projects. 

4.11.1.3 North Post 

The North Post is bounded by Telegraph Road to the north and northwest; U.S. Route 1 to the 

south; and Huntley Meadows Park, Woodlawn Plantation, Pole Road Park, and private 

development to the east. For planning purposes, North Post can be separated into two areas: 

Lower North Post and Upper North Post. The two areas are divided by Kingman Road, which 

generally runs northeast to southwest. 

Upper North Post is the least developed area and contains large pockets of undeveloped land. 

The Forest and Wildlife Corridor separates the two largest tenant organizations, HEC and 

DCEETA, which form distinct communities through fencing, building orientation, parking areas, 

and landscaping in the Upper North Post area. The Upper North Post contains the 146-acre 

Jackson Miles Abbott Wetland Refuge (JMAWR) and the majority of the 740-acre Forest and 

Wildlife Corridor, which connects the forested areas in the north to those in the south. Public 

access at JMAWR provides a half-mile, handicap-accessible trail for freshwater fishing and 

wildlife viewing around Mulligan Pond. 

The Lower North Post (east of Fairfax County Parkway and south of John J. Kingman Road) is 

the most developed segment with administrative buildings, fire department, gas station, dining 

facility and the largest commissary in the continental United States. These areas are landscaped 

to provide visual screens. The developed areas are usually viewed only by personnel and family 

members stationed at Fort Belvoir, retirees, students and other temporary personnel, and federal 

employees who are accustomed to the aesthetics of a military installation. Fort Belvoir maintains 

a 36-hole golf course on the North Post. The north and south golf courses require 437 acres of 

vegetation maintained as turf, interspersed with patches of natural vegetation and landscape 

plantings (Horne, 2001). Fort Belvoir contains 13.3 miles of multiuse trails designed to 

complement the various roads on the post to accommodate such activities as biking, jogging, and 

walking (Landgraf, 2000). Improved surface trails parallel many of the roads and developments 

on the post. (Woolpert, 1993a). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-376

4.11.1.4 Davison Army Airfield 

Davison Army Airfield occupies roughly 740 acres. The airfield facility, which takes up about 

400 acres is made up of a main runway, hangers, administration buildings, and cleared fields. It 

is located on the western portion of the Main Post (Landgraf, 2000). Davison Army Airfield is a 

Class A Army airfield providing support facilities for both fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft. This 

area contains a portion of Fort Belvoir’s Forest and Wildlife Corridor. 

4.11.1.5 EPG 

The EPG is approximately 1.5 miles northwest of Main Post. It is bounded on the west by Rolling 

Road, on the east by Backlick Road/I-95, on the south by an industrial park, and on the north by 

various residential developments. EPG is largely an undeveloped area with gently rolling land 

ranging from 100- to 300-foot elevations, with the highest elevations in the northwest corner. 

The outer boundary of EPG and the majority of the west side are characterized by mixed age 

hardwood forests. The inner east side is characterized by younger pines and brushy areas. There 

are also several old ranges on the west side that are covered by younger pines and brushy areas. 

These areas are currently being cleared and grubbed in order to carry out UXO clearance. This 

process leaves the ranges with the larger pines, but removes all small trees and underbrush. The 

area is bisected by the narrow, steep-sloped streambed of Accotink Creek and intermittent 

streams flowing into Accotink Creek. 

Within the 807 acres of EPG there are several roads in the northern portions. Roads, including 

one bridge crossing Accotink Creek, are in poor condition because of lack of maintenance. There 

are 44 structures at EPG, including 24 buildings and 11 explosives magazines and barricades 

(Bland, 1999). The majority of the buildings are abandoned and in poor condition because of lack 

of maintenance and salvage activities. The one building in use is accessed from Backlick Road 

and is occupied by USANCA. Although there are many pockets of land that have different level 

of disturbance due to various past uses, the majority of the area has the appearance of natural 

forest. 

4.11.1.6 GSA Parcel 

The GSA parcel is a 70-acre storage facility that sits three-quarters of a mile northeast of EPG. It 

is bounded on the west by I-95, by Franconia Springfield Parkway to the north, and by forested 

and residential areas to the east and south. The area is fully developed and made up entirely of 

architecturally basic storage facilities and parking lots. 

4.11.1.7 Off-Post 

Local land uses outside the installation are predominantly residential. Scattered commercial and 

industrial development, such as the Newington Industrial Park and a number of retail shopping 

malls, occur along U.S. Route 1, as well as near I-95 (Horne, 2001). There are several local, 

publicly owned tracts, including Huntley Meadows County Park, Pohick Bay Regional Park, 

Washington Grist Mill, Mount Vernon Estate and Mount Vernon Parkway, Gunston Hall 

Plantation, Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge, and Mason Neck State Park. Many of these 

tracts occur along the Potomac River, forming a band of riparian habitat along the river and its 

tributaries. Pohick Church, Woodlawn Plantation, The Alexandria Society of Friends Meeting 

House and Woodlawn Baptist Church are a few historic resources of Fairfax County found near 

Fort Belvoir (Fairfax County 2002, 2003). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-377

The view of Main Post seen by the public from U.S. Route 1 varies as one moves from west to 

east. The viewshed from Route 1 west of Accotink Village is of forested areas. The viewshed 

around Accotink Village consists of less developed Community and Residential areas. The 

remaining western portion of the Route 1 viewshed is partially obstructed due to the road sitting 

lower than surrounding land. The visible areas consist of athletic fields, forested areas, and 

scattered community areas. 

From eastern boundaries along Old Colchester Road, private property, and Pohick Bay Regional 

Park, and from western boundaries along Pole Road and Mount Vernon Memorial Highway, the 

public sees a view of Main Post composed of buffer areas consisting of natural scenic views of 

woods, wetlands and riparian areas. 

The view of Main Post the public sees from the northern boundary along Telegraph Road and 

various residential communities is of woodlands and wetlands. 

The view of Main Post the public sees from the southern boundary is of marsh, wetlands, and 

woodlands, with a few residential or recreational pockets viewed from across the Potomac River, 

Accotink Bay, Gunston Cove or Dogue Creek from Pohick Bay Regional Park, Mason Neck 

residential communities, Piscataway Park, and Yacht Haven residential area. 

The view of EPG the public sees from all vantage points is of wooded areas, providing a natural 

scenic view containing mature trees and riparian areas. 

4.11.1.8 Fort Belvoir Scenic Integrity 

Scenic integrity considers how well a man-made alteration integrates into the original landscape. 

The less an alteration changes the size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of a natural landscape, the 

more scenic integrity it possesses. The different grades of scenic integrity are explained in 

Table 4.11-1. 

The proposed land use designations for the Fort Belvoir area include Airfields, Community, 

Industrial, Professional/Institutional, Residential, Training, and Troop. 

Airfields. Airfields are surrounded by large structures in constant use. These include hangers, 

control towers, and fuel containers that are surrounded by large-scale paving and unforested 

areas. These areas hold very few of the characteristics of the original landscape and are 

characterized as having low scenic integrity. 

Industrial. The lands designated for Industrial use are characterized by large structures in 

constant use and surrounded by paved parking and loading areas. These areas greatly dominate 

the natural features of the land and, thus, fall under the designation of low scenic integrity. 

Professional /Institutional. The Professional/Institutional areas of Fort Belvoir vary slightly in 

their scenic integrity. Some of the older structures are currently in varying states of disrepair and 

lack aesthetic value. The newer buildings would have more aesthetic value, although it would 

take time before their landscaping matures enough to better integrate them with the natural 

landscape. They could be categorized as having moderate to low scenic integrity. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-378

Table 4.11-1 

Scenic integrity definitions 

High 

(Unaltered/Appears Unaltered) 

Landscapes where the valued landscape character “is intact” with only minute, if any, deviations. The 

existing landscape character and sense of place are expressed at the highest possible level. 

Moderate 

(Slightly to Moderately Altered) 

Landscapes where the valued landscape “appears slightly altered.” Noticeable deviations must remain 

visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed. Landscapes where the valued landscape 

character “appears moderately altered.” Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being 

viewed but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural openings, 

vegetative type changes, or architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed. They should appear 

only as valued character outside the landscape being viewed but compatible or complementary to the 

character within. 

Low 

(Heavily Altered) 

Landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears heavily altered.” Deviations may strongly 

dominate the valued landscape character. They may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, 

edge effect, and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles within or 

outside the landscape being viewed. 

Source: USFS, 1995. 

Community. The developed portions of the Community areas are characterized by large 

structures in frequent use that are surrounded by paved parking areas. The developed areas are 

generally well landscaped to integrate them into the landscape. Community areas also include 

open areas such as parade grounds and undeveloped areas. Community areas are, therefore, 

designated as having moderate to high scenic integrity. 

Residential. These areas all have structures that begin to dominate the natural landscape. Small 

pockets of forested areas coupled with integrated landscaping allow these areas to continue to 

share some of the attributes of the land; therefore, these areas all remain characterized with 

moderate scenic integrity. 

Training. The training lands have very little deviations from the original character of the land. 

They remain largely forested, and the areas where larger alterations have been made are obscured 

from public view. Some localized heavy training activities may have altered the natural 

landscape, however. Therefore, Training is categorized as having moderate to high scenic 

integrity. 

Troop. The Troop areas consist of large structures in constant use. Some of the structures have 

been present for some time and are in a state of disrepair. The area is landscaped, which 

moderates the impact on scenic integrity. The areas are categorized as having low to moderate 

scenic integrity. 

Photographs of representative scenic integrity classes for each of the land use categories are 

shown in Figure 4.11-1. 
4-379 

Scenic Integrity of Fort Belvoir Land Use Categories

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure 4.11-1

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Airfield Area: Low Scenic Integrity 

Davison Army Airfield 

Community Area: High Scenic Integrity 

North Post 

Community Area: Low Scenic Integrity 

North Post 

Community Area: Moderate Scenic Integrity 

North Post 

Industrial Area: Low Scenic Integrity 

South Post 

Industrial Area: Low Scenic Integrity 

EPG 
4-380 

Scenic Integrity of Fort Belvoir Land Use Categories

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure 4.11-1 (Cont.)

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Training Area: High Scenic Integrity 

North EPG 

Training Area: Low Scenic Integrity 

South Post 

Troop Area: High Scenic Integrity 

South Post Parade Grounds 

Troop Area: Low Scenic Integrity 

North Post Barracks 

Professional/ Institutional Area: Moderate 

Scenic Integrity North Post 

Professional/ Institutional Area: High Scenic 

Integrity South Post 
4-381 

Scenic Integrity of Fort Belvoir Land Use Categories

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure 4.11-1 (Cont.)

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Residential Area: High Scenic Integrity 

South Post 

Residential Area: Moderate Scenic Integrity 

South Post 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-382

4.11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The proposed action would be expected to have minor short-term adverse effects and both minor 

adverse and beneficial long-term effects. Compared to the existing land use plan, the proposed 

plan would have several different effects on the Fort Belvoir resources. Most notably, there 

would be a substantially greater amount of development on EPG and the addition of a medical 

campus on the South Post golf course under the Preferred Alternative land use plan. 

4.11.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Both the development of EPG and the new medical campus would transform the aesthetic view of 

their respective areas to that of a professional campus. The medical campus would have a greater 

effect on the aesthetics of the installation because of its location near the center of Main Post. 

Although large in their size and extent the buildings would be integrated using the landscaping 

standards of the installation. Construction would also be expected to produce an aesthetic effect. 

For each BRAC activity that involves building a new structure, road, or improvement of existing 

structure, there would be expected to be an short-term adverse effect due to construction. The 

adverse effect would be larger for a larger structure or cluster of structures. Also, construction on 

North and South Posts would be expected to have a greater effect because of a larger number of 

people who would view it regularly. Any construction on EPG would be expected to have a 

minimal effect because of the low level of current activity. 

4.11.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

4.11.2.2.1 North Post 

Under the Preferred Alternative there would be two construction projects on North Post—

modernizing the McRee barracks and installing an access control point off of Route 1. All 

activities would occur south of Kingman Road on Lower North Post where there has already been 

a large amount of development, thereby reducing the impact of new construction on aesthetics. 

Each of these changes would only entail expanding or modernizing existing buildings or roads. A 

detailed look at each activity is listed in Table 4.11-2. 

Table 4.11-2 

Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on the North Post 

under the Preferred Alternative 

Project 

# 

BRAC 

facility Facility size Nearby visual characteristics Aesthetic change 

15 Access Control 

Point 

Construct 

entrance road and 

security check 

point 

Sited on athletic fields with U.S. 

Route 1 to the south; athletic fields in 

all other directions 

Long-term minor adverse 

effect because of small 

scale and proximity to 

Route 1 

19 Modernize 

Barracks 

Renovate existing 

Barracks 

Sited on existing barracks with 

developed Professional/Institutional 

land use to the north and west, 

athletic fields to the east, vehicle 

storage to the south 

Long-term minor beneficial 

effect because of 

renovations 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-383

4.11.2.2.2 South Post 

Under the Preferred Alternative, several areas in South Post would undergo change. The most 

significant visual change would occur on the site of the Fort Belvoir South golf course. This area 

would be used to construct the new Hospital and NARMC headquarters building. These 

structures would total about 1 million square feet, which would result in a major aesthetic change. 

The landscape would change from a golf course with stately oak trees lining the fairways to that 

of a developed medical campus. While alignment with the natural environment would be an 

important in planning the new facilities, the landscape would be expected to diminish in visual 

integrity because of the increased amount of development. 

However, the plans call for modern buildings with integrated landscaping. This would create a 

developed Professional/Institutional area that has a moderate visual integrity. A large portion of 

the remaining South Post BRAC activities involve new organizations moving into existing 

buildings. These actions would be expected to have a negligible effect on aesthetic integrity. A 

detailed look at each activity is listed in Table 4.11-3. 

4.11.2.2.3 EPG 

Under the Preferred Alternative, EPG would have the largest amount of new facilities, over 4.5 

million square feet of building space. The majority of this would be divided between the NGA 

and WHS buildings. Because of their size, these buildings would dominate the viewshed of the 

area. A hardwood tree buffer, which should remain around EPG, would obscure a portion of the 

view of these buildings; although, the upper floors of the buildings would be expected to still be 

visible from the north, south, and east. Because of the security required for the buildings on the 

eastern half of EPG, only security-cleared staff, people accustomed to the aesthetics of a military 

installation, would encounter the altered landscapes within EPG. These buildings would 

dominate the view from the interior of EPG. AT/FP would be incorporated with integrated 

landscaping techniques to create an open, campus-like atmosphere. 

4.11.2.2.4 Davison Army Airfield 

Under the Preferred Alternative, Davison Army Airfield would not have a discernable change in 

land use. It would remain in a state of low scenic integrity with its continued airfield land use 

designation. 

4.11.2.2.5 Southwest Area 

Under the Preferred Alternative, there would be no discernable change to the Southwest Area. 

Continued training activities would continue in the areas where they already take place. These 

would have a minor adverse visual effect on specific locations because the activities cause 

continued erosion and trampling of vegetation. This would be a minor effect that would not be 

expected to change the scenic integrity of the land. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-384

Table 4.11-3 

Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on the South Post 

under the Preferred Alternative 

Project # 

BRAC 

facility Facility size 

Nearby visual 

characteristics Aesthetic change 

4 Hospital Construct 

868,800 ft2

building 

Long-term moderate adverse 

effect due to large size of 

structure and high aesthetic 

integrity of current land 

5 Dental Clinic 16,000 ft2 

expansion to 

existing 

building 

Long-term minor adverse 

effect due to small size of 

building 

6 NARMC HQ 

Building 

Construct 

50,000 ft2

building 

Sited on Fort Belvoir South golf 

course with Route 1 to the north, 

Belvoir Road and forested buffer 

to the east, Wetland and 

Community land use to the south, 

Professional/Institutional land use 

to the west 

Long-term minor adverse 

effect due to small size of 

building 

16 Purchase 

AMC 

Relocatables 

Move into 

230,000 ft2 of 

buildings 

Sited on existing Administrative 

Building with Route 1 to the north, 

Belvoir Road and forested buffer 

to the east, Wetland and 

Community land use to the south, 

Professional/ Institutional to the 

west 

No change 

3 MDA Facility Construct 

107,000 ft2

building 

No change 

14 Modernize 

Bldgs. 211, 

214, 215, 220 

Modernize 

133,000 ft2

building 

Long-term minor beneficial 

effect due to renovations 

17 PEO EIS 

Administrative 

Facility 

Move into 

447,400 ft2

building 

Sited on existing Professional/ 

Institutional land use with 

Professional/Institutional land use 

and athletic field to the north, 

parade grounds to the east, 

Professional/ Institutional area to 

the south, residential area to the 

west 

No change 

10 Network Ops - 

PEO EIS 

Expand 

building by 

15,000 ft2 

Sited on forested area with 

Professional/Institutional land use 

to the north, south, and west, 

forested area to the east 

Long-term minor adverse 

effect due to small size of 

building 

18 Structured 

Parking 

Facility, 200 

Area 

Construct 

parking garage 

Sited on existing parking lot with 

historic administrative buildings in 

all directions 

Long-term minor adverse 

effect due to buffer by 200 

bldgs. 

8 Infrastructure Construct 

roads and 

utilities on EPG 

and widen 

roads on Main 

Post 

Sited on existing roadway that 

runs north and south between 

Community, Residential, 

Professional/Institutional, and 

Troop land uses, and forested 

areas 

Long-term minor adverse 

effect 

11 USANCA 

Replacement 

Renovate 

20,000 ft2

building 

Surrounded by developed 

Professional/ Institutional land 

use, including historic buildings to 

the south 

No effect 

20 MWR Family 

Travel Camp 

Construct 

camper trailer 

loop and small 

cabins 

Sited on forested area with 

forested area to the north, south, 

and east; river shore and 

community land use to the west 

Long-term minor adverse 

effect due to addition of small 

buildings 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-385

Table 4.11-4 

Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on EPG under the Preferred Alternative 

Project 

# BRAC facility Facility size 

Site placement and 

nearby landscapes Aesthetic change 

1 NGA Construct 

2,419,000 ft2

building 

Long-term moderate adverse 

effect due to large size of building, 

and long-term minor beneficial 

effect due to elimination of 

dilapidated buildings 

2 WHS Construct 

2,219,000 ft2

building 

Long-term moderate adverse 

effect due to large size of building, 

and long-term minor beneficial 

effect due to elimination of 

dilapidated buildings 

8 Infrastructure Add 80 acres of 

pavement and 

infrastructure and 

25,000 ft2

 of 

buildings 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small power station and 

buried lines 

9 Emergency 

Services Center 

(EPG) 

Construct 14,700 

ft2 building 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small size of building 

12 Child 

Development 

Center–244 

Construct 19,590 

ft2

 building 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small size of building 

13 Child 

Development 

Center–303 

Construct 24,036 

ft2 building 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small size of building 

7 Corps of 

Engineers 

Integration 

Office 

(Temporary) 

Construct 22,500 

ft2 building 

Sited on forested area 

with mature hardwoods 

and young pines, 

scattered cleared areas, 

one active administrative 

building and several 

abandoned buildings with 

tree buffer and 

residential area to the 

north, I-95 to the east, 

forested area to the west, 

forested area and 

Industrial land use to the 

south 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small size of building 

 

4.11.2.3 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs. Planning and construction of BRAC facilities would be expected to follow the guidelines 

set forth in the Fort Belvoir Installation Design Guide (Rhodeside and Harwell, 1995), which is 

currently undergoing revision. This would allow any new additions to remain consistent with the 

existing landscape and architectural character of the installation. Building design for larger 

structures would include varying profiles to blend them into their surroundings. During 

construction, the Army would retain as many older trees as possible because their presence 

dramatically enhances visual aesthetics. After completion of construction, the Army would 

install integrated landscaping in accordance with the Fort Belvoir Installation Design Guide. 

This would lessen the impact of the new buildings. In areas where existing trees cannot be 

preserved, it would be beneficial to plant stands of trees that would obstruct the view of buildings 

from high-traffic areas in the long-term. In areas where existing trees cannot be preserved, the 

Army would require trees to be planted in a manner that would conceal high-traffic areas from the 

view of buildings as trees mature to their full size. The tree replacement requirements are 

discussed in Section 4.8.2.5. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-386

Mitigation. Retain vegetated buffers of at least 200 feet in width where possible along the 

northern boundary of EPG, to be supplemented with additional landscaping as needed, to provide 

an effective transition to off-post residential areas and other development. In addition, ambient 

lighting due to BRAC projects will be maintained at or below requirements similar to those 

outlined in the Fairfax County Public Facilities Manual as it pertains to residential units. Design 

of facilities would account for these requirements. 

4.11.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE TOWN CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

The Town Center Alternative would focus the majority of the BRAC activities to North and 

South Posts, specifically to the areas bordering the north and south sides of Route 1. 

4.11.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Although both the north and south areas of the installation would receive new structures, the 

South Post sites would see a larger amount of aesthetic change because of their current high 

aesthetic value. Short-term adverse effects due to construction would be expected to be similar to 

that of the Preferred Alternative. 

4.11.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

4.11.3.2.1 North Post 

Under the Town Center Alternative land use plan, the North Post would gain a large amount of 

new buildings. The addition of these structures would not be as dramatic as those on South Post 

because of the present level of development in the area just north of Route 1. With the addition 

of the medical campus, MDA building, and the PEO EIS, the area from Route 1 to just north of 

Abbott Road would become a highly developed Professional/Institutional area. The size of some 

of the larger buildings would be expected to make them visible from some of the surrounding 

community areas on North Post, namely the area east of Woodlawn Road. Under this plan, there 

would be no development on the northern half of North Post, where there is a high level of 

aesthetic integrity. For the Access Control Point and Modernizing Barracks, the aesthetic change 

would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. Detailed looks at each unique activity for this 

alternative are listed in Table 4.11-5. 

4.11.3.2.2 South Post 

Under the Town Center Alternative, the bulk of the South Post activity would occur on and 

around the current location of the Fort Belvoir South golf course. The new aesthetic look of the 

landscape would be dominated by the addition of the NGA and WHS buildings, which would 

total over 4.5 million square feet. The change from a landscaped golf course with large trees to a 

large Professional/Institutional campus landscape would be expected to cause a dramatic aesthetic 

change. The size of these two buildings would affect the viewscape around the upper portion of 

South Post. For Modernizing Buildings 211, 214, 215, 220, Purchasing AMC Relocatables, 

infrastructure improvements, Structured Parking Facility, and Family Travel Camp projects, the 

aesthetic change would be the same as under the Preferred Alternative. Detailed looks at each 

unique activity for this alternative are listed in Table 4.11-6. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-387

Table 4.11-5 

Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on North Post 

under the Town Center Alternative 

Project # 

BRAC 

facility Facility size

Site placement and nearby 

landscapes Aesthetic change 

3 MDA Construct 

107,000 ft2

building 

Sited on forested area with 

Gunston Road and forested areas 

to the north and west, developed 

Professional/ Institutional land use 

to the east, community 

amphitheatre to the south 

Long-term moderate adverse 

effect due to size of building 

and proximity to amphitheatre 

10 Network Ops 

– PEO EIS 

Expand 

building by 

15,000 ft2

Sited on existing administrative 

building and fields with forested 

areas to the north, developed 

Professional/Institutional land use 

to the east and west, barracks to 

the south 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small size of expansion 

17 PEO EIS 

Admin Facility 

Construct 

447,400 ft2

building 

Sited on forested area and 

landscaped fields with forested 

area to the north, fields and 

residential land use to the east, 

community land use to the south, 

forested area and Professional/ 

Institutional land use to the west 

Long-term moderate adverse 

effect due to larger size of 

building 

8 Infrastructure Add 80 acres 

of pavement 

and 

infrastructure 

and 25,000 ft2

of buildings 

Sited on athletic fields with athletic 

fields to the north, west, and 

south, Professional/Institutional 

land use to the east and 

southwest 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small power station and 

buried lines 

4 Hospital Construct 

868,800 ft2

building 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due low aesthetic integrity of 

existing land 

5 Dental Clinic 16,000 ft2

expansion to 

existing 

building 

Sited on vehicle storage area and 

landscaped semi-forested area 

with barracks to the north, 

Professional/ Institutional land use 

to the east, tree buffer and Route 

1 to the south, vehicle storage to 

the west 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due low aesthetic integrity of 

existing land and small size 

6 NARMC HQ Construct 

50,000 ft2

building 

Sited on landscaped semiforested area with athletic fields to 

the north and east, forested buffer 

zone and Route 1 to the south, 

Professional/ Institutional land use 

to the west 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small size of building 

7 Corps of 

Engineers 

Integration 

Office 

Construct 

22,500 ft2

temporary 

building 

Sited on landscaped semiforested area with fields to the 

north and south, Residential land 

use to the East, 

Professional/Institutional land use 

to the west 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small size of building 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-388

Table 4.11-6 

Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on South Post 

under the Town Center Alternative 

Project # BRAC facility Facility size 

Site placement and 

nearby landscapes Aesthetic change 

1 NGA Construct 2,419,000 

ft2

 building 

Major long-term effect due to 

large size of building and 

high aesthetic integrity of 

existing land 

2 WHS Construct 2,219,000 

ft2 building 

Long-term major effect due 

to large size of building and 

high aesthetic integrity of 

existing land 

12 Child 

Development 

Center–244 

Construct 19,590 ft2

building 

Long-term minor adverse 

effect due to size of building 

13 Child 

Development 

Center–303 

Construct 24,036 ft2 

building 

Sited on Fort Belvoir South 

golf course and landscaped 

forested area with 

Professional/Institutional 

land use to the north, 

athletic fields to the 

northwest, forested areas to 

the east, Community land 

use to the south, Troop and 

Community land use to the 

west 

Long-term minor adverse 

effect due to size of building 

 

4.11.3.2.3 EPG 

Under the Town Center Alternative EPG would have no change as described under the No Action 

Alternative. 

4.11.3.2.4 Davison Army Airfield 

With the Town Center Alternative, Davison Army Airfield would have no discernable change. It 

would remain in a state of low scenic integrity with its current maintenance schedule. 

4.11.3.2.5 Southwest Area 

Under the Town Center Alternative, the Southwest Area would have no aesthetic change. 

4.11.3.3 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs would be similar to those for the Preferred Alternative (Section 4.11.2.3). 

4.11.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CITY CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

The City Center Alternative would focus most of the BRAC additions on EPG. This would 

create a very developed city-like aesthetic for the eastern side of EPG. Fort Belvoir Main Post 

would remain relatively unchanged. 

4.11.4.1 Land Use Plan Update 

The high concentration of large buildings on EPG—4,050,490 square feet of building space—

would create a dense city area. This would greatly change the aesthetics of the area. The GSA 

parcel would also be used under this alternative. Although also receiving a large building, its 

aesthetic integrity would be expected to improve because of its current use as a warehouse area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-389

The remainder of the installation would see very little visual change. Short-term adverse effects 

from construction would be expected to be similar to that of the Preferred Alternative.

4.11.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

4.11.4.2.1 North Post 

Under the City Center Alternative, North Post would undergo a relatively small amount of 

change. These changes would be limited to the Access Control Point the Barracks 

Modernization, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Integration Office. The aesthetic change 

for these would be the same as under the Preferred Alternative. There would be no unique 

aesthetic changes for North Post under this alternative. 

4.11.4.2.2 South Post 

Under the City Center Alternative, there would be expected to be very little aesthetic change to 

South Post. The majority of the BRAC activities would involve occupying or renovating existing 

structures. The only new buildings would be the Structured Parking Facility and the buildings 

associated with the Family Center Camp, which would all be relatively small. For Modernizing 

Buildings 211, 214, 215, and 220, Purchasing AMC Relocatables, Network Enterprise Comm. 

Facility (AKO), infrastructure improvements, Structured Parking Facility, the USANCA building, 

and Family Travel Camp projects, the aesthetic change would be the same as under the Preferred 

Alternative. There would be no unique aesthetic changes for South Post under this alternative. 

4.11.4.2.3 EPG 

Under the City Center Alternative, the vast majority of new structures at Fort Belvoir would be 

sited on EPG. Ten structures would be placed on the eastern side of EPG. This would drastically 

change the appearance of the landscape. The new viewscape would be of a dense Professional/ 

Institutional area. Although, the only people viewing the new structures from within EPG would 

be those used to the aesthetics of an Army installation; the tree buffer that would be left would 

not be adequate to conceal these structures from outside residents and motorists. For the NGA 

Emergency Services Center and the Child Development Center–244, the aesthetic change would 

be the same as under the Preferred Alternative. Detailed looks at each unique activity for this 

alternative are listed in Table 4.11-7. 

4.11.4.2.3 GSA Parcel 

The City Center Alternative would include development on the GSA Parcel, which lies to the 

northeast of EPG. This area is used as a storage facility. Development of the WHS complex on 

the GSA parcel would be expected to increase the visual integrity from that of low Industrial to 

moderate Professional/Institutional. A detailed look at each activity is listed in Table 4.11-8. 

4.11.4.2.4 Davison Army Airfield 

With the City Center Alternative, Davison Army Airfield would have no discernable change. It 

would remain in a state of low scenic integrity with its current maintenance schedule. 

4.11.4.2.5 Southwest Area 

Under the City Center Alternative, the Southwest Area would have no aesthetic change. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-390

Table 4.11-7 

Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on EPG 

under the City Center Alternative 

Project 

# 

BRAC 

facility Facility size 

Site placement and nearby 

landscapes Aesthetic change 

3 MDA Construct 107,000 

ft2

 building 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to smaller size of building 

10 Network 

Ops–

PEO EIS 

Construct 15,000 ft2 

building 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small size of building 

17 PEO EIS 

Admin 

Facility 

Construct 447,400 

ft2

 building 

Sited on forested area with mature 

hardwoods and young pines, 

scattered cleared areas, one active 

administrative building and several 

abandoned buildings with tree buffer 

and Residential land use to the north, 

Newly developed Professional/ 

Institutional land use and I-95 to east, 

Forested area and newly developed 

Professional/Institutional land use to 

the south, Forested land to the west 

Long-term moderate adverse 

effect due to large size of 

building, and long-term minor 

beneficial effect due to 

elimination of dilapidated 

buildings 

6 NARMC 

HQ Bldg 

Construct 50,000 ft2

building 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small size of building 

4 Hospital Construct 868,800 

ft2 building 

Long-term moderate adverse 

effect due to large size of 

building, and long-term minor 

beneficial effect due to 

elimination of dilapidated 

buildings 

5 Dental 

Clinic 

16,000 ft2

expansion to 

existing building 

Sited on forested area with mature 

hardwoods and young pines, 

scattered cleared areas, one active 

administrative building and several 

abandoned buildings with newly 

developed Professional/ Institutional 

land use to the north and west, I-95 to 

the east, thin forested buffer and 

industrial land use to the south 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small size of building 

Table 4.11-8 

Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on the GSA Parcel 

under the City Center Alternative

Project # 

BRAC 

facility Facility size 

Site placement and nearby 

landscapes Aesthetic change 

2 WHS Construct 

2,219,000 ft2

building 

Long-term minor beneficial effect 

due to low aesthetic value of 

existing land 

13 Child Dev 

Center–

303 

Construct 

24,036 ft2 

building 

Sited on Industrial land use with 

Springfield Parkway to the north, 

residential and forested areas to 

the east and south, I-95 to the 

west Long-term minor beneficial effect 

due to low aesthetic value of 

existing land 

 

4.11.4.3 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs would be similar to those for the Preferred Alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-391

4.11.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SATELLITE CAMPUSES 

ALTERNATIVE 

The Satellite Campuses Alternative would spread out the BRAC activities over Fort Belvoir 

proper and leave EPG unchanged. The largest concentration of new buildings would be found on 

North Post on the North Post Golf Course and the area around Route 1. 

4.11.5.1 Land Use Plan Update 

This alternative would have the greatest effect on North Post. This effect would be expected to be 

enhanced by the present high aesthetic integrity of the area north of Kingman Road. Under this 

plan, NGA would be placed on Davison Airfield. This would improve the aesthetic integrity of 

the airfield by changing it to a Professional/Institutional area. The remaining portion of the 

installation would be expected to have very little aesthetic change. Short-term adverse effects 

due to construction would be expected to be similar to that of the Preferred Alternative. 

4.11.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

4.11.5.2.1 North Post 

Under the Satellite Campuses Alternative there would be two main development areas on North 

Post. The first would center around the construction of the WHS and MDA buildings on the 

already developed area just north of Route 1. The addition of these large buildings, which total 

more than 2.3 million square feet, would have a moderate adverse impact on the area. The 

second development area includes the construction of the hospital campus on the location of the 

Fort Belvoir Golf Club. Although this development would be roughly half the square footage of 

the WHS and MDA facilities, it would have a greater impact on aesthetic value due to the highlevel aesthetic value of the golf course. For the Access Control Point, Modernizing Barracks, and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Integration Office, the aesthetic change would be the same as 

under the Preferred Alternative. For the Infrastructure project, the aesthetic change would be the 

same as for the Town Center Alternative. Detailed looks at each unique activity for this 

alternative are listed in Table 4.11-9. 

4.11.5.2.2 South Post 

Under the Satellite Campuses Alternative, there would be expected to be very little aesthetic 

change to South Post. The majority of the BRAC activities would involve occupying or 

renovating existing structures. The only new buildings would be a structured parking facility and 

the buildings associated with the Family Center Camp, which would all be relatively small. For 

Modernizing Buildings 211, 214, 215, and 220, Purchasing AMC Relocatables, infrastructure 

improvements, Structured Parking Facility, and Family Travel Camp projects, the aesthetic 

change would be the same as under the Preferred Alternative. There would be no unique aesthetic 

changes for South Post under this alternative. 

4.11.5.2.3 EPG 

Under the Satellite Campuses Alternative, EPG would have no change as described under the No 

Action Alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-392

Table 4.11-9 

Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on North Post 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

Project # 

BRAC 

facility Facility size 

Site placement and nearby 

landscapes Aesthetic change 

6 NARMC HQ 

Bldg 

Construct 

50,000 ft2

building 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small size of building 

4 Hospital Construct 

868,800 ft2

building 

Long-term Major effect due to 

large size of building and high 

aesthetic integrity of existing 

land 

5 Dental Clinic 16,000 ft2

expansion to 

existing 

building 

Sited on Fort Belvoir golf course with 

Snyder Road and landscaped golf 

course to the north, Beulah Street 

and forested area to the east, 

forested area and Kingman Road to 

the south, forested area and 

community land use to the west 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small size of building 

10 Network Ops 

– PEO EIS 

Expand 

building by 

15,000 ft2

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to small size of building 

17 PEO EIS 

Admin Facility 

Construct 

447,400 ft2

building 

Sited on forested area with Kingman 

Road and forested area to the north, 

Commissary/PX to the east, 

commercial land use with scattered 

forests to the south, Gunston Road 

forested area and new administrative 

building to the west 

Long-term moderate adverse 

effect due to moderate size of 

building 

13 Child Dev 

Center–303 

Construct 

24,036 ft2 

building 

Long-term minor beneficial 

effect due to small size of 

building and low aesthetic 

value of existing land 

3 MDA Construct 

107,000 ft2

building 

Long-term minor adverse effect 

due to moderate size of 

building 

2 WHS Construct 

2,219,000 ft2

building 

Sited on vehicle storage, athletic 

fields, and landscaped semi-forested 

area with barracks and forested area 

to the north, Professional/ 

Institutional land use to the east, tree 

buffer and Route 1 to the south, 

vehicle storage to the west 

Long-term moderate adverse 

effect due to large size of 

building 

 

4.11.5.2.4 Davison Army Airfield 

The Satellite Campuses Alternative would include new structures on the site of Davison Army 

Airfield. Although the construction of this large new building would have a significant effect on 

the viewscape, it would have an overall beneficial effect due to the current low level of aesthetic 

value of the airfield. A detailed look at each activity is listed in Table 4.11-10. 

4.11.5.2.5 Southwest Area 

Under the Satellite Campuses alternative, the aesthetic effect on the Southwest Area would be 

similar to that in the Proposed Action plan. 

4.11.5.3 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs would be similar to those for the Preferred Alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-393

Table 4.11-10 

Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on Davison Army Airfield 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

Project # 

BRAC 

facility Facility size 

Site placement and nearby 

landscapes Aesthetic change 

1 NGA Construct 

2,419,000 ft2

building 

Short-term minor adverse 

effect, long-term minor 

beneficial effect 

12 Child Dev 

Center–

244 

Construct 

19,590 ft2

building 

Sited on Airfield with forested 

buffer zone to the north and east 

with Fairfax County Parkway on 

other side, forested areas 

community land use and Route 1 

to the south, forested area and 

commercial land use to the west 

Long-term minor beneficial 

effect 

 

4.11.6 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No Action Alternative, no effects would be expected on the aesthetics of the 

installation. 

4.11.6.1 North Post 

Under the No Action Alternative, North Post would have no discernable change in appearance. 

Under the current maintenance plan, the various land use types would retain their level of visual 

quality. 

4.11.6.2 South Post 

Under the No Action Alternative, South Post would have no discernable change in appearance. 

Under the current maintenance plan, the various land use types would retain their level of visual 

quality. 

4.11.6.3 EPG 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change to EPG. USANCA would remain in 

their facility on the northeast area and the remainder of EPG would remain under the present 

maintenance plan, where the majority of the buildings and roads would continue to slowly 

deteriorate, retired ranges would continue to be cleared and grubbed, and the remainder of the 

forested land would remain uncut. Allowing parts of EPG to be sold or leased on a long-term 

basis would be explored under this scenario. 

4.11.6.4 Davison Army Airfield 

Under the No Action Alternative, Davison Army Airfield would have no discernable change. It 

would remain in a state of low scenic integrity with its current maintenance schedule. 

4.11.6.5 Southwest Area 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Southwest Area would have no aesthetic change. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-394

4.11.6.6 Mitigation 

No mitigation is required for the No Action Alternative. 

4.11.7 SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

The BRAC actions would be expected to have a minor adverse and beneficial and moderate 

adverse impacts on the aesthetic and visual resources of Fort Belvoir. There would be some 

difference in the effects the four alternatives have on aesthetics, with the City Center having the 

least impact and the other three alternatives having similar slightly larger impacts. 

Throughout its history and development, Fort Belvoir has strived to take advantage of the natural 

topography and vegetation of the area. For this reason, it has been able to preserve a relatively 

high amount of aesthetic value. Potential effects on the installation’s aesthetic value depend on 

how proposed actions affect those signature areas of the installation having high aesthetic 

integrity. These areas include the traditional buildings of Fort Belvoir and the landscaping that 

takes advantage of natural features and mature hardwoods, which are found primarily on South 

Post and to a lesser extent on North Post; the undisturbed areas of Fort Belvoir found in the 

Southwest Area; the wildlife corridors on North Post and western EPG; the golf courses on North 

and South Post; and the many vistas of the Potomac. The four proposed alternatives differ 

slightly on how they affect these areas. 

The City Center Alternative, which concentrates the majority of its actions on eastern EPG and 

the GSA site, would have the least aesthetic impact because of the lack of major construction on 

either North or South Post. The eastern portion of EPG, especially the area inside of Heller Loop, 

has low aesthetic value because of training and testing activities that have occurred there over the 

years. This area also contains several abandoned structures that have progressed to an advanced 

state of dilapidation. Both the City Center Alternative and, to a lesser extent, the Preferred 

Alternative make use of this area. The Preferred, Town Center, and Satellite Campuses 

Alternatives all have a greater impact because of having developments on or near aesthetically 

sensitive areas of Main Post. The Preferred and Town Center Alternatives would have more of 

an impact as a result of the hospital campus being sited on the South Post golf course. The Town 

Center Alternative also would situate a large amount of development on North Post north of U.S. 

Route 1, and the Satellite Campuses Alternative would also place new structures in this area. 

Although it does not impact the South Post golf course, the Satellite Campuses Alternative would 

site buildings on the North Post golf course. Despite their slight differences, none of the 

proposed alternatives would be expected to have a significant effect on aesthetics and visual 

resources of the installation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-395

4.12 UTILITIES 

Utilities at Fort Belvoir consist of potable water supply and distribution, sanitary sewage 

collection, electric power distribution, natural gas distribution, steam supply, communications 

network, and solid waste collection. Washington Gas owns and operates Fort Belvoir’s natural 

gas system. Electric distribution system at Fort Belvoir will be managed by Dominion Virginia 

Power under a 50-year contract with Fort Belvoir effective March 2007. By the end of 2008, the 

Army plans to privatize water distribution, and wastewater collection systems at Fort Belvoir. 

The existing Fort Belvoir storm water system is described in Section 4.7. 

Utility services at the Davison Army Airfield (DAAF) are similar to services available at the 

Main Post. These include potable water supply and distribution, sanitary sewage collection, 

electricity, natural gas, steam, communication and solid waste. Utility service providers and 

service lines are the same for both Fort Belvoir and DAAF. However, due to the proposed 

location of BRAC tenants with built-in space in excess of 2.4 million square-feet under one of the 

considered alternatives, specific available details of existing utility services such as pipe sizes and 

potable water storage capacity at DAAF are presented separately in this EIS. Utility services at 

the Southwest area and Humphreys Engineer Center of Fort Belvoir are not discussed in this EIS. 

EPG has minimal on-site utility infrastructure in place. However, it is in close proximity to public 

utility systems. Utility services available at EPG include potable water supply and distribution, 

sanitary sewage collection, electricity and solid waste collection. These services are provided by 

public and private utility companies operating in the area. Though natural gas services are not 

available at the EPG site, the provider of natural gas in the vicinity of EPG has the ability to 

provide this service to EPG in the future. 

Utility services available at the GSA Franconia Warehouse Complex (GSA Parcel) include 

potable water supply and distribution, sanitary sewage collection, electricity, natural gas, 

communications and solid waste collection. 

Unless otherwise specified, the primary sources for this section are Fort Belvoir’s Integrated 

Natural Resources Management Plan (Horne, 2001), the Solicitation Notice for Utilities 

Privatization of Electric, Water and Wastewater Systems at Fort Belvoir, (DLA, 2005) and the 

Fort Belvoir DPW GIS Department. 

4.12.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.12.1.1 Potable Water Supply and Distribution 

Main Post. Fairfax Water provides potable water to Fort Belvoir as a wholesale customer via two 

separately metered primary vaults/pump stations connected to a 30-inch main on Telegraph Road 

and a 24-inch Fairfax Water line on Pole Road. In addition to the two primary supply locations 

from Fairfax Water, Fort Belvoir uses other secondary metered locations along the supply route. 

Water supply to the post is master metered. The Fredrick P. Griffith Water Treatment Plant in 

Lorton, Virginia supplies water to the post. This plant was opened for operation in May 2006, 

with production capacity of 120 mgd. The Griffith Plant is one of two supply points that feed the 

overall Fairfax Water system providing redundancy and reliability to Fort Belvoir from a water 

supply standpoint. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-396

Current total consumption of potable water at Fort Belvoir ranges from approximately 1.8 to 2.2 

mgd (based on Year 2005 and 2006 total annual consumption of 645.81 million gallons and 

812.88 million gallons, respectively). The peak demand was recorded as 3.044 mgd (Betts, 2007). 

Current contracted capacity for potable water with Fairfax Water is 4.4 mgd (Guerra, 2005). The 

rated (or licensed) capacity of the potable water system as designed and permitted is 4.75 mgd 

according to storage capacity at Fort Belvoir. When the demand reaches 80 percent of the rated 

(or licensed) capacity, the corresponding regulating authority, the Virginia Department of Health 

requires submission of a plan for system upgrade. The contracted capacity covers the Main Post, 

DCEETA, EPG, and part of HEC. About 1.0 million gallons are held in emergency storage in 

government-owned tanks. 

There are no active potable water wells on the installation, and all abandoned wells have been 

closed and filled. There are four groundwater wells used for irrigation, three of which are on the 

North Post golf course, the fourth at the DLA (Bolton, 2002). 

Fort Belvoir owns, operates, and maintains the entire on-post distribution system. The distribution 

system provides looped service to the post and includes three pumping stations, three elevated 

storage tanks, one ground-level storage tank, and a chlorination system. The service lines on the 

post are made of a variety of materials, including cast iron, ductile iron, and polyvinyl chloride 

(PVC). An analysis of the system prepared in 1996 showed that more than 70 percent of the 

potable water system was built in the 1940s and another 7 percent was constructed in the 1950s 

(USACE, 2002). 

Water pressure is aided by a pump station near the Telegraph Road connection and by three 

elevated water storage tanks. In combination, the three elevated tanks and one ground-level 

emergency storage tank provide a total of 2.3 million gallons of storage capacity; the tanks and 

their locations and capacities are listed in Table 4.12-1. The storage tanks are old, and might need 

to be replaced or supplemented by additional tanks. The valves and piping at the tanks were 

upgraded in 1994, and the tanks were stripped of lead paint and repainted in 1995 and 1996. The 

chlorination system (VA DOH Permit Number 6059450) is on Telegraph Road and is operated on 

an as-needed basis (DLA, 2005). There are no other water treatment facilities on-post. 

The government-owned system consists of approximately 525,000 linear feet of distribution 

piping that includes approximately 81,000 feet of service laterals, 1,100 main line valves, 68 

sampling stations, and 641 hydrants. The majority of the distribution system was installed in 1940 

and is approaching the end of its design life. 

Davison Army Airfield. Potable water for the Davison Army Airfield is supplied from a 24-inch 

main through Davison Army Airfield. The 24-inch main connects to a 30-inch Fairfax Water 

main which runs along Telegraph Road. 

EPG. Potable water for EPG is purchased by Fort Belvoir from Fairfax Water. Two 36-inch 

main water supply lines provide potable water to EPG along its perimeter. One supply line is 

along Backlick Road and another is toward the northwest part of the site along Rolling Road. 

GSA Parcel. Fairfax Water provides potable water for the GSA Parcel via a 12-inch main along 

Loisdale Road. In addition, a 30-inch supply line is located within a short distance of the GSA 

Warehouse site. Distribution network pipes of varying sizes provide potable water for the 

different buildings of the parcel. No storage capacity is available for potable water at the site 

(Donatone, 2006). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-397

Table 4.12-1 

Fort Belvoir potable water storage tanks 

Facility no. Location 

Capacity 

(gallons) Type Installed/upgrade 

188 16th Street 300,000 Elevated 1918/1996 

591 23rd Street 500,000 Elevated 1937/1996 

2428 Gorgas Road 500,000 Elevated 1948/1995 

2429 Gorgas Road 1,000,000 Ground 1948/1995 

 

4.12.1.2 Sanitary Sewage Collection and Treatment 

Main Post. Fort Belvoir owns and maintains the on-post sanitary sewer system, which includes 

389,122 feet of service laterals, collection pipes, and mains; 40 sewage pumping/lift stations; 

1,173 manholes; and two main pumping stations (Jones, 2005). The two main pumping stations, 

which were treatment stations until the 1970s, are at Building 97 (southern end of Jadwin Loop) 

and Building 687 (southern end of Tompkins Basin). In addition, Fairfax County owns and 

operates two major pump stations in close proximity to the base and large-diameter force main 

running generally parallel to Route 1 to the south. These two major pump stations, Dogue Creek 

Pump Station along Old Mill Road, with a capacity of 32 MGD and Accotink Pump Station along 

Richmond Highway, with a capacity of 37 MGD transverse through Fort Belvoir property to 

outfalls near the Main Gate on Belvoir Road and near the old landfill on Poe Road, respectively 

(Osei-Kwadwo, 2007). Three additional pump stations with capacities ranging from 0.2 to 7.1 

MGD are located in the vicinity of Fort Belvoir (Osei-Kwadwo, 2007). 

Design for replacement of the Dogue Creek force main is underway due to prematurely failing 

pipes. Preliminary site investigations are being conducted at present to determine the alignment of 

the proposed force main. The capacity of the replaced Dogue Creek force main is expected to be 

the same as the one to be replaced (Osei-Kwadwo, 2007). The alignment of the new pipe runs 

generally parallel with the existing pipe but does encroach into the parcel south of the Parade 

Grounds. The government-owned collection system ties to the Fairfax County system at several 

points along the Dogue Creek trunk line. 

The post also owns and operates two ferrous sulfate sewage treatment facilities (USACE, 2003). 

Like the potable water supply system, Fort Belvoir’s sewer system will be privatized in the near 

future. 

Pipes are made of clay, PVC, mixed concrete, cast iron, terra cotta, or asbestos, with PVC pipe 

and clay predominating. The pipe ranges in size from 24 inches to less than 4 inches, with 8 

inches being the most common size. Like the other utility systems at Fort Belvoir, most of the 

wastewater collection system was built in the 1940s with only replacement and upgrade work 

being completed since 1997. The upgrade work included relining pipes, upgrading manholes, 

replacing some pipe (DLA, 2005). 

For fiscal years 2001 through 2003, the installation discharged an average of between 1.1 and 1.4 

mgd of wastewater to the Fairfax County system. The daily average flow limit specified in the 

contract with Fairfax County is 3.0 mgd, and the maximum daily peak flow to the Fairfax County 

system is 6.0 mgd. The Fort Belvoir system ultimately discharges to Fairfax County’s Noman M. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-398

Cole, Jr. Pollution Control Plant (formerly the Lower Potomac Pollution Control Plant), 

connecting to the county system through six connection points with separately metered flows. 

The plant has been upgraded three times in the past 28 years (1978, 1995, and 2004), and now has 

a maximum daily sewage treatment capacity of 67 mgd (Osei-Kwadwo, 2007). The Noman Cole, 

Jr. Plant receives an average of 45 mgd from all dischargers to the system. This plant discharges 

its effluent into Pohick Creek, which flows into the Potomac River Permit Number VA0025364). 

There is also a 6,300-gallon septic tank at the Golf Course Maintenance Facility on Telegraph 

Road. This tank does not have a septic field (USACE, 2003). 

Davison Army Airfield. Sanitary waste from Davison Army Airfield is collected through an 

existing 8-inch sanitary sewer and lift station and discharged to the Fairfax County treatment 

system via the Accotink Pump Station located along Richmond Highway (Osei-Kwadwo, 2007). 

EPG. Sanitary wastewater from EPG is treated by the Noman M. Cole Jr. Pollution Control Plant. 

There is an existing 54-inch gravity trunk sewer line along Accotink Creek that could provide 

service to EPG. 

GSA Parcel. There is an existing 12-inch gravity trunk sewer line along Loisdale Road behind 

Building A at the GSA Parcel. Sanitary waste from the GSA site is directed to the Noman M. 

Cole Jr. Pollution Control Plant via the Long Branch Pump Station located along Telegraph Road 

(Donatone, 2006, Osei-Kwadwo, 2007). 

4.12.1.3 Electricity 

Main Post. Dominion Virginia Power (Dominion) provides electrical power to Fort Belvoir from 

two 34.5-kilovolt (kV) three-phase distribution circuits. Each of these circuits is rated for 62 

megavolt amperes (MVA). There are two 84 MVA, 230/34.5 kV transformers at the Fort Belvoir 

substation near HEC. Transformer #1 feeds circuit 464 and two other circuits, 786 (2,241 

customers) and 788 (DCEETA). Transformer #2 feeds circuit 463 and one other circuit, 787 

(2,429 customers). Dominion owns the substation, and Fort Belvoir currently owns and maintains 

all other system components, including electrical lines, on-post substations, transformers, and 

grounding points. However, electric distribution system at Fort Belvoir will be managed by 

Dominion Virginia Power under a 50-year contract with Fort Belvoir effective March 2007. The 

maximum load recorded on the two transformers during the past 3 years was approximately 79 

MVA on July 29, 2002 (Smith, 2004). Power is transferred from the substation to a post-owned 

switching station and distributed to the post at 34.5 kilovolts. Four 34.5-kV distribution circuits 

emanate from the Humphreys switching station. Power is distributed through approximately 78 

miles of overhead lines and 83 miles of underground lines. Several overhead feeder lines serve 

the various areas of the installation, with some lines being interconnected to form looped feeder 

areas. Power is stepped down to lower voltages for local use throughout the installation using 

additional substations. A total of 10 substations are located throughout the installation to 

transform power to lower voltage. Fort Belvoir also uses one combination substation/switching 

station and three switching stations. The common utilization voltages are 120/208-volt threephase, 277/480-volt three-phase, and 120/240-volt single phase. Auxiliary generators are used as 

backup for critical functions. 

The Main Post consumes approximately 157 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually. 

Average daily consumption is approximately 800,000 kilowatt hours. Meter information from 

Dominion indicates that the incoming feeders are operating at about 50 percent of capacity. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-399

Connected load data indicate that the main 34.5-kV circuits are operating at 50 to 70 percent of 

capacity (USACE, 2003). 

Effective March 2007, as the owner of the electric distribution system, Dominion Virginia Power 

would be required to substantially upgrade the system by converting all electric distribution 

system facilities to a uniform 34.5-kV line. Also included in the upgrade would be the demolition 

of existing substations, burial of overhead lines at some locations and blanket system 

improvements, consisting of conductor changeouts, tie lines, miscellaneous equipment, and other 

various items incidental to replacement. Overhead lines would be designed and constructed to 

eliminate electrocution hazards to the extent possible for owls, hawks, eagles and ospreys (DLA, 

2005). 

Davison Army Airfield. Dominion provides electricity to the airfield. In addition, a small, 

separate service line through the Davison Army Airfield provides electricity for the Southwest 

Area of Fort Belvoir. 

EPG. EPG is served by medium voltage (above 1 kV to 99.9 kV) to a location along Backlick 

Road. The Franconia substation, operated by Dominion less than a mile south of EPG, feeds the 

distribution main along Backlick Road. High voltage (equal or greater than 100,000 V) electrical 

service is available along Backlick Road for the eastern side of this site and along Rolling Road 

for the western side of this site (Fort Belvoir, 2000). 

GSA Parcel. Electricity for the GSA Parcel is supplied by Dominion. The electric line runs from 

Loisdale Road into the complex and is distributed from power pole to power pole and supplied to 

individual buildings (Donatone, 2006). 

4.12.1.4 Natural Gas 

Main Post. Washington Gas owns and operates Fort Belvoir’s natural gas system. As of 2000, 

natural gas was distributed to the installation through 25 miles of main lines and 11 miles of 

service lines, mostly servicing the family-housing areas. Fort Belvoir’s natural gas supply system 

has been upgraded numerous times since 1993, and upgrades would continue over the next few 

years. Improvements include converting facilities from Number 2 and Number 6 fuel oil to 

natural gas, replacing old piping, and placing new lines and meters. The total capacity rating for 

the entire post is approximately 160 million cubic feet (MMcf) per day with two delivery points 

to Fort Belvoir. Approximately 90 MMcf/day is deliverable along U.S. Route 1 and 

approximately 70 MMcf/day is deliverable at Woodlawn Road (Smith, 2004). 

Davison Army Airfield. The natural gas system at the Davison Army Airfield is owned and 

operated by Washington Gas as part of the service provided to the Main Post. 

EPG. No natural gas services are available on EPG. Washington Gas has transmission lines on 

Backlick Road along the eastern side adjacent EPG. The closest gas main for the western side 

EPG is along Rolling Road (Fort Belvoir, 2000). Heating and air conditioning on EPG is 

provided by self-contained systems adequate to support only the 13,000-square-foot facility 

occupied by U.S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency. 

GSA Parcel. Natural gas is provided to the GSA Parcel by Washington Gas from a transmission 

line along the eastern edge of Loisdale Road. One main meter and seven submeters installed by 

Washington Gas monitors the quantity of gas provided (Donatone, 2006). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-400

4.12.1.5 Steam 

Main Post. The existing DeWitt Army Community Hospital, Davison Army Airfield, and the 

larger buildings on Fort Belvoir use steam to provide heat and hot water. Recently constructed 

facilities (such as the McNamara headquarters building) and smaller buildings (such as residential 

units) use individual boilers. 

Fort Belvoir has four high-pressure and six low-pressure steam plants. The Viron/Pepco Services 

Partnership maintains and operates the Building 1422 steam plant under the Military District of 

Washington Energy Savings Performance Contract. DynCorp maintains and operates the other 

steam plants and all steam lines. Steam is distributed to the installation through 13 miles of steam 

and condensate lines. Most of the piping associated with each central boiler runs underground. 

Fort Belvoir owns and maintains the entire system (USACE, 2003). 

Davison Army Airfield. Davison Army Airfield uses steam to provide heat and hot water. Fort 

Belvoir owns and maintains the entire steam utility system. 

EPG. No steam utility services are provided at the EPG site. 

GSA Parcel. No steam utility services are available at the GSA Parcel (Donatone, 2006). 

4.12.1.6 Communications 

Main Post. Telecommunication and information services on Fort Belvoir consist of a copper and 

fiber-optic data-distribution network. The network backbone is an asynchronous transfer mode 

(ATM) and the telephone switch is integrated services digital network (ISDN)-capable. Most of 

the distribution cable is carried through an underground ductbank. The installation owns the 

entire system, including copper and fiber-optic cables, utility poles, and computerized 

switchboard systems associated with inter-post and DoD applications. As of 1997, the main 

telephone switch handled 18,000 telephone lines and has a capacity of 45,000 telephone lines. 

Telephone service at Fort Belvoir is provided by Verizon Communications. The system is a 

mainframe interconnecting facility owned and operated by Verizon (USACE, 2002). The cable 

television provider is Comcast Cable (USACE, 2002). 

Davison Army Airfield. The communication system at the airfield is owned and operated by Fort 

Belvoir.

EPG. There is minimal or no telephone and internet infrastructure services provided at present 

on EPG. However, communication lines are located along Backlick Road for the eastern side of 

EPG and along Rolling Road for the western side of EPG (Fort Belvoir, 2000). 

GSA Parcel. Communication services are provided Verizon for the GSA Parcel (Donatone, 

2006). 

4.12.1.7 Solid Waste 

Main Post. Fort Belvoir generates about 6,694 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) annually 

that are disposed of off-post by a contract hauler (Brooks, 2007). Approximately 2,719 tons of the 

total municipal solid waste is recycled (Brooks, 2007). Household and office building trash is 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-401

disposed of off-post by a contract hauler to the I-95 Energy/Resource Recovery Facility managed 

by Covanta Fairfax, Inc., owned and operated by Covanta Energy. Fairfax County disposes of the 

ash generated from the facility in an adjacent landfill complex. A letter of agreement between the 

Division of Solid Waste Disposal and Resource Recovery of Fairfax County and Fort Belvoir has 

a cap of 100 tons per day of MSW (Meoli, 2007). Disposal capacity of the Resource Recovery 

Facility is 3,000 tons per day with an air permit limit of 1.095 million tons per year (Meoli, 

2007). The County expects the Resource Recovery Facility to have sufficient capacity to handle 

disposal needs through 2025 (Fairfax County, 2005). Items such as tires and fluorescent lighting 

go to the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office for recycling. Scrap metal is recycled 

through the Qualified Recycling Program. Woody waste, grass clippings left on-site as mulch, 

and leaves are composted at the post’s compost site. Approximately 3,000 tons of yard waste was 

composted on the post in Fiscal Year 2006 (Brooks, 2007). 

Other bulky waste, such as appliances and furniture, as well as construction and demolition 

debris, is disposed of at Hilltop Landfill in Fairfax County. This landfill has been estimated to 

have 9 years of capacity remaining, on the basis of expected county construction/demolition 

debris (CDD) rates (Fairfax County, 2005). 

The installation has a mandatory installation-wide recycling program that collects white paper, 

colored paper, newspaper, aluminum cans, tin/steel cans, scrap metal, cardboard, glass bottles, 

plastic containers, used oil, and toner cartridges at the Building 1089 Recycling Facility. Fort 

Belvoir also has a 10-year Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, last updated in 1999. In 

general, the planning goal is to reduce solid waste management costs and environmental effects 

by reducing the quantity of materials that must be disposed of by incineration or landfilling. Fort 

Belvoir has met its recycling goals for solid wastes and now recycles more than 50 percent of its 

solid waste (USACE, 2003). During period June 2006 to January 2007, Fort Belvoir disposed 

approximately an average of 450 tons of MSW per month (Meoli, 2007). 

Davison Army Airfield. Solid waste generated from the Davison Army Airfield is collected and 

disposed of through the solid waste disposal system at the Main Post. 

EPG. Nonhazardous municipal solid waste collected EPG is hauled for disposal through the 

existing solid waste disposal system at Fort Belvoir. 

GSA Parcel. Solid waste is collected from the GSA Parcel by Urban Services and disposed of at 

the Prince William County landfill site in Virginia. The warehouse complex also has a recycle 

program and recycled waste is collected by Recycle America (Donatone, 2006). 

4.12.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Under the proposed BRAC action, there would be a net increase of 22,000 personnel at Fort 

Belvoir and connected sites. Demand on all utility systems would increase as a result of the 

BRAC action. This would require additional buildings with new and efficient utility systems for 

providing the required level of utility services. In the long-term, Fort Belvoir would minimize 

demand increases on the systems by installing water-conserving devices such as low-flow 

showerheads, faucets, and toilets in new facilities. In addition, all vertical building construction 

projects, with the exception of major hospitals (USACE Medical Facilities Mandatory Center of 

Expertise, 2006) starting with FY 2008 are required to achieve the SILVER level of Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) of the U.S. Green Building Council (Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of the Army. 2006. Sustainable Design and Development Policy Update—SpiRiT to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-402

LEED Transition. Memorandum dated January 5). All projects would adhere to the guidelines in 

Executive Order (EO) 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation 

Management. 

This rating system is based on sustainable design and development concepts and assesses the 

degree to which the design of a building successfully incorporates consideration of matters such 

as sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor 

environmental quality. Major hospital buildings must be LEED certifiable at a minimum with the 

goal of achieving LEED Silver (USACE Medical Facilities Mandatory Center of Expertise, 

2006). Using the LEED rating system improves the environmental and economic performance of 

facilities by using established and advanced industry principles, practices, materials, and 

standards. 

Installing fixtures and heating systems in compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public 

Law 109-58—August 2005) with specified goals for increased use of renewable energy sources, 

advanced utility metering and procurement of energy efficient equipment and building systems in 

all applicable contracts would have beneficial effects by reducing the per capita consumption of 

natural gas and other sources of energy. 

Fort Belvoir would incorporate programs starting with the planning and design stages to ensure 

enhanced performance of energy efficiency by implementing various sustainable practices. These 

would include the use of renewable energy, acquisition of green products and services, use of 

construction materials which minimize the life cycle environmental impacts, cost-effective 

pollution prevention, and higher levels of waste recycling. 

In addition, upgrades and new utility lines would be confined to the 121 outgrants at Fort Belvoir, 

as much as possible and would avoid the EQC on EPG with the exception of utility crossings 

required to cross Accotink Creek. Appropriate wetland and subaqueous stream bed permits 

would be obtained as required for utility corridors. 

4.12.2.1 Potable Water Supply and Distribution 

4.12.2.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects and minor short-term adverse effects would be 

expected as a result of implementing the Preferred Alternative land use plan. The acreage of land 

designated as Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would 

increase at Fort Belvoir under the Preferred Alternative land use plan. The proposed changes in 

the acreage of land would result in constructing additional buildings or renovating existing 

buildings. Hence, the potable water consumption would increase from additional workers locating 

to these new and renovated buildings. Substantial additions and upgrades for the potable water 

infrastructure would occur at the Main Post and EPG to provide adequate supply of potable water. 

In addition to upgrades to existing water supply lines at the Main Post, new distribution and 

storage capacity for potable water might be necessary to accommodate specific needs of users 

such as hospital and other related services. New supply and distribution lines for potable water 

and storage capacity to ensure reliable service would be necessary at EPG under the Preferred 

Alternative land use plan. 

In the long-term, because new buildings would use efficient water conserving devices, the 

proposed development would reduce the per capita demand for potable water. However, minor 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-403

long-term adverse effects would occur due to the increase in overall total demand on potable 

water infrastructure from additional personnel occupying the newly constructed or renovated 

buildings. Minor short-term adverse effects also would be expected. Implementing the Preferred 

Alternative would result in short-term disconnections and reconnections of existing potable water 

utility systems during the construction phase. 

4.12.2.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Under the Preferred Alternative, there would be a net increase of 22,000 personnel distributed 

between EPG and the South and North Posts. In addition, 146 personnel involved from five 

discretionary moves proposed by the Army would be located at Fort Belvoir. Existing utility 

systems on EPG are sized to support a few hundred personnel. Similarly, existing utility systems 

near the proposed construction sites at the South Post under the Preferred Alternative are at or 

near their design capacity. 

Many of the personnel proposed to move to various office locations at EPG and the South Post 

already live and work in the surrounding areas. As such, their demand on utilities would be 

limited to use of services during office hours and not based on residential levels of demand. 

Of the net increase of 22,000 personnel at various locations on Fort Belvoir from the BRAC 

action, approximately 18,000 personnel would be assigned to the agencies proposed to be located 

at EPG. Miscellaneous building space amounting to approximately 6.2 million square feet would 

be added at various locations of the above sites, including more than 4.7 million square feet of 

additional building space constructed on EPG. 

Using a per capita water consumption of 75 gpd, the proposed increase in personnel under the 

Preferred Alternative would increase the demand for potable water by 1.34 mgd at EPG. The 

demand for potable water at the South Post would increase by 0.39 mgd, estimated for 

approximately 140 hospital beds at 600 gallons per bed per day, and water use by hospital 

employees and visitors to the hospital. A substantial increase in outpatient visits to the hospital 

could increase the demand for potable water. The above estimated total increase in potable water 

demand of 1.73 mgd, together with the current average demand of 1.8 to 2.2 mgd would result in 

an overall demand of 3.53 to 3.93 mgd. The water storage requirements for fire fighting and 

water needs during construction phase would also be considered during the design stages. 

The anticipated future average demand is between 74 and 83 percent of the current rated capacity 

of 4.75 mgd the post has with Fairfax Water. If the demand for potable water reaches 80 percent 

of rated capacity, as required by the regulating authority, Fort Belvoir must submit a plan for 

upgrading the system and negotiate for additional contracted capacity with Fairfax Water for 

potable water. Fairfax Water has sufficient capacity at present to cater for the demand exerted by 

the community and the demand for potable water due to the proposed BRAC action (Kirkpatrick, 

2007).

Fairfax Water’s existing 36-inch mains along Backlick Road on the east side and along Rolling 

Road on the west side could be linked with a new water line and be tapped at various locations to 

provide potable water for the various proposed office buildings at EPG. In addition, storage tanks 

with sufficient capacity would be necessary to ensure reliability of supply and for emergency use. 

An 8-inch main provides potable water to existing buildings at EPG. In view of the age of the 

existing distribution system and to meet the demand of additional workers moving to EPG, new 

distribution lines would be necessary. Under the Preferred Alternative, most of the additional 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-404

buildings and workers proposed to be located at the Main Post would be in the South Post. 

Existing off-post potable water infrastructure in the vicinity of the South Post is adequate to 

handle the increased demand for potable water. However, upgrades to the existing distribution 

network and construction of a dedicated storage tank for the exclusive use of the proposed 

hospital would be necessary to ensure reliability of service. 

4.12.2.2 Sanitary Sewage Collection and Treatment 

4.12.2.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects and minor short-term adverse effects would be 

expected as a result of implementing the Preferred Alternative land use plan. The acreage of land 

designated as Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would 

increase at Fort Belvoir under the Preferred Alternative land use plan. The proposed changes in 

the acreage of land would result in constructing additional buildings or renovating existing 

buildings. Wastewater generation would increase from additional office workers at new and 

renovated offices, administrative and residential buildings, hospital and related medical services. 

Substantial additions and upgrades would occur on the Main Post and EPG to provide adequate 

level of sanitary sewer services. In addition to upgrades to existing sanitary sewer lines, new 

collection and conveyance systems would be necessary to provide adequate level of services 

because of an increased numbers of users under the Preferred Alternative land use plan. 

Substantial investments for a new collection and conveyance system would be necessary at EPG 

under the Preferred Alternative land use plan. 

In the long-term, because new buildings would use efficient water conserving devices, the 

proposed development would reduce the per capita discharge of sanitary wastewater. However, 

minor long-term adverse effects would occur due to the additional demand on sanitary 

wastewater infrastructure. Minor short-term adverse effects also would be expected. 

Implementing the Preferred Alternative would result in short-term disconnections and 

reconnections of existing sanitary sewer utility systems during the construction phase. 

4.12.2.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects

Under the Preferred Alternative, the demand for sanitary sewer services would increase by 1.07 

mgd at EPG and by 0.31 mgd at the South Post. This increase is based on a per capita discharge 

of 60 gallons per day and 480 gallons of sanitary sewer per hospital bed per day for 

approximately 140 beds. A substantial increase in outpatient visits to the hospital could increase 

the quantity of sanitary waste. The additional estimated wastewater flow of 1.38 mgd would bring 

the total discharge from the Main Post and EPG between 2.48 to 2.78 mgd from its current range 

of 1.1 to 1.4 mgd. Though this estimate is below the 3.0 mgd average flow limit and 6.0 mgd 

maximum daily peak flow limit the post has with the Fairfax County, if flows increase above the 

contracted amount, it would be necessary for Fort Belvoir to negotiate a new contract with the 

Fairfax County for discharge of additional volume of wastewater to the county sewer system. The 

current treatment capacity of 67 MGD at the Norman Cole, Jr. Plant is projected to serve the 

future needs of the community up to approximately 20 years, including the additional demand 

exerted by the population increase due to the proposed BRAC action (Osei-Kwadwo, 2007). 

The existing 54-inch gravity trunk main along Accotink Creek could be tapped to discharge 

sanitary waste from various buildings proposed at EPG. New collections system pipes, 

interceptors and appurtenances would be required to convey the sanitary waste to the existing 

trunk main along Accotink Creek. The existing on- and off-post sanitary sewer collection 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-405

infrastructure in the vicinity of the South Post could handle the additional flow of 0.31 mgd with 

appropriate upgrades to the existing collection system. 

4.12.2.3 Electricity 

4.12.2.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects would be expected as a result of implementing 

the Preferred Alternative land use plan. The acreage of land designated as 

Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at Fort 

Belvoir under the Preferred Alternative land use plan. The proposed changes in the acreage of 

land would result in constructing additional buildings or renovating existing buildings. 

Substantial additions and upgrades would occur on the Main Post and EPG to provide adequate 

level of electricity at these two locations. In addition to upgrades to existing distribution lines at 

Fort Belvoir, new supply grid and distribution system would be necessary at EPG under the 

Preferred Alternative land use plan. These additions and upgrades would be designed and built to 

use energy-efficient devices, thus reducing the consumption of electricity. 

4.12.2.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects

Dominion, which supplies electricity to Fort Belvoir and would own the on-post distribution 

network from March 2007, would be required to make substantial upgrades to the electrical 

transmission and distribution systems to provide power to the BRAC tenants proposed to move to 

EPG. These upgrades could potentially take three to five years to plan and construct due to rightof-way acquisition and State Corporation Commission permitting requirements (Secretary of the 

Army. 2007). 

In addition to normal demands, new mission-critical users such as NGA require separate feeds 

from independent substations as well as buried primary service in lieu of overhead lines because 

of Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) security and reliability standards. These requirements would 

add to the cost and complexity of the necessary improvements. 

The BRAC demands at EPG would require improvements to Dominion’s Franconia substation. 

This substation is fed from multiple circuits allowing for a high degree of reliability. Because of 

physical constraints, the maximum size for a new substation transformer is 75 MVA. The BRAC 

demands, as reported, could exceed 100 MVA, requiring two transformer/switch sets. The 

Franconia substation has sufficient physical room within the existing plant to accommodate the 

required upgrades. 

Power would be fed from the Franconia substation to a proposed substation on EPG. 

Approximately 4 acres must be set aside for this electrical substation near the perimeter of EPG 

for accessibility by Dominion. 

In addition, new electrical distribution systems must be constructed at EPG to provide electricity 

for the BRAC tenants. The North and South Posts have sufficient capacity to provide electricity 

for the additional 1.49 million square feet of administrative and hospital building space under the 

Preferred Alternative. New and upgrades to the existing electric network and associated 

equipment would be required to provide adequate and reliable electricity to BRAC tenants 

moving to the Main Post. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-406

4.12.2.4 Natural Gas 

4.12.2.4.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects would be expected as a result of implementing 

the Preferred Alternative land use plan. The acreage of land designated as Professional/ 

Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at Fort Belvoir 

under the Preferred Alternative land use plan. The proposed changes in the acreage of land would 

result in constructing additional buildings or renovating existing buildings. Substantial additions 

and upgrades would occur on the Main Post and EPG to provide adequate supply of natural gas. 

In addition to upgrades to existing distribution lines at Fort Belvoir, a new supply grid and 

distribution system would be necessary at EPG under the Preferred Alternative land use plan. 

4.12.2.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Using an estimate of 2.5 MMcf of natural gas per 100,000 square feet of office space, the 4.7 

million square feet of building space proposed at EPG would require a total of 118 MMcf of 

natural gas to provide for heating purposes. Also, the additional building space, including the 

hospital at the South Post would require 38 MMcf of natural gas. The total increase for natural 

gas of 156 MMcf from the construction of additional building space at EPG and the South Post is 

near the current combined total purchase capacity of 160 MMcf the installation has with 

Washington Gas. 

Washington Gas has sufficient capacity to provide the additional quantity of natural gas from 

existing distribution network near EPG and the Main Post to meet the additional demand. Fort 

Belvoir must negotiate a new supply contract with Washington Gas to have sufficient capacity to 

meet the demand for natural gas from existing personnel at Fort Belvoir and incoming BRAC 

tenants. 

A new distribution network would be required at EPG, and additions and upgrades for the 

existing distribution system at the South Post would be required under the Preferred Alternative. 

4.12.2.5 Steam 

4.12.2.5.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. The acreage of land designated as Professional/Institutional, 

Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at Fort Belvoir under the 

Preferred Alternative land use plan. The proposed changes in the acreage of land would result in 

constructing additional buildings or renovating existing buildings. The existing steam distribution 

system is limited to the Main Post and the Davison Army Airfield, and it does not extend to EPG. 

Moreover, it is not feasible to extend the steam distribution to EPG. 

4.12.2.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

BRAC tenants at EPG could opt to have individual centralized utility plants to provide emergency 

power, steam and cooling water to meet the specific needs of equipment and other accessories. 

Because of the proposed location of the different BRAC tenants at EPG, it might not be feasible 

to have one centralized steam plant to serve all facilities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-407

Existing steam facilities at Fort Belvoir would need substantial upgrades to meet the demand of 

the BRAC tenants moving to the South Post. Additional demand for steam could also be met by 

installing units that use natural gas. 

4.12.2.6 Communications 

4.12.2.6.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected as a result of implementing the Preferred Alternative land use plan. 

The acreage of land designated as Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial 

and Training would increase at Fort Belvoir under the Preferred Alternative land use plan. The 

proposed changes in the acreage of land would result in constructing additional buildings or 

renovating existing buildings. Substantial additions and upgrades would occur on the Main Post 

and EPG to provide adequate level of communication services. In addition to upgrades to existing 

communication system at Fort Belvoir, a new network would be necessary at EPG under the 

Preferred Alternative land use plan. 

In the long-term, the new and upgraded communication systems at the Main Post and EPG would 

use current and most efficient communication equipment, thus providing a secure and reliable 

level of service for the various BRAC tenants. 

4.12.2.6.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

A new telecommunication network would be required at EPG to satisfy the various agencyspecific needs for different levels of communication systems. In addition to providing agencyspecific telecommunication systems, improvements would be necessary to the existing minimal 

communication infrastructure currently available at EPG to meet the demand of general users 

moving to the EPG site. Existing communication services on the South Post would need upgrades 

to provide adequate and reliable communication services for the BRAC tenants moving to the 

South Post. The use of updated equipment would have long-term beneficial effects by consuming 

less resources and space. 

4.12.2.7 Solid Waste 

4.12.2.7.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected as a result of implementing the Preferred 

Alternative land use plan. The acreage of land designated as Professional/Institutional, 

Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at Fort Belvoir under the 

Preferred Alternative land use plan. The proposed changes in the acreage of land would result in 

constructing additional buildings or renovating existing buildings. Additional solid waste would 

be generated on the Main Post and EPG from office workers moving to the proposed locations. In 

addition, construction of new buildings and demolition/renovation of some of the existing 

buildings would also generate construction and demolition debris (CDD) at both locations. 

4.12.2.7.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Municipal solid waste (MSW) generated under the Preferred Alternative would not be substantial 

in terms of overall monthly or yearly quantity or regional landfill capacity. Most of the municipal 

solid waste expected to be generated at Fort Belvoir under the Preferred Alternative is generated 

at other Army facilities in the region. As such, the regional impact on the landfill capacity, 

because of the MSW generation at EPG and the Main Post, would be minimal due to the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-408

relocating of personnel. However, Fort Belvoir would need to negotiate with the current contract 

hauler to dispose of the additional solid waste generated to designated landfill sites. 

Using EPA’s national average of 1 lb/day/employee and 5-day week, for a total of 22,000 

additional office workers under the BRAC action, an additional 2,328 tons of solid waste would 

be generated per year at EPG and 532 tons per year on the Main Post under the Preferred 

Alternative. Close to 50 percent of this solid waste generated would be recycled under the 

mandatory recycling program in effect at Fort Belvoir, unless prohibited due to security 

considerations for some BRAC tenants. The installation would continue its practice of 

composting woody wastes and leaves. At present Fort Belvoir disposes approximately an average 

of 450 tons of MSW per month, well below its permitted disposal capacity of 100 tons per day. 

In addition to the quantity of solid waste generated from BRAC tenants, Table 4.12-2 presents an 

estimate of the CDD that would be generated at Fort Belvoir by construction activities under the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Table 4.12-2 

Estimates of construction and demolition debris generated 

at Fort Belvoir under the Preferred Alternative 

Construction 

activity type Area (ft2

) 

CDD 

factor 

(lb/ft2

) 

Estimated waste 

(lb) 

Estimated 

waste 

(tons) 

Construction 

6,215,531 

4.4 27,348,336 13,674 

Renovation 340,000 20 6, 800,000 3,400 

Demolition 57,000 115 6,555,000 3,278 

Gross total 6,612,531 40,703,336 20,352 

Amount 

Recycled (50%) 20,351,668 10,176 

Net total CDD 

generated 20,351,668 10,176 

 

Per requirements stipulated in memorandum ACSIM, DAIM-ZA, 06 Feb 06, SAB, a minimum of 

50 percent of the estimated 20,352 tons of CDD would be diverted from Army-owned, 

noninstallation-operated landfill sites. As a result of this sustainable management of waste in 

military construction, renovation, and demolition activities, approximately 10,176 tons of CDD 

would be disposed of in various landfill sites in the area. The overall quantity of 10,176 tons of 

CDD equates to a yearly average (on the basis of 4 years of construction activity) of 2,544 tons, 

or a monthly average of approximately 212 tons. Area landfill lifespans would be reduced from 

their current estimates because of solid waste generated under the Preferred Alternative, but 

capacities are sufficient to handle the short-term waste that would be generated from 

construction/renovation and the long-term operational waste from the increased population at Fort 

Belvoir. 

Solid waste other than typical municipal solid waste generated from hospital buildings and other 

specialized agencies, including waste such as asbestos generated from demolition of existing 

structures are described in Section 4.13. In addition, some BRAC tenants may dispose of their 

solid waste separately off-post due to security considerations. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-409

4.12.2.8 BMPs/Mitigation 

General mitigation measures for utilities include the following: 

• The Army would require that at least two of the three major projects institute rainwater 

catchment systems for use in landscape irrigation 

• All BRAC construction would be designed to meet EO13423 total operational reduction 

goals for energy and water conservation 

• At least one building project would be designed for gray water reuse, one with a green 

roof, one with a LEED Gold standard building, and one with a LEED Platinum standard 

building 

• Army policy is to build new construction to the LEED Silver standard. Fort Belvoir 

would assess the long-term cost effectiveness of this program by constructing one major 

LEED Gold building on-post 

4.12.2.8.1 Potable Water Supply and Distribution

As a BMP, training for staff and contractors on water conservation measures in domestic water 

use and water use for construction activities would be provided. 

4.12.2.8.2 Sanitary Sewage Collection and Treatment 

Apart from the measures identified above, no specific BMPs or mitigation would be required for 

sanitary sewage collection and treatment. 

4.12.2.8.3 Electricity 

Apart from the measures identified above, no specific BMPs or mitigation would be required for 

electricity. 

4.12.2.8.4 Natural Gas 

Apart from the measures identified above, no specific BMPs or mitigation would be required for 

natural gas. 

4.12.2.8.5 Steam 

Apart from the measures identified above, no specific BMPs or mitigation would be required for 

steam. 

4.12.2.8.6 Communications 

Apart from the measures identified above, no specific BMPs or mitigation would be required for 

communications. 

4.12.2.8.7 Solid Waste 

As mitigation, expand by fifty percent the Installation Recycling Program, loading docks, and 

compost facility. Complete construction by 2012. 

As a BMP, required training would be provided for in-house staff on materials eligible for 

recycling municipal solid waste generated by BRAC tenants and methods for achieving the goals 

set by Fort Belvoir. An adequate number of containers would be provided in all appropriate 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-410

locations for collection of recycled municipal solid waste. In addition, Army recycling 

requirements would be incorporated for CDD into all contracts awarded to outside contractors. 

4.12.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE TOWN CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

4.12.3.1 Potable Water Supply and Distribution 

4.12.3.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects and minor short-term adverse effects would be 

expected as a result of implementing the Town Center Alternative land use plan. The acreage of 

land designated as Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and Training 

would increase at Fort Belvoir under the Town Center Alternative land use plan. The potable 

water consumption would increase from requirements of additional workers locating to this area. 

Substantial additions and upgrades for the potable water infrastructure would occur at Fort 

Belvoir to provide adequate supply of potable water. In addition to upgrades to existing water 

supply lines, new distribution and storage capacity for potable water may be necessary to 

accommodate agency-specific needs of users such as hospital and other related services. 

In the long-term, these additions and upgrades would use efficient water conserving devices, thus 

reducing the per capita consumption of potable water and eliminating waste. However, minor 

long-term adverse effects would occur due to the increase in the overall total demand on potable 

water infrastructure from additional personnel occupying the newly constructed or renovated 

buildings. Minor short-term adverse effects also would be expected. Implementing the Town 

Center Alternative would result in short-term disconnections and reconnections of existing 

potable water utility systems during the construction phase. 

4.12.3.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Under the Town Center Alternative, there would be a net increase of 22,000 personnel distributed 

between the North and South Posts. Most of the personnel proposed to move to various office 

locations at the Main Post already live and work in the surrounding areas. As such, their demand 

on utilities would be limited to use of services during office hours and not based on residential 

levels of demand. 

Using per capita water consumption rates as described earlier under the Preferred Alternative, 

under the Town Center Alternative there would be an increase of 1.73 mgd in the Main Post 

demand for potable water. The estimated total increase in potable water demand of 1.73 mgd 

together with the current average demand of 1.8 to 2.2 mgd would result in an overall demand of 

3.53 to 3.93 mgd. The anticipated average demand is between 74 and 83 percent of the current 

rated capacity of 4.75 mgd the installation has with Fairfax Water. As required by the regulating 

authority, Fort Belvoir must submit a plan for upgrading the system and negotiate for additional 

contracted capacity with Fairfax Water for potable water. 

Under the Town Center Alternative, most of the additional buildings and workers would be in the 

South Post. Existing off-post potable water infrastructure in the vicinity of the South Post is 

adequate to handle the increased demand for potable water. However, upgrades to the existing 

distribution network and construction of a dedicated storage tank for the exclusive use of the 

proposed hospital would be necessary to ensure reliability of service. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-411

4.12.3.2 Sanitary Sewage Collection and Treatment 

4.12.3.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects and minor short-term adverse effects would be 

expected as a result of implementing the Town Center Alternative land use plan. The acreage of 

land designated as Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and Training 

would increase at Fort Belvoir under the Town Center Alternative land use plan. Wastewater 

generation would increase from additional office workers and new office, hospital, administrative 

and residential buildings. Substantial additions and upgrades would be required at the Main Post 

to provide adequate level of sanitary sewer services. In addition to upgrades to existing sanitary 

sewer lines, new collection and conveyance systems would be necessary to provide adequate 

level of services resulting from increased numbers of users and building locations under the Town 

Center Alternative land use plan. 

In the long-term, because new buildings would use efficient, water-conserving devices, the 

proposed development would reduce the per capita discharge of sanitary wastewater. However, 

minor long-term adverse effects would occur due to the additional demand on sanitary 

wastewater infrastructure. Minor short-term adverse effects also would be expected. 

Implementing the Town Center Alternative would result in short-term disconnections and 

reconnections of existing sanitary sewer utility systems during the construction phase. 

4.12.3.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Under the Town Center Alternative, the demand for sanitary sewer services would increase by 

1.38 mgd at the Main Post, including discharges from the hospital. This increase is based on 

various sewer demands presented earlier under the Preferred Alternative. The additional 

wastewater flow of 1.38 mgd would bring the total discharge from the Main Post between 2.48 to 

2.78 mgd. Though this estimate is below the 3.0 mgd average flow limit and 6.0 mgd maximum 

daily peak flow limit the Post has with the Fairfax County, if flows increase above the contracted 

amount, it would be necessary for Fort Belvoir to negotiate a new contract with the Fairfax 

County for discharge of additional volume of wastewater to the County sewer system. 

The existing off-post sanitary sewer collection system in the vicinity of the South Post could 

handle the additional flow of 1.38 mgd with appropriate upgrades to the existing sanitary 

infrastructure, collection and conveyance system, including any required pump stations and force 

mains. 

4.12.3.3 Electricity 

4.12.3.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects would be expected as a result of implementing 

the Town Center Alternative land use plan. The acreage of land designated as 

Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at Fort 

Belvoir under the Town Center Alternative land use plan. Substantial additions and upgrades 

would occur at Fort Belvoir to provide adequate level of electricity. These additions and upgrades 

would be designed and built to use energy-efficient devices, thus reducing the consumption of 

electricity. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-412

4.12.3.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Long-term beneficial effects would result from energy efficient electric power distribution 

system, as substantial upgrades to the system would be expected to occur. On the other hand, 

long-term minor adverse effects would occur from increases in demand for electric power due to 

the BRAC action. 

There would be an additional 6.2 million square-feet of administrative office space. Most of the 

employees are likely already working Fairfax County, so the countywide impacts are probably 

somewhat lower than given here. The BRAC demands, as reported, may exceed 100 MVA. 

Additional installation capacity for electric supply would be required. 

4.12.3.4 Natural Gas 

4.12.3.4.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects would be expected as a result of implementing 

the Town Center Alternative land use plan. The acreage of land designated as 

Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at Fort 

Belvoir under the Town Center Alternative land use plan. Substantial additions and upgrades 

would occur at Fort Belvoir to provide adequate supply of natural gas. These additions and 

upgrades would use energy-efficient devices, thus reducing the per capita consumption of natural 

gas.

4.12.3.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Using an estimate of 2.5 MMcf of natural gas per 100,000 square feet of office space, the Main 

Post would require a total of approximately 156 MMcf of natural gas to provide for heating 

purposes. The above total increase for natural gas of 156 MMcf from the construction of 

additional building space at the Main Post is near the current combined total purchase capacity of 

160 MMcf Fort Belvoir has with Washington Gas. 

Washington Gas has sufficient capacity to provide the additional quantity of natural gas from 

existing distribution network near Fort Belvoir to meet the additional demand. Fort Belvoir 

should negotiate a new supply amount with Washington Gas to have sufficient capacity to meet 

the demand for natural gas from existing personnel and incoming BRAC tenants. 

Upgrades and additions for the existing distribution system at the Main Post are required to meet 

the demand for natural gas from the BRAC workforce. 

4.12.3.5 Steam 

4.12.3.5.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. The acreage of land designated as Professional/Institutional, 

Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at Fort Belvoir under the Town 

Center Alternative land use plan. 

4.12.3.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Some of the BRAC tenants at Main Post could opt to have individual centralized utility plants to 

provide emergency power, steam and cooling water to meet the specific needs of equipment and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-413

other accessories. Because of the close proximity of the proposed location for the different BRAC 

tenants at the South Post, it could be cost effective to have one centralized plant to serve all 

facilities. Existing steam facilities at Fort Belvoir would need substantial upgrades to meet the 

demand of the BRAC tenants moving to the South Post. Additional demand for steam might also 

be met by installing units that use natural gas. 

4.12.3.6 Communications 

4.12.3.6.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected as a result of implementing the Town Center Alternative land use 

plan. The acreage of land designated as Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, 

Industrial and Training would increase at Fort Belvoir under the Town Center Alternative land 

use plan. Substantial additions and upgrades would occur at Fort Belvoir to provide adequate 

level of communication services. 

4.12.3.6.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Substantial upgrades would be necessary for existing telecommunication network at the Fort 

Belvoir to satisfy the various agency-specific needs to provide different levels of communication 

systems. 

4.12.3.7 Solid Waste 

4.12.3.7.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected as a result of implementing the Town Center 

Alternative land use plan. The acreage of land designated as Professional/Institutional, 

Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at Fort Belvoir under the Town 

Center Alternative land use plan. Additional solid waste would be generated at Fort Belvoir from 

office workers moving to the proposed locations. In addition, construction of new buildings and 

demolition/renovation of existing buildings would also generate additional solid waste. 

4.12.3.7.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Solid waste generated under the Town Center Alternative would not be substantial in terms of 

overall monthly or yearly quantity or regional landfill capacity. Most of the solid waste expected 

to be generated at Fort Belvoir under the Town Center Alternative is generated at other Army 

facilities in the region. As such, the impact on the landfill capacity, from the solid waste 

generation at Fort Belvoir, would be minimal as a result of the BRAC action. However, Fort 

Belvoir should negotiate with the current contract hauler to dispose of the additional solid waste 

generated to designated landfill sites. 

Using EPA’s national average of 1 lb/day/employee and 5-day week, an additional 2,860 tons of 

solid waste would be generated per year at Fort Belvoir from 22,000 additional workers under the 

Town Center Alternative. Close to 50 percent of this solid waste generated would be recycled 

under the mandatory recycling program in effect at Fort Belvoir. 

In addition to the quantity of solid waste generated from BRAC tenants, Table 4.12-3 presents an 

estimate of the CDD that would be generated at Fort Belvoir by construction activities undertaken 

under the Town Center Alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-414

Table 4.12-3 

Estimates of construction and demolition debris generated 

at Fort Belvoir under the Town Center and Satellite Campuses Alternatives 

Construction 

activity type Area (ft2

) 

CDD 

factor 

(lb/ft2

) 

Estimated waste 

(lb) 

Estimated 

waste 

(tons) 

Construction 

6,190,531 

4.4 27, 238,336 13,619 

Renovation 340,000 20 6,800,000 3,400 

Gross total 6,530,531 34,038,336 17,019 

Amount 

Recycled (50%) 17,019,168 8,510 

Net total CDD 

generated 17,019,168 8,510 

 

Per requirements stipulated in memorandum ACSIM, DAIM-ZA, 06 Feb 06, SAB, a minimum of 

50 percent of the estimated 17,019 tons of CDD would be diverted from Army-owned, 

noninstallation-operated landfill sites. As a result of this sustainable management of waste in 

military construction, renovation, and demolition activities, approximately 8,510 tons of CDD 

would be disposed of in various landfill sites in the area. The overall quantity of 8,510 tons of 

CDD equates to a yearly average (on the basis of 4 years of construction activity) of 2,128 tons, 

or a monthly average of approximately 177 tons. Area landfill lifespans would be reduced from 

their current estimates because of solid waste generated under the Preferred Alternative, but 

capacities are sufficient to handle the short-term waste that would be generated from 

construction/renovation and the long-term operational waste from the increased population at Fort 

Belvoir. 

4.12.3.8 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs would be same as those stated in Section 4.12.2.8. 

4.12.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CITY CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

4.12.4.1 Potable Water Supply and Distribution 

4.12.4.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects and minor short-term adverse effects would be 

expected as a result of implementing the City Center Alternative land use plan. The acreage of 

land designated as Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and Training 

would increase at EPG, Main Post, and GSA Parcel under the City Center Alternative land use 

plan. The potable water consumption would increase from requirements of additional workers 

locating to these areas. Substantial additions and upgrades for the potable water infrastructure 

would occur at EPG and the GSA Parcel to provide adequate level of potable water. In addition to 

upgrades to existing water supply lines, new distribution and storage capacity for potable water 

might be necessary to accommodate agency-specific needs of users such as hospital and other 

related services. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-415

In the long-term, these additions and upgrades would use efficient water conserving devices, thus 

reducing the per capita consumption of potable water and eliminating waste. However, minor 

long-term adverse effects would occur due to the increase in overall total demand on potable 

water infrastructure from additional personnel occupying the newly constructed or renovated 

buildings. Minor short-term adverse effects also would be expected. Implementing the City 

Center Alternative would result in short-term disconnections and reconnections of existing 

potable water utility systems during the construction phase. 

4.12.4.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Under the City Center Alternative, there would be a net increase of 22,000 personnel distributed 

between EPG, the GSA Parcel, and the South and North Posts. Most of the personnel proposed to 

move to various office locations already live and work in the surrounding areas. As such, their 

demand on utilities would be limited to use of services during office hours and not based on 

residential levels of demand. 

Of the net increase of 22,000 personnel, approximately 12,000 personnel would be assigned to 

the various agencies proposed to be located at EPG and approximately 9,300 personnel would be 

assigned to the GSA Parcel. Miscellaneous building space amounting to approximately 6.2 

million square feet would be added at various locations of the three sites, with approximately 4 

million square feet of additional building space constructed at EPG and more than 2.2 million 

square feet of constructed at the GSA Parcel. 

Using a per capita water consumption of 75 gallons per day, the proposed increase in personnel 

under the City Center Alternative would increase the demand for potable water by 0.99 mgd at 

EPG, including visitors to the hospital. The demand for potable water at the GSA Parcel would 

increase by 0.7 mgd. The total increase of 1.73 mgd, including an increase of 0.04 mgd in potable 

water demand at the Main Post, together with the current average demand of 1.8 to 2.2 mgd 

would result in an overall demand of 3.73 to 3.93 mgd. The anticipated average demand is 

between 74 and 83 percent of the current rated capacity of 4.75 mgd the installation has with 

Fairfax Water. As required by the regulating authority, Fort Belvoir must submit a plan for 

upgrading the system and negotiate for additional contracted capacity with Fairfax Water for 

potable water. The water storage requirements for fire fighting and water needs during 

construction phase should also be considered during the design stages. 

Existing Fairfax Water’s 36-inch mains along Backlick Road on the east side and along Rolling 

Road on the west side could be linked with a new water line and be tapped at various locations to 

provide potable water for the various office buildings proposed to be located at EPG. In addition, 

storage tanks with sufficient capacity might need to be built to ensure reliability of supply and for 

emergency use. An 8-inch main provides potable water to existing buildings at EPG. No storage 

facilities are available for storage of potable water at the EPG site. In view of the age of the 

existing distribution system and to meet the demand of additional workers moving to EPG, new 

distribution lines and storage capacity would be necessary. 

Existing potable water supply lines at the GSA Parcel could be tapped to provide water supply for 

new BRAC tenants moving to the site. Significant investments to construct new potable water 

distribution and storage systems would be necessary at the GSA warehouse site. 

Minor short-term adverse effects would occur due to construction activities to achieve the extent 

of upgrades necessary for the water, sanitary sewer and natural gas systems in the vicinity of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-416

EPG and GSA warehouse sites. Any improvements to the existing capacities of the above utility 

services should also consider the impact of the BRAC action on local area utility customers. 

4.12.4.2 Sanitary Sewage Collection and Treatment 

4.12.4.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects and minor short-term adverse effects would be 

expected as a result of implementing the City Center Alternative land use plan. The acreage of 

land designated as Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and Training 

would increase at EPG, the Main Post, and the GSA Parcel under the City Center Alternative land 

use plan. Wastewater generation would increase from additional office workers and new office, 

administrative, and residential buildings. Substantial additions and upgrades would occur at EPG 

to provide adequate level of sanitary sewer services. In addition to upgrades to existing sanitary 

sewer lines, new collection and conveyance systems would be necessary to provide adequate 

level of services because of increased numbers of users under the City Center Alternative land 

use plan. Substantial investments for a new collection and conveyance system would be necessary 

at EPG under the City Center Alternative land use plan. 

In the long-term, because new buildings would use efficient, water-conserving devices, the 

proposed development would reduce the per capita discharge of sanitary wastewater. However, 

minor long-term adverse effects would occur due to the additional demand on sanitary 

wastewater infrastructure. Minor short-term adverse effects also would be expected. 

Implementing the City Center Alternative would result in short-term disconnections and 

reconnections of existing sanitary sewer utility systems during the construction phase. 

4.12.4.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Under the City Center Alternative, the demand for sanitary sewer services would increase by 0.79 

mgd at EPG, by 0.56 mgd at the GSA Parcel, and by 0.03 mgd at the Main Post. This increase is 

based on a per capita discharge of 60 gallons per day. The additional wastewater flow of 1.38 

mgd would bring the total discharge from the Main Post, EPG, and the GSA Parcel between 2.48 

to 2.78 mgd. Though this estimate is below the 3.0 mgd average flow limit and 6.0 mgd 

maximum daily peak flow limit the Post has with the Fairfax County, if flows increase above the 

contracted amount, it would be necessary for Fort Belvoir to negotiate a new contract with the 

Fairfax County for discharge of additional volume of wastewater to the county sewer system. 

The existing 54-inch gravity trunk main along Accotink Creek could be tapped to discharge 

sanitary waste from various buildings proposed at EPG. New collections system pipes, 

interceptors and appurtenances would be required to convey the sanitary waste to the existing 

trunk main along Accotink Creek. This would have short-term adverse effects due to construction 

activities and resulting interruptions to existing services during the construction period. 

The existing 12-inch sanitary sewer line at the GSA Parcel has sufficient capacity to carry the 

additional sanitary waste flow generated at the site as a result of implementing the BRAC action. 

New collections system pipes, interceptors and appurtenances would be required to convey the 

sanitary waste to the existing trunk main. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-417

4.12.4.3 Electricity 

4.12.4.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects would be expected as a result of implementing 

the City Center Alternative land use plan. The acreage of land designated as 

Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at 

EPG, the Main Post, and the GSA Parcel under the City Center Alternative land use plan. 

Substantial additions and upgrades would occur at EPG to provide adequate level of electricity. In 

addition to upgrades to existing distribution lines, new supply grid and distribution system would 

be necessary at EPG under the City Center Alternative land use plan. These additions and 

upgrades would be designed and built to use energy-efficient devices, thus reducing the 

consumption of electricity. 

4.12.4.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects

Dominion, the electricity supplier, would need to make substantial upgrades to the electrical 

transmission and distribution systems to provide power to the BRAC tenants moving to EPG and 

the GSA Parcel. These upgrades could potentially take three to five years to plan and construct 

due to right-of-way acquisition and State Corporation Commission permitting requirements 

(Secretary of the Army. 2007). 

In addition to normal demands, new mission-critical users such as NGA require separate feeds 

from independent substations as well as buried primary service in lieu of overhead lines because 

of UFC security and reliability standards. These requirements would add to the cost and 

complexity of the necessary improvements. 

The BRAC demands would require improvements to Dominion’s Franconia substation. This 

substation is fed from multiple circuits allowing for a high degree of reliability. Because of 

physical constraints, the maximum size for a new substation transformer is 75 MVA. The BRAC 

demands, as reported, may exceed 100 MVA, requiring two transformer/switch sets. The 

Franconia substation has sufficient physical room within the existing plant to accommodate the 

required upgrades. 

Power would be fed from the Franconia substation to a proposed substation on EPG. The location 

of the substation has been identified as being in the south-central portion of EPG, east of 

Accotink Creek as part of Project 8, Infrastructure, described in Section 2.2.2.3 and is shown on 

the maps in Appendix J. Approximately 4 acres must be set aside for this station near the 

perimeter of EPG for accessibility by Dominion. 

In addition, new electrical distribution systems would be constructed at EPG and the GSA Parcel 

to provide electricity for the BRAC tenants. 

4.12.4.4 Natural Gas 

4.12.4.4.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects would be expected as a result of implementing 

the City Center Alternative land use plan. The acreage of land designated as 

Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at 

EPG, the Main Post, and the GSA Parcel under the City Center Alternative land use plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-418

Substantial additions and upgrades would occur at EPG and the GSA Parcel to provide adequate 

supply of natural gas at these locations. In addition to upgrades to existing distribution lines, new 

supply grid and distribution system would be necessary at EPG and the GSA Parcel under the 

City Center Alternative land use plan. These additions and upgrades would use energy-efficient 

devices, thus reducing the per capita consumption of natural gas. 

4.12.4.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Using an estimate of 2.5 MMcf of natural gas per 100,000 square feet of office space, EPG would 

require a total of 99 MMcf of natural gas to provide for heating purposes. In addition, the GSA 

Parcel would require 57 MMcf of natural gas. The total increase for natural gas of 156 MMcf due 

to the construction of additional building space at EPG, the Main Post, and the GSA Parcel is 

near the current combined total purchase capacity of 160 MMcf that Fort Belvoir has with 

Washington Gas. 

Washington Gas has sufficient capacity to provide the additional quantity of natural gas from 

existing distribution network near EPG and the GSA Parcel to meet the additional demand. The 

installation would be required to negotiate a new supply amount with Washington Gas to have 

sufficient capacity to meet the demand for natural gas from existing personnel at Fort Belvoir and 

incoming BRAC tenants. 

In addition, a new distribution network would be required at EPG and the GSA Parcel to supply 

natural gas for the individual buildings. 

4.12.4.5 Steam 

4.12.4.5.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. The acreage of land designated as Professional/Institutional, 

Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at EPG and the GSA Parcel 

under the City Center Alternative land use plan. Note that there is no steam distribution system at 

EPG and the GSA Parcel, and extending steam distribution lines from the Main Post to these 

locations would not be feasible. 

4.12.4.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

BRAC tenants at EPG and the GSA Parcel could opt to have individual centralized utility plants 

to provide emergency power, steam, and cooling water to meet the specific needs of equipment 

and other accessories. Because of the proposed location of the different BRAC tenants at EPG 

and the GSA Parcel, it would not be feasible to have one centralized plant to serve all facilities. 

4.12.4.6 Communications 

4.12.4.6.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected as a result of implementing the City Center Alternative land use 

plan. The acreage of land designated as Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, 

Industrial and Training would increase at EPG, the Main Post, and the GSA Parcel under the City 

Center Alternative land use plan. Substantial additions and upgrades would occur at EPG and the 

GSA Parcel to provide adequate level of communication services at these locations. New 

networks would be necessary at the EPG and the GSA Parcel under the City Center Alternative 

land use plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-419

4.12.4.6.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects

A new telecommunication network would be required at EPG and the GSA Parcel to satisfy the 

various agency-specific needs for different levels of communication systems. In addition to 

providing agency-specific telecommunication systems, improvements would be necessary to the 

existing minimal communication infrastructure available at EPG and the nominal communication 

infrastructure available at the GSA Parcel to meet the demand of general users to be located at 

these locations. 

4.12.4.7 Solid Waste 

4.12.4.7.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected as a result of implementing the City Center 

Alternative land use plan. The acreage of land designated as Professional/Institutional, 

Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at EPG, the Main Post, and the 

GSA Parcel as a resulting of implementing the City Center Alternative land use plan. Additional 

solid waste would be generated from office workers moving to the proposed locations. In 

addition, construction of new buildings and demolition/renovation of the existing buildings would 

generate additional solid waste at both locations. 

4.12.4.7.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Solid waste generated under the City Center Alternative would not be substantial in terms of 

overall monthly or yearly quantity or regional landfill capacity. Most of the solid waste generated 

at EPG, the Main Post, and the GSA Parcel under the City Center Alternative is generated at 

other Army facilities in the region. As such, the regional impact on the landfill capacity because 

of the solid waste generation at EPG and the GSA Parcel would be minimal as a result of 

relocating personnel. However, Fort Belvoir should negotiate with the current contract hauler to 

dispose the additional solid waste generated to designated landfill sites. 

Using EPA’s national average of one lb/day/employee and 5-day work week, an additional 1,570 

tons of solid waste would be generated per year at EPG, 1,210 tons per year at the GSA Parcel, 

and 80 tons per year on the Main Post under the City Center Alternative. Close to 50 percent of 

this solid waste generated would be recycled under the existing mandatory recycling program in 

effect at Fort Belvoir. 

In addition to the above quantity of solid waste generated from BRAC tenants, Table 4.12-4 

presents an estimate of the CDD that would be generated at EPG and the GSA Parcel by 

construction activities under the City Center Alternative. The figures shown in Table 4.12.4 

include the demolition of the three existing warehouses at the GSA site (Secretary of the Army. 

2007, Appendix I). 

Per requirements stipulated in memorandum ACSIM, DAIM-ZA, 06 Feb 06, SAB, a minimum of 

50 percent of the estimated 80,026 tons of CDD would be diverted from Army-owned, 

noninstallation-operated landfill sites. As a result of this sustainable management of waste in 

military construction, renovation, and demolition activities, approximately 40,013 tons of CDD 

would be disposed of in various landfill sites in the area. The overall quantity of 40,013 tons of 

CDD equates to a yearly average (on the basis of 4 years of construction activity) of 10,003 tons, 

or a monthly average of approximately 834 tons. Area landfill lifespans would be reduced from 

their current estimates because of solid waste generated under the Preferred Alternative, but 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-420

Table 4.12-4 

Estimates of construction and demolition debris generated 

at Fort Belvoir under the City Center Alternative 

Construction 

activity type Area (ft2

) 

CDD 

factor 

(lb/ft2

) 

Estimated waste 

(lb) 

Estimated 

waste 

(tons) 

Construction 

6,215,531 

4.4 27,348,336 13,674 

Renovation 340,000 20 6,800,000 3,400 

Demolition 1,094,813 115 125,903,438 62,952 

Gross total 7,650,344 160,051,774 80,026 

Amount 

Recycled (50%) 80,025,887 40,013 

Net total CDD 

generated 80,025,887 40,013 

 

capacities are sufficient to handle the short-term waste that would be generated from 

construction/renovation and the long-term operational waste from the increased population at Fort 

Belvoir. 

4.12.4.8 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs would be the same as those stated in Section 4.12.2.8. 

4.12.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SATELLITE CAMPUSES 

ALTERNATIVE 

4.12.5.1 Potable Water Supply and Distribution 

4.12.5.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects and minor short-term adverse effects would be 

expected as a result of implementing the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. The 

acreage of land designated as Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and 

Training would increase at Fort Belvoir under the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. 

The potable water consumption would increase from requirements of additional workers moving 

to these areas. Substantial additions and upgrades would occur for the potable water supply 

infrastructure at the Main Post and Davison Army Airfield to provide adequate level of potable 

water. In addition to upgrades to existing water supply lines, new distribution and storage 

capacity for potable water might be necessary to accommodate specific needs of users such as 

hospital and other related services. New supply and distribution lines for potable water and 

storage capacity to ensure reliable service would be necessary at the Davison Army Airfield 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. 

In the long-term, these additions and upgrades would use efficient water conserving devices, thus 

reducing the per capita consumption of potable water and eliminating waste. However, minor 

long-term adverse effects would occur due to the increase in overall total demand on potable 

water infrastructure from additional personnel occupying the newly constructed or renovated 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-421

buildings. Minor short-term adverse effects also would be expected. Implementing the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative would result in short-term disconnections and reconnections of existing 

potable water utility systems during the construction phase. 

4.12.5.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Using potable water consumption rates described earlier, the proposed increase in personnel 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative would increase the demand for potable water by 0.64 

mgd at the Davison Army Airfield and by 1.09 mgd at the Main Post. The total increase in 

potable water demand of 1.73 mgd together with the current average demand of 1.8 to 2.2 mgd 

would result in an overall demand of 3.73 to 3.93 mgd. The anticipated average demand is 

between 74 and 83 percent of the current rated capacity of 4.75 mgd the installation has with 

Fairfax Water. As required by the regulating authority, Fort Belvoir must submit a plan for 

upgrading the system and negotiate for additional contracted capacity with Fairfax Water for 

potable water. 

Existing potable water infrastructure at the North Post is adequate to handle the increased demand 

for potable water. However, upgrades to the existing distribution network and construction of a 

dedicated storage tank for the exclusive use of the proposed hospital might be necessary to ensure 

reliability of service. 

Existing 24-inch potable water supply lines in the vicinity of Davison Army Airfield could be 

tapped for providing potable water for the new NGA administration and CDC buildings proposed 

to be constructed at the Army Airfield as part of the BRAC action. In addition, upgrades to the 

existing distribution network would provide adequate and reliable supply of potable water for the 

BRAC tenants moving to the airfield location. 

4.12.5.2 Sanitary Sewage Collection and Treatment 

4.12.5.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects and minor short-term adverse effects would be 

expected as a result of implementing the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. The 

acreage of land designated as Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and 

Training would increase at Fort Belvoir under the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. 

Wastewater generation would increase from additional office workers and new office, hospital, 

administrative and residential buildings. Substantial additions and upgrades would occur at the 

North and South Posts and Davison Army Airfield to provide adequate level of sanitary sewer 

services. In addition to upgrades to existing sanitary sewer lines, new collection and conveyance 

systems might be necessary to provide adequate level of services from an increased numbers of 

users as a result of the proposed land use plan. Substantial investments for a new collection and 

conveyance system would be necessary at the Davison Army Airfield under the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative land use plan. 

In the long-term, because new buildings would use efficient water conserving devices, the 

proposed development would reduce the per capita discharge of sanitary wastewater. However, 

minor long-term adverse effects would occur due to the additional demand on sanitary 

wastewater infrastructure. Minor short-term adverse effects also would be expected. 

Implementing the Satellite Campuses Alternative would result in short-term disconnections and 

reconnections of existing sanitary sewer utility systems during the construction phase. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-422

4.12.5.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Under the Satellite Campuses Alternative, the demand for sanitary sewer services would increase 

by 0.51 mgd at the Davison Army Airfield and by 0.87 mgd at the Main Post. This increase is 

based on a per capita discharge of 60 gallons per day. The above additional wastewater flow of 

1.38 mgd would bring the total discharge from the Main Post between 2.48 to 2.78 mgd. Though 

this estimate is below the 3.0 mgd average flow limit and 6.0 mgd maximum daily peak flow 

limit Fort Belvoir has with Fairfax County, if flows increase above the contracted amount, it 

would be necessary for Fort Belvoir to negotiate a new contract with the county for discharge of 

additional volume of wastewater to the County sewer system. 

The existing sanitary sewer collection system in the Main Post could handle the additional flow 

of 0.87 mgd with appropriate upgrades to the existing sanitary infrastructure, collection and 

conveyance system, including any pump stations and force mains. 

Sanitary waste from the new NGA administration and CDC buildings proposed to be constructed 

at the Davison Army Airfield as part of the BRAC action can be discharged via the existing 8-

inch sanitary sewer line and associated lift station in the vicinity of Davison Army Airfield. 

Capacity and maintenance upgrades would be necessary for the existing sewer network in the 

area.

4.12.5.3 Electricity 

4.12.5.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects would be expected as a result of implementing 

the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. The acreage of land designated as 

Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at Fort 

Belvoir under the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. Substantial additions and 

upgrades would occur at the North and South Posts and Davison Army Airfield to provide 

adequate level of electricity at these locations. In addition to upgrades to existing distribution 

lines on the Main Post, a new supply grid and distribution system would be necessary at the 

Davison Army Airfield under the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. These additions 

and upgrades would use energy-efficient devices, thus reducing the per capita consumption of 

electricity. 

4.12.5.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

There would be an additional 6.2 million square-feet of administrative office space at the Main 

Post and Davison Army Airfield under the Satellite Campuses Alternative. Most of these 

employees already work in Fairfax County, so the countywide impacts are probably somewhat 

lower than given here. The BRAC demands, as reported, might exceed 100 MVA; therefore, 

additional on-post capacity would be required. 

Electricity supply for the new NGA administration and CDC buildings proposed to be 

constructed at Davison Army Airfield as part of the BRAC action could be provided from the 

existing electric grid in the vicinity. However, significant investments would be necessary to 

provide the required level of electricity for NGA tenants. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-423

4.12.5.4 Natural Gas 

4.12.5.4.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects would be expected as a result of implementing 

the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. The acreage of land designated as 

Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at Fort 

Belvoir under the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. Substantial additions and 

upgrades would be required at the North and South Posts and Davison Army Airfield to provide 

adequate supply of natural gas at these locations. In addition to upgrades to existing distribution 

lines at Fort Belvoir, a new supply grid and distribution system would be necessary at the 

Davison Army Airfield under the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. These additions 

and upgrades would use energy-efficient devices, thus reducing the per capita consumption of 

natural gas. 

4.12.5.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Using an estimate of 2.5 MMcf of natural gas per 100,000 square feet of office space, the Main 

Post and Davison Army Airfield require approximately 96 MMcf and60 MMcf of natural gas to 

provide for heating purposes. The above total increase for natural gas of approximately 156 

MMcf due to the construction of additional building space at the South Post is near the current 

combined total purchase capacity of 160 MMcf the installation has with Washington Gas. 

Washington Gas has sufficient capacity to provide the additional quantity of natural gas from 

existing distribution network near Fort Belvoir to meet the additional demand. Fort Belvoir 

should negotiate a new supply amount with Washington Gas to have sufficient capacity to meet 

the demand for natural gas from existing personnel and incoming BRAC tenants. 

Upgrades and additions for the existing distribution system at the North Post and Davison Army 

Airfield are required to meet the needs of the workforce. Washington Gas has enough capacity to 

supply the required volume of natural gas. 

4.12.5.5 Steam 

4.12.5.5.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. The acreage of land designated as Professional/Institutional, 

Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at the North and South Posts and 

Davison Army Airfield under the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. 

4.12.5.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

BRAC tenants at Davison Army Airfield could opt to have individual centralized utility plants to 

provide emergency power, steam and cooling water to meet the specific needs of equipment and 

other accessories. Existing steam facilities at Fort Belvoir and Davison Army Airfield would need 

substantial upgrades to meet the demand of the BRAC tenants. Demand for steam under the 

Satellite Campuses Alternative could also be met by installing units that use natural gas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-424

4.12.5.6 Communications 

4.12.5.6.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected as a result of implementing the Satellite Campuses Alternative land 

use plan. The acreage of land designated as Professional/Institutional, Residential, Community, 

Industrial and Training would increase at Fort Belvoir under the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

land use plan. Substantial additions and upgrades would be required at the North and South Posts 

and Davison Army Airfield to provide adequate level of communication services at these 

locations. In addition to upgrades to existing communication system at Fort Belvoir, a new 

network would be necessary at the Davison Army Airfield under the Satellite Campuses 

Alternative land use plan. 

4.12.5.6.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Substantial upgrades would be necessary for existing telecommunication network at the North 

and South Posts and Davison Army Airfield to satisfy the various agency-specific needs to 

provide different levels of communication systems. 

Required communication network for the new NGA administration and CDC buildings proposed 

to be constructed at the Davison Army Airfield as part of the BRAC action could be provided 

from the existing off-post communication network in the vicinity of Davison Army Airfield. 

4.12.5.7 Solid Waste 

4.12.5.7.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected as a result of implementing the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative land use plan. The acreage of land designated as Professional/Institutional, 

Residential, Community, Industrial and Training would increase at Fort Belvoir under the 

Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. Additional solid waste would be generated at the 

North and South Posts and at Davison Army Airfield from office workers moving to the proposed 

locations. In addition, construction of new buildings and demolition/renovation of existing 

buildings would also generate additional solid waste at both locations. 

4.12.5.7.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

Solid waste generated under the Satellite Campuses Alternative would not be substantial in terms 

of overall monthly or yearly quantity or regional landfill capacity. Most of the solid waste 

generated at Fort Belvoir under the Satellite Campuses Alternative is generated at other Army 

facilities in the region. As such, the effects on the landfill capacity from the solid waste 

generation at Fort Belvoir would be minimal from the relocation of personnel. However, Fort 

Belvoir should negotiate with the current contract hauler to dispose of the additional solid waste 

to designated landfill sites. 

Using EPA’s national average of 1 lb/day/employee and 5-day week, an additional 1,749 tons of 

solid waste would be generated per year at the Main Post and 1,111 tons per year at Davison Army 

Airfield under the Satellite Campuses Alternative. Close to 50 percent of this solid waste generated 

would be recycled under the existing mandatory recycling program in effect at Fort Belvoir. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-425

In addition to the quantity of solid waste generated from BRAC tenants, Table 4.12-2 presents an 

estimate of the CDD that would be generated at Fort Belvoir by construction activities under the 

Satellite Campuses Alternative. 

Quantities of yearly and monthly CDD generated as a result of the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

are same as of the CDD generated under the Town Center Alternative and presented in section 

4.12. 3.7.2. 

4.12.5.8 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs would be same as those stated in Section 4.12.2.8. 

4.12.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

4.12.6.1 Potable Water Supply and Distribution 

4.12.6.1.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. A land use plan update would not be implemented under the No 

Action Alternative. 

4.12.6.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

No effects would be expected. The BRAC action would not be implemented under the No Action 

Alternative. No changes in population and subsequent increase in demand for potable water 

supply would occur under the No Action Alternative.

4.12.6.2 Sanitary Sewage Collection and Treatment 

4.12.6.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. A land use plan update would not be implemented under the No 

Action Alternative. 

4.12.6.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

No effects would be expected. The BRAC action would not be implemented under the No Action 

Alternative. No changes in population and subsequent increase in demand for sanitary sewer 

services would occur under the No Action Alternative.

4.12.6.3 Electricity 

4.12.6.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. A land use plan update would not be implemented under the No 

Action Alternative. 

4.12.6.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

No effects would be expected. The BRAC action would not be implemented under the No Action 

Alternative. No changes in population and subsequent increase in demand for electricity would 

occur under the No Action Alternative.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-426

4.12.6.4 Natural Gas 

4.12.6.4.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. A land use plan update would not be implemented under the No 

Action Alternative. 

4.12.6.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

No effects would be expected. The BRAC action would not be implemented under the No Action 

Alternative. No changes in population and subsequent increase in demand for natural gas would 

occur under the No Action Alternative.

4.12.6.5 Steam 

4.12.6.5.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. A land use plan update would not be implemented under the No 

Action Alternative. 

4.12.6.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

No effects would be expected. The BRAC action would not be implemented under the No Action 

Alternative. No changes in population and subsequent increase in demand for steam would occur 

under the No Action Alternative.

4.12.6.6 Communications 

4.12.6.6.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. A land use plan update would not be implemented under the No 

Action Alternative. 

4.12.6.6.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

No effects would be expected. The BRAC action would not be implemented under the No Action 

Alternative. No changes in population and subsequent increase in demand for communication 

services would occur under the No Action Alternative.

4.12.6.7 Solid Waste 

4.12.6.7.1 Land Use Plan Update 

No effects would be expected. A land use plan update would not be implemented under the No 

Action Alternative. 

4.12.6.7.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

No effects would be expected. The BRAC action would not be implemented under the No Action 

Alternative. No changes in population and subsequent increase in demand for disposal of solid 

waste would occur under the No Action Alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-427

4.12.6.8 BMPs/Mitigation 

No BMPs or mitigation measures would be required. The BRAC action would not be 

implemented under the No Action Alternative. 

4.12.7 SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Different alternatives for implementing the BRAC action would have varying effects on existing 

utility systems, extent of upgrades, additions required to utility infrastructure, associated cost 

investment to implement the additions and time frame required to plan and implement them. In 

addition, the alternatives grade differently with respect to availability of additional capacity, onand off-site improvements required, redundancy available for ensuring reliability of service, and 

provision of centralized service. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, most of the development would be centralized around EPG 

where existing utility services are close to nonexistent. However, the site is in close proximity to 

most utility systems. The BRAC action would require expansion to the publicly owned 

infrastructure as well as to some of the utility owned infrastructure. 

For potable water and sanitary sewer, existing on-site utilities on EPG are currently largely 

inadequate to support the level of proposed development. New infrastructure would be needed on 

EPG for all on-site utility systems. The proposed BRAC facilities at EPG would require little if 

any improvements to off-site utility infrastructure, except for electricity and natural gas. 

Providing the required level of electricity at EPG would require substantial improvements to the 

existing off-site infrastructure. In addition, extending natural gas to EPG would require off-site 

improvements to existing infrastructure. 

In addition to the necessity for off-post improvements to utility infrastructure stated above, 

consideration should be given to the capacity constraints of the local utility network. Fort Belvoir 

purchases treatment capacity for potable water and sanitary sewer services from public utilities 

and is currently using only a portion of purchased capacity. Demands from the BRAC action 

would most likely consume all the purchased treatment capacity for both systems. Though there 

is adequate local capacity to provide natural gas for the proposed development at EPG, some on--

post infrastructure improvements would be required. Similarly, providing electricity to meet the 

needs of BRAC tenants moving to EPG would require substantial on- and off-site upgrades, time 

and investment. 

Redundancy is a fundamental principal in the design of all utility systems. UFC criteria 

recommend certain reliability and redundancy strategies designed to minimize outages from all 

systems; strategies include multiple feeds, looped water systems, and quick disconnects at 

buildings. Mission-critical activities such as NGA could have power fed from independent 

Dominion transmission circuits with automatic switching in addition to standby generators to 

support life-support and critical-data functions. It will be imperative to identify and quantify the 

redundancy requirements of each tenant as soon as possible because these requirements would 

have substantial cost effects to the utility infrastructure. Redundancy ratings for the different 

alternatives are comparable with one another for most utility services. 

The City Center and Satellite Campuses Alternatives would be ranked the lowest in terms of 

providing centralized service. The centralized service provision ratings for the Preferred 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-428

Alternative and the Town Center Alternative are comparable because most facilities would be 

concentrated on either EPG or the South Post, respectively, under these two alternatives. 

Municipal solid waste and construction and demolition debris collection and disposal are 

comparable for all the alternatives. The sites are in close proximity to one another. As such, their 

impact on available landfill capacity also would be similar for all considered alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-429

4.13 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Military operations performed at Fort Belvoir historically require the storage and use of 

hazardous substances and hazardous materials to successfully accomplish missions. This 

requirement has been in place for some time as the storage and use of hazardous substances and 

hazardous materials at Fort Belvoir predated today’s environmental legislation, which were 

largely introduced in the 1970s and 1980s. (e.g., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 

1976 [RCRA] and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 

1980 [CERCLA]). The adoption of these environmental statutes resulted in a complex network 

of federal and state requirements for the generation, use, treatment, storage and disposal of 

hazardous substances and hazardous materials. As a federal installation, Fort Belvoir must 

comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations for generation, use, 

treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous substances and hazardous materials. Fort Belvoir 

has a RCRA Part B permit (VA7213720082) issued by VDEQ for the accumulation, storage, and 

disposal of hazardous waste. 

Fort Belvoir manages hazardous substances and hazardous materials in compliance with 

programs regulated by EPA and VDEQ. For successful environmental compliance, there are 

myriad regulatory requirements including federal, Commonwealth of Virginia, and Fairfax 

County regulations that must be addressed. Fort Belvoir must also comply with applicable 

federal, state, and local regulations implementing federal statutory requirements, including Army 

regulations. Executive Orders apply to Fort Belvoir as well. Fort Belvoir ENRD is tasked with 

maintaining Fort Belvoir’s compliance with all appropriate and applicable laws and regulations 

for the storage and use of hazardous substances and hazardous materials. For the purpose of this 

analysis, the terms hazardous substances and hazardous materials include those substances 

defined as hazardous by CERCLA, RCRA, and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In 

general, they include substances that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, 

chemical, or toxic characteristics, might present an unacceptable risk to public health or welfare 

or to the environment when released into the environment. 

The hazardous substances and hazardous materials or related issues evaluated in this EIS include 

the following: 

• Petroleum Constituents 

• Hazardous waste 

• Solid Waste 

• Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) 

• Lead-based paint (LBP) 

• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

• Pesticides 

• Regulated medical waste 

• Ordnance areas 

• Radioactive material 

• Radon 

Fort Belvoir ENRD has an active environmental program that maintains compliance specific to 

each of these hazardous substances and hazardous materials. A summary of the regulatory 

requirements and the specifics of each program are discussed herein. Figure 4.13-1 illustrates the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-431

locations of the various sites associated with hazardous substances and hazardous materials at Fort 

Belvoir and EPG. 

4.13.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

4.13.1.1 Petroleum Constituents 

Nearly a thousand petroleum storage areas (PSAs) formerly existed or still exist at Fort Belvoir. 

PSAs include ASTs (aboveground storage tanks) and USTs (underground storage tanks) that store 

petroleum. PSAs range in size from a 275-gallon AST to a 50,000-gallon UST. For more than 

two decades, Fort Belvoir ENRD’s Petroleum Management Program (PMP) has been addressing 

PSAs and petroleum release sites (PRSs). This program manages all aspects of PSAs and PRSs, 

including scheduling operation and maintenance, compliance monitoring, tank closure and 

removal, environmental investigations, remediation system design, management, and reporting. 

At the federal level, storage of petroleum is regulated by RCRA Subtitle I; however, VDEQ has 

been given enforcement authorization by the EPA. Fort Belvoir is managing its PSAs and PRS 

under the VDEQ Petroleum Program. The major regulations and orders applicable and relevant 

to petroleum are summarized in Table 4.13-1. 

Main Post. Fort Belvoir has 117 active USTs, of which 28 are regulated by VDEQ. In addition, 

there are 162 active ASTs, of which nine are regulated by VDEQ (Fort Belvoir, 2006d). The 

locations of these PSAs are illustrated in Figure 4.13-1. These tanks contain substances such as 

heating oil, diesel fuel, motor gasoline, type 8 jet propellant, lubricants, and used oils. To comply 

with UST regulatory deadlines, Fort Belvoir completed a program of tightness-testing, removal, 

replacement, and upgrading for the regulated USTs on-post. All UST replacements have double 

walls and state-of-the-art leak-detection systems to comply with UST regulations under RCRA 

Subtitle I. Nevertheless, both these new, replacement USTs and existing, unregulated USTs have 

the potential to release their contents into the soil, groundwater, surface water, and air. 

Additionally, there are 57 active heating oil tanks in residential housing areas. Any petroleum 

effected soils and groundwater would need to be properly addressed during the redevelopment of 

the Main Post. 

EPG. There are a total of 22 PSAs within the EPG property. The locations of these PSAs are 

illustrated in Figure 4.13-1. Of the 22 PSAs, 8 are ASTs and 14 are USTs. Many of the tanks 

Table 4.13-1 

Petroleum regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir 

Agency Regulation or order 

Federal Regulations RCRA Subtitle I 

Clean Water Act 

9 VAC 25-580-10 et seq. Underground Storage Tanks; Technical 

Standards and Corrective Action Requirements 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

Regulations 

9 VAC 25-91-10, et seq. Facility and Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST) 

Regulations 

Executive Orders EO#12088 Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards 

EO#12856 Federal Compliance with Right to Know Laws and Pollution 

Prevention Requirements 

Army Regulations AR 200-1 Environmental Protection and Enhancement 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-432

associated with these PSAs have been removed, and where releases confirmed, initial abatement 

measures were performed. Site characterizations were also performed at the release sites and in 

all cases a letter of no further action from VDEQ has been received. However, the natural 

attenuation remedy approved was based on the land use at the time. Now the land use would 

change because of the proposed development; the regulatory community has requested additional 

investigations to provide current site condition data. The investigations are currently ongoing. 

GSA Parcel. Record searches have indicated that approximately 10 regulated ASTs and USTs are 

within the GSA Parcel, and approximately 15 AST/USTs formerly existed on the site, for a total 

of 25 PSAs. It is likely that residual petroleum contamination exists at these sites. The 

petroleum-impacted soils and groundwater would need to be properly addressed during any 

redevelopment of the GSA Parcel. 

4.13.1.2 Hazardous Waste 

Through a RCRA permit, VDEQ regulates the proper management of wastes at the Main Post, 

although they have authorized EPA to lead the investigations and corrective action elements of 

the program. Fort Belvoir has had an active RCRA Program in place for more than 20 years. 

The RCRA/Waste Management Program at Fort Belvoir is responsible for the storage, use, 

characterization, manifesting, remediation and proper disposal of all hazardous waste generated at 

the installation. The major regulations and orders applicable and relevant to hazardous waste are 

summarized in Table 4.13-2. 

Fort Belvoir entered into a Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (FFCA) in 1992 with EPA 

that identified 27 Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) sites as unpermitted Hazardous 

Waste Management Units (HWMUs). Fort Belvoir received funding and initiated corrective 

action at these HWMUs. Closure plans were developed, the sites were investigated, remediated, 

and closure reports were prepared. VDEQ has issued letters of concurrence with the no further 

action determination for all 27 HWMU sites. Twenty six of these sites were closed using healthbased risk assessments. One of these HWMUs, the Open Burning/Open Detonation (OB/OD) Pit 

at site T6A on the Southwest Area, required a land use restriction as part of the closure that 

limited future development near the site to commercial/industrial land use only. In addition, two 

permitted hazardous waste sites, Building 2991 and Building 1124 on the Main Post, were closed 

in 2001 and 2006, respectively. Soil disturbance is restricted at these sites to avoid exposure to 

constituents of concern. 

Table 4.13-2 

Hazardous waste regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir 

Agency Regulation or order 

RCRA Subtitle I 

CERCLA/SARA 

Federal Regulations 

Clean Water Act 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

Regulations 

9 VAC 20-60-10 et alia : Virginia Hazardous Waste Management 

Regulations 

Executive Orders EO#12088 Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards 

EO#12856 Federal Compliance with Right to Know Laws and Pollution 

Prevention Requirements 

Army Regulations AR 200-1 Environmental Protection and Enhancement 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-433

Main Post. Fort Belvoir has a RCRA Part B permit (VA7213720082) issued by VDEQ for the 

storage of hazardous waste. Fort Belvoir stores hazardous waste at Building 1490. Fort Belvoir 

also operates four temporary (less than 90 days) hazardous waste accumulation sites at Buildings 

1414, 1495, and 367 on South Post and Building 2826 (DCEETA) on North Post. There are also 

20+ satellite accumulation areas on the Main Post. 

In addition, Fort Belvoir used to stored hazardous waste (waste fuel) in a 12,000-gallon UST at 

Building 1124. This unit was closed in accordance with the VDEQ approved Building 1124 

Closure Plan, dated April 2002. In 2006 VDEQ approved the Building 1124 Closure Report,

dated April 27 2005. 

EPG. EPG was a RCRA permitted facility under EPA ID# VA1210000906. However, this 

permit had been issued for the HWMU at Building 5095. A closure report for Building 5095 was 

submitted to VDEQ in December 2000 and was approved in June 2001. Current hazardous waste 

generation at EPG is incidental and EPG is considered a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity 

Generator. The extensive environmental investigation ongoing at EPG should reveal if hazardous 

waste sites exist and must be addressed before redevelopment. In September 2005, EPA Region 

III issued a Unilateral Administrative Order under section 3013 that requires Fort Belvoir to 

investigate sites at EPG. These activities are monitoring testing, analysis and reporting of 

hazardous waste releases to EPA Region III. 

GSA Parcel. Six RCRA sites were identified at the GSA Parcel including one RCRA large 

quantity generator at GSA 6810 Loisdale Road Building A. This RCRA large quantity generator, 

permit number VA4470039336, has 12 violations with none resolved. Violations appear to be of 

an administrative nature. Permitted wastes include corrosive wastewater from electroplating 

operations and chlorinated and nonchlorinated solvents. It is possible that hazardous waste 

contamination exists at this site. If identified through site investigations, the hazardous waste 

impacted soils and groundwater would need to be properly addressed during any redevelopment 

of the GSA Parcel. An agreement with the RCRA permit holders would be developed to address 

RCRA corrective action in accordance with their permits. 

4.13.1.3 Solid Waste 

Fort Belvoir has conducted numerous studies that have identified 248 SWMUs on the installation 

including both the Main Post and EPG. The locations of these SWMUs are shown in Figure 

4.13-1. 

However, these studies were sporadically funded, and investigations and corrective action 

measures were intermittently conducted. The SWMUs that were investigated, remediated, and 

closed were about 50 sites in areas intended for proposed redevelopment. Fort Belvoir now 

manages an active SWMU Program to manage the sites, perform remediation, corrective action, 

and close the sites. Fort Belvoir’s SWMU Program is managed with EPA as the lead agency and 

VDEQ as a contributing agency. The major regulations and orders applicable and relevant to 

solid waste are summarized in Table 4.13-3. 

Table 4.13-4 provides a summary of the number of SWMUs by category. These categories are 

largely based on studies conducted in the late 1980s. Action plans for each SWMU were 

prepared in the 1990s. An inspection of all SWMUs was conducted in 2005. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-434

Table 4.13-3 

Solid waste regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir 

Agency Regulation or order 

RCRA Part B Permit (Main Post) 

RCRA Subpart D 

Unilateral Administrative Order issued by EPA Region III under Section 

3013 of RCRA (EPG) 

CERCLA/SARA 

Federal Regulations 

Clean Water Act 

Commonwealth of Virginia 9 VAC 20-80-10 et seq.: Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations 

Regulations 9 VAC 20-60-264 Subpart H 

Executive Orders EO#12088 Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards 

EO#12856 Federal Compliance with Right to Know Laws and Pollution 

Prevention Requirements 

Army Regulations AR 200-1 Environmental Protection and Enhancement 

 

Table 4.13-4 

SWMU categories 

SWMU category Description # of SWMUs 

A Landfill or surface impoundment 29 

B Building storage unit 23 

C Wash rack 12 

D Oil/Water separator 11 

E Waste POL storage area 14 

F Aboveground waste POL tank 9 

G Underground waste POL tank 14 

H Spent battery storage area 5 

I Battery acid neutralization unit 5 

J Incinerator 6 

K Fire control training area unit 5 

L Miscellaneous unit 47 

M Engineer Proving Ground area unit 44 

N Units identified by CH2M Hill in 1992 24 

Total 248 

 

Main Post. There are 204 SWMUs on the Main Post, which are at various stages of investigation 

and closure. The most recent RCRA Part B permit, issued in 2004, included the investigation and 

corrective actions for these SWMUs. The distribution of SWMU sites is as follows: 

• North Post: 36 sites 

• South Post: 148 sites 

• Davison Army Airfield: 20 sites 

• HEC: 6 sites 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-435

Fort Belvoir performed a visual site inspection (VSI) for each of the Main Post SWMUs in 2005 

and prepared a Summary VSI report for each SWMU, which included recommendations of what 

action must be undertaken to achieve closure of the SWMU. The recommendations were 

determined on the basis of VSIs and review of available data. 

EPG. There are 44 SWMUs on EPG that are in various stages of investigation and closure. In 

accordance with the requirements of EPA Administrative Order 3013, dated September 2005, 

Fort Belvoir prepared a summary of current conditions and categorized the 44 SWMUs into four 

categories. These categories are: No Further Action (NFA), Administrative Closure (AC), 

Confirmatory Sampling (CS) to confirm absence or presence of contamination, and Site 

Investigations (SI) including soil and groundwater sampling. Of the 44 SWMUs, 9 are considered 

to require NFA, 12 would undergo AC, 7 would require CS and closure actions, and 16 require a 

SI. EPA reviewed this summary report and offered comments on the categorization of the 

SWMUs. EPA agreed with the categorization, with most of their comments addressing the 

SWMUs eligible for enrollment into the Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP). In 

2006 Fort Belvoir prepared investigation plans at all sites requiring additional investigation. The 

investigations are underway, with the first phase completed in March 2007. Additional 

investigations and remediation are currently being performed with completion anticipated in Fall 

2007. 

GSA Parcel. The record search of environmental databases did not indicate that any solid waste 

issues exist at the GSA Parcel. 

4.13.1.4 Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs) 

In response to the dangers posed by materials containing asbestos, federal laws were passed in the 

1980s. The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Reauthorization Act of 1987 was among the first, and it 

addressed the asbestos in public schools. It set forth qualifications for inspection and analysis, 

analytical requirements, and acceptable response actions. 

Two categories are used to describe ACM–Friable ACM and Non-friable ACM. Friable is 

defined as any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos (as determined by polarized light 

microscopy) that, when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. 

Non-friable ACM is material that contains more than 1 percent asbestos that when dry cannot be 

pulverized into powder by hand pressure. 

EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulate the remediation of 

asbestos-containing materials. Emissions of asbestos fiber into the ambient air are regulated by 

EPA in accordance with Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, which established the 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). These clean air 

standards, along with TSCA regulations concerning asbestos abatement in the demolition or 

rehabilitation of buildings with ACM. The major regulations and orders applicable and relevant 

to ACM are summarized in Table 4.13-5. 

Main Post. Fort Belvoir maintains an active asbestos program. The Asbestos Program Manager 

(APM) is responsible for all elements of the asbestos program including asbestos surveys and 

sampling, operation and maintenance, permitting, asbestos abatement design and oversight, and 

restoration. The installation has asbestos data on nearly all facilities on-post. When renovation 

projects are scheduled on-post, the APM must evaluate them for potential effects to asbestos. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-436

Table 4.13-5 

ACM laws and regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir 

Agency Regulation or order 

40 CFR Part 763 AHERA 

Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 

40 CFR Part 61 Subpart M NESHAP 

29 CFR 1910 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

Federal Regulations 

29 CFR 1926.1101 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

Regulations 

9 VAC 20-80-10 et seq.: Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations 

Executive Orders EO#12088 Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards 

Army Regulations AR 200-1 Environmental Protection and Enhancement 

Supplemental asbestos surveys are performed to gather sufficient data to prepare the abatement 

design. The APM provides oversight during the abatement to ensure compliance with all 

applicable regulations and that air samples meet the acceptance criteria. Through this process, 

Fort Belvoir mitigates the potential for asbestos release while abating the installation one project 

at a time. The APM also is responsible for the overall compliance of the asbestos response 

actions enacted on the installation including training, operation and maintenance and public 

notice requirements. 

EPG. An asbestos survey performed in support of the Right-of-Way (ROW) for the Fairfax 

County Parkway identified asbestos in eight of the nine buildings included in the survey. ACMs 

identified at EPG included vinyl floor tiles, caulking, glazing, acoustical tile, and roofing, among 

others. These ACMs would likely also be encountered in buildings on the rest of EPG. An 

asbestos survey would be required before demolition or renovation of these structures.

GSA Parcel. On the basis of the estimated construction date of the GSA Parcel, ACMs are likely 

present in the warehouse and could also be discovered in the other structures on the site. An 

asbestos survey would be required before demolition or renovation of these structures.

4.13.1.5 Lead-Based Paint (LBP) 

For centuries, lead and lead containing compounds were added to paints in the form of pigments. 

Epidemiological studies have indicated that exposure to lead could cause learning and cognitive 

developmental deficiencies. To address the lead issue, Congress passed Title X Residential LeadBased Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, which set forth the qualifications for paint inspection, 

risk assessment, analytical requirements, and acceptable response actions. OSHA also regulates 

the exposure of workers to lead during construction and renovations. The major regulations and 

orders applicable and relevant to LBP are summarized in Table 4.13-6. 

Similar to the asbestos program, Fort Belvoir maintains an active lead program. The Lead 

Program Manager (LPM) is responsible for all elements of the lead program including paint 

inspections and sampling, risk assessments, operation and maintenance, permitting, lead 

abatement design and oversight, and restoration. However, no installation-wide survey has been 

conducted at Fort Belvoir to determine the presence of LBP. When renovation projects are 

scheduled on-post, the LPM must evaluate them for potential effects to LBP. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-437

Table 4.13-6 

LBP regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir 

Agency Regulation or order 

Title X Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 

29 CFR 1910 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

Federal Regulations 

29 CFR 1926.62 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

Regulations 

9 VAC 20-60-10: Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations 

Executive Orders EO#12088 Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards 

Army Regulations AR 200-1 Environmental Protection and Enhancement 

Main Post. LBP sampling, analysis, and risk assessment was completed in 1997 for 11 

homogeneous areas of existing on-post housing, including pre-1978 housing within Belvoir, 

Gerber, Dogue Creek, Rossell, Jadwin, Fairfax, Colyer, George Washington, River, and 

Woodlawn Villages, as well as the T-400 (Park and part of Jadwin Villages) and 100 (part of 

Gerber Village) areas. During the assessment, wipe samples were taken from interior 

windowsills, window troughs, and noncarpeted floors, and areas where children specifically were 

most likely to come in contact with dust (i.e., entryways, kitchens, bathrooms, children’s 

bedrooms, and play areas). Paint chips were also collected from interior and exterior building 

components with visibly deteriorated paint. Composite soil samples were collected from bare 

exposed soil areas (i.e., children’s play areas and building foundations or drip lines). The sample 

lead concentrations were then compared to Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) action levels for dust wipe samples (USACE, 2003). 

As a result of the sampling and risk assessment, the Army implemented interim control measures 

in the Dogue Creek and George Washington villages to prevent human exposure where lead was 

detected above the EPA preliminary remediation goals for soil. Flowerbeds were built around the 

houses, extending 2 feet from the foundations of the houses. These flowerbeds were then filled in 

with dirt and mulch (USACE, 2003). In accordance with Army LBP abatement guidelines, the 

LBP found on interior walls exceeding HUD levels in Gerber and Dogue Creek homes were 

encapsulated by drywall or skim of plaster (if the building is eligible for historic preservation). 

No LBP was identified in Woodlawn Village housing. LBP abatement wastes, including chips 

and other LBP debris, were turned in to the Hazardous Waste Department for manifesting and 

off-site disposal as RCRA hazardous wastes (USACE, 2003). 

EPG. A lead-based paint inspection performed in support of the ROW for the Fairfax County 

Parkway identified LBP in six of the nine buildings included in the survey. LBP painted 

components identified at EPG included doorframes, doors, window frames, and exterior wood 

components, among others. These LBP components would likely also be encountered on the rest 

of EPG. A lead paint inspection would be required before demolition or renovation of these 

structures.

GSA Parcel. On the basis of the estimated construction date of the GSA Parcel, lead paint is 

likely present in the warehouse and might also be discovered in the other structures located on the 

parcel. A lead paint inspection would be required before demolition or renovation of these 

structures.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-438

4.13.1.6 PCBs 

Because of their resilience to heat and electricity poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were added 

to electrical equipment dielectric fluid to stabilize transformers, capacitors and other electrical 

equipment. Unfortunately PCB’s resilience also makes them persistent in the environment where 

they bio-accumulate in organisms, and become concentrated in the food chain. Increasing concern 

about the long-term effect of these persistent carcinogenic and mutagenic chemicals on human 

health and the environment resulted in the ban of their manufacture, sale, and distribution under 

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. The major regulations and orders applicable and 

relevant to PCBs are summarized in Table 4.13-7. To address and solid phase PCBs that may be 

in ballasts or other building components, Fort Belvoir performs an survey of building scheduled 

for demolition and prepare a demolition checklist identifying the regulated wastes such as PCB 

containing light ballasts to be collected and containerized. These wastes are turned over to Fort 

Belvoir for proper disposal. 

Main Post. The Army considers the garrison to be PCB-compliant with TSCA requirements. At 

this time, active, PCB-containing transformers (transformers containing fluids with 50 parts per 

million [ppm] or greater PCBs) are present at Buildings 1413 and 1157. The U.S. Army’s policy 

is to take all transformers that are being taken offline for repair or replacement to Building 1495, 

where they are sampled for PCB content. Because of the size, complexity, and age of the 

electrical infrastructure at Fort Belvoir, the possibility of encountering PCB-containing electrical 

equipment still exists (USACE, 2003). 

Within the Supply, Storage, & Maintenance area (700 Area) of South Post lie two areas 

contaminated with PCBs. One is the old Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) on 

South Post. This site had 1.7 million pounds of PCB-contaminated soil removed and the area 

capped with clean soil and vegetated with grass and trees. The second contaminated area is the 

old coal yard south of Warren Avenue on South Post. Before excavation, information regarding 

the known distribution and status of contaminated sites needs to be reviewed so that 

improvements could be safely implemented (Fort Belvoir, 2005b). 

Table 4.13-7 

PCB regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir 

Agency Regulation or order 

Federal Regulations TSCA of 1976 

Commonwealth of Virginia 9 VAC 20-60-10: Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations 

Regulations 9 VAC20-80-113 

Executive Orders EO#12088 Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards 

Army Regulations AR 200-1 Environmental Protection and Enhancement 

EPG. Twenty potential PCB-containing pole and pad mounted transformers were removed in 

support of the ROW for the Fairfax County Parkway. None of the transformers sampled and 

analyzed contained PCBs greater than 50 parts per million. During an environmental 

investigation at EPG performed in 1990 (USATHAMA, 1990), 55 transformers were sampled 

analyzed for PCB content. 51 of the 55 transformers had PCB concentrations below detection 

limits. Of the 12 transformers where PCBs were detected, only 4 exceeded 50 parts per million 

PCB containing threshold. Because of the size, complexity, and age of the electrical 

infrastructure at EPG, the possibility of encountering PCB-containing electrical equipment still 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-439

exists. All transformers would likely require additional sampling to determine PCB content 

before decommissioning and disposal which is accordance with Fort Belvoir’s Program. 

GSA Parcel. On the basis of the estimated construction date of the GSA Parcel, PCB-containing 

electrical equipment is likely present in the warehouse and could also be discovered in the other 

structures on the site. All electrical equipment including transformers would likely require 

additional sampling to determine PCB content before decommissioning and disposal. 

4.13.1.7 Pesticides 

Pesticides have been used at Fort Belvoir since its inception, particularly on the golf courses. 

Fort Belvoir has employed a pesticide management program for years. Fort Belvoir recently 

updated its Integrated Pesticide Management Plan (IPMP) in November 2006. The storage and 

application of all pesticides at Fort Belvoir are performed in accordance both the U.S. Army’s 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques and IPMP for Fort Belvoir. IPM is intended to 

reduce the use of pesticides and is in accordance with the Army’s Pollution Prevention Program. 

Through a combination of cultural and biological controls and new IPM techniques specified in 

the IPMP, chemical pesticide usage dropped by 60 percent between 1996 and 1999. Pesticide 

reductions are mandated by Department of Defense Instruction 4150.7 on all DoD properties. 

The major regulations and orders applicable and relevant to pesticides are summarized in Table 

4.13-8. 

Main Post. Pesticides are stored in industrial areas on South Post and the north post golf courses 

and are either DoD certified or certified by the Commonwealth of Virginia as “Commercial 

Applicators.” Approximately 60 percent of the pesticides applied on Fort Belvoir are on the North 

Post golf course; another 20 percent are applied on the South Post golf course. The types of 

pesticides used on the golf courses include fungicides and herbicides. Preventive spraying is not 

authorized in housing units, and interior pest control is performed by FBRC Property Manager 

contracted pest control company. 

Table 4.13-8 

Pesticide laws and regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir 

Agency Regulation or order 

Federal Regulations Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1976 

TSCA of 1976 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

Regulations 

9 VAC 20-80-10 et seq.: Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations 

Executive Orders EO#12088 Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards 

AR 200-1 Environmental Protection and Enhancement 

AR 200-5 Army Pest Management Program 

Army Regulations 

DOD Instruction 4150.7 DOD Pest Management Program 

EPG. Historical use of pesticides is not well documented at EPG. SWMU investigations 

performed at M-42 and M-43 identified low-level DDT and its breakdown products. This 

indicated that, to some degree, pesticides were used at EPG in the past. The extensive 

environmental investigation at EPG should reveal if significant pesticides issues exist at EPG. If 

identified, pesticides might need to be addressed before redevelopment of the BRAC footprints 

on EPG. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-440

GSA Parcel. There is little to no public information on the use of pesticides on the GSA Parcel. 

However, on the basis of the age of the warehouse, it is likely that pesticides were used or are 

used on the parcel. Any information regarding pesticides on the property should be obtained and 

evaluated. If necessary, soil and groundwater sampling could indicate if there are significant 

issues with pesticides on the GSA Parcel. If identified, pesticides might need to be addressed 

before redevelopment of the parcel. 

4.13.1.8 Regulated medical waste

Regulated medical waste includes but is not limited to blood-soaked bandages, syringes, and 

organs. The main generator of medical biohazardous waste is Dewitt Army Hospital. Some of 

the regulated medical waste is treated at the hospital with a steam autoclave. The remainder of 

the waste is treated by a contractor and disposed of at an appropriate facility. Small quantities of 

medical biohazardous waste are also generated from the DCEETA and other nursing stations. 

The major regulations and orders applicable and relevant to medicinal and biohazardous waste 

are summarized in Table 4.13-9. 

Main Post. Medically generated waste is managed in accordance with RCRA and Virginia 

Regulated Medical Waste Management Regulations regarding biomedical, solid, and hazardous 

wastes. The Logan Dental Clinic and Dewitt Hospital generate small quantities of regulated 

medical wastes that are disposed of off-site through private waste transporters (Fort Belvoir, 

2006e). Historically, however, it is likely that all forms of waste, including biohazardous and 

hazardous wastes, might have been placed in the former landfills on South Post when the 

installation was operating its own landfills. These SWMUs are being monitored, investigated, and 

remediated under the installation’s RCRA corrective action program. 

Table 4.13-9 

Regulated medical waste regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir 

Agency Regulation or order 

Federal Regulations 49 CFR, Sections 172 and 173 Medical Waste Transportation 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

Regulations 

9 VAC 20-120 Virginia Regulated Medical Waste Management 

Regulations 

Executive Orders EO#12088 Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards 

Army Regulations AR 200-1 Environmental Protection and Enhancement 

EPG. The review of the numerous historical documents for EPG did not indicate that any 

regulated medical waste issues exist at EPG. The extensive environmental investigation at EPG 

should reveal if a significant medical and biohazardous waste or silver recovery/recycling issues 

exist at EPG. If identified, these issues might need to be addressed before redevelopment of the 

BRAC parcels on EPG. 

GSA Parcel. The record search of environmental databases did not indicate that any 

medical/biohazardous waste issues exist at the GSA Parcel.

4.13.1.9 Ordnance Areas 

The MMRP was established by under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) 

to address defense sites with munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) (which include 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-441

unexploded ordnance [UXO] and discarded military munitions [DMM]) and munitions 

constituents (MC). The Army’s inventory of closed, transferring, and transferred (CTT) military 

ranges and sites have identified sites eligible for action under the MMRP. A report presenting the 

results of the MMRP Historical Records Review (HRR) has been conducted at Fort Belvoir. The 

DoD is establishing policy and guidance for munitions response actions under the MMRP. Key 

program drivers developed to date conclude that munitions response actions would be conducted 

under the process outlined in the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300) as authorized by 

CERCLA. The MMRP Historical Record Review (HRR) indicates that ranges have existed on 

the Main Post of Fort Belvoir. Sixteen ranges were identified in the 2002 Phase 3 Range 

Inventory performed at Fort Belvoir (Malcolm Pirnie, 2006). Twelve additional ranges were 

identified at the Main Post during the HHR preparation. Figure 4.13-1 illustrates the locations of 

ranges on the installation. 

Since its inception as Camp Humphries, Fort Belvoir has designated areas for weapons training. 

A consequence of this training is that many of these former training ranges now contain UXO. In 

addition to UXO, the MMRP would also address any associated contamination under CERCLA. 

To meet the requirements in this arena, the MMRP is centrally funded and managed by the Army 

Environmental Center. This program would have DoD as the lead authority with regulatory input 

from the VDEQ Federal Facilities Division. Former training ranges containing Ordnance and 

Explosives (OE), UXO areas, and MEC are both on EPG and the Main Post. Investigation, 

clearance, and closure of these former training ranges would be addressed in the MMRP. The 

MMRP clean up levels will be determined through the Army’s CERCLA program. 

Main Post. U. S. Army Environmental Center contracted EA Engineering, Science, and 

Technology, Inc to prepare a Phase I Qualitative Assessment Report under the Operational Range 

Assessment Program for the operational ranges located at the Main Post of Fort Belvoir. The 

Phase I report indicates there are 15 ranges designated as operational on the Main Post of Fort 

Belvoir (EA, 2006). Nine ranges are located in the Southwest area and comprise some 1,290 

acres. Four ranges at the Davison Army Airfield encompass 310 acres. The 24 acre Parade 

Grounds are located in the central portion of the Main Post next to Post Headquarters. Two 

maneuver and training areas, encompassing 248 acres, are located in the southwestern peninsula 

of the Main Post just West of CMRL complex (EA, 2006). Two continuous ranges located on the 

north post are former ranges that are being addressed under the MMRP (EA, 2006). The locations 

of these operational and former training ranges are illustrated in Figure 4.13-1. 

However, because Fort Belvoir has been a military facility for more than 90 years and through 

two world wars, as well as more recent conflicts, the potential for the presence of ordnance 

anywhere on the installation cannot be ruled out. So, for instance, in 1990, cannon balls dating to 

the War of 1812 were discovered in Fairfax Village, and within the last year, a World War I- or 

World War II-era hand grenade was discovered in Dogue Creek Village and a World War II-era 

bazooka in one of the housing areas. Given the installation’s history and the prominence of the 

surrounding area in the early wars fought on this country’s soil, the risk of uncovering ordnance 

elsewhere in the main cantonment areas is possible (USACE, 2003). 

Historical training areas have been located in the area of the FBRC properties and may well have 

included the use of small arms such as pistols, standard rifles, and machine guns. A 1918 

document reported that there were seven rifle/machine gun type ranges on-post that were either in 

operation, under construction, or planned, although the locations of these ranges were not 

specified (USACE, 2003). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-442

World War II training records indicate that the majority of the training at Fort Belvoir during this 

period would not have involved the use of live ammunition. Available data indicate that live 

ammunition from small arms and grenade training was used within the current wildlife preserve 

around Accotink Bay, or on designated ranges west of the Fort Belvoir Residential Community 

Project 1 (USACE, 2003). Grenade training from about 1940 to 1959 was restricted to a range 

referred to as Grenade Court, west of Pohick Road and Tulley Gate at the northern edge of 

Accotink Bay within the current wildlife preserve. The Grenade Court range potentially contains 

live grenades (USACE, 2003). 

No heavy artillery, ordnance, or explosives are thought to have been used at Fort Belvoir on the 

developed areas of the Main Post or in the vicinity of the Fort Belvoir Residential Communities 

properties, except for the general area of Woodlawn, Lewis Heights, and Gerber villages. The 

Woodlawn Village property was formerly used by the Bureau of Standards as a Radio Laboratory 

Area, circa 1950, and as a demolition and maneuver training site, as shown on the 1918 Forestry 

Map. Bulk explosives and blasting caps might have been used there. Nevertheless, during the 

construction of Woodlawn Village in the 1970s, no types of explosives were reported to have 

been encountered. The area north of Lewis Heights village, T-16, was historically and is still 

considered an active training range, at which blank ammunition, simulators, and pyrotechnics 

were all in use. A 1918 Forestry Map shows an Ordnance School where Buildings 714 and 718 

are located–between Buildings 707 and 708, as indicated on the 1918 Post Map. The school 

supplied ammunition to the troops stationed at Camp AA Humphreys. Bullets have been 

discovered in Gerber Village that date back to the World War I era and are thought to be 

remnants from the Ordnance School. Also shown on the 1918 Forestry Map is the School of 

Mines, which was between the existing Post Headquarters and Jadwin Village (USACE, 2003). 

Portions of the George Washington, Rossell Loop, Fairfax, Park, and Jadwin Loop villages were 

or were thought to have been used in World War I-era trench training. The trenches were 

primarily on the eastern side of the post because the meteorological conditions near the water 

favored the formation of fog and provided the right conditions for holding other training gases, 

which tend to sink, within the confines of the trenches, thus creating ideal conditions for trench 

training (USACE, 2003). 

EPG. There are 10 former training ranges at EPG that are at various stages of OE clearance and 

removal. EPG is composed of approximately 807 acres and is bisected by Accotink Creek, 

creating areas on each side of the creek known as EPG East and EPG West. EPG West is 

approximately 389 acres with nine ranges and EPG East is 431 acres with one 18-acre range 

(Eebee Field). Given its historical use and concentration of ranges, all of EPG West is being 

considered a range. The ROW for the proposed Fairfax County Parkway is composed of 

approximately 170 acres and extends through the southern portions of both sections of EPG. 

Most of the clearance action taken to date has occurred within the ROW. In support of the 

Fairfax County Parkway ROW property transfer, the Army undertook OE clearance and removal 

actions. About 20 acres (15 percent) of the ROW parcel encompasses former training ranges. 

OE removal actions have taken place at three ranges (Ranges 3, 4, and 5C) and portions of two 

others (Ranges 1 and 2). About 30 acres of the former Eebbee Field and surrounding areas on 

EPG East have also been cleared. 

The ranges on EPG fall into four categories of OE clearance and removal status: Category I OE is 

cleared and removed; Category II OE is partially cleared and removed; Category III represents 

surveys performed but OE not cleared or removed; and Category IV means no significant OE 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-443

clearance actions have been undertaken. These categories and the ranges within each category 

are detailed below. 

Category I OE Cleared and Removed. Category 1 ranges have been cleared of all OE. The 

USACE has certified the ranges are cleared in accordance with approved explosive safety 

submissions. Fourteen acres of ranges within the ROW have been cleared and designated as 

Category I OE. 

Category II OE Partially Cleared and Removed. Category II ranges have been partially cleared 

of OE, and the USACE has certified grids within the ranges where OE clearance and removal 

actions have been completed. Ranges 1 and 2, which partially overlap the ROW on EPG West, 

fall in this category; about half of their 14 acres have been cleared. 

Category III Surveys Performed but OE Not Cleared and Removed. Category III ranges have 

had some preparations for OE clearance and removal performed, but OE clearance and removal 

has not been performed. Because the geophysical surveys have been completed for these ranges, 

the anomalies located on these ranges could be quantified. Using this data, scopes of work and 

cost estimates to complete the remaining OE clearance on these ranges could be developed. 

Numerous anomalies that appear to be burial pits have been identified on these ranges during the 

geophysical surveys. These burial pits would likely require investigations to determine if the 

burial pits have impacted the environment (such as soil and groundwater contamination). Ranges 

5, 5A, and 5B, which consist of 9 acres in the northern portion of EPG West, fall in this category. 

Category IV No Significant OE Clearance Actions Undertaken. OE clearance actions have not 

been undertaken, and few investigations have been performed on ranges in this category. 

Without geophysical surveys of these ranges, it is difficult to estimate the number of anomalies. 

However, on the basis of the knowledge of other ranges on EPG, a per-acre cost estimate could 

be developed and extrapolated to these ranges in this category. Range 1A (7 acres) on EPG West 

and the abandoned airfield (Eebee Field) in the northern portion of EPG East fall in this category. 

Areas Outside Training Ranges on EPG West. The recently prepared MMRP HRR has 

indicated that the entire western portion of EPG should be considered has having potential OE 

(Malcolm Pirnie, 2006). This area encompasses approximately 389 acres. To address this issue 

during OE clearance for the ROW, a magnetometer-assisted surface clearance (MASC) was 

performed for the entire area within the ROW outside the training ranges. OE was discovered on 

land outside the former training ranges. For these reasons, a MASC of the areas outside the 

training ranges on EPG West would likely be required. Performing MASC activities is the first 

step in clearance activities. Additional activities that would be performed at additional costs are 

vegetation clearing, extensive surveys, and geophysical activities.

GSA Parcel. The environmental database search performed did not indicate ordnance areas are at 

the GSA Parcel. On the basis of the historical use of the property as a warehouse, it is not likely 

that ordnance was used on the parcel in the past.

4.13.1.10 Radioactive Materials 

Main Post. An inventory list is maintained for radioactive material on Fort Belvoir and is 

updated semiannually. DeWitt Army Hospital and other on-post medical facilities, such as the 

Logan Dental Clinic, produce low-level radioactive wastes. It is assumed that historically all 

forms of post waste, including low-level radioactive wastes, might have been placed in the former 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-444

landfills on South Post, which were identified as SWMU which are currently under RCRA 

Corrective Action. Two SWMUs on South Post are identified by the Army as former radioactive 

waste storage facilities, which are related to a former decommissioned nuclear reactor plant, built 

for research and development purposes within the radiation testing area along Gunston Cove on 

the southern tip of South Post. One is northwest of Fairfax Village in an administrative area; the 

other is southeast of the Visitor’s Center on the other side of Pohick Road near the northern tip of 

Accotink Bay (USACE, 2003). 

EPG. In the 1990 Phase I/II Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS), this site was described as 

being along the eastern boundary of the EPG where four detectors with radioactive components 

were unearthed in 1987. Although there might still be additional detectors buried in this location, 

the radioactivity levels are expected to be below a threshold where an environmental hazard could 

be present. According to the 1990 Phase I/II EBS, “the detectors were judged to be 

environmentally harmless” and, therefore, no further action is recommended unless additional 

detectors are found. An environmental investigation was performed at SWMU M-44 in 

accordance with the EPA–approved plan in the winter of 2007. No significant radioactivity was 

detected. 

GSA Parcel. There is no public information regarding radioactive material at the GSA Parcel. 

On the basis of the history of the site use as a warehouse, the use of radioactive material is 

unlikely, nevertheless any environmental records regarding the property should be evaluated to 

determine if radioactive material was used and stored at the property. If identified, a radiological 

survey would be required to determine the nature and extent. 

4.13.1.11 Radon 

Radon gas is a naturally occurring, colorless, odorless, radioactive gas produced by the decay of 

naturally radioactive material (e.g., potassium, uranium) found in underlying bedrock. 

Atmospheric radon is diluted to insignificant levels, but when concentrated in enclosed areas, 

radon could pose human health risks. The major regulations and orders applicable and relevant to 

radon are summarized in Table 4.13-10. 

Main Post. According to the EPA Map of Radon Zones, the rocks and soils found in 

southeastern Fairfax County, where Fort Belvoir is, have the highest radon potential. Radon 

testing is performed for residential buildings, as required by EPA, the state, and the Army. Radon 

testing for existing Fort Belvoir residential buildings was completed in 1991. Only three 

residential buildings–Building 140 in Gerber Village, Building 174 adjacent to Gerber Village, 

and Building 810F in Colyer Village–exhibited any elevated radon levels (above 4.0 pCi/L). No 

testing has been done for new or renovated buildings since 1992 (USACE, 2003). 

Table 4.13-10 

Radon laws regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir 

Agency Regulation or order 

Federal Regulations Clean Air Act of 1970 

EPA Map of Radon Zones document (EPA-402-R-93-071)

Commonwealth of Virginia 

Regulations 

Radiation Control Act Code of Virginia Section 32.1-227

Executive Orders EO#12088 Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards 

Army Regulations AR 200-1 Environmental Protection and Enhancement 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-445

EPG. According to the EPA Map of Radon Zones, the rocks and soils found in southeastern 

Fairfax County, where EPG is, have the highest radon potential. Radon testing has not been 

performed at EPG. 

GSA Parcel. According to the EPA Map of Radon Zones, the rocks and soils found in 

southeastern Fairfax County, where the GSA Parcel is, have the highest radon potential. Radon 

testing on the GSA Parcel data has not been identified. 

4.13.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

4.13.2.1 Land Use Plan Update 

The amount of administrative space included in the Preferred Alternative land use plan is twice 

the amount of administrative space included in the 1993 land use plan. This increase in 

administrative space would result in minor adverse effects as the various tenant agencies that 

occupy the new administrative space would also need to comply with applicable laws and 

regulations relating to the use, storage and disposal of hazardous substances, materials and 

wastes. The tenants in the additional administrative spaces could also generate hazardous waste, 

such as medical or low-level radiological waste related to hospital operations, which may also be 

considered a minor adverse effect. 

4.13.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

The major hazardous substances, hazardous materials, and waste issues potentially affecting the 

Preferred Alternative are about 130 acres of former training ranges on EPG (EPG West and 

Eebee Field) and 30 SWMUs, several HWMUs, and PSAs. The specific consequences of 

Preferred Alternative with respect to each hazardous and toxic waste issues and required site 

preparations before development are further discussed Table 4.13-11. 

Petroleum. Long-term minor adverse effects would result from an increase in storage capacity 

requirements for petroleum. Any construction of new storage facilities to handle storage 

requirements from BRAC actions would be done in accordance with applicable laws regarding 

construction materials, leak protection, monitoring, and spill containment.

EPG. 20 PSAs are located within the development areas of the Preferred Alternative. Of the 20 

PSAs, 8 are ASTs and 11are USTs. In addition, 7 PRSs are located within the development areas 

of the Preferred Alternative at EPG. 

VDEQ issued letters of concurrence with the no further action determination for these PRSs at 

Fort Belvoir. These sites are subject to land use restrictions. Should these restrictions change an 

additional site investigation may be necessary along with appropriate regulatory coordination. In 

addition, residual petroleum contamination likely exists in these areas. To address this issue, 

construction programs that call for disturbing areas around these PRSs should require the 

appropriate federal OSHA construction worker protection. Disturbing previously unidentified 

petroleum contamination would also require proper handling and disposal of contaminants as 

required by federal, state, local, and Army regulations. 

Site Preparation Activities: Preparing the site of the development of the Preferred Alternative 

could be accomplished by employing a Health and Safety Program including qualified industrial 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-446

Table 4.13-11 

Hazardous substances and hazardous materials resources 

affected by the Preferred Alternative 

Resource Pre-development activities 

Petroleum The 20 PSAs at EPG could be aggressively addressed as part of the site preparations. A closure 

process involving administrative and decontamination process would be required. Confirmation 

samples collected beneath USTs and potentially some ASTs would likely be required to demonstrate 

no release has occurred. It could be expected that some USTs would have a release previously 

undiscovered. Site investigations at each release are approximately $40,000 each and require a month 

to complete. Mitigation measures could be integrated into the construction phase of the project in 

concert with the site preparation and earthwork features for minimal impact to the overall construction 

schedule. 

Hazardous 

Substances 

and 

Hazardous 

Materials 

Investigation work plans would require appropriate regulator coordination and/or approval. 

Site investigations could be performed concurrently with site preparation activities. Additional 

investigation could be performed to determine if and where residual affected soils exist. 

Solid waste Investigation work plans would require appropriate regulator coordination and/orapproval. Site 

investigations could be performed concurrently with OE clearance and site preparation activities. 

Asbestos Before initiating renovation activities, the potential for environmental effects of special hazards such as 

ACM would be evaluated and addressed as specified in the appropriate regulatory requirements. 

Demolition that involves ACM would be evaluated for compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 

1926.62; EPA, state, federal, and Army regulations. Measures to control airborne asbestos would be 

implemented. All construction debris that contains ACM would be disposed of at licensed disposal 

facilities in accordance with applicable laws. 

Lead based 

paint 

Before initiating renovation activities, the potential for environmental effects of special hazards such as 

LBP would be evaluated and addressed as specified in the appropriate regulatory requirements. 

Demolition that involves LBP would be evaluated for compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 

1926.62; EPA and HUD standards; and state, federal, and Army regulations. Measures to control 

airborne lead dust would be implemented. All construction debris that contains LBP above regulatory 

limits would be disposed of at licensed disposal facilities in accordance with applicable laws. 

PCBs Because of the size, complexity, and age of the electrical infrastructure at EPG, the possibility of 

encountering PCB-containing electrical equipment still exists. All transformers would likely require 

additional sampling to determine PCB content before decommissioning and disposal. 

Pesticides Proposed development in the South Post golf course would occur in areas of known historical pesticide 

application. A pesticide survey of the South Post golf course would likely be required. From the results 

of the pesticides survey, any identified contaminated media above regulatory limits will be addressed in 

accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements. 

Regulated 

Medical 

Waste 

No immediate site preparation activities required. However, the relocation/expansion of the Dewitt 

Hospital would likely result in an significant increase in the amount of regulated medical waste at Fort 

Belvoir under the Preferred Alternative. 

Ordnance 

areas 

Army approval of Explosive Safety Submission (ESS) would be required. 

Extensive OE clearance and removal actions would be required on the 230 acres of historical training 

ranges. All ranges areas would require site investigations 

Radioactive 

material 

The investigation of SWMU M-44 would be required before development of the Preferred Alternative. 

Radon No immediate site preparation activities would be required. However, the increase in the number of 

tenants may require additional studies of how radon levels may be addressed by construction 

requirements/specifications. 

hygienists and a Health and Safety Plan (HSP). Additional investigation could identify if residual 

impacted soils exists and where there are located so that plans to excavate and remove the 

impacted soils could be developed. The HSP specifies worker training requirements, personnel 

protective equipment, air monitoring requirements along with health and safety protocols 

appropriate to the project. The industrial hygienists would oversee the activities to ensure 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-447

compliance with the HSP. Most large construction firms are experienced in this area. The cost 

estimates for a Health and Safety Program to adequately address this issue are not considered 

significant as the specifications of the construction project itself would likely require a HSP. This 

requirement could be incorporated into the construction program without adding significant costs. 

Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Materials. Long-term minor adverse effects would result 

from an increase in the use of hazardous materials. Additional potentially hazardous materials 

that could be found on-post during BRAC-related construction and operational activities include 

paints, thinners, asphalt, and fuel and motor oils for vehicles and equipment. An increase in the 

volume of these wastes generated and the amount of storage required would be anticipated. 

Short-term negligible adverse effects could result from an increase in spills associated with the 

use of hazardous materials. Established controls such as spill containment, emergency response 

and clean-up procedures would limit the impact of spills. 

No effects would be expected from hazardous waste disposal. The installation is a large-quantity 

generator of hazardous wastes and has established procedures for managing and disposing of 

hazardous wastes. A permitted hazardous waste storage facility is located on the Main Post. The 

current hazardous waste disposal procedures would continue with implementation of the 

Preferred Alternative. All hazardous wastes would be managed in accordance with the 

installation’s Hazardous Waste Storage Permit and RCRA requirements. 

EPG. Four HWMUs are located within the development areas of the Preferred Alternative. 

VDEQ has issued letters of concurrence with the no further action determination for all HWMU 

sites at Fort Belvoir. However, redevelopment of EPG could result in disturbance of these sites 

and a complete exposure pathway to human health and the environment. HWMU sites M-1, M-2, 

and M-21 on EPG, which were previously closed, have been re-opened and are currently 

undergoing investigation to address this issue. The fourth site (M-22) does not require reevaluation. 

Site Preparation Activities: Disturbance of HWMU sites could be mitigated by further 

characterizing the impacted area through sample and analysis and employing a Health and Safety 

Program including qualified industrial hygienists and an HSP. Additional investigation could 

identify if residual impacted soils exists and where there are located so that plans to excavate and 

remove the impacted soils could be developed. The HSP specifies worker training requirements, 

personnel protective equipment, air monitoring requirements along with health and safety 

protocols appropriate to the project. The industrial hygienists would oversee the activities to 

ensure compliance with the HSP. The cost estimates for this mitigation are not considered 

significant as the specifications of the construction project itself would likely require a HSP for 

the general construction so addressing this constraint could be incorporated into the construction 

program without adding significant costs. 

Solid Waste. No effects would be expected from solid waste disposal. The installation has 

established procedures for managing and disposing of solid wastes. The current solid waste 

disposal procedures would continue with implementation of the Preferred Alternative. There 

would be preceding cumulative impact with positive effects before development in that the 

SWMU located within the proposed development area of the Preferred Alternative would need to 

be investigated and remediated before development.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-448

Thirty SWMUs are located within the development areas of the Preferred Alternative. Table 

4.13-12 summarizes the current status of these SWMUs. 

Site Preparation Activities: Fort Belvoir has remediation and corrective action plans for these 

SWMUs. Mitigation ranges from administrative closure to confirmation sampling. These action 

plans should be implemented. However, for those sites requiring confirmation sampling, 

subsequent cleanup requirements could only be determined following analysis of the samples to 

determine if additional corrective action is required. 

Table 4.13-12 

Status of SWMUs within Preferred Alternative footprints 

Recommendation Number of SWMUs 

No Further Action 4 

Administrative Closure 8 

Confirmation Sampling 7 

Site Investigation 11 

Source: Tetra Tech, 2005a. 

Asbestos. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected related to ACM present in 

existing buildings if such buildings were demolished or renovated to accommodate incoming 

BRAC activities. ACM would be handled in a manner consistent with applicable rules and 

regulations including NESHAPS regulations, and thus no environmental or health effects from 

the removal, handling, and disposal of these materials would be expected during demolition, 

renovation, or construction activities.

The proposed development of the Preferred Alternative would result in the demolition of over 40 

existing buildings. This would result in an estimated 50,000 tons of construction debris. If 1 

percent of this debris is ACM then 500 tons of ACM debris could be anticipated. The potential 

for effects of special hazards such as ACM would be evaluated and addressed as specified in the 

appropriate regulatory requirements. Demolition that involves ACM would be evaluated for 

compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1926.62; EPA, state, federal, and Army 

regulations. Measures to control airborne asbestos would be implemented. All construction 

debris that contains ACM above regulatory limits would be disposed of at licensed disposal 

facilities in accordance with applicable laws. 

Site Preparation Activities: Before demolition, asbestos would need to be identified and 

removed or abated from all the structures located within the Preferred Alternative. Initial 

asbestos surveys and supplemental asbestos surveys would be required performed to gather 

sufficient data to prepare the abatement design. Once the asbestos abatement design is completed 

appropriate permits and notification is required. Depending on the type of asbestos differing 

abatement techniques would be employed. After the asbestos is abated and air samples indicate 

the clearance is acceptable the demolition of the structure could undertaken. 

Lead Based Paint. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected related to LBP present 

in existing buildings if such buildings were demolished or renovated to accommodate incoming 

BRAC activities. LBP would be handled in a manner consistent with applicable rules and 

regulations, and thus no environmental or health effects from the removal, handling, and disposal 

of these materials would be expected during demolition, renovation, or construction activities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-449

The proposed development of the Preferred Alternative would result in the demolition of over 40 

existing buildings. This would result in an estimated 50,000 tons of construction debris. The 

potential for effects of special hazards such as LBP would be evaluated and addressed as 

specified in the appropriate regulatory requirements. Demolition that involves LBP would be 

evaluated for compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1926.62; EPA, state, HUD, federal, 

and Army regulations. Measures to control airborne lead dust would be implemented. 

Site Preparation Activities: Lead paint surveys and supplemental lead paint surveys would be 

required to gather sufficient data to determine if LBP is present in the buildings to be demolished. 

A waste stream for the demolition of each facility could be estimated into the various 

components, concrete, roofing, windows, doors, framing etc. Representative samples of these 

components could be collected and analyzed to determine if the waste stream of components 

exceed the regulatory limit for lead. If the waste stream samples do not exceed the regulatory 

limit for lead then the waste could be managed as construction debris. If the waste stream 

samples exceed the regulatory limit for lead then the abatement or removal and special disposal 

of components containing lead based paints should be evaluated. All construction debris that 

contains LBP above regulatory limits would be disposed of at licensed disposal facilities in 

accordance with applicable laws. 

PCBs. No effects would be expected. There would be preceding beneficial cumulative effects 

before development in that the electrical equipment located within the proposed development area 

of the Preferred Alternative would first need to be investigated, sampled, and managed.

Numerous pole and pad mounted transformers are located within the Preferred Alternative. Over 

the years, Fort Belvoir has sampled, tested, and removed, many of the PCB containing electrical 

components. However, due to the size, complexity, and age of the electrical infrastructure at 

EPG, the possibility of encountering PCB-containing electrical equipment still exists. All 

transformers would likely require additional sampling to determine PCB content before 

decommissioning and disposal. 

Site Preparation Activities: A survey of the electrical equipment that is likely to be removed as 

part of the development of the Preferred Alternative would be required. All electrical equipment 

should be sampled and tested to determine if the electrical equipment needs to be managed as 

PCB containing wastes.

Pesticides. No effects from pesticides would be expected at the Preferred Alternative. From the 

results of the pesticide survey, any identified contaminated media above regulatory limits will be 

addressed in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements. 

Regulated medical waste. Long-term minor adverse effect would be expected as the 

relocation/expansion of the Dewitt Hospital would likely result in an increase in the amount of 

regulated medical waste at Fort Belvoir as proposed in the development of the Preferred 

Alternative. This increase in hospital space would result in minor adverse effects as the various 

hospital tenant agencies that occupy the new space would also need to comply with all regulated 

medical waste regulations. 

Ordnance. No adverse effects or environmental effects would be expected from ordnance. There 

would be preceding beneficial cumulative effects before development in that the ordnance located 

within the proposed development area of the Preferred Alternative would first need to be cleared 

and removed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-450

The MMRP HRR (Malcolm Pirnie, 2006) indicates former ranges have existed in the vicinity of 

the Preferred Alternative. About 130 acres of former training ranges are located within the 

development areas of the Preferred Alternative with the potential for OE to be encountered on the 

remainder of the EPG Property. 

Site Preparation Activities: If the 30-acre abandoned airfield (Eebee Field) located on EPG East 

to the northwest of Heller Loop and EPG West were cleared of OE, this could free up a 

considerable amount of developable land.

Radioactive Material. Long-term minor adverse effects would be anticipated as DeWitt Army 

Hospital and other on-post medical facilities, such as the Logan Dental Clinic, produce low-level 

radioactive wastes. The relocation/expansion of the Dewitt Hospital would likely result in an 

increase in the amount of radioactive material generated at Fort Belvoir as proposed in the 

development of the Preferred Alternative. This increase in hospital space would result in minor 

adverse effects, as the various hospital tenant agencies that occupy the new administrative space 

would also need to comply with all radioactive material regulations. In addition, the tenants in 

the additional hospital space may also generate radioactive material, which may also be 

considered a minor adverse effect. 

Radon. Long-term minor indirect adverse effect would be expected. However, the increase in 

tenants may require additional study of how radon levels may be addressed by construction 

requirements/specifications.No immediate site preparation activities required. 

4.13.2.3 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs. Environmental and health risks are controlled by implementing existing programs, 

policies, regulations, and standard operating procedures (SOPs). Measures to reduce the risk of 

harm to humans and the environment from hazardous substances and hazardous materials would 

be included in these requirements. 

Mitigation. No specific mitigation measures are identified. 

4.13.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE TOWN CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

4.13.3.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Effects would be similar to those discussed in Section 4.13.2.1. 

4.13.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

The major hazardous waste and related issues potentially affecting Town Center Alternative are 

about 90 acres of former ranges, SWMUs, HWMUs, and the several hundred PSAs. The specific 

consequences of Town Center Alternative with respect to each hazardous and toxic waste issues 

and required site preparations before development are presented in Table 4.13-13. 

Petroleum. Long-term minor adverse effects would result from an increase in storage capacity 

requirements for petroleum. Any construction of new storage facilities to handle storage 

requirements from BRAC actions would be done in accordance with applicable laws regarding 

construction materials, leak protection, monitoring, and spill containment. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-451

Table 4.13-13 

Hazardous substances and hazardous materials resources 

affected by the Town Center Alternative 

Resource Pre-development activities 

Petroleum The 151 PSAs within a proposed building envelope could be aggressively addressed as part of the site 

preparations. A closure process involving administrative and decontamination process would be 

required. Confirmation samples collected beneath USTs and potentially some AST would likely be 

required to demonstrate no release has occurred. It could be expected that some USTs would have a 

release previously undiscovered. Site investigations at each release are approximately $40,000 each 

and require a month to complete. Mitigation measures could be integrated into the construction phase 

of the project in concert with the site preparation and earthwork features for minimal impact to the 

overall construction schedule. 

Hazardous 

Substances 

and 

Hazardous 

Materials 

Investigation work plans would require appropriate regulator coordination and/or approval. 

Site investigations could be performed concurrently with site preparation activities. Additional 

investigation could be performed to determine if and where residual impacted soils exist. 

Solid Waste Investigation work plans would require appropriate regulator coordination and/orapproval. 

Site investigations could be performed concurrently with site preparation activities. 

Asbestos Before initiating renovation activities, the potential for environmental effects of special hazards such as 

ACM would be evaluated and addressed as specified in the appropriate regulatory requirements. 

Demolition that involves ACM would be evaluated for compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 

1926.62; EPA, state, federal, and Army regulations. Measures to control airborne asbestos would be 

implemented. All construction debris that contains ACM would be disposed of at licensed disposal 

facilities in accordance with applicable laws. 

Lead Based 

Paint 

Before initiating renovation activities, the potential for environmental effects of special hazards such as 

LBP would be evaluated and addressed as specified in the appropriate regulatory requirements. 

Demolition that involves LBP would be evaluated for compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 

1926.62; EPA and HUD standards; and state, federal, and Army regulations. Measures to control 

airborne lead dust would be implemented. All construction debris that contains LBP above regulatory 

limits would be disposed of at licensed disposal facilities in accordance with applicable laws. 

PCBs Due to the size, complexity, and age of the electrical infrastructure at Fort Belvoir, the possibility of 

encountering PCB-containing electrical equipment still exists. All transformers would likely require 

additional sampling to determine PCB content before decommissioning and disposal. 

Pesticides Proposed development in the South Post Golf Course would occur in areas of known historical 

pesticide application. A pesticide survey of the South Post Golf Course would likely be required. 

Based on the results of the pesticides survey, any identified contaminated media above regulatory 

limits will be addressed in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements. 

Regulated 

Medical 

Waste 

No immediate site preparation activities required. However, the relocation/expansion of the Dewitt 

Hospital would likely result in an increase in the amount of regulated medical waste at Fort Belvoir 

under the Town Center Alternative. 

Ordnance 

Areas 

Army approval of Explosive Safety Submission (ESS) required. 

Only the Gas Area is anticipated to require OE clearance and removal. All ranges areas would require 

site investigations 

Radioactive 

Material 

No immediate site preparation activities required. However, the expansion of tenants at Fort Belvoir 

has a potential to increase the amount of radiological material generated at Fort Belvoir. 

Radon No immediate site preparation activities required. However, the increase in the number of tenants may 

require additional studies of how radon levels may be addressed by construction 

requirements/specifications. 

There are 151 PSAs within the development areas of the Town Center Alternative. Preparing the 

PSAs for construction is a straightforward decommissioning process. Many of the open PSAs are 

unregulated, so a costly formal closure process could be avoided. On average, one in three USTs 

at Fort Belvoir has had a release, so it could be expected that some USTs would have a release 

previously undiscovered. This preparation activity could be integrated into the construction 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-452

phase of the project in concert with the site preparation and earthwork features for minimal 

impact to the overall construction schedule. 

In addition, there are 13 PRSs within the development areas of the Town Center Alternative. 

VDEQ has issued letters of concurrence with a no further action determination for most of these 

PRSs. However, acceptance was based on not disturbing the areas. If disturbance of these sites 

could not be avoided, additional investigations could be required by VDEQ. In addition, residual 

petroleum-impacted soils likely exist in the sites. To address this issue, construction programs 

that call for disturbing areas around these PRSs should require the appropriate federal OSHA 

construction worker protection. Disturbing previously unidentified petroleum contamination 

would also require proper handling and disposal of contaminants as required by federal, state, 

local, and Army regulations. 

Site Preparation Activities: Preparing the site of the development of the Town Center Alternative 

could be accomplished by employing a Health and Safety Program including qualified industrial 

hygienists and an HSP. Additional investigation could identify if residual impacted soils exist and 

where they are located so that plans to excavate and remove the impacted soils could be 

developed. The HSP specifies worker training requirements, personnel protective equipment, air 

monitoring requirements along with health and safety protocols appropriate to the project. The 

industrial hygienists would oversee the activities to ensure compliance with the HSP. Most large 

construction firms are experienced in this area. The cost estimates for a HSP to adequately 

address this issue are not considered significant as the specifications of the construction project 

itself would likely require an HSP. This requirement could be incorporated into the construction 

program without adding significant costs. 

Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Materials. Long-term minor adverse effects could result 

from an increase in the use, storage and disposal of hazardous substances and hazardous 

materials. Additional potentially hazardous materials that could be found on-post during BRACrelated construction and operational activities include paints, thinners, fluorescent lamps, 

batteries, and fuel and motor oils for vehicles and equipment. An increase in the volume of these 

wastes generated and the amount of storage required would be anticipated. 

Short-term minor adverse effects would result from an increase in spills associated with the use of 

hazardous materials. Established controls such as spill containment, emergency response and 

cleanup procedures would limit the effects of spills. 

No effects would be expected from hazardous waste disposal. The installation is a large-quantity 

generator of hazardous wastes and has established procedures for managing and disposing of 

hazardous wastes. The current hazardous waste disposal procedures would continue with 

implementation of the Town Center Alternative. All hazardous wastes would be managed in 

accordance with the installation’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan and RCRA requirements. 

Two HWMUs are within the development areas of the Town Center Alternative. The HWMUs 

are associated with Vehicle Maintenance Facility in Buildings 1949 and 1950, in the 

southwesternmost development area on the North Post. VDEQ has issued letters of concurrence 

with the no further action determination for all HWMU sites at Fort Belvoir. If disturbance of 

these sites resulted in a complete exposure pathway of identified contaminants to human health or 

environmental receptors, a reassessment of the site would be required, with appropriate regulatory 

coordination. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-453

Site Preparation Activities: Disturbance of HWMU sites could be mitigated by further 

characterizing the effected area through sample and analysis and employing a Health and Safety 

Program including qualified industrial hygienists and an HSP. Additional investigation could 

identify if residual effected soils exist and where they are so that plans to excavate and remove 

the affected soils could be developed. The HSP specifies worker training requirements, personnel 

protective equipment, air monitoring requirements along with health and safety protocols 

appropriate to the project. The industrial hygienists would oversee the activities to ensure 

compliance with the HSP. The cost estimates for this mitigation are not considered significant as 

the specifications of the construction project itself would likely require an HSP for the general 

construction so addressing this constraint could be incorporated into the construction program 

without adding significant costs. Disturbing previously unidentified contamination would also 

require properly handling and disposal as required by federal, state, local, and Army regulations. 

Solid Waste. No effects would be expected from solid waste disposal. The installation has 

established procedures for managing and disposing of solid wastes. The current solid waste 

disposal procedures would continue with implementation of the Town Center Alternative. 

There would be beneficial effects before development in that the SWMUs within the proposed 

development area of the Town Center Alternative would need to be investigated and remediated 

before development. There are 12 SWMUs within the development areas of the Town Center 

option. Table 4.13-14 summarizes the status of these SWMUs. 

Site Preparation Activities: Fort Belvoir has corrective action plans for these SWMUs. 

Mitigation ranges from administrative closure to confirmation sampling. These action plans 

should be implemented. However, for those sites requiring confirmation sampling, subsequent 

cleanup requirements could only be determined following analysis of the samples to determine if 

additional corrective action is required. 

Table 4.13-14 

Status of SWMUs within Town Center Alternative footprints 

Recommendation Number of SWMUs 

No Further Action 3 

Administrative Closure 1 

Confirmation Sampling 8 

Site Investigation 0 

Source: Tetra Tech, 2005a. 

Asbestos. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected related to ACM present in 

existing buildings if such buildings were demolished or renovated to accommodate incoming 

BRAC activities. ACM would be handled in a manner consistent with applicable rules and 

regulations, and thus, no environmental or health effects from the removal, handling, and disposal 

of these materials would be expected during demolition, renovation, or construction activities.

The proposed development of the Town Center Alternative would result in the demolition of 

more than 75 existing buildings. This would result in an estimated 500,000 tons of construction 

debris. If 1 percent of this debris is ACM, 5,000 tons of ACM debris could be anticipated. The 

potential for effects of special hazards such as ACM would be evaluated and addressed as 

specified in the appropriate regulatory requirements. Demolition that involves ACM would be 

evaluated for compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1926.62 and EPA, state, federal, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-454

and Army regulations. Measures to control airborne asbestos would be implemented. All 

construction debris that contains ACM above regulatory limits would be disposed of at licensed 

disposal facilities in accordance with applicable laws. 

Site Preparation Activities: Before demolition, asbestos would need to be identified and removed 

or abated from all the structures within the Town Center Alternative. Initial asbestos surveys and 

supplemental asbestos surveys would be performed to gather sufficient data to prepare the 

abatement design. Once the asbestos abatement design is completed, appropriate permits and 

notification would be required. Depending on the type of asbestos, differing abatement techniques 

would be employed. After the asbestos is abated and air samples indicate the clearance is 

acceptable, the demolition of the structure could be undertaken. 

Lead Based Paint. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected related to LBP present 

in existing buildings if such buildings were demolished or renovated to accommodate incoming 

BRAC activities. LBP would be handled in a manner consistent with applicable rules and 

regulations, and thus no environmental or health effects from the removal, handling, and disposal 

of these materials would be expected during demolition, renovation, or construction activities.

The proposed development of the Town Center Alternative would result in the demolition of 

more than 75 existing buildings. This would result in an estimated 500,000 tons of construction 

debris. The potential for effects of special hazards such as LBP would be evaluated and 

addressed as specified in the appropriate regulatory requirements. Demolition that involves LBP 

would be evaluated for compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1926.62 and EPA, state, 

HUD, federal, and Army regulations. Measures to control airborne lead dust would be 

implemented. 

Site Preparation Activities: Lead paint surveys and supplemental lead paint surveys would be 

required to gather sufficient data to determine if LBP is present in the buildings to be demolished. 

A waste stream for the demolition of each facility could be estimated for the various components, 

concrete, roofing, windows, doors, framing, and so on. Representative samples of these 

components could be collected and analyzed to determine if the waste stream of components 

exceed the regulatory limit for lead. If the waste stream samples do not exceed the regulatory 

limit for lead, the waste could be managed as construction debris. If the waste stream samples 

exceed the regulatory limit for lead, the abatement or removal and special disposal of components 

containing LBP should be evaluated. All construction debris that contains lead above the 

regulatory limit would be disposed of at licensed disposal facilities in accordance with applicable 

laws. 

PCBs. No effects would be expected. There would be preceding beneficial cumulative effects 

before development in that the electrical equipment within the proposed development area of the 

Town Center Alternative would first need to be investigated, sampled, and managed.

Numerous pole- and pad-mounted transformers are within the Town Center Alternative. Over the 

years, Fort Belvoir has sampled, tested, and removed many of the PCB-containing electrical 

components. However, because of the size, complexity, and age of the electrical infrastructure at 

Fort Belvoir, the possibility of encountering PCB-containing electrical equipment still exists. All 

transformers would likely require additional sampling to determine PCB content before 

decommissioning and disposal. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-455

Site Preparation Activities: A survey of the electrical equipment that is likely to be removed as 

part of the development of the Town Center Alternative would be required. All electrical 

equipment should be sampled and tested to determine if the electrical equipment needs to be 

managed as PCB-containing wastes. 

Pesticides. No effects from pesticides would be expected at the Town Center Alternative. 

Pesticides would continue to be used in accordance with the Fort Belvoir IPMP.

Proposed development for the Town Center Alternative in the South Post golf course area would 

occur in areas of known historical pesticide application. There would be preceding beneficial 

cumulative effects before development in that the golf course within the proposed development 

area of the Town Center Alternative would first need to be investigated, sampled, and managed. 

Site Preparation Activities: A pesticide survey of the South Post golf course would likely be 

required. Based on the results of the pesticide survey, any identified contaminated media above 

regulatory limits would be addressed in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements. 

Regulated medical waste. Long-term minor adverse effect would be expected as the 

relocation/expansion of the Dewitt Hospital would likely result in an increase in the amount of 

medical and biological waste generated at Fort Belvoir. This increase in hospital space would 

result in minor adverse effects, as the various hospital tenant agencies that occupy the new space 

would also need to comply with all medical and biohazardous waste regulations. 

Ordnance. No adverse effects would be expected from ordnance. There would be preceding 

beneficial cumulative effects before development in that the ordnance within the proposed 

development area of the Town Center Alternative would first need to be cleared and removed. 

The MMRP HRR (Malcolm Pirnie, 2006) indicates that former ranges have existed in the vicinity 

of the Town Center Alternative. On the North Post, former ranges of potential concern to the 

development areas include the T-15 Range, and Gas Area in the vicinity of existing Kingman 

Road and Woodlawn Road. About 68 acres of T-15 are within the northeastern corner of the 

development area on the North Post southwest of the Kingman Road and Woodlawn Road 

intersection. The T-15 Range was used for small-arms training until 2002. The Gas Area 

overlaps the T-15 Range at the southwest quadrant of the same intersection and consists of 17 

acres within the development area. The Gas Area was used for gas training in the 1940s. 

On the South Post, the former Gunston Road 1,000-inch Rifle Range overlaps 0.1 acres of the 

southwestern end of the South Post proposed development area along the east side of Gunston 

Road, and a former firing area associated with this range is adjacent to the development area to 

the south on the west side of Gunston Road. About 1.7 acres of the fan for this firing area overlap 

the southwest corner of the development area. In addition, an active range is adjacent to this 

development area to the west and overlaps 2.0 acres of the northeast corner of the South Post 

development area, west of Gunston Road.

Site Preparation Activities: These ranges are along the boundaries of the proposed building 

envelop of this alternative and should be avoided if possible. To date, no significant OE removal 

actions have been performed in any of these areas. The Gas Area would likely require intrusive 

activities to clear the area of UXO. The T-15 Range and Gunston Road 1,000-inch Rifle Range, 

and the other operational range would likely not require UXO removal and clearance. A site 

investigation under MMRP including soil and groundwater sampling could be anticipated at these 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-456

ranges. On the basis of results of the site investigation, additional corrective action(s) could also 

be required. OE clearance and removal actions may be performed in the range areas concurrent 

to site preparation activities, provided that the OE standoff distances are respected. 

Radioactive Material. Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected because DeWitt Army 

Hospital and other on-post medical facilities, such as the Logan Dental Clinic, produce low-level 

radioactive wastes. The relocation/expansion of the Dewitt Hospital would likely result in an 

increase in the amount of radioactive material generated at Fort Belvoir as proposed in the 

development of the Town Center Alternative. This increase in hospital space would result in 

minor adverse effects, as the various hospital tenant agencies that occupy the new administrative 

space would also need to comply with all radioactive material regulations. In addition, the 

tenants in the additional hospital space might also generate radioactive material, which could also 

be considered a minor adverse effect. 

Radon. Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected. The expansion of administrative 

space at Fort Belvoir increases the amount of people potentially exposed to radon at Fort Belvoir. 

No immediate site preparation activities would be required. 

4.13.3.3 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs would be same as those stated in Section 4.13.2.3. 

4.13.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CITY CENTER ALTERNATIVE 

4.13.4.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Effects would be similar to those discussed in Section 4.13.2.1. 

4.13.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

The major hazardous substance, materials, waste and related issues potentially affecting the City 

Center Alternative are about 130 acres of former training ranges on EPG (EPG West and Eebee 

Field) and 30 SWMUs, several HWMUs, and PSAs. The specific consequences of City Center 

Alternative with respect to each hazardous waste issues and required site preparations before 

development are further discussed Table 4.13-15. 

Petroleum. Long-term minor adverse effects would result from an increase in storage capacity 

requirements for petroleum. Any construction of new storage facilities to handle storage 

requirements from BRAC actions would be done in accordance with applicable laws regarding 

construction materials, leak protection, monitoring, and spill containment.

EPG. 3 PSAs are within the development areas of the City Center Alternative. Of the 3 PSAs, 8 

are ASTs and 14 are USTs. In addition, 10 PRSs are within the development areas of the City 

Center Alternative at EPG. VDEQ issued letters of concurrence with the no further action 

determination for these PRSs at Fort Belvoir. However, acceptances were based on not 

disturbing the area. If disturbance of this site could not be avoided, an additional investigation 

could be required.. In addition, residual petroleum contamination likely exists in the area. To 

address this issue, construction programs that call for disturbing areas around this PRS should 

require the appropriate federal OSHA construction worker protection. Disturbing previously 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-457

Table 4.13-15 

Hazardous substances and hazardous materials resources 

affected by the City Center Alternative 

Resource Pre Development Activities 

Petroleum The 38 PSAs at Fort Belvoir along with the 25 PSAs at the GSA Parcel could be aggressively 

addressed as part of the site preparations. A closure process involving administrative and 

decontamination process would be required. Confirmation samples collected beneath USTs and 

potentially some AST would likely be required to demonstrate no release has occurred. It could be 

expected that some USTs would have a release previously undiscovered. Site investigations at each 

release would be approximately $40,000 each and require a month to complete. Mitigation measures 

could be integrated into the construction phase of the project in concert with the site preparation and 

earthwork features for minimal impact to the overall construction schedule. 

Hazardous 

Substances 

and 

Hazardous 

Materials 

Investigation work plans would require appropriate regulator coordination and/or approval. Site 

investigations could be performed concurrently with site preparation activities. Additional investigation 

could be performed to determine if and where residual impacted soils exist. 

Solid waste Investigation work plans would require appropriate regulator coordination and/orapproval. Site 

investigations could be performed concurrently with OE clearance and site preparation activities. 

Asbestos Before initiating renovation activities, the potential for environmental effects of special hazards such as 

ACM would be evaluated and addressed as specified in the appropriate regulatory requirements. 

Demolition that involves ACM would be evaluated for compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 

1926.62 and EPA, state, federal, and Army regulations. Measures to control airborne asbestos would 

be implemented. All construction debris that contains ACM would be disposed of at licensed disposal 

facilities in accordance with applicable laws. 

Lead based 

paint 

Before initiating renovation activities, the potential for environmental effects of special hazards such as 

LBP would be evaluated and addressed as specified in the appropriate regulatory requirements. 

Demolition that involves LBP would be evaluated for compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 

1926.62; EPA and HUD standards; and state, federal, and Army regulations. Measures to control 

airborne lead dust would be implemented. All construction debris that contains LBP above regulatory 

limits would be disposed of at licensed disposal facilities in accordance with applicable laws. 

PCBs Because of the size, complexity, and age of the electrical infrastructure at EPG, the possibility of 

encountering PCB-containing electrical equipment still exists. All transformers would likely require 

additional sampling to determine PCB content before decommissioning and disposal. 

Pesticides No effects would be anticipated. Ongoing investigations at EPG should identify any significant 

pesticide issues. 

Regulated 

Medical 

Waste 

No immediate site preparation activities required. However, the relocation/expansion of the Dewitt 

Hospital would likely result in an increase in the amount of regulated medical biological waste at Fort 

Belvoir under the City Center Alternative. 

Ordnance 

areas 

Army approval of Explosive Safety Submission (ESS) would be required. Extensive OE clearance and 

removal actions would be required on the 230 acres of historical training ranges. All ranges areas 

would require site investigations 

Radioactive 

material 

The investigation of SWMU M-44 would be required before development of the City Center Alternative 

Radon No immediate site preparation activities would be required. However, the increase in the number of 

tenants may require additional studies of how radon levels may be addressed by construction 

requirements/specifications. 

 

unidentified petroleum contamination would also require proper handling and disposal of 

contaminants as required by federal, state, local, and Army regulations. 

GSA Parcel. Approximately 10 regulated and 15 former UST and ASTs are within the GSA 

Parcel, and approximately 15 AST/UST formerly existed on the site, for a total of 25 PSAs. Five 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-458

leaking underground storage tanks resulting in PRSs have been identified on the GSA Parcel and 

are listed in Table 4.13-16. The PRSs have been closed and are not anticipated to be an issue. 

Site Preparation Activities: Preparing the site of the development of the City Center Alternative 

could be accomplished by employing a Health and Safety Program including qualified industrial 

hygienists and an HSP. Additional investigation could identify if residual-impacted soils exist and 

where they are so that plans to excavate and remove the affected soils could be developed. The 

HSP specifies worker training requirements, personnel protective equipment, air monitoring 

requirements, along with health and safety protocols appropriate to the project. The industrial 

hygienists would oversee the activities to ensure compliance with the HSP. Most large 

construction firms are experienced in this area. The cost estimates for a Health and Safety 

Program to adequately address this issue are not considered significant because the specifications 

of the construction project itself would likely require an HSP. This requirement could be 

incorporated into the construction program without adding significant costs.

Table 4.13-16 

GSA parcel petroleum release sites 

Owner Property 

Pollution complaint 

no. Status 

Hydro Conduit Corp. 6800 Loisdale Road 19921218 Closed 

Hydro Conduit Corp. 6800 Loisdale Road 19922022 Closed 

Hydro Conduit Corp. 6800 Loisdale Road 19901716 Closed 

Hydro Conduit Corp. 6800 Loisdale Road 19921836 Closed 

GSA Building 4 6801 Loisdale Road 19954283 Closed 

 

Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Materials. Long-term minor adverse effects would result 

from an increase in the use, storage and disposal of hazardous substances and hazardous 

materials. Additional potentially hazardous materials that could be found on-post during BRACrelated construction and operational activities include paints, thinners, fluorescent lamps, 

batteries, and fuel and motor oils for vehicles and equipment. An increase in the volume of these 

wastes generated and the amount of storage required would be anticipated. 

Short-term negligible adverse effects could result from an increase in spills associated with the 

use of hazardous materials. Established controls such as spill containment, emergency response 

and clean-up procedures would limit the impact of spills. 

No effects would be expected from hazardous waste disposal. The installation is a large-quantity 

generator and permitted storage facility of hazardous wastes and has established procedures for 

managing and disposing of hazardous wastes. The current hazardous waste disposal procedures 

would continue with implementation of the City Center Alternative. All hazardous wastes would 

be managed in accordance with the installation’s Hazardous Waste Management Program and 

RCRA requirements. 

EPG. Four HWMUs are within the development areas of the City Center Alternative. VDEQ has 

issued letters of concurrence with the no further action determination for all HWMU sites at Fort 

Belvoir. If disturbance of these sites resulted in a complete exposure pathway of identified 

contaminants to human health or environmental receptors, a reassessment of the site would be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-459

required, with appropriate regulatory coordination. GSA Parcel. Six RCRA permits were 

identified at the GSA Parcel including a RCRA large quantity generator at GSA 6810 Loisdale 

Road Building A. This RCRA large-quantity generator, EPA Identification number 

VA4470039336, has 12 violations with none resolved. Violations appear to be of an 

administrative nature. It is possible that hazardous waste contamination exists at this site. If 

identified through site investigations, the hazardous waste impacted soils and groundwater would 

need to be properly addressed during any redevelopment of the GSA Parcel. An agreement with 

the RCRA permit holders would be developed to address RCRA corrective action in accordance 

with their permits. 

Site Preparation Activities: Disturbance of HWMU sites could be mitigated by further 

characterizing the affected area through sample and analysis and employing a Health and Safety 

Program including qualified industrial hygienists and an HSP. Additional investigation could 

identify if residual impacted soils exist and where they are so that plans to excavate and remove 

the affected soils could be developed. The HSP specifies worker training requirements, personnel 

protective equipment, air monitoring requirements along with health and safety protocols 

appropriate to the project. The industrial hygienists would oversee the activities to ensure 

compliance with the HSP. The cost estimates for this mitigation are not considered significant 

because the specifications of the construction project itself would likely require an HSP for the 

general construction so addressing this constraint could be incorporated into the construction 

program without adding significant costs. 

Solid Waste. No effects would be expected from solid waste disposal. The installation has 

established procedures for managing and disposing of solid wastes. The solid waste disposal 

procedures would continue with implementation of the City Center Alternative. There would be 

preceding beneficial cumulative effects before development in that the SWMUs within the 

proposed development area of the City Center Alternative would first need to be investigated and 

remediated. 

Thirty SWMUs are within the development areas of the City Center Alternative. Table 4.13-17 

summarizes the status of these SWMUs. 

Table 4.13-17 

Status of SWMUs within the City Center Alternative footprints 

Recommendation Number of SWMUs 

No Further Action 4 

Administrative Closure 8 

Confirmation Sampling 7 

Site Investigation 11 

Source: Tetra Tech, 2005b 

Site Preparation Activities: Fort Belvoir has corrective action plans for these SWMUs. 

Mitigation ranges from administrative closure to confirmation sampling. These action plans 

should be implemented. However, for those sites requiring confirmation sampling, subsequent 

cleanup requirements could be determined only following analysis of the samples to determine if 

additional corrective action is required. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-460

Asbestos. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected related to ACM present in 

existing buildings if such buildings were demolished or renovated to accommodate incoming 

BRAC activities. ACM would be handled in a manner consistent with applicable rules and 

regulations, including NESHAPS and thus, no environmental or health effects from the removal, 

handling, and disposal of these materials would be expected during demolition, renovation, or 

construction activities.

The proposed development of the City Center Alternative would result in the demolition of more 

than 40 existing buildings. This would result in an estimated 50,000 tons of construction debris. 

If 1 percent of this debris is ACM, 500 tons of ACM debris could be anticipated. The potential 

for effects of special hazards such as ACM would be evaluated and addressed as specified in the 

appropriate regulatory requirements. Demolition that involves ACM would be evaluated for 

compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1926.62 and EPA, state, federal, and Army 

regulations. Measures to control airborne asbestos would be implemented. All construction 

debris that contains ACM above regulatory limits would be disposed of at licensed disposal 

facilities in accordance with applicable laws. 

Site Preparation Activities: Before demolition, asbestos would need to be identified and removed 

or abated from all the structures within the City Center Alternative. Initial asbestos surveys and 

supplemental asbestos surveys would be performed to gather sufficient data to prepare the 

abatement design. Once the asbestos abatement design is completed, appropriate permits and 

notification would be required. Depending on the type of asbestos, differing abatement techniques 

would be employed. After the asbestos is abated and air samples indicate the clearance is 

acceptable, the demolition of the structure could be undertaken. 

Lead Based Paint. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected related to LBP present 

in existing buildings if such buildings were demolished or renovated to accommodate incoming 

BRAC activities. LBP would be handled in a manner consistent with applicable rules and 

regulations, and thus, no environmental or health effects from the removal, handling, and disposal 

of these materials would be expected during demolition, renovation, or construction activities.

The proposed development of the City Center Alternative would result in the demolition of over 

40 existing buildings. This would result in an estimated 50,000 tons of construction debris. The 

potential for effects of special hazards such as LBP would be evaluated and addressed as 

specified in the appropriate regulatory requirements. Demolition that involves LBP would be 

evaluated for compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1926.62 and EPA, state, HUD, 

federal, and Army regulations. Measures to control airborne lead dust would be implemented. 

Site Preparation Activities: Lead paint surveys and supplemental lead paint surveys would be 

required to gather sufficient data to determine if LBP is present in the buildings to be demolished. 

A waste stream for the demolition of each facility could be estimated into the various 

components, concrete, roofing, windows, doors, framing, and so on. Representative samples of 

these components could be collected and analyzed to determine if the waste stream of 

components exceed the regulatory limit for lead. If the waste stream samples do not exceed the 

regulatory limit for lead, the waste could be managed as construction debris. If the waste stream 

samples exceed the regulatory limit for lead, the abatement or removal and special disposal of 

components containing LBP should be evaluated. All construction debris that contains lead 

above the regulatory limit would be disposed of at licensed disposal facilities in accordance with 

applicable laws. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-461

PCBs. No effects would be expected. There would be preceding beneficial cumulative effects 

before development in that the electrical equipment within the proposed development area of the 

City Center Alternative would first need to be investigated, sampled, and managed.

Numerous pole- and pad- mounted transformers are within the City Center Alternative.-Over the 

years, Fort Belvoir has sampled, tested, and removed, many of the PCB-containing electrical 

components. However, because of the size, complexity, and age of the electrical infrastructure at 

EPG, the possibility of encountering PCB-containing electrical equipment still exists. All 

transformers would likely require additional sampling to determine PCB content before 

decommissioning and disposal. 

Site Preparation Activities: A survey of the electrical equipment that is likely to be removed as 

part of the development of the City Center Alternative would be required. All electrical 

equipment should be sampled and tested to determine if the electrical equipment needs to be 

managed as PCB-containing wastes.

Pesticides. No effects from pesticides would be expected at the City Center Alternative. 

Pesticides would continue to be used in accordance with the Fort Belvoir IPMP.

Regulated medical waste. Long-term minor adverse effect would be expected as the 

relocation/expansion of the Dewitt Hospital would likely result in an increase in the amount of 

regulated medical waste generated at Fort Belvoir as proposed in the development of the City 

Center Alternative. This increase in hospital space would result in minor adverse effects as the 

various hospital tenant agencies that occupy the new space would also need to comply with all 

regulated medical waste regulations. 

Ordnance. No adverse effects would be expected from ordnance. There would be preceding 

beneficial cumulative effects before development in that the ordnance located within the proposed 

development area of the City Center Alternative would first need to be cleared and removed. 

The MMRP HRR (Malcolm Pirnie, 2006) indicates that former ranges have existed in the vicinity 

of the City Center Alternative. About 130 acres of former training ranges are within the 

development areas of the City Center Alternative with the potential for OE to be encountered on 

the remainder of the EPG property. 

Site Preparation Activities: If the 18-acre abandoned airfield (Eebee Field) on EPG East to the 

northwest of Heller Loop and EPG West were cleared of OE, this could free up a considerable 

amount of developable land.

Radioactive Material. Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected because DeWitt Army 

Hospital and other on-post medical facilities, such as the Logan Dental Clinic, produce low-level 

radioactive wastes. The relocation/expansion of the Dewitt Hospital would likely result in an 

increase in the amount of radioactive material generated at Fort Belvoir as proposed in the 

development of the City Center Alternative. This increase in hospital space would result in minor 

adverse effects, as the various hospital tenant agencies that occupy the new administrative space 

would also need to comply with all radioactive material regulations. In addition, the tenants in 

the additional hospital space could also generate radioactive material, which might also be 

considered a minor adverse effect. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-462

Radon. Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected. The expansion of administrative 

space at Fort Belvoir increases the amount of people potentially exposed to radon at Fort Belvoir. 

No immediate site preparation activities would be required. 

4.13.4.3 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs would be same as those stated in Section 4.13.2.3. 

4.13.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SATELLITE CAMPUSES 

ALTERNATIVE 

4.13.5.1 Land Use Plan Update 

Effects would be similar to those discussed in Section 4.13.2.1. 

4.13.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects 

The major hazardous substance, materials, waste and related issues potentially affected by the 

Satellite Campuses Alternative are about 230 acres of former ranges, numerous SWMUs and 

HWMUs, and the several hundred PSAs. The specific consequences of Satellite Campuses 

Alternative with respect to each hazardous waste issues and required site preparations before 

development are further discussed in Table 4.13-18. 

Petroleum. Long-term minor adverse effects would result from an increase in storage capacity 

requirements for petroleum. Any construction of new storage facilities to handle storage 

requirements from BRAC actions would be done in accordance with applicable laws regarding 

construction materials, leak protection, monitoring, and spill containment. 

There are 105 PSAs located within the development areas of the Satellite Campuses Alternative. 

Preparing the PSAs for construction is a straightforward decommissioning process. Many of the 

open PSAs are unregulated, so a costly formal closure process could be avoided. On average, 1 

in 3 USTs at Fort Belvoir have had a release so it could be expected that some USTs would have 

a release previously undiscovered. This preparation activity could be integrated into the 

construction phase of the project in concert with the site preparation and earthwork features for 

minimal impact to the overall construction schedule. 

In addition, there are 27 PRSs located within the development areas of the Satellite Campuses 

Alternative. VDEQ has issued letters of concurrence with a no further action determination for 

most of these PRSs. However, acceptance was based on not disturbing the areas. If disturbance 

of these sites could not be avoided, additional investigations could be required. In addition, 

residual petroleum contamination likely exists in the sites. To address this issue, construction 

programs that call for disturbing areas around these PRSs should require the appropriate federal 

OSHA construction worker protection. Disturbing previously unidentified petroleum 

contamination would also require proper handling and disposal of contaminants as required by 

federal, state, local, and Army regulations. 

Site Preparation Activities: Preparing the site of the development of the Satellite Campuses 

Alternative could be accomplished by employing a Health and Safety Program including 

qualified industrial hygienists and an HSP. Additional investigation could identify if residual 

impacted soils exists and where they are located so that plans to excavate and remove the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-463

Table 4.13-18 

Hazardous substances and hazardous materials resources 

affected by the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

Resource Pre-development activities 

Petroleum The 105 PSAs within a proposed building envelope could be aggressively addressed as part of the 

site preparations. A closure process involving administrative and decontamination process would be 

required. Confirmation samples collected beneath USTs and potentially some AST would likely be 

required to demonstrate no release has occurred. It could be expected that some USTs would have 

a release previously undiscovered. Site investigations at each release would be approximately 

$40,000 each and require a month to complete. Mitigation measures could be integrated into the 

construction phase of the project in concert with the site preparation and earthwork features for 

minimal impact to the overall construction schedule. 

Hazardous 

Substances 

and 

Hazardous 

Materials 

Investigation work plans would require appropriate regulator coordination and/or approval. Site 

investigations could be performed concurrently with site preparation activities. Additional investigation 

could be performed to determine if and where residual impacted soils exist. 

Solid waste Investigation work plans would require appropriate regulator coordination and/orapproval. Site 

investigations could be performed concurrently with OE clearance and site preparation activities. 

Asbestos Before initiating renovation activities, the potential for environmental effects of special hazards such 

as ACM would be evaluated and addressed as specified in the appropriate regulatory requirements. 

Demolition that involves ACM would be evaluated for compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 

1926.62 and EPA, state, federal, and Army regulations. Measures to control airborne asbestos would 

be implemented. All construction debris that contains ACM would be disposed of at licensed disposal 

facilities in accordance with applicable laws. 

Lead based 

paint 

Before initiating renovation activities, the potential for environmental effects of special hazards such 

as LBP would be evaluated and addressed as specified in the appropriate regulatory requirements. 

Demolition that involves LBP would be evaluated for compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 

1926.62 and EPA and HUD standards; and state, federal, and Army regulations. Measures to control 

airborne lead dust would be implemented. All construction debris that contains LBP above regulatory 

limits would be disposed of at licensed disposal facilities in accordance with applicable laws. 

PCBs Because of the size, complexity, and age of the electrical infrastructure at Fort Belvoir, the possibility 

of encountering PCB-containing electrical equipment still exists. All transformers would likely require 

additional sampling to determine PCB content before decommissioning and disposal. 

Pesticides Proposed development in the South Post golf course would occur in areas of known historical 

pesticide application. A pesticide survey of the South Post Golf Course would likely be required. On 

the basis of the results of the pesticides survey, any identified contaminated media above regulatory 

limits will be addressed in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements. 

Regulated 

Medical 

Waste 

No immediate site preparation activities would be required. However, the relocation/expansion of the 

Dewitt Hospital would likely result in an increase in the amount of regulated medical waste at Fort 

Belvoir under the Satellite Campuses Alternative. 

Ordnance 

areas 

Army approval of Explosive Safety Submission (ESS) would be required. Extensive OE clearance 

and removal actions would be required on the 230 acres of historical training ranges. All ranges 

areas would require site investigations. 

Radioactive 

material 

No immediate site preparation activities would be required. However, the increase in the number of 

tenants at Fort Belvoir has a potential to increase the amount of radiological material at Fort Belvoir. 

Radon No immediate site preparation activities would be required. However, the increase in the number of 

tenants may require additional studies of how radon levels may be addressed by construction 

requirements/specifications. 

 

impacted soils could be developed The HSP specifies worker training requirements, personnel 

protective equipment, air monitoring requirements along with health and safety protocols 

appropriate to the project. The industrial hygienists would oversee the activities to ensure 

compliance with the HSP. Most large construction firms are experienced in this area. The cost 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-464

estimates for a Health and Safety Program to adequately address this issue are not considered 

significant because the specifications of the construction project itself would likely require an 

HSP. This requirement could be incorporated into the construction program without adding 

significant costs. 

Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Materials. Long-term minor adverse effects would result 

from an increase in the use, storage and disposal of hazardous substances and hazardous 

materials. Additional potentially hazardous materials that could be found on-post during BRACrelated construction and operational activities include paints, thinners, batteries, and fuel and 

motor oils for vehicles and equipment. An increase in the volume of these wastes generated and 

the amount of storage required would be anticipated.

Short-term minor adverse effects could result from an increase in spills associated with the use of 

hazardous materials. Established controls such as spill containment, emergency response and 

cleanup procedures would limit the impact of spills. 

No effects would be expected from hazardous waste disposal. The installation is a large-quantity 

generator of hazardous wastes and has established procedures for managing and disposing of 

hazardous wastes. The current hazardous waste disposal procedures would continue with 

implementation of the Satellite Campuses Alternative. All hazardous wastes would be managed 

in accordance with the installation’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan and RCRA 

requirements. 

Eight HWMUs are within the development areas of the Satellite Campuses Alternative. Two of 

the HWMUs are associated with Vehicle Maintenance Facility in Buildings 1949 and 1950, in the 

southwesternmost development area on the North Post, and the remaining six are associated with 

a former fire training area on Davison Army Airfield. VDEQ issued letters of concurrence with a 

no further action determination for all HWMU sites at Fort Belvoir. If disturbance of these sites 

resulted in a complete exposure pathway of identified contaminants to human health or 

environmental receptors, a reassessment of the site would be required, with appropriate regulatory 

coordination.Site Preparation Activities: Disturbance of HWMU sites could be mitigated by 

further characterizing the affected area through sample and analysis and employing a Health and 

Safety Program including qualified industrial hygienists and an HSP. Additional investigation 

could identify if residual impacted soils exist and where they are so that plans to excavate and 

remove the impacted soils could be developed. The HSP specifies worker training requirements, 

personnel protective equipment, air monitoring requirements along with health and safety 

protocols appropriate to the project. The industrial hygienists would oversee the activities to 

ensure compliance with the HSP. The cost estimates for this mitigation are not considered 

significant because the specifications of the construction project itself would likely require an 

HSP for the general construction, so addressing this constraint could be incorporated into the 

construction program without adding significant costs. 

Solid Waste. No effects would be expected from solid waste disposal. The installation has 

established procedures for managing and disposing of solid wastes. The solid waste disposal 

procedures would continue with implementation of the Satellite Campuses Alternative. 

There would be preceding cumulative impact with positive effects before development in that the 

SWMU located within the proposed development area of the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

would need to be investigated and remediated before development. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-465

There are 20 SWMUs within the development areas of the Satellite Campuses Alternative. Table 

4.13-19 summarizes the current status of these SWMUs. 

Site Preparation Activities: Fort Belvoir has corrective action plans for these SWMUs. 

Mitigation ranges from administrative closure to confirmation sampling. These action plans 

should be implemented. However, for those sites requiring confirmation sampling, subsequent 

cleanup requirements could only be determined following analysis of the samples to determine if 

additional corrective action is required. 

Table 4.13-19 

Status of SWMUs within Satellite Campuses Alternative footprints 

Recommendation Number of SWMUs 

No Further Action 5 

Administrative Closure 1 

Confirmation Sampling 14 

Site Investigation 0 

Source: Tetra Tech, 2005a. 

Asbestos. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected related to ACM present in 

existing buildings if such buildings were demolished or renovated to accommodate incoming 

BRAC activities. ACM would be handled in a manner consistent with applicable rules and 

regulations, and thus, no environmental or health effects from the removal, handling, and disposal 

of these materials would be expected during demolition, renovation, or construction activities.

The proposed development of the Satellite Campuses Alternative would result in the demolition 

of more than 80 existing buildings. This would result in an estimated 600,000 tons of 

construction debris. If 1 percent of this debris is ACM, 6,000 tons of ACM debris would be 

anticipated. The potential for effects of special hazards such as ACM would be evaluated and 

addressed as specified in the appropriate regulatory requirements. Demolition that involves ACM 

would be evaluated for compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1926.62 and EPA, state, 

federal, and Army regulations. Measures to control airborne asbestos would be implemented. All 

construction debris that contains ACM above regulatory limits would be disposed of at licensed 

disposal facilities in accordance with applicable laws. 

Site Preparation Activities: Before demolition, asbestos would need to be identified and removed 

or abated from all the structures within the Satellite Campuses Alternative. Initial asbestos 

surveys and supplemental asbestos surveys would be required to gather sufficient data to prepare 

the abatement design. Once the asbestos abatement design is completed appropriate permits and 

notification would be required. Depending on the type of asbestos differing abatement techniques 

would be employed. After the asbestos is abated and air samples indicate the clearance is 

acceptable, the demolition of the structure could be undertaken. 

Lead Based Paint. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected related to LBP present 

in existing buildings if such buildings were demolished or renovated to accommodate incoming 

BRAC activities. LBP would be handled in a manner consistent with applicable rules and 

regulations, and thus, no environmental or health effects from the removal, handling, and disposal 

of these materials would be expected during demolition, renovation, or construction activities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-466

The proposed development of the Satellite Campuses Alternative would result in the demolition 

of more than 80 existing buildings. This would result in an estimated 600,000 tons of 

construction debris. The potential for the effects of special hazards such as LBP would be 

evaluated and addressed as specified in the appropriate regulatory requirements. Demolition that 

involves LBP would be evaluated for compliance with the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1926.62 

and EPA, state, HUD, federal, and Army regulations. Measures to control airborne lead dust 

would be implemented. 

Site Preparation Activities: Lead paint surveys and supplemental lead paint surveys would be 

required to gather sufficient data to determine if LBP is present in the buildings to be demolished. 

A waste stream for the demolition of each facility could be estimated into the various 

components, concrete, roofing, windows, doors, framing and so on. Representative samples of 

these components could be collected and analyzed to determine if the waste stream of 

components exceed the regulatory limit for lead. If the waste stream samples do not exceed the 

regulatory limit for lead, the waste could be managed as construction debris. If the waste stream 

samples exceed the regulatory limit for lead then the abatement or removal and special disposal 

of components containing LBP should be evaluated. All construction debris that contains lead 

above the regulatory limit would be disposed of at licensed disposal facilities in accordance with 

applicable laws. 

PCBs. No effects would be expected. There would be preceding beneficial cumulative effects 

before development in that the electrical equipment within the proposed development area of the 

Satellite Campuses Alternative would first need to be investigated, sampled, and managed.

Numerous pole- and pad-mounted transformers are within the Satellite Campuses Alternative. 

Over the years, Fort Belvoir has sampled, tested, and removed, many of the PCB-containing 

electrical components. However, because of the size, complexity, and age of the electrical 

infrastructure at Fort Belvoir, the possibility of encountering PCB-containing electrical 

equipment still exists. All transformers would likely require additional sampling to determine 

PCB content before decommissioning and disposal. 

Site Preparation Activities: A survey of the electrical equipment that is likely to be removed as 

part of the development of the Satellite Campuses Alternative would be required. All electrical 

equipment should be sampled and tested to determine if the electrical equipment needs to be 

managed as PCB-containing wastes. 

Pesticides. No effects from pesticides would be expected at the Satellite Campuses Alternative. 

Pesticides would continue to be used in accordance with the Fort Belvoir IPMP. The proposed 

hospital development in the South Post golf course area would occur in areas of known historical 

pesticide application. There would be preceding beneficial cumulative effects before 

development in that the golf course within the proposed development area would first need to be 

investigated, sampled, and managed. 

Site Preparation Activities: A pesticide survey of the South Post golf course would likely be 

required. From the results of the pesticides survey, the waste generated during development could 

be properly managed if they are affected by significant levels of pesticides.

Regulated medical waste. Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected as the 

relocation/expansion of the Dewitt Hospital would likely result in an increase in the amount of 

regulated medical waste generated at Fort Belvoir as proposed in the development of the Satellite 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-467

Campuses Alternative. This increase in hospital space would result in minor adverse effects as 

the various hospital tenant agencies that occupy the new space would also need to comply with all 

regulated medical waste regulations. 

Ordnance. No adverse effects would be expected from ordnance. There would be preceding 

beneficial cumulative effects before development in that the ordnance within the proposed 

development area of the Satellite Campuses Alternative would be first need to be cleared and 

removed. 

The MMRP HRR (Malcolm Pirnie, 2006) indicates that former ranges have existed in the vicinity 

of the Satellite Campuses Alternative development areas. On the North Post, former ranges of 

potential concern to the development areas include the T-15 Range, and Gas Area in the vicinity 

of existing Kingman Road and Woodlawn Road. About 68 acres of T-15 are within the 

northeastern corner of the development area on the North Post southwest of the Kingman Road 

and Woodlawn Road intersection. The T-15 Range was used for small-arms training until 2002, 

but the only ordnance used at this range was 5.56 mm blank cartridges. The Gas Area overlaps 

the T-15 Range at the southwest quadrant of the same intersection and consists of 17 acres within 

the development area. The Gas Area was used for gas training in the 1940s. 

On the South Post, the former Gunston Road 1,000-inch Rifle Range overlaps 0.1 acres of the 

southwestern end of the South Post proposed development area along the east side of Gunston 

Road, and a former firing area associated with this range is adjacent to the development area to 

the south on the west side of Gunston Road. 1.7 acres of the fan for this firing area overlap the 

southwest corner of the development area. In addition, an active range is adjacent to this 

development area to the west and overlaps 2.0 acres of the northeast corner of the South Post 

development area, west of Gunston Road.

Two former ranges overlap the proposed development area on Davison Army Airfield. The 

Mines and Booby Trap Area was an obstacle course area used in the 1940s. This range borders 

the southeastern end of the development area but is not within the building envelop. The former 

Mounted Pistol Range was at the southeastern end of what is now Davison Army Airfield. The 

fan for the range has been developed over by the runways for the airfield, covering about 138 

acres; the firing area is outside of, but adjacent to, the Davison Army Airfield development area. 

Site Preparation Activities: These ranges are along the boundaries of the proposed building 

envelop of this alternative and should be avoided if possible. To date, no significant OE removal 

actions have been performed in any of these areas. The Gas Area would likely require intrusive 

activities to clear the area of UXO. The T-15 Range and Gunston Road 1,000-inch Rifle Range, 

and the other operational range would likely not require UXO removal and clearance. A site 

investigation under MMRP including soil and groundwater sampling could be anticipated at these 

ranges. On the basis of the results of the site investigation, additional corrective action(s) could 

also be required. OE clearance and removal actions could be performed in the range areas 

concurrent to site preparation activities, provided that the OE standoff distances are respected. 

Radioactive Material. Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected because DeWitt Army 

Hospital and other on-post medical facilities, such as the Logan Dental Clinic, produce low-level 

radioactive wastes. The relocation/expansion of the Dewitt Hospital would likely result in an 

increase in the amount of radioactive material generated at Fort Belvoir as proposed in the 

development of the Satellite Campuses Alternative. This increase in hospital space would result 

in minor adverse effects, as the various hospital tenant agencies that occupy the new 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-468

administrative space would also need to comply with all radioactive material regulations. In 

addition, the tenants in the additional hospital space could also generate radioactive material, 

which could also be considered a minor adverse effect. 

Radon. Long-term minor adverse effect would be expected. The expansion of administrative 

space at Fort Belvoir increases the amount of people potentially exposed to radon at Fort Belvoir. 

No immediate site preparation activities required. 

4.13.5.3 BMPs/Mitigation 

BMPs would be same as those stated in Section 4.13.2.3. 

4.13.6 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

No effects on hazardous substances, materials, and wastes, or from their use, storage, or disposal, 

would be expected from implementing the No Action Alternative. 

4.13.7 SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Minor long-term adverse effects are anticipated with each alternative with respect to the 

construction and operations activities associated with a development project of this size. The 

construction activities would involve managing, storing, and disposing of hazardous substances 

and hazardous materials. In addition, minor long-term adverse effects are anticipated in that the 

addition of tenants would result in the additional managing, storing, and disposing of hazardous 

substances and hazardous materials. 

Although not part of the proposed action, the predevelopment preparations requirements would 

have a long-term beneficial effect as the UXO and hazardous materials release sites are 

investigated and remediated which would be beneficial to both human health and the 

environment. The most costly alternative for corrective action predevelopment activities is the 

Satellite Campuses Alternative, largely due to the project sites under this alternative being located 

in former training ranges with costly UXO clearance and removal. The least expensive would be 

the Preferred Alternative. In addition, corrective action for the Preferred Alternative would be 

able to be completed on a faster track than the other alternatives. The estimates for the Town 

Center and Satellite Campuses Alternatives do not include logical costs of finding and obtaining 

swing space for current tenants to be relocated into while the program redevelops the Main Post. 

The costs and logistical requirement to execute these alternatives would also be substantial. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-469

4.14 MITIGATION SUMMARY 

Mitigation measures for the four alternatives for implementing BRAC were developed to reduce, 

avoid, or compensate for most adverse impacts. Mitigation does not include legal, regulatory, or 

policy-driven environmental protections and best management practices (BMPs) required to 

comply with federal and state laws, or Army and Fort Belvoir policies. These are already part of 

the Proposed Action. Only those resource areas for which mitigation has been identified as a 

means to reduce adverse environmental impacts and determined to be appropriate are discussed 

below. 

To ensure that mitigation measures are effectively documented and monitored, Fort Belvoir 

would install an EMS and compliance tracking system. EIS mitigation measures would be entered 

into the EMS and reported to the Installation Commander in addition to other installation 

reporting requirements. 

4.14.1 TRANSPORTATION 

Mitigation for impacts to the transportation system could occur in the form of off-post 

transportation improvements, mass transit expansion, and provision for non-motorized 

transportation. To advance the proposed mitigations, the Army could establish and staff a 

Transportation Demand Management Program. 

Traffic and Transportation. The EIS examines several transportation improvements for each of 

the BRAC action alternatives. The following summarizes these improvements (shown in 

comparative format at Table 4.3-42. 

• Preferred Alternative. Fourteen actions, costing an estimated $458 million, are 

identified. 

• Town Center Alternative. Fifteen actions, costing an estimated $732 million, are 

identified. 

• City Center Alternative. Fourteen actions, costing an estimated $471 million, are 

identified. 

• Satellite Campuses Alternative. Fifteen actions, costing an estimated $742 million, are 

identified. 

Mass Transit. Bus service of a high enough quality to realize a 5 to 10 percent mode share for 

transit could complement the road network mitigation actions and help to reduce congestion and 

limit vehicle delays. Transit services could include bus services and/or shuttle services to/from 

the Franconia-Springfield Metrorail Station. The EIS identifies five basic bus service areas, then 

proposes and examines general routes and service concepts to achieve 5 or 10 percent mode 

share. For all the alternatives, a 5 percent mode split would reduce by 360 the number of vehicles 

entering the post during peak hour. A 10 percent mode split would reduce by 725 the number of 

vehicles entering the post during peak hour. 

Transportation Demand Management Coordinator (TDMC). To help alleviate traffic 

congestion, the Army could appoint a TDMC. The TDMC would be knowledgeable of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-470

principles, practices, and methods of transportation demand management. These would include, 

but not be limited to, employee rideshare and commute programs; current regional programs 

regarding air quality and transportation; employer trip reduction requirements; marketing, 

promotion, and event planning practices; parking management practices; opportunities for 

walking and biking as alternative means of travel; and development of transportation feasibility 

studies. The TDMC’s principal function would be to develop, manage, and oversee development 

of a transportation management plan (TMP) for Fort Bevloir, focused on measures to reduce the 

number of single-occupancy vehicles. Appointing a TDMC before fiscal year 2009 would allow 

development of transportation program initiatives before BRAC relocation of personnel. A 

completed draft of the proposed TMP could be provided in the ROD. 

Transportation Management Plan (TMP). The Army could implement a TMP at Fort Belvoir to 

reduce single-occupany vehicle trips. During the implementation phase of the TMP, the specific 

TMP strategies that are adopted would be applied as appropriate to each individual tenant at Fort 

Belvoir, while considering the requirements of their employees. A TDMC could assist each 

tenant in developing and implementing the TMP. Such elements of a TMP include, but are not 

limited to, alternative work schedules, rideshare and carpool programs, bicyclists and pedestrian 

accommodations, parking policy, and supporting transit services. A comprehensive TMP could 

be developed as the design and Master Plan are carried forth. 

4.14.2 AIR QUALITY 

Mitigation to reduce impacts to air quality from BRAC-related construction and emissions from 

stationary sources in the form of new boilers and generator requirements for all alternatives could 

include: 

• Tenant organizations, in consultation with Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works, 

would prepare and implement construction performance specifications with emission 

control measures to minimize the impact of the construction activities related to BRAC 

projects to include, but not limited to, the following: 

o Limiting construction on Code Orange, Red, and Purple ozone days 

o Requiring all non-road diesel equipment not meeting Tier 2 or better standards 

be retrofitted with emission control devices 

o Implementing anti-idling restrictions for both onroad and non-road vehicles and 

equipment 

o Using Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), alternate fuels, or fuel additives 

o Meeting new engine standards for nonroad vehicles 

• For all BRAC construction, new NSPS boilers (greater than10 million BTU heat input/hr) 

would emit no more than 9 ppm NOx 

• Emergency generator testing would not be conducted on Code Orange, Red, and Purple

ozone days during the acceptance phase of construction. Exceptions would be assessed 

for emergency testing requirements 

Implementation of the City Center Alternative would require that oxides of nitrogen emission 

offsets at a ratio of 1:1.15 be located and obtained for all stationary sources sited on EPG under 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-471

the nonattainment new source review permitting requirements. Emission offsets are generally 

unavailable in this region and could be extremely expensive if they could be obtained at all. 

4.14.3 WATER RESOURCES 

Depending on the alternative selected for implementation of BRAC, up to nine subwatersheds at 

the post would be expected to have increases of more than 10 percent in 1-year or 10-year storm 

event peak discharges. Potential mitigation measures would be to develop a storm water drainage 

system master plan study and participate in Fairfax County’s Watershed Planning Process and in 

TMDL studies with VDEQ. These studies would identify current deficiencies (e.g. capacity 

problems, outfall problems, stream bank erosion) and determine infrastructure needs to meet 

BRAC requirements and long-term growth. 

Once design studies are mature enough to quantify additional impervious cover resulting from 

BRAC construction at the facility level, candidate locations for removal of existing impervious 

cover to offset the increase would be identified. An initial action would be to remove closed 

section of Woodlawn Road from Kingman to Beulah Roads and revegetate the former roadbed in 

conjunction with the installation’s tree replacement program. Additional locations would be 

added as part of master planning process. In addition, the Army would design at least one new 

BRAC building project with a green roof. 

4.14.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The following mitigations would address a range of BRAC-related effects to Fort Belvoir’s 

natural resources. These effects include habitat loss and fragmentation, introduction and spread 

of invasive species, and loss of tree coverage. The mitigation measures would rectify effects to 

biological resources by repairing and restoring habitat where possible. Where habitat is 

irreversibly lost to BRAC construction, compensatory mitigation would provide additional habitat 

resources on-post. Compensatory mitigation is based on initial estimates of lost and fragmented 

habitat based on available phases of design. Specific mitigation measures would include: 

• Protect mature and significant trees during construction by limiting grading in wooded 

areas 

• Replace trees that are 4 inches or greater in diameter with two new trees. The Army 

would conduct tree surveys and develop a Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for each 

BRAC construction project. Construction contractors would follow the installation’s 

tree protection policies as specified in requirements in the 2001 Fort Belvoir INRMP. 

The initial location for tree planting would be the closed section of Woodlawn Road 

between Kingman and Beulah Roads 

• Implement an invasive/exotic vegetation control plan. The Army would develop and 

implement such a plan that would focus on controlling invasives in ecologically 

sensitive areas such as the kudzu in bald eagle habitats and Phragmites in wetlands. 

Annually treat 100 acres of area impacted by invasive vegetation. Remove invasive 

vegetation from approximately 450 acres on-post in the following areas: the forest and 

wildlife corridor, EPG, EQC, and the installation wildlife refuges 

• Compensate for habitat loss by repairing and restoring habitat conditions in about 2.5 

miles of degraded/impacted streams on EPG and the Main Post. Restoration projects 

would: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-472

o Correct existing stormwater management problems 

o Stabilize eroded and undercut stream channels 

o Remove unnecessary impervious surfaces within riparian areas 

o Revegetate disturbed and cleared portions of riparian areas 

o Remove invasive and exotic vegetation from riparian areas and adjoining 

uplands 

• Expand the boundary of the Accotink Bay Wildlife Refuge (ABWR) in the Southwest 

Area of the installation to the 125-foot contour to include bald eagle habitat, steep 

slopes, wetlands, sensitive watershed and rare species habitats. This expansion would 

add approximately 520 acres to the ABWR 

• Expand the boundary of the Jackson Miles Abbott Wetland Refuge (JMAWR) 

westward to the proposed connector road corridor to include additional watershed area 

and rare species habitat. This expansion would add approximately 45 acres to the 

JMAWR 

• Designate steep slopes within the T-17 training area as an additional refuge area to 

protect the candidate species Stygobromus phreaticus as recommended by the VDCRNHP and as addressed in the 2001 Fort Belvoir INRMP 

• Designate area below 100-ft contour of T-17 as a new refuge area to protect bald eagle 

and Stygobromus phreaticus habitat. This designation would add about 60 acres 

• Formally establish and dedicate the EQC at EPG as a Special Natural Area. Develop a 

Memorandum of Agreement between the Installation Commander and the NGA 

Commander that would provide the same level of protection and land management of 

the existing EQC within the NGA fenced complex. Preserve forest habitat of this area 

and provide roadside signage noting designation 

• Establish and maintain habitat for PIF priority species on Fort Belvoir. Compensate for 

approximately 300 acres of PIF priority grassland species habitat and 250 acres of PIF 

priority forest species habitat that would be lost to BRAC development. Maintain a 

100 to 200 acre parcel in the Southwest Area (to include the Cullum Woods landfill 

and T-6 site) as grassland habitat 

• Remove Cissna Road roadbed throughout EPG and the bridge across Accotink Creek. 

Revegetate the old roadbed 

• Incorporate wildlife crossing structure on all road crossings of RPAs. Twelve 

crossings on EPG and eight culvert crossings on the Main Post are estimated. Wildlife 

crossing structures would include construction and installation techniques to facilitate 

wildlife crossing. Where feasible, include bridges instead of culverts, and daylighting 

on long culverts 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-473

4.14.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

In addition to the provisions of the Programmatic Agreement (PA), the following specific 

mitigation measures would compensate for the impacts to the historic and cultural resources at 

Fort Belvoir that would be lost through BRAC development. 

• Fort Belvoir would update the existing conditions survey of all of the National 

Register-eligible buildings on Fort Belvoir, excluding family housing. Based on 

survey results, Fort Belvoir would rehabilitate the exterior of all historic buildings that 

would be affected by BRAC in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. 

• Fort Belvoir would update the Fort Belvoir Historic District National Register 

eligibility form to capture changes to the district that have occurred since it was first 

identified in 1986. 

4.14.6 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 

The National Scenic Trail on Fort Belvoir would be completed to offset loss of recreational 

opportunities due to BRAC realignment. 

4.14.7 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

Vegetated buffers at least 200 feet in width where possible would be retained along the northern 

boundary of EPG, to be supplemented with additional landscaping as needed, to provide an 

effective transition to off-post residential areas and other development. In addition, ambient 

lighting due to BRAC projects would be maintained at or below requirements similar to those 

outlined in the Fairfax County Public Facilities Manual as it pertains to residential units. Design 

of facilities would account for these requirements. 

4.14.8 UTILITIES 

Mitigation measures for utilities include the following: 

• The Army would require that at least two of the three major projects institute rainwater 

catchment systems for use in landscape irrigation 

• All BRAC construction would be designed to meet EO13423 total operational reduction 

goals for energy and water conservation 

• At least one building project would be designed for gray water reuse, one with a green 

roof, one with a LEED Gold standard building, and one with a LEED Platinum standard 

building 

• Army policy is to build new construction to the LEED Silver standard. Fort Belvoir 

would assess the long-term cost effectiveness of this program by constructing one major 

LEED Gold building on-post 

• The Installation Recycling Program, loading docks, and compost facility would be 

expanded by fifty percent by 2012 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-474

4.14.9 OTHER RESOURCES 

No other specific mitigation measures for the BRAC action are identified for affected resources. 

In general, actions with respect to affected resources are protected by a variety of BMPs that 

preserve and conserve the resources. For example, a permit would be required under the Virginia 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program for a construction project disturbing at least 

2,500 square feet; as part of the permit process, the Army would have to prepare a soil erosion 

and sediment control plan and storm water pollution prevention plan to guide sedimentation 

reduction during the construction process. BMPs typically are an inherent part of project design 

and implementation, and their funding is included in general project costs. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-475

4.15 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Implementing the Preferred Alternative would result in a variety of adverse environmental 

effects, as detailed in Sections 4.2 through 4.13. Some of the effects could be minimized, 

avoided, or compensated for through mitigation, but others would be unavoidable. The principal 

unavoidable adverse effects on the environment are the following. 

Transportation: Funding shortfalls may not allow all transportation mitigation 

recommendations in this EIS to be implemented, resulting in unavoidable adverse impacts 

on traffic. 

Water Resources: Unavoidable loss of pervious surfaces due to development, resulting in 

increases in runoff and pollutant loads. 

Biological Resources: Unavoidable loss of approximately 310 acres of vegetated areas, 

including several stands of mature oak trees, to accommodate incoming BRAC actions in 

a manner that would best serve the military mission at Fort Belvoir. 

Utilities: Unavoidable generation of about 10,176 tons of construction and demolition debris 

from the proposed action, which if not recycled would be disposed of in various landfill 

sites in the area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

4-476

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-1 

SECTION 5.0 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY 

CEQ regulations define a cumulative impact as “the impact on the environment which results 

from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions.” In accordance with these regulations the EIS examines the cumulative effects 

of these types of actions on Fort Belvoir and in Fairfax County. Adverse minor effects due to 

cumulative activities would be expected on the varied resources in and around Fort Belvoir. 

Section 5.1 discusses past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of 

Fort Belvoir. Sections 5.2 through 5.13 presents the effects of these actions on each resource 

area. Sections 5.14. discusses irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources and shortterm uses of man’s environment. Section 5.15 discuses maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity respectively. 

5.1 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS 

5.1.1 Past Actions—Fort Belvoir 

William Fairfax, builder of the Belvoir mansion, arrived in Virginia in the 1730s from 

Massachusetts. From 1734 to 1741, Fairfax assembled the property and constructed the dwelling 

complex at Belvoir Manor. In 1773 George William Fairfax, son of William Fairfax, left Belvoir 

for England. The Belvoir estate was rented and its furnishings were sold. In 1783 the mansion 

and several of its outbuildings were destroyed by fire, and the plantation complex gradually 

deteriorated into ruins. Belvoir Plantation was devastated further during the War of 1812. 

The U.S. Army began using the Belvoir peninsula as an engineer training facility in 1915 when 

the U.S. Army Engineer School began conducting summer training exercises there. America’s 

entry into World War I in April 1917 led to the first wave of military construction at the Virginia 

training site. Construction of the temporary cantonment, named Camp A.A. Humphreys in honor 

of Civil War Commander and former Chief of Engineers, Andrew A. Humphreys, began in 

January 1918 under very difficult conditions of extreme cold and unusually heavy snowfall. 

Some 5,000 Soldiers and 6,000 civilians cleared, surveyed, and constructed camp facilities in 

only 11 months. Through purchase or condemnation, the Army acquired additional acreage 

during 1917 and 1918. To supply the camp with building materials and other necessities, the 

unpaved Washington-Richmond Highway was surfaced in concrete, and a plank road was 

constructed that linked the camp to the Washington-Richmond Highway. Standard gauge and 

narrow gauge railways followed. Building these transportation systems not only facilitated 

deliveries to the camp, but provided engineer training experience for troops sent to the battle lines 

in Europe. Within only 4 months of the start of construction, Camp A.A. Humphreys was in full 

operation. At the end of the war in November 1918, Camp A.A. Humphreys became a 

demobilization center where troops were prepared for their return to civilian life. By the close of 

1919, more than 14,000 men had been demobilized at Camp A.A. Humphreys. The camp 

retained a small garrison after the war. 

The Army’s commitment to the post was demonstrated by the official relocation of the Engineer 

School from the Washington Barracks to Camp A.A. Humphreys in 1919, thereby becoming the 

“home” of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Following the Engineer School’s move, Camp 

A.A. Humphreys was designated a permanent post in 1922 and renamed Fort Humphreys. An 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-2 

addition to Fort Humphreys following World War I was the Engineer Board, which relocated 

there in 1924. The Engineer Board, forerunner of the Belvoir Research, Development, and 

Engineering Center, was founded in 1870 to test engineering equipment. Its establishment at Fort 

Belvoir marked the beginning of the installation’s role in military research and development. The 

landscape plan adopted for Fort Humphreys also exemplified Army efforts to improve the quality 

of life for its personnel and the aesthetic beauty of its installations. George B. Ford, planning 

advisor to the War Department during the 1920s, and Howard B. Nurse, Quartermaster Corps 

officer, advocated creating useful and aesthetically pleasing environments that took advantage of 

natural vistas and used irregular lines. The results of Nurse’s and Ford’s philosophies are most 

apparent in the configuration of the officers’ housing sections at Belvoir today. 

In 1935 the name of the installation was changed from Fort Humphreys to Fort Belvoir. The 

outbreak of war in Europe in 1939 motivated the United States to begin preparing for possible 

involvement in the war. To prepare engineers adequately for their wartime role, Fort Belvoir 

once again became one of the Army’s primary engineer training sites. To accommodate the 

influx of draftees after 1940, an additional 3,000 acres north of U.S. Route 1 were acquired to 

make room for the new Engineer Replacement Training Center. This included the acquisition 

EPG for testing of a wide range of engineering equipment. Following World War II, the engineer 

training role at Fort Belvoir waxed and waned according to wartime needs. In general, emphasis 

at Fort Belvoir in the 1950s began shifting from training to research and development. Activities 

on EPG dropped off after the 1950’s due to commercial and residential encroachment. A detailed 

history of EPG can be found in Section 4.2.1.2.6. Fort Belvoir remained the home of the 

Engineer School until 1988. Because of a shortage of land for training at Belvoir, the Engineer 

School relocated to Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, thus ending the 76-year association between 

the Engineer School and Belvoir. 

A remnant of the former engineering function of Fort Belvoir, the Humphreys Engineer Center 

(HEC) is owned by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and consists of 583 acres at the northeast 

corner of Fort Belvoir. In 1971, the Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) received a 

permit from Fort Belvoir to use the location as an experiment testing facility. In 1980, the 

property was formally transferred from Fort Belvoir to the civil works accounts of USACE, and 

in 1982, it was formally designated as the Humphreys Engineer Center. Today, the installation 

houses approximately 1,000 employees that work for several tenant organizations, both Corps and 

non-Corps. 

Although its role as an engineer training center diminished after the move, Fort Belvoir continues 

to fulfill an important and valuable role today. The post is one of the larger installations in the 

MDW, which also includes Fort McNair, Fort Myer, Fort Meade, and Fort Detrick. The post’s 

present mission is to operate and maintain the installation; execute mobilization requirements, 

military operations, and contingency/force protection missions; and to provide essential 

administrative and basic operations support to its tenant organizations. Fort Belvoir houses 

tenants from all armed forces, as well as such Department of Defense agencies as the Defense 

Logistics Agency (realigned to Fort Belvoir under 1991 BRAC Law), Defense Systems 

Management College and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency College. During this 

same time peroid, AMC, DCEETA, and INSCOM relocated to Fort Belvoir. Other recent actions 

include the ongoing Residential Communities Initiative (RCI), which involves the demolition and 

replacement of 1,900 homes and the renovation of 170 historically significant homes on Fort 

Belvoir. To carry out its missions effectively, Fort Belvoir has evolved from a traditional military 

installation to a more broad-based community installation. Today, Fort Belvoir functions in 

many ways like a small city, with its own ordinances, land use plan, building codes, utilities, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-3 

public parks, and academic institutions. In addition, more than one-third of the installation’s 

acreage has been preserved as a designated wildlife sanctuary. 

5.1.2 Past Actions – Fairfax County 

Fairfax County, formed in 1742 from the northern part of Prince William County, is named for 

Thomas Fairfax, sixth Lord of Fairfax Cameron (1693–1781), proprietor of the Northern Neck. 

Located near Washington, DC, Fairfax County was an important region in the Civil War. The 

war greatly disrupted commercial activities in the county. Both sides seized railroads and 

businesses, and raided and burned farms. Troops shut down business establishments depending 

upon the proprietors’ sympathies and the troops involved. Once the war came to an end in April 

1865, the economic rebuilding of the county began quickly; but the traditional lifestyle of preCivil War Fairfax County never returned. In 1870 Virginia was readmitted to the Union. By that 

time, the economy of the county had substantially recovered from the war. Despite such growth, 

Fairfax County in 1870 was still mainly a rural, farm-oriented society, even while doubling its 

population by 1930. 

The county’s history from 1930 to the present is characterized as a period of growth as reflected 

by its population increase. The start of the shift in the county’s population began in the early 

1930s when Franklin D. Roosevelt’s tenure as president saw increases in federal programs and 

bureaus. Additional employees to administer and staff the new programs and bureaus settled in 

Fairfax County because the automobile provided increased mobility, and the county offered a less 

hectic lifestyle than the inner city. The pace of growth in the county picked up in the 1940s 

during World War II and through the 1950s and 1960s as the federal government expanded 

employment to meet the war emergency, the job needs of veterans, and the creation of more 

programs and bureaus. By 1970 Fairfax County’s total population stood at over 454,000. While 

federal employment growth still continued in the 1970s and 1980s, much of the county’s growth 

during this period can be attributed to private economic interests. Because of private industry’s 

increasing need to understand and monitor federal actions aimed at the marketplace, many 

corporations and industry groups began to feel a need for a presence in the Washington, DC, area 

during the 1970s. Encouraged by Fairfax County’s growth, many firms and organizations located 

offices here. 

Substantial growth during the past 70 years has caused broad changes in Fairfax County. The 

county has changed from a rural, agriculturally oriented society to an urban, business-oriented 

one. While this growth has altered the county’s lifestyle, it has also provided county residents 

with one of the highest standards of living in the world. The economy has also made Fairfax 

County one of the wealthiest counties in the nation. It has the second highest median household 

income ($94,610) behind its neighbor Loudoun County (to the west) as well as the lowest 

homicide rate (0.3/100,000 population) of all jurisdictions in the United States. Fairfax County 

has an estimated population of 1,041,200, making it by far the most populous county in Virginia. 

The county has a total area of 407 square miles, of which 12 square miles is water and a 

population density of 2,455 persons per square mile. The government is the largest employer 

with Fort Belvoir being the county’s single largest employer, and Fairfax residents make up 37 

percent of employees on the installation. 

5.1.3 Recent and Future Actions 

The single most relevant contemporary event affecting cumulative effects analysis occurred on 

September 11, 2001, when terrorists hijacked U.S. airliners and flew them into buildings in New 

York and the Pentagon. That event led to the United States’ commencement of Operation 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-4 

Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the undertaking of transformation. It also 

affected Army doctrine concerning the provision of force protection to all military and civilian 

personnel. The selection of Fort Belvoir as the site for military functions within the NCR is, in 

large part, an outcome directly related to the events of September 11, 2001. 

Other major BRAC actions in the vicinity of Fort Belvoir and the NCR include realignment of the 

following Department of Defense installations: Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia; Walter 

Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) and Bolling Air Force Base in Washington DC; and Fort 

Detrick and Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head in Maryland. Of the ones listed, 

WRAMC is the only closing installation. These installations were shown in Figure 1-3. Office 

space that is currently being leased by DoD and related contractors in the NCR would also be 

affected by BRAC, most notably Crystal City leased space in Arlington County. Out of the 

17,000 jobs expected to vacate Arlington County by 2011 under the 2005 BRAC law, 13,000 of 

these would come out of Crystal City. The leased space vacated by DoD agencies relocating to 

Fort Belvoir and elsewhere under BRAC would be expected to be backfilled with office workers 

similar to what occurred in Crystal City upon the departure of the Naval Sea Systems Command 

in the late 1990s and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2003 (BRAC Commission, 2005; 

Hart, 2007). Some government contractors’ offices would also be expected to relocate to the 

vicinity of Fort Belvoir following BRAC realignment at the installation. 

The sections that follow identify numerous other on-post and off-post actions that, in conjunction 

with the proposed action, have potential for creating cumulative effects. 

5.1.3.1 Other Proposed Projects on Fort Belvoir 

In addition to the 20 projects identified in Section 2.2.2, the Army foresees there being another 32 

projects at the installation. These 32 non-BRAC projects range from small-scale projects 

involving only renovations of existing buildings to large projects involving the construction of 

new sizeable structures. Chief among this latter category would be proposals such as the National 

Museum of the U.S. Army and associated Museum Support Center, the expansion of the 

Information Dominance Center, and a potential Army Reserve complex. The numerous smaller 

projects would occur on-post as new facilities or, in several instances, as renovations of existing 

facilities. Each of these projects would undergo or have already undergone their own NEPA 

process. A list of these 32 on-post projects can be found in Table 5-1 and their proposed 

locations are found on Figure 5-1. 

Table 5-1 

Other proposed on-post cumulative construction and renovation projects 

Map 

number 

Project 

number Project title Proposed site 

Fiscal 

year 

Size 

(ft2

) 

1 62297 Woodlawn 

Connector Roada Sited on forested area with forested areas on all sides 

2006–

2008 

n/a 

2 61458 Religious Education 

Center 

Sited on semi-forested field with 

fields to the north, Residential area 

to the east, Community areas to the 

south and west 

2010 18,000 

3 64231 Physical Fitness 

Center (Troop 

Cantonment Area) 

Sited on existing Community area 

with fields and Community areas to 

the north, fields and Residential area 

to the east, forested area and 

Community area to the south, Abbott 

Road and forested area to the west 

2007 150,800 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-5 

Table 5-1 

Other proposed on-post cumulative construction and 

renovation projects (continued)

Map 

number 

Project 

number Project title Proposed site 

Fiscal 

year 

Size

(ft2

) 

4 54897 Marina 

Modernization and 

Dogue Creek 

Dredginga

Sited on existing marina with 

Residential area to the north and 

east, Potomac River to the south, 

River inlet and forested area to the 

west 

2008 6,900 

5 65218 Expand Main Post 

Library 

Sited on semi-forested field with 

Residential area to the north, semiforested area to the east, Parking 

lots and athletic fields to the south, 

Community area to the west 

2007 24,500 

6 65314 Expand Recreation 

Center 

Sited on existing Community area 

with athletic fields to the north, 

Belvoir Road forested area and 

athletic fields to the east, parking 

areas and Professional/Institutional 

areas to the south and west 

2008 10,500 

7 63815 Administrative 

Building PEO Soldier 

Sited on forested area with 

Professional/Institutional area to the 

north and west, forested area to the 

east and south 

2009 68,000 

8 56184 JPRA 

Renovation/Addition 

(Building 358) 

Sited on forested area with forested 

area to the north and west, forested 

area and Professional/Institutional 

area to the east and south 

TBD 87,742 

9 62539 Vet Clinic Addition Sited on forested area and field with 

Warren Road and forested area to 

the north, forested area to the east 

and south, open field to the west 

TBD 9,950 

10 58697 Museum Support 

Center (MSC)a Sited on semi-forested field with 

Route 1 and athletic fields to the 

north, forested area to the east, Fort 

Belvoir Community Club to the south, 

Belvoir Road and golf course to the 

west 

2007 124,800 

11 50356 Installation Industrial 

Support Center 

Sited on field with Industrial area to 

the north, forested buffer and 

Industrial area to the east, south, and 

west 

2010 53,000 

12 59554 Battalion 

Headquarters for 

249th Engineer 

Battalion 

Sited on Industrial area with Pohick 

Road and forested area to the north 

Residential area to the east, forested 

area to the south and west 

2008 14,600 

13 63035 Shoppette with Gas, 

Burger King, Car 

Wash (South Post) 

Sited on semi-forested field with 

Residential area to the north, 

Community area to the east, 

Industrial area to the south and west 

TBD 7,200 

14 65139 Expand 

Arts/Craft/Auto 

Sited on a field with fields and 

Professional/Institutional areas to the 

north, semi-forested land to the east 

and south, forested area to the west 

2008 13,000 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-6 

Table 5-1 

Other proposed on-post cumulative construction and 

renovation projects (continued)

Map 

number 

Project 

number Project title Proposed site 

Fiscal 

year 

Size

(ft2

) 

15 n/a D.C. National Guard 

(DCNG) Resources 

Training Center 

Sited on parking area with parking 

area and forested area to the north, 

barracks to the east, vehicle storage 

to the south, forested area to the 

west 

2007 20,000 

16 62134 DLA Receiving and 

Screening Facility 

Sited on field and parking lot with 

Kingman Road and forested area to 

the north, highly developed 

Professional/Institutional area to the 

west and south, forested area to the 

west 

2007 14,800 

17 65317 Golf Clubhouse/Cart 

Storage 

Sited on forested area with golf 

course on north, east and west, 

Clubhouse to the south 

2007 < 5,000 

18 63206 Addition to Military 

Police (MP) Station 

Sited on field with forested area to 

the north, Community buildings to 

the east, south, and west 

TBD < 5,000 

19 55523/52694 Potomac Heritage 

National Scenic Trail 

Sited on forested area with forested 

area to the north, east, and south, 

Residential area to the west 

2007 n/a 

20 57495 Soldier Support 

Center 

Sited on fields and forested area with 

forested area to the north, 

Community areas the east and 

south, forested area to the west 

2011 68,700 

21 65141 Expand Bowling 

Center 

2007 11,550 

22 57837/51326 South Post Fitness 

Facility & 

Multipurpose Fields 

Sited on South Post parking lots and 

athletic fields with Community area 

to the north, Athletic fields and 

Professional/ Institutional area to the 

east, athletic fields and community 

area to the south, Gunston Road and 

Industrial area to the west 

2011 95,300 

23 61453 Replace South Post 

Fire Station 

Sited on existing fire station with 

semi-forested area and Gunston 

Road to the north, Residential area 

to the east, semi-forested area and 

Professional/Institutional to the 

south, forested area and field to the 

west 

TBD 17,800 

24 64742 Construct Shoppette 

(EPG) 

2007 17,400 

25 64230 Physical Fitness 

Center (EPG) 

Sited on forested area on EPG with 

mature hardwoods and young pines, 

scattered cleared areas, 1 active 

Professional/Institutional building and 

several abandoned buildings with 

tree buffer and Residential area to 

the north, I-95 to the east, forested 

area and Industrial area to the south, 

forested area to the west 

2010 70,800 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-7 

Table 5-1 

Other proposed on-post cumulative construction and 

renovation projects (continued)

Map 

number 

Project 

number Project title Proposed site 

Fiscal 

year 

Size 

(ft2

) 

26 58466 Museum of the U.S. 

Army Alternative 

Locations: 

(A) North Post; (B) 

Pence Gatea 

North Post: Sited on Fort Belvoir golf 

course with Snyder Road and 

landscaped golf course to the north, 

Beulah Street and forested area to 

the east, forested area and Kingman 

Road to the south, residential area to 

the northwest, and forested area and 

Fairfax County Parkway to the west. 

Pence Gate: Sited on open semiforested field with Route 1 and 

athletic fields to the north, forested 

area to the east, forested area and 

Professional/Institutional to the 

south, Belvoir Road and golf course 

to the west 

TBD 300,300 

27 n/a DCEETA Remote 

Delivery Facilitya Sited on semi-forested field with Route 1 and athletic fields to the 

north, forested area to the east, 

forested area and Professional/ 

Institutional to the south, Belvoir 

Road and golf course to the west 

2007 99,000 

28 n/a Davison Army 

Airfield Flight Control 

Tower 

Sited on existing Control Tower 

location with Airfield-related fields 

and structures in all directions 

2007 n/a 

29 n/a Operations Training 

Facility 

Sited on forested area with forested 

area to the north, east, south, and 

west 

TBD 130,000 

30 n/a Fairfax County 

Parkway Extensiona Sited on hardwood forest with 

forested area and Residential area to 

the north and west, forested area 

and highly developed Professional/ 

Institutional area to the east, forested 

area and Industrial area to the south 

TBD n/a 

31 n/a Information 

Dominance Centera Sited on Professional/Institutional area with forested areas to the north 

and east, developed Professional 

/Institutional to the south and west 

TBD 300,000 

32 64531 PX Expansiona Sited on Commercial area and 

forested area with forested areas to 

the north and south, athletic fields 

and a school to the east, developed 

commercial area to the west 

TBD 186,300 

a

Projects in which compliance with NEPA has already been completed or is underway. 

The Army Museum has been proposed to be located on Fort Belvoir. This action is considered in 

addition to the BRAC action, thus it is assessed as a cumulative effect. Assuming that the 

Museum is built in accordance with Fort Belvoir’s proposed land use plan, it would have to be 

constructed on land with a Community land use designation. Based on the size of the Museum 

project, only three sites have been identified as likely sites for it: the northwest corner of EPG, a 

portion of the North Post golf course, and a site east of Pence Gate on the South Post. One of 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-9 

these, the EPG site, is not considered practicable because of the amount of BRAC development 

already planned for the site. For purposes of this analysis, therefore, only the cumulative effects 

of the North Post golf course and Pence Gate sites are considered. Additional NEPA analysis 

will be conducted in order to select the site of the Museum and evaluate the impacts of its design 

options. 

5.1.3.2 Off-Post Proposed Projects 

There are 187 off-post non-Army projects planned within 3 miles of Fort Belvoir, as shown in 

Figure 5-2 (Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning, 2006). Many of these are small 

in scale and would have only a negligible effect on the environment as a whole. A summary of 

off-post projects and a summary of land uses associated with these projects are presented in 

Section 4.2.1.5. Twenty projects are at least 25 acres in size and listed in Table 5-2. A complete 

list of the off-post cumulative projects is provided in Appendix H. There are also a number of 

major proposed projects outside the 3-mile area (VDOT, 2006; GWI, 2006). These include the 

following: 

• McLane Foodservice: Construction of distribution facility (Prince William County) 

• EnviroSolutions: Relocation of headquarters to area (Prince William County) 

• PowerLoft: Data center under construction in new tech park (Prince William County) 

• Multiple housing developments under construction in Prince William County (future 

projects would be postponed for one year because of a moratorium on new housing 

construction (Dwyer, 2006). 

• Springfield Interchange (Under Construction) 

• Route 123 Bridge over the Occoquan River (Under Construction) 

• Woodrow Wilson Bridge (Under Construction) 

• Rolling Road widening to four lanes near Old Keene Mill Road (Route 644) 

• I-95/395/495 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes 

• Construction of a high-capacity electrical transmission line in northern Virginia by 

Dominion Virginia Power. 

5.2 LAND USE 

5.2.1 On-Post Development Not Related to BRAC 

Negligible cumulative effects on land use would be expected from implementing previously 

planned projects for Fort Belvoir. In general, the on-post cumulative projects would be 

compatible with existing land use or those associated with the proposed alternatives for BRAC 

actions. 

The Army has 32 previously planned and approved projects slated for development around the 

same time as the 2011 BRAC actions slated to occur by 2011. The potential total build-out gross 

square footage amounts to about 1.5 million gross square feet (gsf), most of it in new 

construction. These approved/programmed projects would appear in the planned update to the 

installation Master Plan. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-11 

Table 5-2 

Proposed off-post projects over 25 acres within 3 miles of Fort Belvoir 

Map 

number 

Project 

number Project name Land use type Proposed site 

Total 

acres

69 006510-

SP-002-1 

South Run Recreational 

Center Fitness Center 

Addition 

Community Sited on forested area with 

forested area and fields to the 

north, I-95 to the east and south, 

forested area to the west 

182.3

185 05-IV-10S Mixed Use Development: 

1,420 Res'd Units, 262K Inst., 

1.31 M Office, 1.15 M Retail, 

24 Acre Pvt. Rec/Open Space 

Option: 2,840 Res'd Units, 

524K Inst., 2.62 M Office, 2.3 

M Retail, 48 Acre Pvt. 

Rec/Open Space 

Residential, 

Commercial 

Sited on forested area and fields 

with Residential area and 

forested area to the north and 

east, Commercial area to the 

south, I-95 to the west 

160.5

33 009465-

SP-002-2 

Mount Vernon Country Club 

Golf Course Improvements 

Community Sited on golf course with 

Residential area to the north east 

and south, Residential area and 

forested area to the west 

127.7

186 05-IV-6S 848 Office OR 556K Industrial Professional/ 

Institutional or 

Industrial 

Sited on fields with Commercial 

area to the north, Residential 

area to the east, Telegraph Road 

and Davison Airfield to the south, 

forested area to the west 

117.8

144 001811-

SD-001-2 

Occoquan Overlook Residential Sited on forested area and 

Residential area with Residential 

area and forested area to the 

north, Residential area to the 

east, Industrial area to the south, 

and forested area to the west 

100.6

182 PA-506-

IV-SI 

Springfield Mall—Mixed Use 

2M ft2

 Retail, 1M ft2 Office, 

200K ft2

 Hotel (300 Rooms), 

2,400 Residential Units 

Commercial Sited on Commercial area with 

Commercial and Residential 

areas to the north, east, and 

south, Commercial and I-95 to 

the west 

82.0

153 001183-

SP-006-2 

South County High School Community Sited on forested area with 

forested and Residential area to 

the north, Residential area to the 

east, forested area to the south 

and west 

69.4

172 006839-

SP-004-2 

Cook Inlet Residential Section 

Three 

Residential Sited on forested and Residential 

area with Residential area in all 

directions 

60.6

78 001183-

SP-014-1 

Lorton Work House (Art) Community Sited on former correctional 

facility with forested area and 

fields to the north, east, and 

south, Route 123 to the west 

52.1

151 001183-

SP-004-2 

Laurel Hill South Landbays E 

And F, Section 1 

Residential Sited on forested area with 

Residential area to the north, 

forested area to the east, south, 

and west 

48.0

59 001183-

SP-015-1 

Spring Hill Senior Campus 

Senior Housing Building 

Residential Sited on fields with fields to the 

north and west, correctional 

facility to the east and south 

46.8
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-12 

Table 5-2 

Proposed off-post projects over 25 acres within 3 miles of Fort Belvoir (continued)

Map 

number 

Project 

number Project name 

Land use 

type Proposed site 

Total 

acres 

29 001183-

SP-011-2 

Laurel Hill Golf Course Expansion Community Sited on a field with Community 

area to the north, fields and 

forested area to the east, 

Residential area and forested area 

to the south and west 

42.0

177 009754-

SP-006-2 

Gunston Commerce Center Land 

Bay C 

Commercial Sited on forested area with 

forested area to the north, fields to 

the east, Residential and forested 

area to the south, forested area 

and Route 1 to the west 

39.9

104 005466-

SD-001-2 

Lakewood Hills Section 10 Phase I Residential Sited on forested area with 

Residential areas in all directions 

35.1

150 001183-

SD-007-2 

Laurel Hill South Landbay D 

Section 2 (MV) 

Residential Sited on forested area with 

Residential and forested area to 

the north, south, and west, fields 

to the east 

33.2

152 001183-

SP-005-2 

Laurel Hill South Landbay E And F 

Section 2 

Residential 

and 

Commercial 

Sited on forested area with 

Residential area to the north and 

forested areas to the east, south, 

and west 

33.1

143 001100-

SD-001-2 

Nirvana Palace Unknown Sited on semi-forested area with 

fields to the north, east, and south, 

Community area to the west 

30.3

100 009163-

SD-006-2 

Highgrove Estates Section 5 Residential Semi-forested area with 

Residential area to the north, 

Industrial area to the east, I-495 to 

the south, Commercial and 

Residential area to the west 

26.9

95 004478-

SD-001-2 

Adkins Property Residential Sited on forested area with 

Residential areas to the north, 

south, and west, Commercial area 

to the east 

25.7

Source: Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning, 2006. 

The Museum of the U.S. Army and attendant Museum Support Center (MSC) are in the planning 

stages. Various sites are under consideration for both facilities. The candidate sites for the 

Museum include the North Post Golf Course as the preferred site and Pence Gate as the 

alternative site. The MSC is being considered at Pence Gate (the preferred site) and Tracy Loop 

on the South Post. All these sites are expected to be generally compatible with the proposed land 

use plan. 

The ultimate use of EPG will not be known until the ROD for this EIS is signed, which would 

select a BRAC implementation alternative.

5.2.2 Off-Post Development 

Negligible adverse and beneficial long-term effects on land use would be expected. The 

cumulative land use effects of gradual implementation of the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-13 

over the next 5 years would be negligible if all approved/programmed roadway improvements are 

realized. 

The key factors that could affect cumulative land use changes for planning districts adjacent to 

Fort Belvoir are summarized below. 

Lower Potomac District. Future developments southward along the Route 1/I-95 corridor into 

Prince William County are an essential component of the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan. 

The most notable development in the district is the Laurel Hill planned unit development on the 

3,000-acre former Lorton Prison property. This development is to be a phased operation over a 

decade or more and will not likely lead to changes in land use categories or cumulative effects in 

any way associated with developments on Fort Belvoir. Master planning for the adaptive reuse of 

Laurel Hill is underway. 

Mount Vernon District. The character of the Mount Vernon Planning District, described in 

Section 4.2.1.4.1, is likely to change because Fairfax County desires to intensify development on 

the U.S. Route 1 corridor without infringing on the historic richness of the corridor. The increased 

focus on the potential value on this stretch of Route 1 in the ROI meets with the approval of the 

Southeast Fairfax Development Corporation (SFDC) and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. 

Fairfax County’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that vacant lots adjacent to the Fort Belvoir 

boundary, between Sacramento Drive and Old Mill Road, be planned for residential development 

at a density of 16–20 dwelling units/acre. This recommendation involves a significant planned 

development density to include substantial open space and recreational areas as well as a 

comprehensive pedestrian circulation network. 

Rose Hill District. Cumulative land use effects in Rose Hill are entirely dependent on 

developments in Kingstowne. There exists a considerable amount of undeveloped acreage in the 

planned community, which has been designated for preservation. Therefore, the extent of 

Kingstowne’s contribution to cumulative land use effects is expected to be confined mainly to the 

roadway network that serves it and Fort Belvoir. Fairfax County’s Long-Range Transportation 

Plan accounts for extensive planned unit development infill in Kingstowne and associated 

increases in daily traffic volume. The Kingstowne Community Business Center (CBC) is 

envisioned as a major employment center with a substantial component of high-end (Class A) 

office space, similar to the Reston Town Center. Most of the planning district is slated for 

development as suburban neighborhoods, comprising mixed housing and supporting commercial 

and institutional uses. A large part of the planning district is public parkland, including Huntley 

Meadows, which is to be preserved. 

Springfield District. The notable and major development projects within several miles of Fort 

Belvoir, described in Section 4.2.1.5, are clustered along the Springfield-Franconia Parkway close 

to inter-modal transport nodes. The other long- and short-term projects identified by the county, 

and SFDC are scattered throughout the district and strung out along Route 1. As long as roadway 

improvements are built, the Springfield District contribution to cumulative effects on land use 

should be minor in this intensely developed area north and east of Fort Belvoir. 

5.3 TRANSPORTATION 

5.3.1 Army Museum Siting 

Each of the two museum sitings will have various effects on the transportation system, as well as 

effects on the four land use alternatives under consideration. The sitings for the Museum are 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-14 

North Post Golf Course and adjacent to Pence Gate on South Post. The museum expects a total 

of one million visitors annually, or a peak of 4,000 visitors in a day. The museum also has a staff 

of approximately 150 people. To quantify the effects of the museum on the transportation 

system, trip generation and mode split need to be developed for site traffic. Typical museums 

have the majority of their visitors on the weekend and do not generate visitor traffic during the 

morning peak period but are open for a portion, if not all, of the evening peak period. Thus, a 

museum would likely generate only staff trips during the morning but include both staff and some 

visitor trips in the evening. Table 5-3 presents the assumptions and expected trips generated 

during the AM and PM peak hours. 

A large percent of visitor arrivals to a museum occur via buses (tour, school, or public transit), 

and this trend is also assumed for the Army Museum. It is expected that an approximate total of 

50 vehicles trips would occur during the AM peak hour. This volume is insignificant to the 

traffic flows along the Fairfax County Parkway or Route 1, which would be the primary access 

points to the museum site. The expected traffic volumes generated by the site would be 

approximately 300 to 320 vehicles in the PM peak hour. Thus, the effect during both peak 

periods would be minor with no significant effects, provided the mitigation measures to the 

transportation system identified for each of the land use alternatives were implemented. Truck 

traffic destined to the museum site, such as delivery trucks, would likely occur outside the peak 

periods, so the effect on traffic flow would not be significant. 

Table 5-3 

Peak hour vehicular trips for museum 

 AM peak hour PM peak hour 

Employees 150 150 

% Employees absent 5% 5% 

Daily reporting employees 143 143 

Employee trips occurring in the peak hour 40% 38% 

Peak hour employee trips 57 54 

LOV person (employee) trips (88%) 50 48 

HOV person (employee) trips (8%) 5 4 

Transit person (employees) trips (3%) 2 2 

Other (1%) 1 1 

Vehicle trips (employees) 47 45 

 AM peak hour PM peak hour 

Daily Visitors 4,000 4,000 

Visitors trips occurring in the peak hour 0 33% 

Peak hour visitors trips 0 1,333 

LOV trips (10%) n/a 133 

HOV person trips (30%) n/a 400 

Transit person trips (58%)a n/a 773 

Other (2%) n/a 27 

Vehicle trips (Visitors) 0 246 

Bus trips (Visitors) 0 20 

Total site trips 47 311 

a Includes tour buses, school buses, and public transit. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-15 

Under the proposed siting of the Museum on the North Post golf course, several access plans 

have been proposed from the public roadway system. First, an access could be provided off of 

Fairfax County Parkway between John J. Kingman Road and Telegraph Road. This new 

intersection would, however, likely not be possible due to the spacing of these adjacent roadways. 

Also, the Fairfax County transportation plans call for upgrading intersections along the corridor to 

interchanges, thus continuity of the corridor would be disrupted with a signalized intersection 

between the two new interchanges. Alternatively, access to the Museum site could be located 

along John J. Kingman Road; this location would place the access near the entrance to the DLA 

building and Kingman Gate. Security issues could arise under this configuration, which may 

require some additional improvements. 

The proposed siting of the Museum on South Post is near Pence Gate, along the east side of 

Belvoir Road. This site is directly across the street from the proposed Hospital siting under the 

Preferred Alternative. Additional improvements may be needed along Belvoir Road. 

5.3.2 Other Project Sitings 

Many of the other on-post cumulative projects are modernization and renovation projects or 

projects that would relocate activities within the existing developed area of the Main Post. The 

PX Expansion project would likely generate more trips due to increased services; however, these 

trips would be drawn from the existing clientele and would occur outside of the peak periods of 

travel. Taken together, they would be expected to have negligible effects on Fort Belvoir area 

traffic no matter which BRAC alternative would be implemented. Any impacts on the 

transportation network that are associated with the off-post projects (see Section 5.1.3.2) would 

be mitigated through roadway improvements by the developers of the off-post projects. As the 

No Action Alternative baseline assumed Year 2011 conditions, those off-post developments and 

associated impacts are already incorporated into the transportation analysis. The MWCOG 

regional travel demand model and Round 7 Cooperative Land Use Forecast were used to develop 

future traffic volumes used in the analyses. The land use within the Round 7 data also accounts 

for future growth. 

5.4 AIR QUALITY 

The proposed cumulative projects would have minimal long-term adverse effects on the region’s 

air quality. Other construction and development projects would occur within the National Capital 

Region (NCR), and each of the projects would produce some measurable amounts of air 

pollutants. The effects of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the region and 

associated emissions are taken into account during the development of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This includes all on- and off-post projects including National Museum of the U.S. 

Army. Estimated emissions generated by all the alternatives would conform to the SIP. 

Therefore, by definition, the net effects of the BRAC action at Fort Belvoir in addition to all other 

collectively identified cumulative projects would not contribute to significant adverse cumulative 

air quality effects. 

The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), along with the NCR 

Transportation Planning Board, are responsible for developing conformity demonstrations for 

transportation plans and programs within this area. This includes all planned transportation 

projects in the region. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Constrained Long 

Range Plan (CLRP) for the Washington Metropolitan Region contain a list of all proposed 

transportation projects to be built in the region. The transportation conformity demonstration for 

these plans evaluates the ability of the transportation project inventory contained in the TIP and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-16 

CLRP, emission controls, and subsequent mobile emissions budget ability to comply with the 

SIP. Because the 2005 BRAC action at Fort Belvoir is not an approved transportation project, 

transportation conformity is not required. Vehicle emissions were included in the emission 

estimations and in the general conformity demonstration. It would be necessary for MWCOG to 

include the changes in vehicle patterns for all actions in the region when developing the new TIP 

and CLRP. 

5.5 NOISE 

Implementing any of the alternatives would have negligible ongoing or cumulative effects on the 

noise environment because of construction or changes in traffic in or around the site. The 

construction activities associated with these alternatives would be temporary in nature and the 

current noise environment would return after the projects’ completion. The past, current, and 

reasonably foreseeable noise environment in and around the proposed site is dominated by 

existing and future traffic noise without the Preferred Alternative. The change in noise for all 

New Source Reviews (NSRs) and all alternatives would be below barely perceptible levels from 

future noise environments under the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative includes 

naturally occurring future growth in traffic because of other activities in the area. This estimated 

growth would be due to the on- and off-post projects outlined above including the Army 

Museum. In addition any transportation upgrades would more than likely improve traffic flow 

and traffic noise impacts. This approach naturally takes into account cumulative changes in the 

noise environment. 

5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects proposed for Fort Belvoir and the immediate 

vicinity could result in localized changes to topography and minimal effects on geology. Soils in 

the area would undergo short- and long-term to permanent impacts depending on the nature of the 

disturbance. 

Overall, the topography of Fort Belvoir and the surrounding area would not change as a result of 

any of the BRAC-related projects in concert with previous or reasonably foreseeable actions. The 

area’s plateaus and drainages will remain intact. Minor and localized changes would occur as a 

result of any construction project that involved leveling the ground; however, the extent of these 

changes would not produce cumulative effects. 

The geology of the area would not experience adverse cumulative effects. The construction of 

roads and infrastructure on EPG under the Preferred Alternative and City Center Alternative 

combined with the Fairfax County Parkway extension may require some blasting of the bedrock 

and removal or burial of unconsolidated geologic materials. However, because of the of the 

nature and depth of bedrock, none of these activities would be expected to influence the geology 

of the area. 

Soils throughout the project area would undergo short- and long-term adverse cumulative effects. 

Urban and Cut and Fill soils have already been affected by development so in cases of 

redevelopment the impact to these soil types has already occurred. With native soils the effects 

related to construction would generally be minor and generally limited to the areas directly 

disturbed by those activities. The Museum of the US Army, its Support Center and the Fairfax 

County Parkway extension would all result in the permanent loss of the soil resource directly 

under the impervious surfaces. However, portions of these projects would occur on soils 

previously affected (Urban soils) and impacts to native soils would be localized. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-17 

Short-term effects would result from temporary disturbances such as the installation of utility 

lines associated with most development projects. These activities would result in effects such as 

a temporary loss of soil productivity and the potential for introducing noxious species. Shortterm secondary and indirect effects could result from an increase in the amount of sediments 

carried to the local creeks and streams in storm water runoff. Short-term adverse effects would 

be controlled by implementing the Commonwealth-required standard erosion control BMPs that 

have been developed to minimize the amount of sediment carried off construction sites. Slope 

stabilization would further reduce adverse effects over the long term. 

Off-post past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects would have similar types of impacts as 

those described above for on-post projects except over a broader scale. None of the projects 

considered in the cumulative impacts analysis are likely to contribute to a significant cumulative 

impact in terms of topography or geology. Likewise, assuming that regulatory requirements are 

followed, the soil resource should experience localized effects that would be both short- and longterm. 

It should be noted what could be considered a significant cumulative effect on the soil resource 

has already occurred, that being the general loss of the applicability of the prime and unique 

farmland designation. While the characteristics of these highly productive soils remain in place 

until directly impacted, the agricultural setting in Fairfax County has been lost through continued 

progression of the suburban landscape. The prime and unique characterization does not apply to 

soils occurring outside of an agricultural context such as those in suburban Fairfax County. The 

current and reasonable foreseeable future activities would not have a bearing on this loss due to 

the degree of development that has already occurred. 

5.7 WATER RESOURCES 

Minor adverse long-term effects on water resources would be expected due to cumulative actions. 

Various other on-post and off-post proposed development projects in the vicinity of Fort Belvoir 

would potentially increase storm water runoff from paved surfaces and nonpoint source pollutants 

(e.g., sediment, nutrients, petroleum hydrocarbons) in the area. All identified projects within the 

watersheds that drain Fort Belvoir are listed in Table F-3 in Appendix F (i.e. the Army Museum 

is considered with other non-BRAC projects and is located in the Accotink Creek Watershed) and 

Table F-4 lists projects situated in other watersheds not included in the cumulative effects 

analysis. 

A cumulative effects analysis was conducted using Generalized Watershed Loading Model 

(GWLF) to estimate potential changes in average annual flow volume and pollutant loads as a 

result of the change in impervious surface area in each watershed. 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). The percent change in 

average annual flow volume and nutrient loading in the forms of Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total 

Phosphorus (TP) for each watershed are presented in Table 5-4. 

As shown in the table, increases in flow volume and nutrient loadings are not expected to be 

significant at the watershed scale. Appropriate required storm water management designs would 

be expected to minimize the adverse effects of increased storm water and nonpoint source 

pollutants, and additional mitigation measures that permit infiltration are recommended for 

implementation on a watershed basis to limit cumulative effects to waterbodies within these 

watersheds and receiving waters downstream. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-18 

Table 5-4 

Cumulative percent increase in flow volume, TN, and TP loads 

Watershed 

Percentage increase 

in average annual 

flow volume 

Percentage 

increase in TP 

Percentage 

increase in TN 

Accotink Creek 5% 4% 5% 

Direct drainages 5% 1% 2% 

Dogue Creek 6% 2% 6% 

Pohick Creek 3% 3% 4% 

5.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Long-term moderate adverse cumulative effects would be expected. Cumulative natural resource 

effects of the proposed on-post non-BRAC projects such as the RCI housing project and the 

Army Museum would generally adversely affect the post’s biological resources. Proposed on-post 

non-BRAC projects and off-post projects would further diminish the availability of forest and 

field habitats on and off the installation, and increase the possibility of occurrences of invasive 

species, edge effects on habitats, and habitat fragmentation under the Preferred Alternative and all 

other alternatives. 

Non-BRAC projects proposed on the eastern half of EPG would likely have little cumulative 

effect because they would be located in an area that would be developed under the alternatives 

considered in the EIS. The on-post non-BRAC project on the western half of EPG, the Fairfax 

County Parkway extension, could disturb habitat for the small whorled pogonia and could, 

through edge effect, soil erosion, and habitat fragmentation, diminish the value of the habitat 

where the species is found on western EPG. The project could also reduce the amount of habitat 

of one or more Partners in Flight (PIF) species and directly or indirectly affect wetlands. In 

addition, clearing and grubbing of about 36 acres on EPG as part of on-going environmental 

corrective action activities have reduced the amount of habitat on EPG. These effects by 

themselves would be of some concern because of the status of EPG as a vestige of natural area in 

an otherwise highly developed region. 

5.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

As described in Section 4.9, long-term direct minor adverse effects on national, state, and county 

registered historic properties both on- and off-post would be expected from the four alternatives. 

The sustained demand by the resulting increased population on the region’s infrastructure would 

likely result in additional projects to improve transportation, housing, utilities, public services, 

and the local economy’s ability to meet consumer demand. These indirectly associated projects 

would also likely result in adverse effects to historic properties and their settings. Many of these 

projects would also include measures to mitigate effects to historic properties in compliance with 

federal and state regulations. 

These direct and indirect and their effects would be in addition to existing modern developments 

that have already affected the region’s historic properties. Also, increasing urbanization in the 

surrounding cities and counties, as exhibited by past and proposed future projects on and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-19 

approved future projects surrounding Fort Belvoir, would likely contribute to more effects on 

these historic properties. 

The BRAC-related projects would have a minor adverse effect on the region’s historic properties. 

However, when the effects to these properties and the effects that would likely occur from the 

expanding population and subsequent improvements to the local infrastructure are added to the 

effects that past development in the region has already had, the cumulative impact to cultural 

resources would be noticeable and moderate. 

5.10 SOCIOECONOMICS 

5.10.1 Economic Development 

Short- and long-term beneficial and adverse cumulative effects would be expected. The past 

action of the establishment and continued operation of Fort Belvoir continues to have positive 

effects on the local economy. The proposed realignment action would add to these beneficial 

economic effects by generating employment, income, and business sales in the ROI from 

construction and operation of the proposed new facilities. There are numerous other projects (in 

progress or planned for the future) on Fort Belvoir and in the ROI that could have short- and 

long-term effects on the local economy. On-post proposed projects include (but are not limited 

to) the National Museum of the U.S. Army and the Museum Support Center, a physical fitness 

center in the Troop Cantonment Area and on EPG and a South Post fitness facility, modernization 

of the marina, expansion of the Main Post library, a shoppette on the South Post, a Soldier 

Support Center, an addition to the MP Station, and replacement of the South Post Fire Station. 

All of the proposed on-post cumulative projects are listed in Table 5-1. Projects in the ROI 

include, but are not limited to, ongoing development of the Lorton Town Center, housing 

development in Laurel Hill and Lorton, reconstruction of the I-95/I-395/I-495 interchange, 

improvements to Route 1, plus numerous other residential and commercial developments and 

transportation projects (see Table 5-2 and Section 5.1.3.2). 

These proposed projects in and of themselves would have short- and long-term beneficial 

economic effects in terms of employment, income generation, and business sales. There would be 

short-term beneficial effects from the construction projects and long-term beneficial effects from 

the continued operation, maintenance, and use of the facilities, businesses, and houses. Population 

would increase as workers move to the region to fill jobs. The increase in population would 

increase the tax base, would increase demand for services and infrastructure, ultimately resulting 

in long-term increases in the types and amounts of infrastructure and services available in the 

ROI. The backfilling of office space vacated by the agencies moving to Fort Belvoir could create 

a change in regional employment. For example, Arlington County has established a task force to 

plan for the redevelopment of Crystal City, hoping to attract a more diverse group of businesses 

(Gowen, 2006). Redevelopment of vacated sites would create jobs and income, and businesses 

moving in could shift jobs within the region and create new jobs. 

Adverse cumulative effects would occur because of the overlapping time frames for construction 

activities of the Proposed Action and ongoing and future projects, with the adverse effects 

resulting from possible construction labor and material shortages. There would be a demand for 

skilled building contractors (residential, industrial, and commercial), heavy and civil engineering 

construction contractors (for construction of roads and sewers), and specialty trade contractors 

(carpenters, painters, electricians, plumbers, inspectors). Lack of skilled labor could result in 

poor workmanship, project delays, and cost increases. Material shortages (e.g., wood products, 

cement, aggregate) would also lead to delays and cost increases. Over time, new workers would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-20 

come in to the construction industry to fill job vacancies. Adverse effects also could result from 

the sustained demand from the increased population on the region’s infrastructure (transportation, 

utilities, housing, and public services such as police, fire, and medical, public schools, and 

recreation) and the local economy’s ability to expand to meet the demand. Price increases or 

declines in service could result if there is a lag as the economy responds to the new demand by 

increasing the supply of goods and services. However, impacts from projected changes under the 

proposed Fort Belvoir BRAC action would be diminished by other BRAC actions occurring at the 

same time in the NCR. Realignment or closure actions at Arlington Service Center, leased space 

in northern Virginia, Bolling Air Force Base, and Naval District Washington would result in 

about 14,500 jobs transferred out of the ROI (BRAC Commission, 2005). Applying the 

demographic characteristics from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate the total population that 

would relocate out of the region, an estimated 35,900 persons would leave the region, including 

about 12,700 school-age children.1

 This would reduce the population impacts from the proposed 

Fort Belvoir BRAC action on public infrastructure and social services. This estimated 

outmigration of 35,900 exceeds the estimated 21,590 people that would relocate within the ROI, 

which would reduce impacts on infrastructure or social services from the Fort Belvoir BRAC 

action. It also should be noted that even though there would be a loss of personnel in the ROI due 

to other BRAC actions, it is anticipated that the office space vacated by BRAC personnel would 

be expected to eventually be backfilled with other office workers (see Section 5.1.3). 

5.10.2 Sociological Environment 

Long-term beneficial and adverse effects would be expected on police, fire, and medical services, 

schools, housing, family support and social services, shops, services, and recreation. Details on 

each are discussed below. 

Police, Fire, and Medical Services. Long-term beneficial effects would occur on on-post police 

and fire services. Fort Belvoir’s new facilities and increased population would require additional 

police, fire, and medical service facilities and personnel to maintain level-of-service and 

emergency response time. In addition to the BRAC projects of building and staffing an 

emergency services center on EPG and the new hospital and dental clinic on the South Post, 

under separate actions Fort Belvoir would build an addition to the Military Police station and 

replace the South Post fire station. These would provide adequate facilities, proper equipment, 

and sufficient staff to protect and serve the installation’s new buildings and increased population. 

Adverse effects could occur to off-post police, fire, and social services. Population projections 

indicate continued population growth for the ROI. The increases of individuals in the area would 

require increases in law enforcement, fire protection, medical, and social services. These services 

would be based on the number of long-term residents in the ROI and tax-based income. Declines 

in service could result if there is a lag in response to the increased need for these services. 

However, the population that would migrate out of the region due to the other BRAC actions 

occurring at the same time (see Section 5.10.1) would reduce the impact of the Fort Belvoir 

BRAC action on these services. 

 

1

 From the BRAC Commission report, about 14,502 jobs would be leaving the NCR due to BRAC actions. Based on 

Census data, 65 percent of the households are family households (0.65 * 14,502 = 9,426) and 35 percent are non-family 

households (0.35 * 14,502 = 5,076). The average family size is 3.27, for a total family population of 30,824 (3.27 * 

9,426 = 30,824); thus, the total estimated population leaving the NCR would be 35,900 (5,076 + 30,824). The average 

number of children per family is 1.8 (1.8 * 9,426 = 16,967), and about 75 percent of the children would be of school 

age (0.75 * 16,967 = 12,726) (BRAC Commission, 2005; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; 2006c). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-21 

Schools. Long-term adverse effects would be expected to occur on off-post schools. Continued 

regional population growth would increase primary and secondary school age enrollment. Many 

school districts in the ROI have schools operating at or above capacity. Portable classrooms are 

used to provide sufficient classrooms space for the students to maintain student-to-teacher ratios 

and small class sizes. Although the increased population base would provide education funding 

through taxes, having sufficient funds to meet the needs of enrollment growth, building new 

schools, hiring new teachers and other support staff such as guidance counselors, teacher salary 

agreements, and instructional materials continues to be a challenge because of budget constraints 

and the rising cost of education. However, other BRAC actions occurring in the ROI would 

result in the transfer of 14,500 jobs out of the NCR (see Section 5.10.1). An estimated 12,700 

school-age children would be associated with these employees and would be moving out of the 

region, more than the estimated 10,185 children (see Table 4.10-13) that would relocate within 

the ROI due to the Fort Belvoir BRAC action. The outmigration of these families would reduce 

the impact of the Fort Belvoir BRAC action on public schools. As noted in Section 5.10.1, even 

though there would be a loss of personnel in the ROI due to other BRAC actions, it is anticipated 

that the office space vacated by BRAC personnel would be expected to eventually be backfilled 

with other office workers (see Section 5.1.3). 

Family Support, Shops, Services, and Recreation. Long-term beneficial and significant adverse 

effects would be expected. Fort Belvoir’s increased population would increase demand for 

shopping, service, and recreational facilities. In addition to the BRAC associated projects of 

building two new CDCs, a parking facility, and a family travel camp, other proposed on-post, 

non-BRAC projects include an expanded PX/commissary; a religious education center; two 

physical fitness centers on Main Post; modernization of the marina; expansion of the recreation 

center; a shoppette on the South Post with a gas station, fast-food restaurant, and car wash; 

expansion of the arts and crafts and auto crafts facilities; a new golf clubhouse; expansion of the 

bowling center; a scenic trail; a shoppette and a fitness center on EPG; and the Army Museum 

and Museum Support Center. All of the proposed on-post cumulative projects are listed in Table 

5-1. These proposed actions, in addition to the BRAC actions, would result in long-term 

beneficial effects by providing additional shops, services, and recreation facilities to support and 

serve the installation’s increased population. 

Long-term significant adverse effects on Fort Belvoir’s MWR recreation program would occur 

from the construction of the Army Museum and the Museum Support Center. If the museum 

would be constructed on the North Post golf course site, Fort Belvoir would lose a portion of this 

golf course, in addition to the South Post golf course, as the hospital is sited there under the 

Preferred Alternative. In total, Fort Belvoir could lose about 60 percent of its golf course 

fairways, which would result in significant losses to the MWR NAF from lost revenue. The 

Museum Support Center would eliminate one baseball field and one t-ball field used in the Fort 

Belvoir youth sports program, degrading the quantity and quality of youth programs offered to 

Soldiers living on-post. Overall, the loss of these MWR programs and facilities would reduce the 

quality of life for Soldiers, retirees, and their families. 

5.11 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

Minor adverse and beneficial effects on aesthetic and visual resources would be expected. The 

proposed on-post project with the largest cumulative aesthetic effect, the Museum of the U.S. 

Army, has two possible sites. The possibilities are the North Post golf course and the Pence Gate 

site on the eastern side of South Post just south of Route 1. Each site placement would have a 

moderate effect on aesthetics because of the size of the proposed structures, although the golf 

course siting would have more of an effect because of the high aesthetic integrity of the current 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-22 

land use. Other major changes would occur along Abbott Road on the North Post, the northeast 

portion of North Post, and in the Southwest Area. The building of the Operations Training 

Facility on the Southwest Area would have a moderate effect on the area because of the current 

forested conditions of the area, although it would be relatively secluded. The proposed 

Woodlawn Road replacement would have a moderate effect because of the high aesthetic 

integrity of the land it would pass through. Short-term adverse effects resulting from construction 

activities from cumulative projects would be expected to be similar to that of the Preferred 

Alternative. In general, the smaller buildings and additions would have a negligible adverse 

aesthetic change once construction is complete. The larger structures would have a more 

noticeable effect because of their size. Also, structures sited on areas with less development 

would have more of an effect on aesthetic integrity. Thus, the proposed facilities with the least 

effect on aesthetic integrity would be small structures sited on existing developed areas and 

proposed facilities with greater effect would be large structures sited on undeveloped areas. 

Despite the large number of proposed off-post cumulative projects, there would not be a 

significant amount of aesthetic effects. The off-post portion of Fairfax County in the vicinity of 

Fort Belvoir, as a whole, has a large amount of development, which includes large areas of 

residential and commercial development along I-95 and U.S Route 1. The existing development 

makes the addition of these cumulative projects result in a minor effect on the aesthetic integrity 

of this portion of Fairfax County. 

5.12 UTILITIES 

Minor short- and long-term adverse cumulative effects would be expected. Implementing the 

Preferred Alternative would result in short-term disconnections and reconnections of all buried 

and aboveground utility systems during the construction phase on- and off-post as required. 

Activities resulting from the BRAC action and other on- and off-post development projects such 

as office buildings, shops, and housing complexes would result in additional building space 

requiring utility services, thus resulting in a cumulative increase in demand on the existing utility 

infrastructure. This would require existing private and public providers of utility services in the 

area to increase the quantity of utility services provided to meet the demand from users directly 

and indirectly associated with Fort Belvoir and its surroundings. These entities must review and 

revise the existing short- and long-term projections for providing adequate and reliable utility 

services for the area in the future. 

To provide the required level of electricity supply at the EPG site, Dominion Virginia Power will 

need to upgrade its existing off-site capacity significantly. Timely action is necessary in order to 

plan, obtain the required permits and rights-of-way easements to ensure uninterrupted electricity 

supply to Fort Belvoir and the surrounding community at large. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58—August 8, 2005) stipulates that energy 

consumption per gross square foot of the Federal Buildings in fiscal years 2006 through 20015 be 

reduced in comparison to the base year of 2003. The percentage reduction required in 2006 is 2 

percent from the baseline consumption and 20 percent in 2015. Because the facilities being 

constructed would be more efficient, these requirements would be met. This required reduction 

will mitigate some of the cumulative effects of the above on- and off-post construction. 

The Preferred Alternative, together with on-post construction and renovation projects planned in 

the near term at Fort Belvoir and off-post projects would generate additional quantities of 

construction and demolition debris (CDD) and result in cumulative reduction of the lifespans of 

local area landfill sites. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-23 

For the list of projects proposed in the near term, approximately 1.5 million square feet of 

building space would be constructed, generating a total of approximately 3,400 tons of CDD. 

With the Army’s stipulated policy requirement of recycling 50 percent of CDD, an estimated 

1,700 tons of CDD would be generated over an estimated construction period of 4 years. This 

would result in disposing of 425 tons of CDD per year or 35 tons per month to local area landfill 

sites. The total volume of CDD generated as a result of the BRAC action and the proposed onpost cumulative construction and renovation projects would amount to 2, 969 tons (2, 544 tons 

from the Preferred Land Use Alternative plus 425 tons from cumulative projects) per year or 247 

tons (212 tons from the Preferred Land Use Alternative plus 35 tons from cumulative projects) 

per month. CDD from the BRAC action, on- and off-post construction and renovation projects 

would result in a cumulative reduction in the lifespan of the area landfills. 

5.13 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Minor short-term and long-term adverse cumulative effects would be expected. Short-term 

cumulative effects would be expected from the increased use of petroleum during construction. 

Construction would adhere to OSHA and EPA guidelines to minimize the risk of spills. Minor 

long-term adverse effects would be expected from the increase in generation of hazardous and 

solid waste generated as more people would work at Fort Belvoir and the surrounding area. 

5.14 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are related to the use of nonrenewable 

resources and the effects that use of such resources would have on future generations. Irreversible 

effects primarily result from the use or destruction of a specific resource (e.g., energy and 

minerals) that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time. Irretrievable resource commitments 

involve a loss in the value of an affected resource that cannot be restored as a result of the action 

(e.g., extinction of a threatened or endangered species). 

Construction of facilities and subsequent operations at Fort Belvoir would involve irreversible 

commitments of common resources to build structures (i.e., sand and stone). The Army would use 

energy during both construction and operations. Relative to societal demands for such resources, 

neither of these commitments would be significant. Implementing the Preferred Alternative 

would not involve irretrievable commitments of resources. 

5.15 SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN’S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND 

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Short-term uses of the biophysical components of man’s environment include direct constructionrelated disturbances and direct effects associated with an increase in population and activity that 

would occur over a period of less than 5 years. Long-term uses of man’s environment include 

effects occurring over a period of more than 5 years, including permanent resource loss. 

Several kinds of activities could result in short-term resource uses that would compromise longterm productivity. Examples of such actions that affect long-term productivity are filling of 

wetlands or loss of other especially important habitats, conversion of prime or unique farmlands 

to nonagricultural use, and consumption of high-quality water at nonrenewable rates. 

Implementing the Preferred Alternative would not be expected to materially affect maintenance 

and enhancement of cumulative long-term productivity. Construction and operation of facilities at 

Fort Belvoir would affect several resources, including air quality, traffic, and storm water runoff. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

5-24 

On-post construction projects would respect management measures in the installation’s INRMP, 

ICRMP, and other management plans designed to protect and conserve environmental resources. 

Environmental effects would occur at discrete locations, and they would be of a nature that 

generally would not affect long-term productivity.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 6-1 

SECTION 6.0 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

V. Regno Arulgnanendran, P.E. 

Role: Utilities Team Leader 

Ph.D., Civil (Environmental) Engineering, New Mexico State University 

M.S./D.I.C., Public Health Engineering, Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine, 

University of London 

M.Eng., Construction Engineering and Management, Asian Institute of Technology 

B.S., Civil Engineering Honors, University of Ceylon, Sri Lanka 

Registered Professional Engineer, Virginia and New Mexico 

Years of Experience: 24 

Surbhi Ashton, P.E. 

Role: Transportation Team Member 

M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Virginia 

B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Virginia 

Years of Experience: 15 

Douglas Baker 

Role: Land Use and Security Peer Reviewer 

M.A., Latin American Studies, University of Kansas 

B.S., General Engineering, United States Military Academy 

Years of Experience: 26 

Jim Beall, P.E. 

Role: Utilities Peer Reviewer 

B.S.C.E., Rice University 

Years of Experience: 29 

Mike Betteker 

Role: BRAC Program Manager 

M.S., Environmental Science and Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University 

B.S., Biology, Florida Institute of Technology 

Years of Experience: 25 

Clint Boschen 

Role: Water Resources Team Leader 

M.S., Biological Sciences, Florida State University 

B.S., Biology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

Years of Experience: 10 

Robert Brander, P.E. 

Role: Transportation Team Member 

M.Sc.Eng., Transportation Engineering and Planning, University of New Brunswick at 

Fredericton, New Brunswick 

B.Sc.Eng., Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick at Fredericton, New Brunswick 

Years of Experience: 9 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 6-2 

June Burton

Role: Water Resources Team Member 

M.E.M., Water Resources Management, Duke University 

B.A., Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia 

Years of Experience: 12 

Michelle Cannella 

Role: Socioeconomics Team Leader 

Graduate Studies, Mineral Economics, Pennsylvania State University 

B.S., Mineral Economics, Pennsylvania State University 

Years of Experience: 10 

Courtney Colvin 

Role: Public Involvement Team Leader 

M.S., Environmental Education, Antioch University New England 

B.A., Animal Behavior, Bucknell University 

Years of Experience: 4 

James Curren 

Role: Transportation Team Leader 

M. Eng., Project Management, University of Calgary at Calgary, Alberta 

B. Eng., Civil Engineering, Technical University of Nova Scotia at Halifax, Nova Scotia 

B. Sc. Engineering and Physics, Dalhousie University at Halifax, Nova Scotia 

Years of Experience: 30 

Jeff Dorman 

Role: GIS Team Leader 

B.S., Biology and Environmental Studies, St. Lawrence University

Years of Experience: 3 

Jill Frier 

Role: GIS Team Member and Public Involvement Team Member 

B.A., Environmental Studies, Sweet Briar College

Years of Experience: 1 

Miriam Hacker, P.E. 

Role: Air Quality Peer Reviewer 

M.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin – Madison 

B.A., Mathematics, Skidmore College 

Years of Experience: 12 

Eric Hjertberg 

Role: Land Use Team Member 

M.S., Urban Planning and Environmental Management, Princeton University 

B.S., Architecture, University of Maryland 

Years of Experience: 27 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 6-3 

Tim Lavallee 

Role: Air Quality Team Leader 

M.S., Environmental Health, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 

Years of Experience: 15 

Jeff Moran, P.E. 

Role: Fort Belvoir Planning Program Manager 

B.S., Civil Engineering, Pennsylvania State University 

Years of Experience: 20 

Samuel Pett 

Role: Biological Resources Team Leader 

M.S., Environmental Policy, University of Massachusetts/Boston 

B.S., Wildlife Biology, Michigan State University 

Years of Experience: 15 

Kathy Roxlau 

Role: Cultural Resources Team Leader 

M.A., Anthropology, Northern Arizona University 

B.A. Anthropology, Colorado College 

Years of Experience: 16 

Bill Sharkey 

Role: Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Materials Team Leader 

B.A., Environmental Science, Clark University 

Years of Experience: 14 

Patrick Solomon 

Role: Fort Belvoir BRAC EIS Project Manager 

M.S., Geography, University of Tennessee – Knoxville 

B.A., Geography, State University of New York College at Geneseo 

Years of Experience: 13 

Phillip Stafford 

Role: Land Use and Visual Resources Team Leader 

B.S., Natural Resources, University of the South 

Years of Experience: 5 

Jeff Strong 

Role: Technical Editor 

M.S., Technical and Scientific Communication, James Madison University 

B.A., Computer Information Systems, Eastern Mennonite University 

Years of Experience: 17 

John Sajovec 

Role: Transportation Team Member 

M.S., Transportation, Northwestern University 

B.S., Education, Ohio State University 

Years of Experience: 40 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 6-4 

Gene Weglinski 

Role: Geology and Soils Team Leader 

M.S., Horticulture, Colorado State University 

B.S., Botany, Colorado State University 

Years of Experience: 16 

Rachel Wiese 

Role: Water Resources Team Member 

B.S., Environmental Science, Iowa State University 

Years of Experience: 1 

Paul Wilbur, J.D. 

Role: DOPAA Team Leader and Land Use Team Member 

J.D., Wayne State University Law School 

B.A., English, University of Michigan 

Years of Experience: 29 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 7-1 

SECTION 7.0 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Creighton Abrams 

Resident 

2425 Wilson Boulevard 

Arlington, VA 22201 

Sarah Allen 

South County Government Center 

8350 Richmond Highway 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Allan Anderson 

KBR 

8350 Alban Rd. Suite 103 

Springfield, VA 22150 

William Arguto 

USEPA, Region 3 

Attn: 3EA30 – NEPA 1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Cindy Arrington 

Virginia National Defense Industrial Authority 

901 E Byrd, West Tower 19th Fl. 

Richmond, VA 23218 

Chris Augsburger 

USACE 

P.O. Box 1715 

Baltimore, MD 21201 

Nancy Auth 

Office of Attorney General 

900 E. Main St. 

Richmond, VA 23219 

Richard Baier 

City of Alexandria 

301 King Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

George Barker 

Fairfax County Transportation Advisory Commission 

7606 Tiffany Court 

Clifton, VA 20124 

Sharon Barnes 

Representing Senator Linda T. Puller 

P.O. Box 73 

Alexandria, VA 22121 

Cathy Baumbusch 

Resident 

8223 Smithfield Avenue 

Springfield, VA 22152 

Deanna Beacham 

Program Specialist, Virginia Council on Indians 

PO Box 1475 

Richmond, VA 23218 

David Beavers 

Resident 

P.O. Box 389 

Manassas, VA 20108 

Bianca Beeks 

Navmar Applied Science 

105 Kennedy 

Alexandria, VA 22305 

Phillip Berenbroick 

Office of Delegate Kris Amundson 

P.O. Box 143 

Mt. Vernon, VA 22121 

John Bertocchi 

Fairfax County Public Schools 

10640 Page Ave. 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

Mike Betteker 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 

10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

Reverend Donald Binder 

Pohick Church 

9301 Richmond Highway 

Lorton, VA 22079 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 7-2 

Jennifer Bissett 

Resident 

P.O. Box 10628 

Alexandria, VA 22310 

Mark Bittenbender 

New Paradigm Group 

3000 S. Randolph Street #240 

Arlington, VA 22206 

Sheila Bliss 

Windsor Estates Civic Association 

6434 Windham Ave. 

Kingstowne, VA 22315 

Gilbert Blue 

Catawba Indian Nation 

996 Avenue of the Nations 

Rock Hill, SC 29730 

Bill Bolger 

National Park Service 

200 Chestnut Street Room 370 

Philadelphia, PA 19106 

Glenda Booth 

Audubon Society of Northern Virginia 

7708 Tauxement Rd. 

Alexandria, VA 22308 

Robin Borum 

Long & Foster Realtors 

13875 Hedgewood Dr. 

Woodbridge, VA 22193 

Terry Bowers 

Resident 

3611 Heather Court 

Alexandria, VA 22310 

Chris Braunlich 

Resident 

7011 Dreams Way Court 

Alexandria, VA 22315 

Robert Brien 

Resident 

6902 Loudoun Lane 

Springfield, VA 22152 

Greg Budnik 

GJB Engineering 

PO Box 1214 

Newington, VA 22122 

Heath Bumgardner 

Office of James Moran 

2239 RHO3 

Washington, DC 22150 

Dottye Bunch 

Ft. Belvoir Federal Credit Union 

14040 Central Loop 

Woodbridge, VA 22193 

Joseph Bury 

Resident 

12084 Cadet Court 

Manassas, VA 20109 

Edwin Butterworth 

Resident 

7109 Rock Ridge Lane Apt. K 

Alexandria, VA 22315 

J.R. Byers 

Fairfax County Planning Commission 

2000 Government Center Highway 

Fairfax, VA 22035 

Barry Bylund 

Van Metre 

5252 Lyngate Ct. 

Burke, VA 22015 

Alonza Caldwell 

West Springfield Civic Association 

8609 Old Keene Mill Road 

Springfield, VA 22152 

Mark G. Canale 

Fairfax County Department of Transportation 

12055 Government Center Parkway Suite 1034 

Fairfax, VA 22035 

Rich Capitan 

Bechtel Fed Telecoms 

5275 Westview Dr 

Frederick MD 21703-8306 USA 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 7-3 

Parry Carlson 

Greater Wilton Woods Citizen Assoc 

5941 Wilton Road 

Alexandria, VA 22310 

Dale Castellow 

Fairfax County Department of Transportation 

12000 Government Center Parkway 

Fairfax, VA 22035 

Ty Chambers 

Resident 

6041 River Drive 

Mason Neck, VA 22079 

Ronald Chase 

Gum Springs Historical Society 

8100 Fordson Road 

Alexandria, VA 22306 

Joseph Chudzik 

Mason Neck Citizen Association 

Post Office Box 612 

Lorton, VA 22079 

Peter Cizdzel 

Fort Belvoir Golf Club 

8450 Beulah Street 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 

Irma Clifton 

Resident 

8912 Ox Road 

Lorton, VA 22079 

David S. Cline 

Prince William County Public Schools 

P.O. Box 389 

Manassas, VA 20108 

Peter Cline 

SDDCTEA Def Acc. Rd. Program 

720 Thimble Shoals Blvd Suite 130 

Newport News, VA 23606 

Nancy Conner 

1100 North Glebe Road Suite 500 

Resident 

Arlington, VA 22201 

Gerry Connolly 

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors 

1200 Government Center Parkway Suite 530 

Fairfax, VA 22035 

John Cooley 

Civic Assoc. of W. Springfield Village 

8131 Edmonton Court 

Springfield, VA 22152 

Eric Davis 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

6669 Short Lane 

Gloucester, VA 23061 

Jim Davis 

Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Association 

8810 Old Mount Vernon 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Tom Davis 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2348 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-4611 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Main Interior Building, MS 2342 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

Michael DeLoose 

Springfield District Council 

8233 Forrester Boulevard 

Springfield, VA 22152 

Dale Denda 

Resident 

1311 Dolley Madison Boulevard 

McLean, VA 22101 

Denise Doetzer 

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 209 

Richmond, VA 23229 

Andrea Dorlester 

12055 Government Center Parkway 

Suite 421 

Fairfax, VA 22035 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 7-4 

Holly Dougherty 

Mount Vernon - Lee Chamber of Commerce 

8804 - D Pear Tree Village Court 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Col Downie 

Resident 

9377 Mt. Vernon Circle 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Bruce B. Edmiston 

Virginia Nat. Def. Ind. Authority (VNDIA) 

8401 Excalibur Place 

Richmond, VA 23237 

Bruce Edwards 

Fairfax County DoT 

12055 Government Center Parkway No. 1034 

Fairfax, VA 22035 

William Eischens 

Lake Devereux Comm. Assoc. 

7011A Manchester Blvd. No. 314 

Alexandria, VA 22310 

Cyrena Eitler 

400 Army Navy Drive 

Suite 200 

Arlington, VA 22202 

Suzanne Ellison 

Office of Attorney General 

900 East Main St. 

Richmond, VA 23219 

A.W. Eoff 

Resident 

6917 Deer Run Dr. 

Alexandria, VA 22306 

Tom Fahrney 

Virginia Department of Transportation 

14685 Avion Parkway 

Chantilly, Virginia 20151-1104 

David Farace 

NGA 

P.O. Box 333 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 

Dana Fenton 

Prince William County 

1 County Complex Ct. MC490 

Prince William, VA 22192 

Jack Fields 

Fairfax County 

12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 530 

Fairfax, VA 22035 

Anthony Foster 

Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Comm. 

14700 Potomac Mills Road 

Woodbridge, VA 22192 

Rich Freeman 

Fort Belvoir Federal Credit Union 

14040 Central Loop 

Woodbridge, VA 22193 

Terry Frith 

Resident 

5608 Buckingham Palace Court 

Alexandria, VA 22315 

Lara Fritts 

Southeast Fairfax Development Corp. 

8850 Richmond Highway Suite 105 

Alexandria, Virginia 22309 

Denise Fruik 

Stafford County Schools 

31 Stafford Ave. 

Stafford, VA 22554 

John Good Gagnon 

EQAC; Lee District Land Use 

P.O. Box 10413 

Franconia, VA 22310 

Marianne Gardner 

Fairfax County Dept. of Planning & Zoning 

12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 730 

Fairfax, VA 22035 

Mark Gionet 

Resident 

8641 Mount Vernon Hwy 

Alexandria, VA 22309 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 7-5 

Harry Glasgow 

Friends of Huntley Meadows 

C/O Huntley Meadows Park 

3701 Lockheed Blvd. 

Alexandria, VA 22306 

Jenny Goldschmidt 

VHB 

8300 Boone Blvd. Suite 700 

Vienna, VA 22182-2624 

Linwood Gorham 

Resident 

6036 Chapman Road 

Lorton, VA 22079 

Kathy Graham 

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 

4010 West Broad Street 

Richmond, VA 23230 

Kimberley Granahan 

Resident 

P.O. Box 107 

Mount Vernon, VA 22121 

Gordon E. Grant 

Resident 

1120 Anesbury Lane 

Alexandria, VA 22308 

Carey Griffin 

Resident 

6505 Tassia Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22153 

Lewis G. Grimm 

Resident 

13152 Autumn Hill Lane 

Oak Hill, VA 20171 

Paul Gunville 

Resident 

5308 Remington Dr. 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Alan Hachey 

HDR Inc. 

1101 King Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

David Hand 

USACE, Baltimore Dist., Plng Div. 

P.O. Box 1715 

Baltimore, MD 21203 

Robert Hargrove 

USEPA, Office of Federal Activities 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 7241 

Washington, DC 20044 

Jon E. Hass 

Madison Development Partners 

9232 Forest Haven Dr. 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Jason Heinberg 

Walsh Colucci Lubeley Emrich, P.C. 

2200 Clarendon Blvd. No. 13 

Arlington, VA 22201 

Maggie Heninger 

Resident 

7110 Hadlow Court 

Springfield, VA 22152 

Jim Herbert 

Hayfield Farm 

5621 Cornish Way 

Alexandria, VA 22315 

Brian Higgins 

WHS - DFD 

1314 Mayflower Drive 

McLean, VA 22105 

Richard Hill 

Tuscarora Nation of New York 

2235 Mount Hope Rd. 

Sanborn, NY 14123 

Randy Hodgson 

Northern Virginia Department of Transportation 

14685 Avion Parkway 

Chantilly, VA 20151 

Marc Holma 

Department of Historic Resources 

2801 Kensington Ave. 

Richmond, VA 23221 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 7-6 

Barbara Horton 

NGA NCE PMO 

12310 Sunrise Valley Dr. 

Reston, VA 20101 

Newman Howard 

Fort Belvoir (Retired) 

9404 Fairfax St. 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Lamar Hunt 

US Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, SW Room 3222 

Washington, DC 20590 

Steve Hunt 

Mount Vernon Voice 

P.O. Box 15572 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Alan Huntley 

USACE WAD 

301 General Lee Ave. 

Brooklyn, NY 11252 

Eileen Hurley 

Resident 

9001 Cherry Tree Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

John Hurley 

Resident 

9001 Cherry Tree Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Tanya Husick 

Virginia Dept. of Rail and Public Transportation 

3900 Jermantown Rd. 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

Gerald Hyland 

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors 

Mt. Vernon Government Ctr., 2511 Parkers Lane 

Alexandria, VA 22306 

Rene Hypes 

VDCR Divison of Natural Heritage 

217 Governor Street 

Richmond, VA 23219 

Ellie Irons 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

PO Box 10009 

Richmond, VA 23219 

Bahram Jamei 

Virginia Department of Transportation 

14685 Avion Parkway 

Chantilly, VA 20151 

Denise James 

City Square Building 

10640 Page Avenue, Suite 300 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

Nancy James 

Woodlawn Friends Meeting (Quakers) 

4009 Gibbs St. 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Ulysses S. James 

Washington Metropolitan Philharmonic Assoc. 

4009 Gibbs St. 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Susan Jewell 

Resident 

7414 Essex Avenue 

Springfield, VA 22150 

Frank Joyce 

Mike Pallone Auto Stores 

7722 Backlick Road 

Springfield, VA 22150 

Jay Jupiter 

Resident 

P.O. Box 15127 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Noel Kaplan 

Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning 

12055 Government Center Parkway Suite 730 

Fairfax, VA 22035 

Dana Kauffman 

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors 

Franconia Governmental Center 6121 Franconia Rd. 

Alexandria, VA 22310 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 7-7 

Chuck Keil 

Resident 

7815 Kincardine Ct. 

Alexandria, VA 22315 

Michael W. Kendall 

URS Corporation 

13825 Sunrise Valley Dr. 

Herndon, VA 20171 

Brett L. Kenney 

Mount Vernon BoS 

2511 Parkers Lane 

Alexandria, VA 22306 

Keith Kerr 

Mt. Vernon Manor 

8724 Falkstone Ln 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Gary Kitchen 

Resident 

8842 Camfield Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22308 

Don Klima 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

1100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Suite 809 

Washington, DC 20004 

Mike Kline 

Resident 

2511 Parkers Lane 

Alexandria, VA 22306 

Robert J. Klugiewicz, Jr. 

DoD/WHS 

Pentagon Room 5E330 

Washington, DC 20301 

Mr. & Mrs. Robert Knauer 

Resident 

15419 Duckling Place 

Woodbridge, VA 22191 

Stella Koch 

Northern Virginia Environment Network 

1056 Manning Street 

Great Falls, VA 22066 

Paul Koepfinger 

MVLE 

7420 Fullerton Rd. 

Springfield, VA 22153 

Julia Koster 

National Capital Planning Commission 

401 Ninth Street NW Suite 500 North Lobby 

Washington, DC 20576 

Charles Kramer 

Minuteman Press 

8081-E Alban Road 

Springfield, VA 22150 

Philip Latasa 

Friends of Accotink Creek 

8502 Barrington Ct. No. N 

Springfield, VA 22152 

Timothy Lavallee 

LPES 

14053 Lawnes Creek Road 

Smithfield, VA 23430 

Julie LeDoux 

Belvoir Eagle 

9820 Flagler Rd. 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 

Mike Lee 

Resident 

12492 Rolok Court 

Woodbridge, VA 22192 

Jerry Lelansky 

Resident 

8140 Ridge Creek Way 

Springfield, VA 22153 

Mark Leo 

Fort Belvoir Residential Communities 

9910 Tracy Loop Bldg 766 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 

Amy Lucero 

FHWA - FLH 

400 Seventh St., SW Room 6311 

Washington, DC 20590 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 7-8 

Robert Lundy 

Federation of Lorton Communities 

P.O. Box 442 

Lorton, VA 22199 

Gina Marie Lynch 

Resident 

4317 Neptune Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Gerald Lyons 

Resident 

10705 Old Colchester Road 

Mason Neck, VA 22079 

Bill Marck 

Resident 

39699 Toad Hall Lane 

Aldie, VA 20105 

Leon R. Marshall 

BAH 

14113 Franklin St. 

Woodbridge, VA 22191 

Lindsay Mason 

Fairfax County Dept. of Planning & Zoning 

12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 730 

Fairfax, VA 22035 

Albert J. McAloon 

FCRHA 

7416 Highland St. 

Springfield, VA 22150 

Neal F. McBride 

Secretary, South Run Coalition 

c/o 8201 Southrun Rd. 

Springfield, VA 22153 

Elaine McConnell 

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors 

Springfield Governmental Center, 6140 Rolling Rd. 

Springfield, VA 22152

Patrick W. McCullough 

Resident 

3204 Fox Mill Rd. 

Oakton, VA 22124 

Robert H. McDonald 

Virginia Department of Transportation 

14685 Avion Parkway, Suite 345 

Chantilly, VA 20151 

Patti McKnight 

Resident 

8323 Harland Dr. 

Springfield, VA 22152 

Joan Meador 

GJB Engineering 

P.O. Box 1214 

Newington, Virginia 22122 

Brendan Melley 

The Cohen Group 

1200 Nineteenth St, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Paul Milde 

Stafford County BOS 

10 Potomac View Lane 

Stafford, VA 22554 

Representative Jim Moran 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2239 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-4608 

Mike Morris 

Resident 

9896 Chapel Bridge Ct. 

Fairfax Station, VA 22039 

Rex Morris 

Springfield Civic Association 

7625 Mendota Place 

Springfield, VA 22150 

Shirley Morris 

Resident 

6800 Barnack Dr. 

Springfield, VA 22152 

John Mugarelli 

WMATA 

600 5th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 7-9 

John Munson 

Resident 

7233 Devereux Court 

Alexandria, VA 22315 

Bob Murphy 

DCMA 

6350 Walker Lane 

Alexandria, VA 22308 

Peter Murphy 

Fairfax County Planning Commission 

12000 Government Center Highway 

Fairfax, VA 22035 

James Murray 

Jacobs Engineering 

1100 N. Glebe Road Suite 500 

Arlington, VA 22201 

Gerald D. Musarra 

Fort Belvoir Retiree Council 

8601 Cherry Valley Lane 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Kenneth Myers 

Federal Highways Administration-Virginia 

400 North 8th Street 

Richmond, VA 23240 

Richard F. Neel, Jr. 

Southeast Fairfax Development Corp. 

8800-A Pear Tree Village Ct. 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

John Nichols 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

904 South Morris St. 

Oxford, MD 21654 

Nick Nicolosi 

BAE Systems 

12112 Lancers Ct. 

Manassas, VA 20112 

Robert Nieweg 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

Southern Field Office , 1785 Massachusetts Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Daniel O. O’Brien 

Facility Planning DPW 

9430 Jackson Loop 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5116 

Josh Olsen 

Monument Realty 

1155 Connecticut Ave., NW 7th Floor 

Washington, DC 20036 

Glenn Ovrevik 

Resident 

7912 Telegraph Road 

Kingstowne, VA 22315 

Don Page 

Mt. Woodley Manor HOA 

P.O.Box 6675 

Alexandria, VA 22306 

Lois M. Passman 

Mount Vernon Council 

8354 Orange Court 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Jaak Pedak 

Fairfax County Department of Transportation 

1121 Arlington Boulevard #719 

Arlington, VA 22209 

John Pellegrin 

Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce 

10515 Dominion Valley Dr. 

Fairfax Station, VA 22039 

Harold Petter 

Resident 

3183 Woodland Lane 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Doug Pickford 

Environmental and Heritage Resources, NVRC 

7535 Little River Turnpike, Suite 100 

Annandale, VA 22003 

Ross Randall 

Woodlawn Pope-Leighy House 

P.O. Box 37 

Mount Vernon, VA 22121 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 7-10 

Robert Redmond 

RFHA 

8301 Graceway Dr. 

Lorton, VA 22079 

Christopher R. Reed 

Virginia Department of Transportation 

14685 Avion Parkway 

Chantilly, VA 20151 

James Rees 

Mount Vernon Ladies Association 

P.O Box 110 

Mount Vernon, VA 22121 

Judy Riggin 

Woodlawn Friends Meeting 

2405 Nemeth Court 

Alexandria, VA 22306 

Dave Robertson 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 

777 N. Capitol Street, NE, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20002 

Joan Rohlfs, Chief, Air Quality Planning 

Metropolitan Washington COG 

777 N. Capitol Street, NE, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20002 

Robert Rosenbaum 

Resident 

7936 Birch Tree Ct. 

Springfield, VA 22152 

Dale Rumberger 

South County Secondary School 

8501 Silverbrook Rd. 

Lorton, VA 22079 

Billy Rutherford 

Saratoga 

7932 Lake Pleasant Dr. 

Springfield, VA 22153 

David Sa’adah 

Woodlawn Friends Meeting 

1919 Hawthorne Ave. 

Alexandria, VA 22311 

Bob Sachs 

Belvoir DPW 

8803 Falkstone Lane 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Bruce Sargent 

Cardinal-Virginia Concrete 

6860 Commercial Drive 

Springfield, VA 22151 

Mr. George Schuck 

Woodlawn Baptist Church 

9001 Richmond Highway 

Alexandria, Virginia 22309 

Tony Scovazzo 

AJS Consulting Engineers 

4805 B Eisenhowser Ave. 

Alexandria, VA 22304 

Tony Scovazzo 

AJS Consulting Engineers 

4805B Eisenhower Avenue 

Alexandria, VA 22304 

Carl Sell 

Rose Hill CA 

6601Cottonwood Drive 

Franconia, VA 22310 

James Shanahan 

Resident 

6621 Wakefield Drive #304 

Alexandria, VA 22307 

Aurora Shapleigh 

Greenhorne & O'Mara 

6110 Frost Place 

Laurel, MD 20707 

Kenneth Simmons 

Boston Properties 

901 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

Jim Simms 

USACE 

10 S. Howard Street 

Baltimore, MD 21201 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 7-11 

Bruce R. Smith 

Resident 

P.O. Box 644 

Springfield, VA 22150 

Patricia Soriano 

Mount Vernon Group, Sierra Club 

5405 Barrister Place 

Alexandria, VA 22304 

Crate Spears 

Resident 

15000 Plum Tree Way 

Bowie, MD 20721 

Erica A. Spence 

Resident 

6831 Signature Circle 

Alexandria, VA 22310 

John Sperling 

Resident 

7435 Spring Summit Road 

Springfield, VA 22150 

Norm Starler 

Resident 

4701 Upland Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22310 

George Stone 

Resident 

2008 Overton Dr. 

Forestville, MD 20747 

Lisa Stopp 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in OK 

PO Box 189 

Park Hill, OK 74431 

Geoff Stricker 

Clark Ventures 

7500 Old Georgetown Road 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Vince Stubbs 

Hilton Springfield 

6550 Loisdale Rd 

Springfield, VA 22150 

Kathleen Sullivan 

Resident 

12221 Seaford Court 

Woodbridge, VA 22192 

Pete Tamilin 

Booz Allen Hamilton 

8283 Greensboro Drive 

McLean, VA 22102 

Pat Thomas 

Prince William County Planning 

1 County Complex Court 

Prince William, VA 22192 

Jen Thompson 

Resident 

7815 Kincardine Ct. 

Alexandria, VA 22315 

Monica Thompson 

Resident 

3011 Colonial Springs Court 

Alexandria, VA 22306 

Nicole Thompson 

Fairfax County Dept. of Housing & C.D. 

3700 Pender Dr. Suite 300 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

Randolph L. Thompson 

DCE 

220 Spring St. Suite 530 

Herndon, VA 20107 

Russell Townsend 

Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation 

PO Box 455 

Cherokee, NC 28719 

Oanh Tran 

Washington Gas 

6706 Whittier Ave. 

McLean, VA 22101 

Dennis Turner 

Turner's HOA MCT 

8115 Lake Pleasant Drive 

Springfield, VA 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 7-12 

Stuart Tyler 

Parsons Transportation Group 

10521 Rosehaven Street 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

Patricia Tyson 

Resident 

8641 Mount Vernon Hwy 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

William Valk 

Resident 

6814 Dear Run Dr. 

Alexandria, VA 22306 

Jack Van Dop 

Federal Highways Administration-EFLHD 

21400 Ridgetop Circle 

Sterling, VA 20166 

Tim Vandewalle 

The Christman Company 

901 N. Pitt St. No. 230 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

James VanZee 

Northern Virginia Regional Commission 

3060 Williams Dr. No. 510 

Fairfax, VA 22031 

Sally Wagner 

Resident 

7566 Blanford Ct. 

Alexandria, VA 22315 

Nathaniel Wall 

Resident 

4903 Shirley St. 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Senator John Warner 

U.S. Senate 

225 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Vivian Watts 

VA House of Delegates (Delegate -39 HD) 

8717 Mary Lee Lane 

Annandale, VA 22003 

C. Flint Webb 

Resident 

8308 Westchester Drive 

Vienna, VA 22182 

Senator Jim Webb 

U.S. Senate 

225 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Christy Wegener 

Fairfax County Department of Transportation 

12055 Government Center Parkway #1034 

Fairfax, VA 22035 

Greg Weiler 

Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

14344 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Woodbridge, VA 22191 

Arthur D. Wells 

Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Assoc. 

8707 Popper Way 

Alexandria, VA 22003 

George Wheeler 

Resident 

2631 Skidmore Circle 

Vienna, VA 22180 

Mark C. White 

Center for Regional Ec. Comp 

P.O. Box 100127 

Arlington, VA 22210 

Tom Whitmore 

The Christman Co. 

901 N. Pitt St. No. 230 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

Joseph Williams 

Resident 

5128 Remington Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Norah Wilson 

WSV HOA/McEnearney Assoc. 

8101 Glover Ct. 

West Springfield, VA 22152 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 7-13 

Steven Woznak 

Woodlawn Manor Citizens Assoc. 

5621 Old Mill Rd. 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Larry Zaragoza 

Resident 

3001 Doeg Indian Court 

Alexandria, VA 22309 

Representative 

The Virginia Conservation Network 

1001 East Broad Street Suite LL 35-C 

Richmond, VA 23219 

Libraries 

Fort Belvoir Van Noy Library 

5966 12th Street 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 

Fairfax County Public Library 

John Marshall Branch 

6209 Rose Hill Drive

Alexandria, VA 22310-6299

Fairfax County Public Library 

Kingstowne Branch 

6500 Landsdowne Centre

Alexandria, VA 22315-5011

Fairfax County Public Library 

Lorton Branch 

9520 Richmond Highway

Lorton, VA 22079-2124 

Fairfax County Public Library 

Sherwood Regional Branch 

2501 Sherwood Hall Lane

Alexandria, VA 22306-2799 

Fairfax County Public Library 

Fairfax City Regional Branch 

3915 Chain Bridge Road

Fairfax, VA 22030-3995 

Fairfax County Public Library 

Richard Byrd Branch 

7250 Commerce Street 

Springfield, VA 22150-3425 

Prince William County 

Chinn Park Regional Library

13065 Chinn Park Drive 

Prince William, VA 22192-5073 

Prince William County 

Lake Ridge Neighborhood Library 

12964 Harbor Drive 

Woodbridge, VA 22192-2930 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 7-14 

This page is intentionally left blank.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-1 

SECTION 8.0 

REFERENCES 

ACSIM (Department of the Army, Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management). 2006. 

Sustainable Management of Waste in Military Construction, Renovation, and Demolition 

Activities. Memorandum dated February 6, 2006. Department of the Army, Assistant Chief of 

Staff for Installation Management, Army Pentagon, Washington, DC. 

AHD (American Hospital Directory). 2006. American Hospital Directory Website. 

<http://www.ahd.com>. Accessed August. 

Allen, H.H., M. Jourdan, and N.R. Oswalt. 1999. Watershed-based Stream Corridor Management 

and Protection, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Preliminary Report Prepared for Fort Belvoir 

Directorate of Public Works and Logistics by USACE Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2006. Regional Economic Accounts. 

<http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/>. Accessed July. 

Betts, Tim. 2007. Personal communication with Tim Betts, Contractor for the Fort Belvoir 

Directorate of Public Works. February 1. 

Bedker, Erv. 2005. Personal communication with Erv Bedker, Paciulli, Simmons, and Associates. 

April 4. 

Belvoir New Vision Planners (BNVP). 2006. Fort Belvoir BRAC Siting Analysis - Evaluating 

Opportunities and Constraints. Prepared for Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation 

Management (ACSIM) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District. June. 

Bland, S.A. 1999. Personal communication: Up-to-date real property information. Horne 

Engineering Services, Inc. 22 January. 

BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2006. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. 

<http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm#data>. Accessed July. 

Bolton, Dave. 2002. Personal communication with Dave Bolton, Environmental Compliance 

Branch, Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works. June 25. 

Brooks, M. 2007. Personal communication with Mary Jo Brooks, Contractor for the Fort Belvoir 

Directorate of Public Works. February 21. 

Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2003. “The Importance of Imperviousness.” Watershed 

Protection Techniques. 1(3):100-111. 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of 

the President, Washington, D.C. 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2000. Chesapeake Bay – An Important Resource. 

<http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/ecoint1b.cfm>. Accessed March 25. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-2 

Clark Pinnacle. 2006. The Villages at Belvoir: Rebuilding Belvoir Communities website: 

http://www.belvoirfamilyhousing.com/rebuilding/abouttheproject.asp. Accessed July. 

Collins, M. 2000. Accotink Creek: An Undervalued Birding Jewel in Our Midst. Available at 

http://www.fairfaxaudubon.org/accotink.html. 

Culver, Dave, Ph.D: American University. 2007. Personal Conversation with Dr. David Culver. 

February 6. 

Dai, T., R.L. Wetzel, T. R. Christensen, and E.A. Lewis. 2000. BasinSim1.0: A windows-based 

watershed modeling package. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. College of William and 

Mary. Gloucester Point, VA. 

Davis, Allen P. 2003. Bioretention: A Low-Impact Stormwater Best Management Practice. 

<http://www.cee.umd.edu/~apdavis/Bioret.htm>. Accessed May 10. 

Davis, Eric, US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Personal communication. May 3. 

Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission. 2005. 2005 Defense BRAC 

Commission Report to the President, Volumes 1 and 2. Defense Base Closure and 

Realignment Commission, Arlington, VA. 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army. 2006. Sustainable Design and Development Policy 

Update—SpiRiT to LEED Transition. Memorandum, January 5.

Dewberry & Davis LLC. 2000. Final Report Administrative Park Site Evaluation U.S. Army 

Garrison, Fort Belvoir. May. 

DLA (Defense Logistics Agency), Logistics Operations, Defense Energy Support Center. 2005. 

Utilities Privatization of Electric, Water and Wastewater Systems at Fort Belvoir, Solicitation 

Notice, FBO#0885. March 9. 

DoD (Department of Defense). 2007. Unified Facilities Criteria 4-010-01, DoD Minimum 

Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings. http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ 

ufc_4_010_01.pdf. January. 

DoD (Department of Defense). 2005a. Military Students on the Move: A Toolkit for School 

Leaders. <http://www.militarystudent.dod.mil/.> Accessed May. 

DoD (Department of Defense). 2005b. Military Students on the Move: A Toolkit for Installation 

Commanders. <http://www.militarystudent.dod.mil/.> Accessed May. 

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. 

DOJ–FBI (Department of Justice–Federal Bureau of Investigation). 2006. Crime in the United 

States 2004. Uniform Crime Reporting Program. <http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04.> 

Accessed July. 

Donatone, J.R., GRD Consultants on behalf of GSA. Personal communication. December, 2006. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-3 

Dunn, T. and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. New York: W. H. Freeman 

and Company. 

Dwyer, Timothy. 2006. Supervisors Freeze Home Construction. Washington Post, 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/ 

AR2006120501343.html. December 6. 

EA (EA Engineering, Science & Technology, Inc.). 2000. Summary Report for Aquatic 

Investigations and Stream Monitoring of Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Prepared for U.S. Army 

Garrison, Fort Belvoir Directorate of Installation Support Environmental and Natural 

Resources Division, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

EA (EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc.). 2005. Environmental Assessment of 

Maintenance Dredging of Dogue Creek, Waterline Replacement, and Marina Rehabilitation 

at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia. Prepared for Department of the Army, U.S. Army Garrison, Ft. 

Belvoir Directorate of Public Works, Fort Belvoir Virginia. 

Fairfax County. 1990. Soil survey GIS data. Fairfax County, Virginia. 

Fairfax County. 2001a. Description of Fairfax County Soils. Fairfax County, Virginia 

Fairfax County. 2001b. Wastewater Treatment Plant. Website. 

<http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/gov/DPWES/utilities/wwtrmnt_0600.htm> Accessed July. 

Fairfax County. 2002. Topographic Map Sheet 90-2. Department of Information Technology, 

Enterprise Application Services Division, Geographic Information Services, Fairfax, 

Virginia. <http://fairfaxcounty.gov/gisapps/pdfviewer/>. 

Fairfax County. 2003. Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan – 2003 Edition. Fairfax County, 

Virginia. 

Fairfax County. 2004a. Lorton/Laurel Hill Property. Website. <http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/gov/ 

cex/laurelhill>. July. 

Fairfax County. 2004b. Zoning Ordinance Fairfax County. 2005. Maps of Resource Protection 

Areas under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance. Department of Information 

Technology, Enterprise Services Division, Geographic Information Services, Fairfax, 

Virginia. <http://fairfaxcounty.gov/gisapps/pdfviewer/>. 

Fairfax County. 2005. Fairfax County Solid Waste Management Plan. 

<http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/dpwes/swmp/pln.htm>. Accessed March 22. 

Fairfax County. 2006a. Ratings of Soils for Urban Development in Fairfax County. 

<http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/environmental/soilrating.htm>. 

Fairfax County. 2006b. Zoning Ordinance. Website. <http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ 

dpz/zoningordinance/>. 

Fairfax County. 2007. Ratings of Soils for Urban Development in Fairfax County. Website.

<http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/environmental/soilrating.htm> Accessed February 22. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-4 

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. 2007. Personal communication from Gerald Connolly, 

Chairman, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. 1 May. 

Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning. 2006. Listing of Proposed Projects in 

Vicinity of Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Provided by Fairfax County Department of Planning and 

Zoning. July. 

Fairfax County DPWES (Department of Public Works and Environmental Services). 2001. 

Fairfax County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Website. 

<http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/gov/DPWES/utilities/wwtrmnt_0600.htm>. Accessed March 

26. 

Fairfax County Department of Systems Management for Human Services. 2004. Demographic 

Reports 2004. Table 6.3 Estimated and Forecasted Housing Units by Supervisor District, 

Fairfax County, January 2004. <http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/demogrph/demrpts/ hufsd. 

pdf.> Accessed June 7, 2007. 

Fairfax County Geographic Information Systems. 2006. Geographic Information Systems Data 

for Fairfax County, Virginia. Provided by the Fairfax County GIS & Mapping Department. 

Fairfax County Health Department. 2003. 2002 Stream Water Quality Report. Website. 

<http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/hd/streams/strannualrpt.htm>. 

FCPS (Fairfax County Public Schools). 2006. Fort Belvoir Elementary School Profile. Website. 

<http://www.fcps.edu/DEA/schoolprof/elementary/FortBelvoirES.html>. Accessed August. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1990. Flood Insurance Rate Map of Fairfax 

County Community Panel Number 5155250125D. FEMA, Washington, DC. 

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 1995. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement 

Policy and Guidance. 

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2000. Highway Noise Barrier Design Handbook. 

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2003. June. 

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2005. Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 2.5 Table 

Lookup Utility. 

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in 

NEPA Documents. 

FICUN (Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise). 1980. Guidelines for Considering 

Noise in Land Use Planning and Control. 

Fort Belvoir. 1993. Fort Belvoir Real Property Master Plan – Long-range Component. Prepared 

by Woolpert in association with R&K Engineering, Rhodeside & Harwell, Inc., Kise Franks 

and Straw, John Milner Associates, and JHK Associates. 

Fort Belvoir. 1999. Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan 1999. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-5 

Fort Belvoir. 2000. U.S. Army Garrison Fort Belvoir Strategic Plan for 2002. 

Fort Belvoir. 2004. Geographic Information Systems Data for Fort Belvoir. Provided by the Fort 

Belvoir Directorate of Public Works and Logistics GIS Department. 

Fort Belvoir. 2005a. Geographic Information Systems Data for Fort Belvoir. Provided by the Fort 

Belvoir Directorate of Public Works and Logistics GIS Department. 

Fort Belvoir. 2005b. Draft 95% Fort Belvoir Master Plan Long Range Component. PBS&J, Inc. 

(Prepared for Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works and Logistics.) 

Fort Belvoir. 2006a. Calendar Year 2005 Emission Statement. Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

Fort Belvoir. 2006b. Historic Fort Belvoir. Website. <http://www.belvoir.army.mil/history>. 

Accessed December 3. 

Fort Belvoir. 2006c. Fort Belvoir Website. Website. <http://www.belvoir.army.mil/default.asp.> 

Accessed July. 

Fort Belvoir. 2006d. Personal Communication with Fort Belvoir ENRD. December. 

Fort Belvoir. 2006e. Personal Communication with Fort Belvoir ENRD. March 1. 

Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD (Directorate of Public Works – Environmental and Natural Resources 

Division). 2002. Environmental Assessment, Construction and Operation of a Replacement 

Hospital Facility for the DeWitt Army Community Hospital, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Fort 

Belvoir, Virginia. July. 

Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD (Directorate of Public Works – Environmental and Natural Resources 

Division). 2005a. Section 106 Consultation for the United States Air Force Surveillance 

Camera Installation at DeWitt Army Hospital (DHR File #2004-1743). Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia. January. 

Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD (Directorate of Public Works – Environmental and Natural Resources 

Division). 2005b. Draft Viewshed Study, Fort Belvoir/Friends Meeting House. Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia. February. 

Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD (Directorate of Public Works – Environmental and Natural Resources 

Division). 2005c. Environmental Quality Corridor. Fort Belvoir, Virginia. June. 

Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD (Directorate of Public Works – Environmental and Natural Resources 

Division). 2007. Joint Permit Application (JPA) for Proposed BRAC Construction at 

Engineer Proving Ground, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Prepared for Fort Belvoir DPW ENRD by 

Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. May. 

Fort Belvoir GIS. 2006. Geographic Information Systems Data for Fort Belvoir. Provided by the 

Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works and Logistics GIS Department. 

Fort Belvoir PAO (Public Affairs Office). 2004. Fort Belvoir 2004 Newcomers Guidebook. 

Comprint MIlitary Publications, Gaithersburg, MD. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-6 

GMU (George Mason University) Center for Regional Analysis. 2006. The Washington 

Region’s Economy and Outlook. George Mason University, Center for Regional Analysis, 

Fairfax, VA. 

Gray & Pape Inc. 2004. Final Report, A Survey of Military Cultural Landscapes for the US Army 

Garrison, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Richmond, Virginia. May. 

Guerra, Dave: Fairfax Water. 2005. Personal Communication. March 22. 

GWI (Greater Washington Initiative). 2006. Most Significant Economic Development Projects – 

2006. Website. http://www.greaterwashington.org/news/news_press/121306.htm. Accessed 

December 13. 

Haith, D.A., and L.L. Shoemaker. 1987. Generalized watershed loading functions for stream flow 

nutrients. Water Resources Bulletin 23(3):471-478. 

Haith, D.A., R. Mandel, and R.S. Wu. 1992. GWLF: Generalized Watershed Loading Functions 

User’s Manual, Version 2.0. Department of Agriculture and Biological Engineering, Cornell 

University, Ithaca, NY. 

Harding, J. 2002. Clemmys insculpta. Animal Diversity Web. Website. <http://animaldiversity. 

ummz. umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Clemmys_insculpta.html>. Accessed March 31. 

Harris, Cecil M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurement and Noise Control. 

Harris, M. 2002. Haliaeetus leucocephalus. Animal Diversity Web. Website. 

<http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Haliaeetus_leucocephalus

.html>. Accessed March 31. 

Hart, Kim. 2007. Looking for a Few (or Many) Good Tenants. Washington Post. Website. 

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/20/AR2007052000975. 

html?nav=rss_business>. May 21. 

Hobson, C.S. 1996. A Natural Heritage Inventory of US Army Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Natural 

Heritage Technical Report 96-03. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, 

Division of Natural Heritage. Richmond, VA. Unpublished Public Works-Environmental and 

Natural Resources Division. February. 57 pp. plus appendices. 

Hobson, Chris. 2007. Personal conversation with Chris Dobson. VA DCR. February 6. 

Horne Engineering Services, Incorporated. 2001. Integrated Natural Resources Management 

Plan. Prepared for the Fort Belvoir Directorate of Installation Support, Environmental and 

Natural Resources Division, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

Inova. 2006. Inova Health System. Website. <http://www.inova.org/inovapublic.srt/ 

hospitalsservices.jsp>. Accessed August. 

ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 2003. Trip Generation, 7th edition. Washington, D.C. 

John Milner & Associates, Inc. 2006. Historical Resource Survey and Evaluation, US Army 

Garrison Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Alexandria, Virginia. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-7 

Jones, Edgar. 2005. Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services. 

Personal Communication. March 24. 

King, D. 1999. Personal communication: Fort Belvoir Marina. Horne Engineering Services, Inc. 

February 4. 

Kirkpatrick, W.R. 2007. Personal communication with William R. Kirkpatrick, Chief Planning 

Engineer, Fairfax Water. March 15. 

Lammers, C.A., and M.P. Knapp. 1999. Illustrating the need for urban forest management. In 

Proceedings from the 1999 National Urban Forest Conference, pp. 185–189. 

Landgraf, Chris. 1999. Watershed Delineation Project and Problem Site Descriptions, Including 

Maps and Photographs. Prepared for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division, 

U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, Directorate of Installation Support, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

by Performance Group, Inc. March. 

Landgraf, Chris. 2000. Personal communication: Fort Belvoir acreage verifications. Horne 

Engineering Services, Inc. February 25. 

Landgraf, Chris. 2003. Watershed Delineation Project Update. Prepared for the Environmental 

and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, Directorate of Installation 

Support, Fort Belvoir, Virginia by Performance Group, Inc. December. 

Law Engineering and Environmental Services. 1995. Updated Site Characterization Report, 

Building 1803. 

Lisle, Lorance, Master Planner. 2005. Personal communication. US Army Garrison Fort Belvoir. 

March 23. 

MAAR Associates Inc. November 1993. A Phase I Survey of Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Volume I. 

Williamsburg, Virginia. 

Macolm Pirnie Inc. 2006. Historical Records Review, Fort Belvoir, Fairfax County, Virginia. 

March. 

Mangold, Mike. 2005. Personal communication with Mike Mangold, Fisheries Biologist, 

USFWS. March 21. 

McMillion, Dr. Charles. 2006. Globalization’s Impact on our Regional Economy. Metropolitan 

Washington Annual Regional Housing Report. Volume 9, Issue 5, June 2006, pages 1-6. 

Meoli, Christopher. 2007. Personal communication with Christopher Meoli, Engineer with 

Fairfax County Division of Solid Waste Disposal and Resource Recovery. February 16. 

MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources), 2007. Website. <http://www.dnr.state. 

md.us/bay/sav/ about.asp#factor>. 

MWAQC (Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee). 2006. Moderate Area SIP 

November 7. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-8 

MWCOG (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). 2004a. State Implementation 

Plan - Plan to Improve Air Quality in the Washington, DC-MD-VA Region. 

MWCOG (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). 2004b. Calibration Report.

November 24. 

MWCOG (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). 2005a. Department of 

Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Personal 

communication by email November 17th with Sunil Kumar. 

MWCOG (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). 2005b. Growth Trends to 2030: 

Cooperative Forecasting in the Washington Region. Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Governments, Washington, DC. 

MWCOG (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). 2006a. Economic Trends in 

Metropolitan Washington: 2001–2005. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 

Washington, DC. 

MWCOG (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). 2006b. Metropolitan Washington 

Annual Regional Housing Report. Volume 9, Issue 5, June 2006. Metropolitan Washington 

Council of Governments, Washington, DC. 

MWCOG (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). 2006c. An Eye on the Future: 

2005 Annual Report. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC. 

MWCOG (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). 2006d. Quarterly Housing News. 

Volume 10, Issue 1. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC. 

NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). 2005. Common Core of Data, Search for 

Public School Districts. <http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch>. Accessed August. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small 

Watersheds, TR-55. U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS, Conservation Engineering 

Division. 210-VI-TR-55, 2nd edition http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/hydro/hydro-toolsmodels-tr55.html. June. 

New South Associates. December 2006. Draft Architectural Survey of the Engineer Proving 

Ground, Fort Belvoir, Fairfax County, Virginia. Technical Report #1425. Stone Mountain, 

Georgia. 

NFPA (National Fire Protection Association). 2005. U.S. Fire Department Profile Through 2004. 

National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division, Quincy, 

Massachusetts. 

NIH (National Institutes of Health). 2005. National Institutes of Health Clinical Center Website. 

<http://www.cc.nih.gov>. Accessed August 2005. 

Nokes and Benson. 1985. Caltrans Report, Development of Worst Case Meteorology Criteria. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-9 

NVRPA (Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority). 2002. Appendix D, Potomac Overlook 

Regional Park 2002 Natural Resources Inventory. 

<http://www.nvrpa.org/potomacoverlook/appendixd.html>. Accessed January 2007. 

Osei-Kwadwo, G. 2007. Personal communication with Gilbert Osei-Kwadwo, Manager, Fairfax 

County Engineering Analysis and Planning Branch, Wastewater Planning and Monitoring 

Division, Department of Public Works & Environmental Services. April 25. 

ODU (Old Dominion University). 2005. 2005 Market Survey. Old Dominion University, Center 

for Real Estate & Economic Development, Norfolk, Virginia. 

Paciulli, Simmons & Associates, Ltd. 1999. Vegetation Cover Map Project Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia. Prepared for the U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works, 

Environmental and Natural Resource Division, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

Pedersen, N.J. and Samdahl, D.R. 1982. Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project 

Planning and Design. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 255. 

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., December 

1982, 191 pages. 

Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Resources Programs and Planning 

Division. 1999. Low-Impact Development Design Strategies - An Integrated Approach. 

Prince George’s County, Maryland, Department of Environmental Resources Programs and 

Planning Division. June. 

Prince William County Department of Finance. 2007. Prince William County Proposed 

Projections of General County Revenue Fiscal Year 2008-2012. <http://www.pwcgov.org/ 

docLibrary/PDF/006001.pdf.> Accessed June 7, 2007. 

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 2001. Integrated Cultural Resources Management 

Plan, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Frederick, Maryland. February 1. 

Rhodeside & Harwell. 1995. Real Property Master Plan: Fort Belvoir, Installation Design Guide. 

Rokosz, Ronald F. and Charles H. Hash. 1998. Changing the Mindset-Army Antiterrorism Force 

Protection. Washington: Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

Russell, Marc. 2005. Personal Communication with Marc Russell, Contractor for the Fort 

Belvoir Directorate of Pubic Works Environmental and Natural Resources Division. January 

31. 

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 

Secor, D.H. 2002. Atlantic Sturgeon Fisheries and Stock Abundances During the Late nineteenth 

century. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 28: 89-98. 

Secretary of the Army. 2007. Adaptive Re-use Study for GSA Warehouse Area, Springfield, 

Virginia. Report to Congress. April. 

Senires-Dubyak, S. 2000. Personal communication: Housing and residential statistics. Horne 

Engineering Services, Inc. 4 April. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-10 

Smith, Mike. 2004. Utilities Manager. Engineering Division, Fort Belvoir. Personal 

communication with Vic Frankenthaler, Earth Tech, Inc. December 17. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook 

Terwilliger, K. 1991. Virginia’s Endangered Species. Blacksburg, VA. 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2005a. Visual Site Inspection Report, Task I – RCRA RFI Description of 

Current Conditions – Engineer Proving Ground. October 7. 

Tetra Tech Inc. 2005b. Fort Belvoir, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Real 

Property Master Plan. April. 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2006a. Draft Ecological Communities Survey for Engineer Proving Ground US 

Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Mobile District and Fort Belvoir Environmental and Natural Resources Division. September. 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2006b. Draft Terrestrial Mammals Survey for Engineer Proving Ground US 

Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Mobile District and Fort Belvoir Environmental and Natural Resources Division. September. 

TRB (Transportation Research Board), National Research Council. 2000. Highway Capacity 

Manual. 

TRB (Transportation Research Board), National Research Council. 2006. Commuting in America, 

pg 20. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 550 and Transit 

Cooperative Research Program 110. Washington, D.C., 2006, 172 pages. 

U.S. Army (United States Department of the Army). 1989. Map of Fort Belvoir Special. 30th 

Engineer Battalion (Topo), Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

U.S. Army (United States Department of the Army). 1999. Accotink Bay Wildlife Refuge [guide]. 

Fort Belvoir Virginia: U.S. Army, Fort Belvoir. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. Census 1990. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 

<http://www.census.gov.> Accessed July. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 

<http://www.census.gov.> Accessed July. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006a. Population Estimates. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 

<http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php.> Accessed July. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006b. State and County QuickFacts. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, 

DC. <http://www.census.gov.> Accessed July. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006c. American Community Survey 2005. U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC. <http://www.census.gov/acs/www/.> Accessed November 2006. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Richmond, Virginia. 256 pp. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-11 

U.S. SCS (United States Soil Conservation Service). 1982. Soil Survey Report: Fort Belvoir, VA. 

U.S. Department of Education. 2006. Impact Aid Programs. <http://www.ed.gov/programs/ 

8003/index.html>. Accessed June 11, 2007. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources. 1997. National 

Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, 

D.C. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1992. Final Environmental Impact Statement: 

Engineer Proving Ground, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore 

District, Baltimore, MD. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2002. Environmental Assessment: Revision of the 

Subarea Master Plan for the Regional Community Support Center, US Army Garrison, Fort 

Belvoir, Virginia. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, Baltimore, MD. 

USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 2002. Update to the Draft Fort Belvoir Consolidated 

Utility Systems Privatization Environmental Assessment. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Baltimore District, Baltimore, MD. June. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), Mobile District. 2003. Environmental Assessment of 

the Army Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) Properties at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

Mobile, Alabama. July. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), Medical Facilities Mandatory Center of Expertise. 

2006. Medical Design Instructions for Medical MILCON Projects. Alexandria, Virginia. 

March. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2007. Waters of the U.S. (Including Wetlands) 

Delineation, Resource Protection Area (RPA) Determination, and Environmental Quality 

Corridor (EQC) Analysis for Fort Belvoir Engineering Proving Ground, Fairfax County, 

Virginia. Prepared by Wetland Studies and Solutions (WSSI), Inc. and Tetra Tech, Inc. for 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Mobile, Alabama. February. 

USATHAMA (U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency). 1990. Environmental 

Baseline Study for the Engineer Proving Ground, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Volume 1: Phase I, 

Scope Definition, and Phase II, Environmental Survey. Environmental Assessment and 

Information Sciences Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, September 

1990 (Final Report), CETHA-IR-CR-90110, Vol. 1 and ANL/EAIS/LD-3, Vol. 1. 

U.S. Court of Appeals. 2006. South Coast Air Quality Management District v. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Docket No. 04-1201, et al. On Petitions for Review of a Final Rule of the 

Environmental Protection.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and 

Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. Publication NTID300.1. 

Washington, D.C. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Guideline for Modeling CO from 

Roadway Intersections. EPA-454/R-92-005. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-12 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Determining Conformity of General 

Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002a. User’s Guide to MOBILE6.2: Mobile 

Source Emission Factor Model. EPA420-R-02-028. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and Federal Aviation Administration. 2002b. 

General Conformity Guidance for Airports – Questions and Answers, September 25. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003a. Potomac River. Website. 

<http://www.epa.gov/rivers/98rivers/fspotoma.html>. Accessed March 26. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003b. Mobile6.2 User’s Guide. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 1. Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 84.

Friday, April 30. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005a. Proposed Rules Part II Proposed Rule 

To Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Federal Register / 

Vol. 70, No. 210. Tuesday, November 1. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005b. Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, 

November 29. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005c. User’s Guide for the Final 

NONROAD2005 Model. EPA420-R-05-013. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006a. Criteria Air Pollutants Website

(http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/6poll.html) Accessed 13-June. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006b. PM2.5 De Minimis Emission Levels 

for General Conformity Applicability [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0491; FRL-8197-4]. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006c. Transportation Conformity Guidance 

for Qualitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Areas EPA420-B-06-902 March. 

USEPA-OW (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water). 2004. Better Assessment 

Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) GIS Data Files for HUC 

02070100 (Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan). Website. 

<http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/b3webdwn.htm>. Accessed March 23. 

USFA (U.S. Fire Administration). 2006. National Fire Department Census Database. 

<http://www.usfa.fema.gov/applications/census/.> Accessed July. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-13 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1994. Ecological Subregions of the United States, Chapter 16, 

Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic); 

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/ch16.html#221C; accessed 10/31/6]. USFS. 

Ecological Subregions of the United States. USFS Report WO-WSA-5. U.S. Forest Service. 

Compiled by W. Henry McNab and Peter E. Avers. July. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management, 

Agriculture Handbook No. 701 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Division of Endangered Species . 1996. Small worled 

pogonia (Isotris medeoloides). Species account. http://endangered.fws.gov/i/q/saq1q.html. 

Accessed April 6. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and VDGIF (Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries). 2000. Bald Eagle Protection Guidelines for Virginia. Prepared by U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Gloucester, Virginia, and Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia. May. 

USGS (US Geological Survey). 1984. Photorevised 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle 

coverage, dated July 1, 1984. Available at http://terraserver.microsoft.com. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1998. Water Quality in the Potomac River Basin - Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, 1992-96. USGS 

Circular 1166. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2001. National Land Cover Data Characterization for the MidAtlantic Region. <http://landcover.usgs.gov> 

VDCR (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation). 1992. Virginia Erosion and 

Sediment Control Handbook. Third Edition. Division of Soil and Water Conservation. 

Website. <http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_&_water/E&S-ftp.shtml>. Accessed May 2007. 

VDCR (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation). 2005. Virginia Stormwater 

Management Program Permits. Website. <http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/sw/vsmp>. Accessed 

January 28. 

VDCR (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation). 2006. 

http://www.state.va.us/dcr/dnh/ncoverview.htm; accessed 10/31/6; The Natural Communities 

of Virginia, Classification of Ecological Community Groups, SECOND APPROXIMATION 

(Version 2.2) 

VDEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). 2003. Virginia Title V Operating 

Permit to Operate for U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir. Permit Number NVRO70550. 

VDEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). 2005. VPDES Stormwater Permitting. 

<http://www.deq.virginia.gov/vpdes/stormwater.html>. Accessed January 28. 

VDEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). 2006a. Water Monitoring Data 

Retrieval. <http://gisweb.deq.virginia.gov/monapp/mon_query_form.cfm>. Accessed 

September. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-14 

VDEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). 2006b. Virginia Ambient Air Monitoring 

2005 Data Report. 

VDEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality) Coastal Program Office. 2004. Virginia 

Coastal Resources Management Program Administration. 

<http://www.deq.state.va.us/coastal/about.html>. Accessed June 28. 

VDEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality) Coastal Program Office. 2005. 

Environmental Impact Review. <http://www.deq.virginia.gov/eir/>. Accessed March. 

VDGIF (Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries). 2002. Special Status Species in 

Virginia. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia. March. 

VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation). 2006. Northern Virginia Projects. 

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/district-projects.asp?ID=9. October 29. 

VDSS (Virginia Department of Social Services). 2006. Virginia Department of Social Services. < 

http://www.dss.state.va.us/.> Accessed May. 

VHB (Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc). 2006. Derived Number of Existing Fort Belvoir, WHS and 

DOD, and NGA Employees by location within the ROI. VHB, Vienna, VA. 

VIMS (Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences), 2007. Website. http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/ 

aboutsav.html. 

WMATA (Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority). 2004. Fort Belvoir Fixed Guideway 

Transit Study. WMATA. 

Webster, Ron. 2005. Final Results of the U.S. Army Environmental Center Pay-Ahead Project for 

Phase I Socio-Economic Analyses. Prepared by Ron Webster for the U.S. Army 

Environmental Center, Environmental Planning Branch, Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

Maryland. 

Woodlawn Friends Meeting. 2006. Virginia Department of Historic Resources Preliminary 

Information Form for Woodlawn Quaker Meetinghouse. Prepared by the Woodlawn Friends 

Meeting, Alexandria, Virginia. August. 

Woolpert. 1993a. Real Property Master Plan Long Range Component: Fort Belvoir. Alexandria, 

Virginia: Woolpert. 254 pp. 

WSSI (Wetland Studies and Solutions). 2005a. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria Medeoloides) 

Habitat Evaluation and Search Report, Route 7100, Fairfax County Parkway. Prepared for 

Virginia Department of Transportation. June. 

Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc.. 2005b. Small Whorled Pogonia, Habitat Evaluation and 

Search Report, Fort Belvoir Army Museum (Proposed Site at Grays Hill). Prepared for Tetra 

Tech, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia. August. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-15 

WSSI (Wetland Studies and Solutions). 2006. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria Medeoloides) 

Habitat Evaluation and Search Report, Fort Belvoir Engineer Proving Ground,Virginia. 

Prepared with Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Mobile District and Fort Belvoir Environmental and Natural Resources Division. September 

2006. 

Wyle (Wyle Acoustics Group). 2000. Aircraft Noise Study for Davison Army Airfield. January 

2000. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 8-16 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 9-1 

SECTION 9.0 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AAFES Army and Air Force Exchange 

Service 

ABWR Accotink Bay Wildlife Refuge 

AC Administrative Closure 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

ACM asbestos containing materials 

ACP Access Control Point 

ACS Army Community Service 

ACSIM Assistant Chief of Staff for 

Installation Management 

ADNL A-weighted day night average 

sound level 

ADT Average Daily Traffic 

AFB Air Force Base 

AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency 

Response Act of 1986 

AHPA Archaeological and Historic 

Preservation Act 

AKO Army Knowledge Online 

AIRFA American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act 

AMC Army Materiel Command 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

APM Asbestos Program Manager 

AQCR Air Quality Control Region 

AQCR 47 National Capital Interstate AirQuality Control Region 

AQCR 225 State Capital Intrastate AirQuality Control Region 

AQCR 224 Northeastern Virginia Intrastate 

Air-Quality Control Region 

AR Army Regulation 

ARPA Archeological Resources 

Protection Act 

ASP Ammunition Supply Point 

AST aboveground storage tank 

AT Antiterrorism 

AT/FP Antiterrorism/ Force Protection 

ATM asynchronous transfer mode 

BACT best available control technology 

BES Baseline Environmental Survey 

BMP best management practice 

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure 

BRDEC Belvoir Research and 

Development Engineering Center 

BRT Bus Rapid Transit 

BTU British Thermal Units 

oC degrees Celsius 

C commercial 

C-5 Neighborhood Retail Commercial 

District 

C-6 Community Retail Commercial 

District 

C-8 Highway Commercial District 

C&D construction and demolition 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBC Community Business Center 

CBP Chesapeake Bay Program 

CBPA Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act 

CDC Child Development Center 

CDD Construction and Demolition 

Debris 

CDNL C-weighted day night average 

sound level 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental 

Response Compensation and 

Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CIDC Criminal Investigation Division 

Command 

CIP Capital Improvement Program 

CIS Capital Investment Strategy 

CLRP Constrained Long Range Plan 

CO carbon monoxide 

CRMP Coastal Resources Management 

Program 

CS Confirmatory Sampling 

CTB Commonwealth Transportation 

Board 

CTT closed, transferring, and 

transferred 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

CZMARA Coastal Zone Management Act 

Reauthorization Amendment 

DA Department of the Army 

DAAF Davison Army Airfield 

DAIM Department of the Army 

Installation Management 

DAR defense access roads 

dB decibel 

dBA A-weighted decibel 

dBC C-weighted decibel 

dBP Peak Level decibel 

DC District of Columbia 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 9-2 

DCEETA Defense Communications 

Electronics Evaluation and 

Testing Agency 

DCMA Defense Contract Management 

Agency 

DCNG D.C. National Guard 

DD Department of Defense (acronym 

used for forms only) 

DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane 

DeCA Defense Commissary Agency 

DERP Defense Environmental 

Restoration Program 

DLA Defense Logistics Agency 

DMM discarded military munitions 

DNH Virginia Department of Natural 

Heritage 

DNL Day-night average sound level 

DO Dissolved Oxygen 

DoD Department of Defense 

DoDI Department of Defense Instruction 

Dominion Dominion Virginia Power 

Company 

DPW Department of Public Works 

DPW-ENRD Directorate of Public Works–

Environmental and Natural 

Resources Division 

DPWL Directorate of Public Works and 

Logistics 

DRMO Defense Reutilization and 

Marketing Office 

DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

EBS Environmental Baseline Survey 

ECP Environmental Condition of 

Property 

EIFS Economic Impact Forecast System 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EMS Emergency Medical Services 

ENRD Environmental and Natural 

Resources Division 

EO Executive Order 

EOC Emergency Operations Center 

EPG Engineer Proving Ground 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

EQC Environmental Quality Corridor 

ERA Environmental Resources 

Assessment 

ERDL Engineer Research & 

Development Laboratories 

ERTC Engineer Replacement Training 

Center 

ESS Explosive Safety Submission 

EUL enhanced use leasing 

oF degrees Fahrenheit 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FACEUP Federal Agencies Chesapeake 

Ecosystem Unified Plan 

FAR Federal Aviation Regulations 

FAR Floor Area Ratio 

FBRC-LLC Fort Belvoir Residential 

Communities Limited Liability 

Company 

FCPS Fairfax County Public School 

System 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

FFCA Federal Facilities Compliance 

Agreement 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FICUN Federal Interagency Committee on 

Urban Noise 

FPCON Force Protection Condition 

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act 

FR Federal Register 

ft2

 square feet 

ft/veh feet per vehicle 

FY Fiscal Year 

GCD general conformity determination 

GCR General Conformity Rule 

GIS geographic information system 

GP General Purpose 

gpd gallons per day 

GSA General Services Administration 

gsf gross square feet 

gpm gallons per minute 

GW George Washington 

GWLF Generalized Watershed Loading 

Functions Model 

HABS Historic American Buildings 

Survey 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HEC Humphreys Engineer Center 

HOT High Occupancy Toll 

HOV High Occupancy Vehicle 

HQ Headquarters 

HRR Historical Records Review 

HSP Health and Safety Plan 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

HUD Housing and Urban Development 

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning 

HWMU Hazardous Waste Management 

Unit 

Hz Hertz 

I industrial 

I-3 Light Intensity Industrial District 

I-395 Interstate 395, Shirley Highway 

I-495 Interstate 495, Capital Beltway 

I-6 Heavy Industrial District 

I-95 Interstate 95 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 9-3 

ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources 

Management Plan 

IDG Installation Design Guide 

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan 

INSCOM U.S. Army Intelligence and 

Security Command 

IPM Integrated Pesticide Management 

IPMP Integrated Pesticide Management 

Plan 

ISDN integrated services digital network 

ITE Institute of Transportation 

Engineers 

ITEC4 Information Technology, ECommerce, and Commercial 

Contracting Center 

ITS Intelligent Transportation System 

JMAWR Jackson Miles Abbott Wetland 

Refuge 

JPRA Joint Personnel Recovery Agency 

K ft2

 thousand square feet 

kV kilovolt 

Leq Equivalent Sound Level 

Leq(1) 1-hour Equivalent Sound Level 

lb pound 

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

LBP lead-based paint 

LEED Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design 

LF Linear Feet 

LID Low Impact Development 

LOS Level of Service 

LPM Lead Program Manager 

LRC long-range component 

LRT Light-rail transit 

LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan 

M ft2

 million square feet 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology 

MAPS Monitoring Avian Productivity 

and Survivorship Program 

MASC magnetometer-assisted surface 

clearance 

MC Munitions Constituents 

MDA HQCC Missile Defense Agency 

Headquarters Command Center 

MDW Military District of Washington 

MEC munitions and explosives of 

concern 

MEDCOM U.S. Army Medical Command 

μg/l micrograms per liter 

mg/l milligrams per liter 

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

mgd million gallons per day 

MGMC Malcolm Grow Medical Center 

mm millimeter 

MMcf Million Cubic Feet 

MMRP Military Munitions Response 

Program 

MN Map Number 

MOE Measures of Effectiveness 

MP Military Police 

MPO Metropolitan Planning 

Organization 

MPTM Master Planning Technical 

Manual 

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area 

MS4s municipal separate storm sewer 

systems 

MSC Museum Support Center 

MWAQC Metropolitan Washington Air 

Quality Committee 

msl mean sea level 

MVA megavolt amperes 

MWCOG Metropolitan Washington Council 

of Governments 

MWR Army and Air Force Morale, 

Welfare, and Recreation 

NAA Nonattainment area 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAC Noise Abatement Criteria 

NAF Nonappropriated Funds 

NAGPRA Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NARMC North Atlantic Regional Medical 

Center 

NAWQA National Water-Quality 

Assessment 

NB Northbound 

NBC nuclear, biological, and chemical 

NCPC National Capital Planning 

Commission 

NCR National Capital Region 

NEPA National Environmental Policy 

Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NFA no further action 

NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence 

Agency 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NIH National Institutes of Health 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NNMC National Naval Medical Center 

NNSR Nonattainment New Source 

Review 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx oxides of nitrogen 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 9-4 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOISEMAP Aircraft Noise Prediction Model 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic 

Places 

NSPS new source performance standards 

NSR new source review 

NSR Noise Sensitive Receptors 

NVTC Northern Virginia Transportation 

Commission 

O3 ozone 

OB/OD Open Burning/Open Detonation 

OE Ordnance and Explosives 

OSAA Operational Support Airlift 

Agency 

OSACOM Operational Support Airlift 

Command 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

OTR Ozone Transport Region 

PA Programmatic Agreements 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

PAM Department of the Army Pamphlet 

PAO Directorate of Public Affairs 

Office 

PAT Petersburg Area Transit 

Pb lead 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyls 

pCi/L Picocurie per liter 

PCPI per capita personal income 

PDA Physical Disability Agency 

PDH Planned Development Housing 

PEO EIS Program Executive Office, 

Enterprise Information Systems 

PFM Public Facilities Manual 

PIF Partners in Flight 

PM particulate matter 

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 

microns in diameter 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 

microns in diameter 

PMCL primary maximum contaminate 

level 

PM DCATS Project Manager Defense 

Communications and Army 

Transmission Systems 

PMP Petroleum Management Program 

POL petroleum, oil, and lubricants 

POTTF Upper Potomac River segment of 

the Chesapeake Bay Program 

POV privately owned vehicle 

ppb parts per billion 

ppm parts per million 

ppt parts per thousand 

PRS Petroleum Release Site 

PSA Petroleum Storage Area 

PSD prevention of significant 

deterioration 

PVC polyvinyl chloride 

PX post exchange 

R Residential 

R-1 Residential District, 1 dwelling 

unit per acre 

R-3 Residential District, 3 dwelling 

units per acre 

R-8 Residential District, 8 dwelling 

units per acre 

R-20 Residential District, 20 dwelling 

units per acre 

R-E Residential Estate District 

R&D Research and Development 

RCI Residential Communities 

Initiative 

RCRA Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act 

REX Richmond Highway Express 

Metrobus service 

RFID radio frequency identification 

RMA Resource Management Area 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROI region of influence 

ROTC Reserve Officers Training Corps 

ROW Right-of-Way 

RPA Resource Protection Area 

RPMP real property master plan 

RTV Rational Threshold Value 

RV Recreational Vehicle 

SA Secretary of the Army 

SAB Special Advisory Board 

SARA Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation 

SB Southbound 

SCIF sensitive compartmented 

information facility 

SDDC Surface Deployment and 

Distribution Command 

SEAhut Southeast Asia huts 

sec/veh seconds per vehicle 

SFDC Southeast Fairfax Development 

Corporation 

sf square feet 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SI Site Investigation 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SM-1 Stationary, Medium Power–First 

Prototype nuclear power plant 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 9-5 

SNA Special Natural Area 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SOP Standard Operating Procedures 

SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle 

SPL sound pressure level 

SRC Short-range component 

STORET STOrage and RETrieval 

SU standard units (units of measure 

for pH) 

SWM Storm Water Management 

SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention 

Plan 

TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone 

TBD to be determined 

TBO Total Build-Out 

TBT Tributyltin 

TDMC Transportation Demand 

Management Coordinator 

TIP Transportation Improvement Plan 

TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TMP Transportation Management Plan 

TN Total Nitrogen 

TNM Traffic Noise Model 

TOC Total Organic Carbon 

Total N Total Nitrogen 

Total P Total Phosphorus 

TP Total Phosphorus 

tpd tons per day 

tpy tons per year 

TR-55 Technical Release 55 small 

watershed model 

TRB Transportation Research Board 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

TSS Total Suspended Solids 

UFC Unified Facilities Criteria 

ULSD Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel 

U.S. United States 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USACE United States Army Corps of 

Engineers 

USANCA U.S. Army Nuclear and Chemical 

Agency 

USATHAMA U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous 

Materials Agency 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

UST underground storage tank 

UXO unexploded ordnance 

VA Virginia 

VAC Virginia Administrative Code 

V/C volume to capacity 

VDCR Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation 

VDCR-NHP Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation–

Natural Heritage Program 

VDACS Virginia Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer 

Services 

VDEQ Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality 

VDGIF Virginia Department of Game and 

Inland Fisheries 

VDHR Virginia Department of Historic 

Resources 

VDOT Virginia Department of 

Transportation 

VMRC Virginia Marine Resources 

Commission 

VMT vehicle miles traveled 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

VPDES Virginia Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System 

vph vehicles per hour 

vph/gate vehicles per hour per gate 

vphpl vehicles per hour per lane 

VRE Virginia Railway Express 

VSI visual site inspection 

VSMP Virginia Stormwater Management 

Program 

VWP Virginia Water Protection 

WHS Washington Headquarters 

Services 

WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area 

Transit Authority 

WRAMC Walter Reed Army Medical 

Center 

WWII World War II 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 9-6 

This page is intentionally left blank.