Appendix I 

Public Scoping Meeting 

Attendance Roster 
















Appendix J 

Agency Scoping Meeting 

Discussion Points 

and Attendance Roster 
Fort Belvoir Agency Scoping Meeting 

June 7, 2006 1:30PM – Springfield Hilton Hotel – Springfield, VA 

Discussion Points 

1 of 3 

 Will the public have the same input opportunity as the agencies? 

o Yes, using the written comment form or online comment form, via email, 

or through the court reporter to submit oral comments. 

 Will the public have the group forum opportunity as the agencies do this 

afternoon?

o No, there will be a formal public hearing later in the EIS process (winter 

of 2006–2007)

o All the public comments received throughout the scoping process will be 

compiled and presented in the Scope of Statement, which will become part 

of the public record. 

o Ask questions of technical experts

 How will the BRAC EIS and the master plan be coordinated, in particular, the 

siting of the facilities on Fort Belvoir? 

o The EIS and the master plan are being prepared concurrently.

 The Master Plan needs to be decided first to do NEPA analysis of a preferred 

alternative. 

o Typically the master planning process is conducted ahead of the EIS 

process; however, because of the accelerated schedule for implementation 

of the BRAC actions, the master planning and EIS teams are working 

closely to coordinate the two efforts. 

 If the NEPA process (EIS) reveals issues with the Master Plan’s preferred 

alternative (facility locations) late in the process, (winter 2006–2007), will there 

be time to change/modify alternatives (facility locations?)

o Yes, it is possible for the Army to revise alternatives. 

o An EIS can go forth to the Public Draft EIS stage without a preferred 

alternative and determine a preferred alternative at that point on the basis 

of public input.

 Will there still be enough time if that happens–it is a very narrow window of time 

to complete the EIS and master plan. 

o The EIS will analyze the entire footprint for proposed facilities, so some 

movement of siting of facilities within the footprint could occur without 

significantly impacting the schedule.

o If it is determined that the preferred alternative is no longer viable, we will 

already have done the investigation at other locations (through analysis of 

other alternatives considered) to determine their suitability for 

development.

o If an area is added to an alternative that was not previously considered, the 

EIS schedule would be affected. 
Fort Belvoir Agency Scoping Meeting 

June 7, 2006 1:30PM – Springfield Hilton Hotel – Springfield, VA 

Discussion Points 

2 of 3 

o Additional follow-up NEPA analysis such as a Supplemental EA could be 

done if needed for specific sites. 

 What about agency coordination? 

o Coordination letters to federal, state, and local agencies will be sent. 

o The Commonwealth of Virginia has a “one stop shop” for distribution of 

EIS materials (i.e., Public Draft EIS) in which Ms. Ellie Irons of the 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) coordinates 

distribution of the EIS to all Virginia agencies. 

 What is the relationship between the Belvoir New Vision Planners (BNVP) and 

the BRAC NEPA Support Team (NST)? 

o There is direct overlap between the two, and consistent coordination and 

sharing of information between them. In fact there are two firms that are 

members of both teams. 

 The July 7 report will identify site locations of 80 percent of the proposed 

facilities on Fort Belvoir. The locations of the facilities will change the nature of 

transportation and infrastructure required to accommodate the facilities. State and 

local agencies will be impacted by these facility sitings, particularly transportation 

agencies. We (State and local representatives) need enough time to budget and 

plan to accommodate growth on Fort Belvoir (roads, rail, etc.). Where will the 

money come from to fund all these improvements? 

o The BRAC NST will take all concerns back to the planners regarding 

timing of the Master Plan and EIS and the impact on local agency 

planning constraints. 

 What if the master plan finds that Fort Belvoir cannot accommodate the proposed 

square footage? 

o BNVP has determined that the proposed square footage will fit in multiple 

configurations. At this time that is not a concern. A screening process to 

minimize impacts to sensitive environmental areas on Fort Belvoir is also 

being conducted. 

 

 What is the region of influence of transportation and other impacts of BRAC 

action analyzed in the EIS? What about mitigation? 

o The region of influence has not been defined at this stage. 

o The EIS will propose mitigation, but will not conduct analysis of the 

proposed mitigation or implement the mitigation. Who is responsible for 

the proposed mitigation will depend on what the proposed mitigation is. 

 Will there be specific detail in the EIS about the potential for off-post 

transportation improvements (transportation mitigation)? 
Fort Belvoir Agency Scoping Meeting 

June 7, 2006 1:30PM – Springfield Hilton Hotel – Springfield, VA 

Discussion Points 

3 of 3 

o There will be general recommendations put forth for transportation 

improvements in the EIS that are based on the results of the impacts 

analysis. 

o There will be a negotiation process between the Army and appropriate 

agencies to determine funding mechanisms for the required transportation 

improvements. 

 Will the federal government lease office space on Fort Belvoir to the private 

sector? This would affect local transportation issues/development. The local 

government needs to be made aware of this decision. 

o Leasing of federal land (Enhanced Use Leases [EULs]) is being 

considered for developers to construct office space. 

 22,000 jobs will be relocated to Fort Belvoir. What about collateral contractors 

that will be subsequently drawn to Fort Belvoir? 

o This will be addressed in the EIS. Planners are analyzing the issue and 

will be making estimates. The EIS will also analyze impacts on the local 

economy, schools, and utilities. 

 I’m concerned that the mitigation will not be analyzed, just proposed. How do we 

know the mitigation will be sufficient? 

o Mitigation measures will be recommended on the basis of the results of 

the impacts analysis to be conducted as part of the EIS. 

 The master plan is to be completed in May 2007. Will the EIS be finalized at this 

time? 

o Development of the master plan and the Draft EIS are being conducted 

concurrently. 

o The Public Draft EIS with the master plan update is anticipated to be 

available in the winter of 2006-2007. 

 It would help local agencies/commenting agencies to have interim drafts and 

comment periods, and longer comment periods. We need to see this document 

before it is final. 

o The Public Draft EIS will have a 45-day comment period in the Winter of 

2006–2007. The Final EIS will have a 30-day comment period in the 

summer of 2007. 

 Will the comments received today be on the BNVP Web site? If so, when? 

o Yes. The comment period ends July 2. Comments received will be 

included as part of the Scope of Statement report to be posted on the Web 

site sometime in mid-July. 






Appendix K 

Debriefing Meeting Summary 
Following the Public Scoping Meeting, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Support Team (NST) and the Belvoir New 

Vision Planners (BNVP) convened for a debriefing meeting. Technical staff from each 

of the information booths provided comments on issues that the public raised; frequently 

asked questions, comments, or concerns; and general feedback. Below is a summary of 

the information gathered at that meeting. 

Verbal comments given to the BRAC NST and BNVP at the scoping meeting: 

Planning issues 

• Commented on planning principles; hope they can be adhered to. 

• Wanted to know impacts of significant areas of development for BRAC on Fort 

Belvoir. 

• What would the density of the development proposed for the Engineering Proving 

Ground (EPG) be, and how would the access roads be aligned? 

• Several questions were asked about where things were going to be sited, and the 

siting process in general. 

• Will the new Dewitt Hospital partner with INOVA Fairfax Hospital? 

• A gentleman who had formerly worked for the Veterans Administration felt the 

hospital needs to be at EPG. Keeping the hospital on Main post would be a traffic 

nightmare, and that EPG was a better location from the transportation aspect. 

Transportation issues 

• Liked map showing directions and origins of relocated workers. 

• Why does there not appear to be a tree buffer being maintained along the western 

edge of EPG to shield the residential neighborhoods from the Parkway. This 

[may have] been an agreement made in the past. 

• The discussion at the transportation booth was almost exclusively focused on the 

issue of where people are coming from and whether there is likely to be a 

significant shift in employee’s residential locations. Most citizens the BNVP staff 

spoke with were satisfied with our sample size and approach. However, the 

agencies, Fairfax County in particular continues to be very concerned that we do 

not have a full Zip Code listing of current and incoming employees. While they 

recognize that while we have about 15,000 Zip Codes from incoming agencies, 

these were obtained at different times from different sources. The BNVP staff 

does not believe the overall pattern would change. It has been the similar for 

years, and how it changes over the next 5 years is driven by several factors. It is 

unlikely to shift percentages more than 2 to 4 percent from any direction. 

• Most citizens seemed supportive of the development but were very concerned or 

even alarmed that the program would proceed without adequate funding for 

transportation improvements. 

• Most citizens felt extending Metro or some form of rail transit was essential. 
• In terms of specific suggestions, most are waiting to see specific proposals and 

concepts. However, quite a few asked what would be done to Route 1, and there 

were suggestions to extend a road across Southwest Post parallel to Route 1. 

• There was strong support for rail south along Route 1 to Fort Belvoir. 

• There were a lot of questions regarding what we would study and how far off-post 

our studies would go. In that regard it does take up to 6 or 7 miles before traffic 

destined to Fort Belvoir drops below 10 percent of the traffic flow or becomes 

insignificant. 

Socioeconomic issues 

• Wanted to know if the number of housing units on-post will increase. 

• What will happen to school enrollment as a result of BRAC influx of personnel 

into the area? 

• Retirees versus active workers: very different perspectives of development. 

Environmental issues 

• Want to see preservation of the Environmental Quality Corridor (EQC) on EPG 

and the wildlife refuges on the Main Post. 

• Could the EQC be open to public access? A past agreement Fort Belvoir made to 

delineate and adopt the EQC and the refuges was cited. 

• Want to continue to have or allow public access to Accotink Creek 

• Wanted to know why the Accotink Bay Wildlife Refuge was being shown on a 

display board as "secondary development area." Did not agree with that area 

being indicated for development. 

• General questions were asked about existing environmental conditions. One 

person seemed most interested in conservation of shoreline areas and eagle 

habitats. 

• Several people were concerned with the maintenance of the wildlife corridor 

through the installation. One person asked what effect the connector road would 

have on the corridor. 

Cultural issues 

• One resident lives within the Mount Air historic overlay district. Her house is 

directly across the street from the North Post Golf Course and was concerned by 

its development. She wants to retain the wooded scene presented by the golf 

course. She was also concerned about the idea that the hospital would be moved 

off of South Post. She feels that having the hospital on Main Post is more 

convenient for both patients and visitors as they have access to the PX, Officers’ 

Club, and so on. That would not be the case if the hospital were to move to EPG. 
Scoping issues 

• This process is not far enough along to be able to provide substantive comments. 

• A representative of the Audubon Society of Northern Virginia provided a letter of 

scoping comments to the BRAC NST. 

• Copies of the display boards were requested to be made available on the BNVP 

Web site. 

Other notes 

• Media representatives were in attendance, including reporters from the 

Washington Post and Mount Vernon Gazette. Overall reaction from the media 

was positive 

• Some members of the public questioned if this all there is. Data is lacking and 

there was no formal public forum or presentation. 
Appendix L 

Submitted Comments 
















Tuesday, June 06, 2006 

How is the I-495 to I-95 S arrangement going to be structured to prevent the bottleneck of having 

to cross 2 lanes to get into I-95 South? 

Lee P. Schroeder
Did you ever consider conducting a poll of the DeWitt Health Care Network beneficiaries to get 

their ideas for the location of the BRAC hospital at Fort Belvoir?

You apparently did such a survey for commuters to Ft. Belvoir.. Isn't service and easy access to 

healthcare beneficiaries just as important? Many of those commuters will probably

be healthcare beneficiaries who will get their health care at the new hospital.

 

Francis C. Houts

LTC USA (RTD)

703-780-3374

houtsf@erols.com 
I am a 75 year old army veteran. I have lived in the Mt. Vernon area for 33 years and have 

received at least 95% of my medical care at DeWitt. Of the various locations I have heard 

mentioned for the location of the new DeWitt, the Engineering Proving ground is absolutely the 

worse.

In the 33 years I have lived here, when I heard this location mentioned I did not know how to drive 

to it. I knew roughly where it was located but could not give specific directions to anyone. Many 

people asked me where it was located and I could not tell them how to get to the roving Ground.

I have been to some meetings and it is clear that the Fairfax County Supervisors, the local state 

delegate and senator and the 2 Virginia senators and local Representatives have all given their 

support to locating the hospital at the Engineering Proving Grounds. This is for the benefits of the 

local jurisdictions rather than for the benefits to those service personnel, active and retired and 

their families, who will use this medical facility.

Fairfax supervisors always complain about what the army has wanted to do at Ft. Belvoir.

The bottom line with Fairfax County is the dollar and they don't want to pay anything but want to 

get all the benefits. The Army always seems to "cave in" and give the County what it wants or 

gets the messy end of the stick. Of course, it is always shown to be a "win/win" situation.

The Engineering Proving Grounds is not considered by many of us to be part of Ft. Belvoir.

There is no physical connection between the Proving Ground and Ft. Belvoir like between North 

and South Post.

My choice would be the 9-hole golf course at the Route 1 entrance; followed by the location for 

the proposed Army Museum or across Route 1 from the main entrance on the area used for 

soccer and other activities.

 

Francis C. Houts

LTC USA (RTD)

703-780-3373

fhouts@erols.com 
Patricia Tyson 

8641 Mount Vernon Highway 

Alexandria Virginia 22309

T_Tyson@mindspring.com

793 780-0925

Fort Belvoir BRAC EIS Scoping Comments

June 7, 2006

Public Involvement The website link for providing comments did not work. I am submitting this US Mail and 

by email to Fort Belvoir EIS (environmental@belvoir.army.mil). 

The public scoping for BRAC EIS for Fort Belvoir has been totally inadequate. Design all BRAC 

EIS public components and outreach programs to follow precisely the procedures used in the 

Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project: include presentations to small groups throughout the process, 

use multiple media forums for outreach and adjust the design of the project and phasing based 

on public input received throughout the process of design and implementation.

Background Completely separate from BRAC, Fort Belvoir has undertaken huge growth in facilities and 

infrastructure. But the Master Plan has not been updated since 1994. An EIS Scoping public 

meeting was held Nov. 17, 2003. Nothing further has been done on the Master Plan EIS, to 

respond or address the cumulative effects of these multiple facilities, many in non-conformance 

with the 1994 Master Plan, nor to address the public comments made submitted for that. How will 

the public scoping comments for the Updated Master Plan be addressed in the propose EIS to 

address both BRAC and the Master Plan update. 

Cumulative effects have not been addressed on the change to population, traffic patterns, loss of 

habitat, air and water quality degradation or loss of open space resulting from this incremental 

growth. The base line for this information also has not been updated to reflect this growth and 

destruction in natural resources and species of concern or listed Endangered Species. In this 

unknown baseline data is the enormous growth in the use of private contractors for military and 

non-military functions on Post, yet there has not been a count of these, non-civilian and nonmilitary employees since 1994. All of these effects must be evaluated prior to initiating a study of 

the effect of BRAC on the environment and community.

US Army Garrison Fort Belvoir has a long history of hollow and unfulfilled commitments made in 

multiple Environmental Assessments and in the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

and in Agreements to protect the Chesapeake Bay (the Federal Facilities Compliance 

Agreement). Among these are unfulfilled and unfunded commitments to mass transit, water 

quality Best Management Practices (BMP's), conservation protection areas including Refuge 

boundary definitions. Therefore, all mitigation identified in the BRAC and Master Plan EIS 

documents must be based on commitments of real funding and real enforcement mechanisms, 

including annual audits for compliance with all conditions; public disclosures of all violations with 

fines that prevent subsequent phases of project completion. The Army must be accountable for 

non-compliance. Nothing less will assure the public that these measures will be undertaken.
BRAC Federal undertakings in the routine growth on Fort Belvoir have to meet the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirement to evaluate all the viable alternatives. The 

BRAC EIS must thoroughly examine all methods to minimize the enormous, destructive and 

disruptive consequences of this Fort Belvoir BRAC 2005 and to commit to adopting the most 

stringent measures to minimize adverse project impacts. All project mitigation must be 

unequivocally included in the projects and the project funding. All mitigation noted in the EIS 

study narrative text must be included in any charts and graphic or other sections of the EIS 

indicating degree of impact. 

The scoping for this EIS is vital to the adequacy of the EIS in addressing all specific impacts, in 

order to define any necessary mitigation measures and in order to identify the funding of all 

mitigation measures necessary to minimize the anticipated environmental, social, economic and 

quality of life impacts from this huge project on the environment, and the community. 

Nevertheless, the public has never been presented the alternatives or the BRAC project in a 

meaningful way. The public comments are due the same week that the Alternatives are being 

narrowed. This violates the principles of NEPA and the community is opposed to this process.

The EIS must include studying mitigation that will minimize impacts, including: 

 The use of parking garages to reduce the footprint of parking lots  Incorporating LEEDS certified standards for all buildings and site development  The use of "Green roofs" 

 Maintenance of 250 foot vegetated buffers along all streambeds, 

 Incorporating "demand management" of traffic, 

 Eliminating free employee parking  Annual audits and publication of mandatory mass transit for all employees, and 

contractors, and residents. 

 Building links to mass transit at Springfield and Huntington Metro  Evaluation of the density of project and the adequacy of infrastructure to support 

development; i.e. dense projects may support rail extension; sprawl will require more 

road construction.  In order to determine where the commuters will be originating, provide the precise zip 

code numbers and the employees who reside in these zip codes for all the relocating 

entities and use these to determine BRAC impacts to local road networks.  Study the impacts to the GW Parkway and the GW Memorial Highway from BRAC.  In order to plan the precise number of children to be schooled in Fairfax County public 

schools, include the precise numbers of bedrooms in the proposed housing.  In order to examine the real commuter and road and air quality impacts, include the 

precise number of contractors currently serving DOD entities to be relocated and the 

dollar figures of the contracts under which these contractors perform. 

 Include precise lease language for any commercial, for-profit, opportunities on Federal 

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

activities if they had been located in adjacent Fairfax County commercial space. 

1) As is always true with DoD projects, funding for mitigation is not likely to be forthcoming, 

unless it is clearly part of the project and is timed sequentially to occur first as a condition of the 

project and completion of subsequent phases. Concurrency of necessary infrastructure and 

mitigation measures will only come with an exhaustive, scientific, reasoned EIS and the mitigation 

measures designed as project integral components. We expect these infrastructure 

improvements to be funded through BRAC to benefit BRAC implementation and minimize the 

disruptions anticipated on the community. Anything less is unacceptable.
2) Anything that should have been included in the stalled, incomplete updated Master Plan EIS 

that is addressed in the BRAC EIS, must be subject to evaluation of all viable alternatives. 

3) Using the base line information contained in the outdated Master Plan 1994 for the BRAC EIS, 

will not reflect the real, degraded environmental and traffic conditions from this incremental 

growth that has occurred since. None of the subsequent Environmental Assessments has 

addressed cumulative effects, as required by law. Undertake new baseline studies reflecting the 

cumulative effects of these multiple non-BRAC projects, including DTRA, RCI, DTRA, etc. for air 

quality, water quality, open space, traffic counts, child attendance in local schools (reflecting RCI 

bedroom counts and projections), etc. 

4) It is essential to commit to avoidance of impacts to tidal and non-tidal wetlands; if avoidance is 

not possible, proximate mitigation sites and proven methods. Update the new species and 

habitat information from recent surveys conducted by the DPW Public Works Natural Resources 

office and incorporate the findings and recommendations of the Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan into the EIS and mitigation measures for the BRAC project.

5) Conduct multiple scoping meetings using the public hearing forum of audience and podium 

with microphone. Advertise these at a minimum of three weeks in advance of meetings on radio, 

newspapers, etc. The format of multiple displays and self-education proposed for the June 7th

meeting does not adequately inform the public, nor does the public have an opportunity to 

adequately present views to their elected officials and project officers.

6) Design all BRAC EIS public components and outreach programs to follow precisely the 

procedures used in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project: include presentations to small groups 

throughout the process, use multiple media forums for outreach and adjust the design of the 

project and phasing based on public input received throughout the process of design and 

implementation.

7) Address the statutory requirements for threat reduction measures and define how the 

projects meet or exceed the standards and where in the National Capital Region the standards 

ARE NOT FOLLOWED. Examine the threat of creating a target by consolidation the disparate 

offices dealing with sensitive intelligence.

8) Do not include the replacement of the Woodlawn Road project in the BRAC EIS. Initiate 

necessary traffic counts to project traffic impacts to the George Washington Parkway and the 

George Washington Memorial Highway.

9. Due to inadequate public notifications and public information, extend the deadline for 

receipt Scoping Comments to September 15, 2006. 

10) Post all the public scoping comments on a public website and publish this web address in the 

Washington Post, the Alexandria Gazette, the Mount Vernon Gazette and the Washington Post 

Examiner. 












~ p~

,..... """"y ""'" - 'j\Lt'l-J,trT \ ~l'.'''Il~'rl l ~,"l'\,' I\'l'5flT5, J t1~..

.p () '.K') .:::L'.:-

!.ILhil't \ '~"'f!O,;" \ '1, "j't",1 ':::':::_":.1<''::05 ,

June 15, 2006

The MountVernon HighSchool Crew team requests the Master planner to consider the

following information while developing the Fort Belvoir master plan. Crew is a club sport

offered at Mount Vernon, the assigned high school for all high school aged students of those

stationed or living near Fort Belvoir. As a youth sport, Mount Vernon Crew relies on Fort

Belvoir's support by allowing access to the water from the base as well as a small area on the

base for team assets. With the estimated influx of 21,000 additional personnel to Fort Belvoir,

the number of students being assigned to MountVernonHighSchoolwill increase as well.

This year alone, the crew team had 62% of its members military affiliated. We anticipate that

our military affiliation will increase as more personnel are assigned to the Fort Belvoir area.

Space needs for the Crew on Fort Belvoir:

The MountVernon Crew needs access to the water from Fort Belvoir either from the marina

or another suitable location where we can place a water level floating dock of least 55 feet

long into launchable water. The team also needs space to secure 4 flat bottom jonboats, open

space to place several racks for crew shell storage 60 feet apart in length and 10 feet apart in

width without obstacles nearby to allow for movement of the crew shells off and on the racks,

open space to place 2 racks 10 feet tall by 5 feet wide for storage of oars, space that meets

environmental standards for a 4 x 4 gas storage shed, space near the crew shell racks to

place a 10 x 8 vinyl storage building and several small vinyl storage containers for team

equipment, and a flat area large enough to be able to park the team's 45 foot long trailer for

loading and unloading team equipment.

Current use of space on Fort Belvoir:

The MountVernon High School Crew team has used the marina located on the south post of

Fort Belvoir for 5 years. The team practices out of the marina during the crew season from

mid February through the end of May (Monday through Sunday) but maintains some assets

there throughout the year. The drainage ditch that separates the main marina and the Point

serves as the crew area. Static crew assets include: 3 sets of wooden storage crew shell

racks placed directly in the ditch, a 10 x 8 vinyl storage shed and a few small vinyl containers

near the edge of the ditch, a wooden oar rack near the vinyl containers, a small floating dock

at the extreme outer area of the marina channel, and a metal gas storage building near the

floating dock ramp. Team launches are secured to the floating dock during the season and

stored under the wooden crew shell racks during the off-season. Crew shells are stored on

the team's trailer in the RV lot also located on the south post of Fort Belvoir. The team does

not use the marina office, building, bathrooms or docks either during the season or offseason.
op (1 '.f.." ..::(~.:::

]1.1 l ,t ",-I'ILl,; \"il'li,1':"::_"::J.-,."'''::''~ \.'

Requested additions to the crew space at the Fort Belvoir marina:

The team requests permission to put up an additional set of wooden storage crew shell

racks near the ones currently in the crew site and a second gas shed. Additionally, the team

would like to build protective covers on top and around the storage racks to help preserve

crew shells and be allowed to store our shells on the racks during the off season.

Secondary location for crew space on Fort Belvoir:

Should the marina close or become unsuitable for use by the crew team, we request access

to Tompkins Basin in the area near the Archery range on south post. Crew has low impact to

the surrounding area and wildlife and uses access to the water for only the 14 weeks of the

crew season. The floating dock that would be built and placed in Tompkins Basin by the team

would remain at this location throughout the year for use by anyone authorized base access.

Thank you for your time and consideration of the needs of the Mount Vernon High School

Crew team on Fort Belvoir.

Attachments:

1) Google map of crew assets at the Fort Belvoir marina

2) Proposed secondary location for crew on Fort Belvoir (Attachment 1:Tompkins Basin)

3) Proposed layout of crew assets at Tompkins Basin
Proposed position

of temporary racks

Proposed

position of

Mount Vernon

Fuel shed
Boat Racks

Floating dock

Fuel shed

Shed

Oar Rack
Tomkins Basin, Fort Belvoir

Proposed Crew site

Archery 

Ca




Monday, June 19, 2006 

We received a meeting notice and request for comments on the scope of the 

upcoming EIS related to BRAC actions at Fort Belvoir. We offer the 

following comments and recommendations: 

According to our records, numerous wildlife and wildlife resources are known 

from the Fort Belvoir area of Fairfax County. This includes doucmentations 

of the following listed species: Federal Threatened State Threatened bald 

eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), State Threatened wood turtle (Clemmys 

insculpta) and State Threatened peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Also 

known in the project area are a number of streams listed as either confirmed 

or potential anadromous fish use areas and streams designated a Threatened 

and Endangered Species Waters known to support wood turtle. We recommend 

that the EIS fully address the habitats available in areas expected to be 

impacted by the BRAC actions at Fort Belvoir and how the proposed impacts 

may affect these habitats and the wildlife that inhabit them. 

We typically recommend the following to reduce impacts associated with 

development on our natural resources: 

 We recommend that the project be designed so as to avoid and 

minimize impacts to undisturbed forest, wetlands, and streams to the fullest 

extent practicable. Avoidance and minimization of impact may include 

relocating stream channels as opposed to filling or channelizing as well as 

using, and incorporating into the development plan, a natural stream channel 

design and wooded buffers. We recommend maintaining undisturbed wooded 

buffers of at least 100 feet in width around all on-site wetlands and on 

both sides of all perennial and intermittent streams. We recommend 

maintaining wooded lots to the fullest extent possible. We generally do not 

support proposals to mitigate wetland impacts through the construction of 

stormwater management ponds, nor do we support the creation of in-stream 

stormwater management ponds. We are willing to assist the applicant in 

developing a plan that includes open-space, wildlife habitat, and natural 

stream channels which retain their wooded buffers. We recommend that the 

stormwater controls for this project be designed to replicate and maintain 

the hydrographic condition of the site prior to the change in landscape. 

This should include, but not be limited to, utilizing bioretention areas, 

and minimizing the use of curb and gutter in favor of grassed swales. 

Bioretention areas (also called rain gardens) and grass swales are 

components of Low Impact Development (LID). They are designed to capture 

stormwater runoff as close to the source as possible and allow it to slowly 

infiltrate into the surrounding soil. They benefit natural resources by 

filtering pollutants and decreasing downstream runoff volumes. We recommend 

conducting any in-stream activities during low or no-flow conditions, using 

non-erodible cofferdams to isolate the construction area, blocking no more 

than 50% of the streamflow at any given time, stockpiling excavated material 

in a manner that prevents reentry into the stream, restoring original 

streambed and streambank contours, revegetating barren areas with native 

vegetation, and implementing strict erosion and sediment control measures. 

Due to future maintenance costs associated with culverts, and the loss of 

riparian and aquatic habitat, we prefer stream crossings to be constructed 

via clear-span bridges. However, if this is not possible, we recommend 

countersinking any culverts below the streambed at least 6 inches, or the 

use of bottomless culverts, to allow passage of aquatic organisms. We also 

recommend the installation of floodplain culverts to carry bankfull 
discharges. 

We recommend that the EIS address these recommendations and ways that the 

Department of the Army can proceed with needed activities on the base while 

adhering to our recommendations and protecting our natural resources to the 

greatest extent possible. Without a clear understanding of what activities 

may occur, we are unable at this time to make specific recommendations on 

how such activities may impact the wildlife of the Commonwealth and/or how 

the Army may mitigate or compensate for such impacts. 

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries maintains a system of 

databases called the Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service 

(VAFWIS). The VAFWIS contains up-to-date information on all of Virginia's 

wildlife resources. We recommend use of the VAFWIS during the initial 

planning stages of any project in order to identify wildlife resources 

(e.g., threatened or endangered species, trout streams, colonial waterbird 

nesting colonies) that may be impacted by a project. Basic access to the 

VAFWIS is available via our website, http://vafwis.org/WIS/ASP/default.asp. 

Subscriptions to the VAFWIS, which allow a greater level of access, also are 

available. Alternatively, project managers can request Initial Project 

Reviews by our VAFWIS staff. For information on these services, please 

contact Shirl Dressler at 804-367-6913. There is no charge to government 

bodies/agencies for these services. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please do not hesitate to contact 

us as needed during this EIS process. 

Amy Martin 

Environmental Services Biologist 

VDGIF, Wildlife Diversity 













Page 1 of 11 

Fairfax County 

Department of Planning and Zoning 

Fort Belvoir BRAC – EIS Scoping Comments 

July 2, 2006 

General

1. The EIS and Master Plan should be comprehensive in nature, to include consideration of 

development on the Main Post, the Engineer Proving Ground and the GSA Warehouses, as 

well as the broader context of regional development conditions (e.g., future development in 

Springfield and along the Richmond Highway corridor). 

2. With respect to the Master Plan update and NEPA documentation, the county should be 

integrated into the review of each key deliverable product (e.g., 30%, 60%, 95% submissions 

of the Master Plan and related maps), and sufficient time (at least three weeks for each 

document) should be built into the schedule to allow for a county review of, and comment on, 

these materials. Coordination with the county should occur prior to formal submissions to 

Army and/or Department of Defense staff in the decision making process. This would allow 

county concerns to be addressed prior to the documentation gaining Army/DOD-level 

approval. 

3. We appreciate the opportunity that was provided to us to meet with project consultants on May 

9, 2006 and recommend continued, regular coordination between the project team and county 

review staff. Further, we recommend that county staff be provided with specific points of 

contact for coordination and communication on land use, transportation, environmental, parks 

and recreation, public facilities, and school issues. 

4. The planning process should be flexible enough to adapt to changes that may occur to Fairfax 

County’s Comprehensive Plan as well as development and redevelopment projects that may 

occur in the area during the process. 

Alternatives

1. A “no action” alternative should incorporate an appropriate “baseline” that identifies existing 

development and should recognize the transportation improvements necessary to correct 

existing deficiencies and achieve an acceptable level of service on the supporting 

transportation network. The no action alternative should also address how Fort Belvoir has 

increased its working population at a pace that has exceeded the ability of the infrastructure to 

support this level of development. A “no action” alternative that is based on the existing 

Master Plan would, in our view, be inappropriate, as Fort Belvoir has already exceeded the 

projected 2015 working population that was envisioned in the 1993 Master Plan, while many 

of the planned road improvements anticipated to serve this working population have not been 

completed. Future land use alternatives can then be compared with this baseline. 
Page 2 of 11 

2. At the June 22 Board of Advisors meeting, Belvoir New Vision Planners presented three 

potential development strategies for the accommodation of BRAC requirements: one approach 

would concentrate new development on the Main Post; another approach would concentrate 

new development at EPG (as well as the General Services Administration property in 

Springfield); and the third would disperse development on the Main Post (including Davison 

Army Airfield), EPG, and the GSA site. We look forward to analyses documenting what the 

effects that each of these approaches would have on the environment and recommend that 

particular scrutiny be placed on the effects that concentration of development in any one 

location could have on transportation facilities and other infrastructure. 

3. We encourage the Army to consider alternative locations for BRAC development that might be 

outside of Fort Belvoir but close to a transit facility. Toward this end, we are encouraged that 

the GSA property is now being considered for BRAC facilities. 

4. With respect to the GSA site, we recommend that the Belvoir New Vision Planners work 

closely with county staff on the development of potential connections between this site and the 

nearby Franconia-Springfield Metrorail/Virginia Rail Express stations. 

Transportation--General

1. Transportation analyses performed in support of the EIS should be coordinated with modeling 

and analyses that have been performed as part of the County’s Transportation Plan update 

process. 

2. The EIS should clearly document, for all alternatives, where both current and relocated 

employees and contractors reside and what the anticipated number and timing of vehicular trips 

to and from both the Main Post and the EPG site will be. To what extent will highway 

facilities be able to accommodate increased trips? 

3. Transportation improvements should be provided and appropriately phased in order to correct 

transportation deficiencies and to achieve an acceptable level of service on the transportation 

network in support of existing and new development. Road and transit improvements based on 

present and projected commuting patterns through Fairfax County should be provided to 

accommodate the existing and additional trips to and from the Main Post and EPG sites. 

Analysis should be sufficiently comprehensive to consider the need for improvements beyond 

the immediate vicinity of the Main Post and EPG. 

4. Are current access points into Fort Belvoir and EPG as currently constructed able to handle the 

number of vehicles entering the installation at the peak hour period? Will signal modifications 

need to be implemented along Richmond Highway and the Fairfax County Parkway to 

accommodate the changes in commuting patterns? 

5. The EIS should identify specific measures that will be applied to optimize the use of Metro, the 

Fairfax Connector, Virginia Rail Express, and Park and Ride facilities in order to reduce single 

occupancy vehicle use. 
Page 3 of 11 

6. An effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program should be incorporated for 

existing and future development. Goals should be established for specific percentage 

reductions in single-occupant vehicle usage. Ridesharing, carpooling, van pooling, bus, VRE, 

Metro, establishment of park and ride/transit facilities, and limiting available parking are just 

some of the methods that can be incorporated into an effective TDM program. 

7. In addition to commuting patterns of employees, the EIS should address the extent to which 

transit service will be available to provide connections between new office development at Fort 

Belvoir/EPG and commercial establishments in neighboring areas. The establishment of a 

fixed guideway link and/or a shuttle bus service from the Franconia-Springfield Metrorail/VRE 

stations as well as an on-post shuttle system should also be considered, and the EIS should 

address both on- and off-post transit service. 

8. The EIS should evaluate the possible use of the abandoned coal train line right-of-way for 

some type of transit link to and from Fort Belvoir Main Post. 

9. The completion of the Fairfax County Parkway and the Connector Road that will establish a 

new link between Richmond Highway and Telegraph Road are two current projects that are 

critical needs in the area. In our view, both projects must be in place prior to the BRACrelated relocations of employees. These projects face funding and/or environmental issues that 

may delay their completion in sufficient time to support these relocations. The EIS should 

consider and identify the impacts that will occur if either or both of these projects are not in 

place by 2011. 

10. The EIS must address how BRAC related development will be phased to the availability of 

necessary roadway and transit improvements. 

Transportation—Main Post

1. The EIS should consider improvements to transit connections between existing transit facilities 

(Metrorail, VRE, bus service, park and ride lots, etc.) and Fort Belvoir and EPG. The 

extension of Metrorail should be considered, but implementation of such an extension within 

the BRAC time frame is unrealistic and should only be considered as a long range 

enhancement. Construction of park and ride facilities to the south of Fort Belvoir, a bus rapid 

transit extension from the existing REX service, and/or implementation of express service from 

Franconia-Springfield Metro/VRE, the Lorton VRE station, or from Prince William County are 

all possible considerations. 

2. The EIS should address the over-capacity projected in past environmental assessments for the 

Richmond Highway/Fairfax County Parkway, Richmond Highway/Backlick Road, Richmond 

Highway/Pohick Road, Richmond Highway/Belvoir Road, and Kingman Road/Fairfax County 

Parkway intersections, as well as over-capacity at the I-95 ramps and the Fairfax County 

Parkway. Improvements should be provided to correct these deficiencies. 
Page 4 of 11 

3. The EIS should consider the provision of an additional grade-separated connection between the 

North and South Post areas along with access that would improve traffic flow and reduce 

backups at the existing entrance gates.

Transportation—Engineer Proving Ground

1. The proximity of the Engineer Proving Ground site to the Franconia-Springfield Metrorail and 

Virginia Railway Express stations may afford opportunities to optimize the use of this transit 

resource. The EIS should address the extent to which employees can be expected to commute 

to the area via Metrorail and the extent to which transit connections between the EPG site and 

the Franconia-Springfield station could increase commuting via transit to the site. Will such 

transit connections be provided? Will development design at the EPG site emphasize these 

connections if the proposed development indicates a demand for them? 

2. The remaining segment of the Fairfax County Parkway should be constructed prior to the 

relocation of significant numbers of employees to Fort Belvoir. The EIS should address the 

timing of this critical transportation project as it relates to any “build” alternative. 

3. The EIS should address future over-capacity concerns associated with Backlick Road at EPG 

and the I-95 ramps at the Fairfax County Parkway (which will relate to development at both 

the Main Post and EPG). The EIS should also discuss the current design concept for the 

Fairfax County Parkway and access to EPG from the Parkway. Improvements should be 

provided to correct any deficiencies associated with these intersections and facilities. 

Nonmotorized Transportation

1. The EIS should include a map of planned pedestrian and bicycle trails and demonstrate how 

they will connect to those shown on the adopted Countywide Trails Plan. Development of 

appropriate segments within and adjacent to Fort Belvoir should be examined. Furthermore, 

trails along Richmond Highway and the Richmond Highway/Telegraph Road connector road 

as well as the Potomac Heritage Trail should be identified and incorporated onto the map of 

planned trails. The EIS should identify mechanisms through which new trails will be funded 

and constructed. 

2. The EIS should address the extent to which pedestrian and bicycle connections will be 

provided between on-post and/or near-post housing and on-site employment areas. 

3. The EIS should address the extent to which pedestrian connections and facilities (e.g. bus 

shelters) will be provided in order to facilitate transit use by new and existing employees. 

4. The EIS should address the extent to which new office buildings will be designed to 

accommodate bicycle commuting (e.g., secure parking facilities, locker and shower facilities). 

5. The Accotink Stream Valley provides a major greenway corridor through the Springfield area 

of Fairfax County. The Cross County Trail, a 40-mile trail that runs from the Occoquan River 

in Lorton to the Potomac River in Great Falls, traverses a portion of the Accotink Stream 

Valley. As the EPG site is developed, additional trails along the Accotink Stream Valley 
Page 5 of 11 

should be developed and planned to link up with the Cross County Trail to provide a link 

between the EPG area and the Springfield Community Business Center as well as Lake 

Accotink to the north. 

Development Envelopes/Design—General

1. Fort Belvoir should continue to incorporate high quality landscape and architectural design 

elements in its Master Plan. The EIS should address landscaping and design considerations; 

natural landscaping and green building approaches should be considered. The EIS should 

encourage the establishment of a vegetation management plan that would control invasive 

species and promote the establishment of native species in open space areas.

2. The EIS should identify design concepts that will result in compact development envelopes, 

thereby increasing open space, reducing impervious cover, and reducing associated adverse 

environmental impacts. Toward this end, the use of shared parking and structured parking 

should be evaluated. 

3. The EIS should address the extent to which support retail uses will be provided to serve new 

office development. 

4. The development associated with BRAC provides and opportunity for implementation of 

“Green Building” practices such as those promoted by the U.S. Green Building Council. The 

EIS should identify the extent to which new development will be designed to meet or exceed 

federal guiding principles for high performance and sustainable buildings.

Development Envelopes—Engineer Proving Ground

1. The EIS should document how development of the EPG site will occur in a manner that is 

consistent with Fairfax County’s Comprehensive Plan. Toward this end, development should 

be concentrated to the east of the Accotink Creek stream valley (recognizing the 

Environmental Quality Corridor, as noted later in these comments). The area west of the EQC 

is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for public park use and other needed public uses; 

planned park land should be dedicated to the Fairfax County Park Authority for park purposes. 

The 2003 Defense Authorization included dedication of a 135-acre portion of this area to 

FCPA. 

2. The Engineer Proving Ground represents an opportunity to address much of the existing and 

projected parkland and recreational facility deficits in the Springfield Planning District. The 

Comprehensive Plan for this area includes 225 acres of Stream Valley/Greenway parkland, 60 

acres to be developed as a complex of lighted active recreation fields for use as a sports 

complex, and 25 acres to be developed as a multi-use activity center for cultural and seasonal 

events. 

Development Envelopes—GSA Warehouses
Page 6 of 11 

1. The EIS should evaluate the opportunities and challenges that are posed by the immediate 

proximity of this site to transit, as well as the site’s proximity to the consortia health care 

university campus. 

Demand for Services—General

1. The EIS should provide information regarding the estimated number of employees who will 

probably move their residences to the Fort Belvoir area as a result of the BRAC actions and 

should document the effects that these relocations will have on county services. Particular 

housing, schools, utilities, park and recreation, and emergency service concerns are noted 

below. 

2. Similarly, the EIS should provide information regarding the estimated number of contractors 

who will probably move their businesses to the Fort Belvoir area as a result of the BRAC 

actions and should document the effects that these relocations will have on community 

services. 

Housing

1. Increases in on-site housing supply and off-site housing demand associated with growth at Fort 

Belvoir should be clearly documented. For off-site housing, estimates should include that 

range of sales and rental rates that would be considered affordable to residents. 

Schools

1. The EIS should identify the magnitude of the anticipated increase in number of school age 

children that will result from the anticipated on-post and off-post development resulting from 

employment growth at Fort Belvoir. 

2. If a significant increase in the number of school age children is anticipated, the EIS should 

identify sites for new schools that will be sufficient to accommodate the expected increase and 

should identify federal funding that can be made available for school construction. 

Utilities

1. The EIS should address capacities of sewer and water facilities as they relate to anticipated 

levels of development. 

2. Where needed to accommodate anticipated growth, sewer and water facilities should be 

expanded in capacity. For each alternative, the EIS should identify the need and funding 

sources for any system expansions that will be needed as a result of the alternative. 

Parks and Recreation
Page 7 of 11 

1. Fort Belvoir provides recreation and community services that support its residents and 

employees. The EIS should include a needs assessment that projects the overall needs of its 

population for indoor and outdoor recreation and leisure facilities, open space, community 

services, and cultural and environmental programs. The EIS should address how the needs 

identified will be met on-site, and if not met on-site, the impact of the demand for these 

facilities on existing park and recreation resources in the area. Project consultants are 

encouraged to consult guidance regarding service levels for ten key types of recreational 

facilities that has been developed by the Fairfax County Park Authority; this guidance has been 

incorporated into the Parks and Recreation section of Policy Plan volume of Fairfax County’s 

Comprehensive Plan. FCPA has recently conducted a Countywide Park and Recreation Needs 

Assessment that projects park and recreation needs through 2013 and will be pleased to 

provide information collected through this process. The Mount Vernon and Lee District areas 

are deficient in many recreational facility types and additional impacts cannot be easily 

absorbed without expanding or building new facilities. This deficiency is especially high for 

athletic fields, specifically rectangular fields. 

2. The EIS should identify the extent to which, if any, each alternative would result in future 

development on areas that are now developed with (or designated for) recreational use. To 

offset any loss of redesignated recreation areas, additional recreation facilities should be 

identified and evaluated as part of the EIS process. 

3. Pole Road Park, Grist Mill Park, Woodlawn Park, Huntley Meadows Park, Historic Huntley, 

Mount Air Historic Site, the Berman Tract, Kingstowne Park, Island Creek Park, Levelle W. 

Dupell Park, Pohick Estates Park, Southgate Park and Lorton Park are located in the immediate 

vicinity of Fort Belvoir. Other parkland in the vicinity of Fort Belvoir includes Pohick Bay 

Regional Park, as well as state- and federally-owned parkland on Mason Neck. Hooes Road 

Park, West Springfield Park, Rolling Forest Park, Rolling Wood School Site Park, Saratoga 

Park, Accotink Stream Valley Park and Pohick Stream Valley Park are located in the 

immediate vicinity of the EPG site. Laurel Hill is a large countywide park that also serves this 

area. Most of these parks contain extensive environmental and cultural resource preservation 

areas. The EIS should comprehensively analyze impacts to FCPA-owned land in the area that 

may include air quality, water quality and quantity, noise levels, flora and fauna habitat 

changes, cultural and historic resources, environmental resources, and park facility capacity 

and recreation service levels. It is imperative that any off-site impacts to parkland from 

development, stormwater management changes, construction, or other activities at Fort Belvoir 

be anticipated and mitigated. 

4. As noted earlier, much of the area west of the EQC on the Engineer Proving Ground site 

should be dedicated for park purposes, consistent with the county’s Comprehensive Plan. 

Emergency Services

1. The EIS should address the additional demands that 22,000 new employees (and the still to be 

determined number of employees with associated federal contractors) will create on emergency 

services and the extent to which Fort Belvoir will be providing these services. The EIS should 

document funding needs and sources for additional emergency service needs. 
Page 8 of 11 

DeWitt Army Hospital Relocation and Expansion

1. The EIS should evaluate opportunities that INOVA Mount Vernon Hospital may provide in 

supporting the post and the relocation of medical care functions from the Walter Reed Medical 

Center. 

Air Quality

1. Air quality analyses should consider both on- and off-post traffic congestion and measures that 

will be taken to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. The analysis should not be 

limited to carbon monoxide and particulate concentrations but should also evaluate 

development options with respect to emissions of precursors of atmospheric ozone. 

Ecological Resources--General

1. The EIS should address how impacts to wetlands will be minimized. 

2. The EIS should address how any unavoidable impacts to wetlands will be mitigated. 

Mitigation/compensation should occur as close to the areas of impact as possible; the 

Stormwater Planning Division of the Fairfax County Department of Public Works and 

Environmental Services (703-324-5500) may be able to provide guidance regarding wetland 

mitigation/compensation opportunities. 

3. Environmental Quality Corridors (EQCs) as defined in the County’s Policy Plan should be 

protected. The EIS should recognize the EQC policy and address how new development will 

be designed consistent with this policy. 

Ecological Resources—Main Post

1. We commend Fort Belvoir for its environmental stewardship efforts and recommend that the 

BRAC-related efforts serve to reinforce and, where possible, expand upon these efforts. The 

ecologically significant natural resource areas identified in Fort Belvoir’s Integrated Natural 

Resource Management Plan (INRMP) should be recognized as a fundamental planning factor, 

and efforts should continue to be made to protect and enhance these areas. Toward that end, 

the EIS should address the compatibility of all options with the full extent of significant natural 

resources as identified in the INRMP, with particular focus on the southwestern portion of the 

post (see below) and efforts to protect, and perhaps augment, Fort Belvoir’s Forest and 

Wildlife Corridor (particularly in areas where this corridor is narrow). Direct and indirect 

impacts (e.g., potential for impacts by invasive species due to edge effects) should be 

addressed, as should be potential mitigation measures. 

2. We are particularly concerned with the possible intensification of development in the 

southwestern portion of the post. This area contains mature upland forest with low levels of 

fragmentation, adjoins the Accotink Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and protects both the 

Accotink and Pohick Creeks as they enter the tidal regime of the Potomac River at Pohick Bay 
Page 9 of 11 

and Gunston Cove. Combined with the federal, state and regional park land already existing in 

this area, the southwest area represents an area of particular ecological significance that should 

be protected to the greatest extent possible. 

3. The EIS should identify sensitive areas along the Accotink Creek corridor that are critical for 

protection of the main stem of Accotink Creek as it approaches the Accotink Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

4. The EIS should assess potential impacts to the Jackson Abbot Wildlife Refuge on Dogue 

Creek. This refuge is southwest of Huntley Meadows Park on the main stem of Dogue Creek. 

Protection and expansion of this refuge is critical to protect the wetlands and sensitive wildlife 

along the Dogue Creek corridor and in close proximity to the county’s wildlife preserve at 

Huntley Meadows Park. This action would also support the county’s Comprehensive Plan, 

which calls for the protection of the Environmental Quality Corridor associated with Dogue 

Creek. 

5. The EIS should assess the impacts of shoreline development, to include recreational, office, 

residential, etc. on Gunston Cove, the Potomac River and the mouth of Dogue Creek. Of 

particular note is possible recreational facility development on Gunston Cove. This area 

already has high use by recreational boats from Pohick Bay Regional Park and is experiencing 

conflicts with natural resource protection and passive recreation. This area also has one of the 

highest year-round concentrations of Bald Eagles and other species of concern. 

6. New development should be concentrated within areas of the Post that have already been 

developed or otherwise disturbed. 

Ecological Resources—Engineer Proving Ground

1. The entirety of the Environmental Quality Corridor (EQC) associated with Accotink Creek and 

its tributaries as well as other RPA and wetland areas, as delineated by staff and represented on 

the attached map (the areas in question are those that are identified as “non-buildable area” 

located outside of the area being dedicated for the Fairfax County Parkway), should be 

preserved in, and, where applicable, restored to, a natural condition. The EQC should be 

dedicated to the County for incorporation into the Stream Valley Park system. The RPA along 

the eastern property boundary and disconnected wetland area in the northeastern portion of the 

site should also be dedicated to FCPA. 

Water Resources

1. The EIS should identify all 100-year floodplains (applying the county’s definition) and all 

Resource Protection Areas (applying the recently revised designation criteria) on the Main Post 

and the Engineer Proving Ground. These areas should be protected consistent with county 

policy and regulations. 

2. In defining boundaries of Resource Protection Areas, Post-specific information regarding 

locations of perennial streams and wetlands should be used to augment county maps of 
Page 10 of 11 

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. Where perennial streams are known to exist, protection 

of these streams and associated buffer areas consistent with the text of the Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Ordinance should be pursued, even if these areas are not identified as RPAs on 

county maps (note that the county has not performed perennial stream evaluations on Fort 

Belvoir property). 

3. The EIS should recognize watershed management planning efforts that are under way in 

Fairfax County; Fort Belvoir should participate in the watershed management planning efforts 

for Dogue Creek, Accotink Creek, and Pohick Creek as these efforts get started. 

4. Project consultants should coordinate with the Stormwater Planning Division of the 

Department of Public Works and Environmental Services on the identification of stream and 

stormwater management projects in the area of the Main Post and EPG. A point of contact 

within the Stormwater Planning Division is Matt Meyers, who can be reached at 703-324-

5500. 

5. The EIS should identify any body of water on or near the Main Post or EPG that is included 

on the list of impaired waters designated pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act 

and should address the implications of these designations. Pohick Bay, other tidal waters, and 

nontidal portions of Accotink Creek on the Main Post and EPG are considered to be impaired. 

6. The EIS should address how impacts to streams will be minimized. 

7. The EIS should address how any unavoidable impacts to streams will be mitigated. 

Mitigation/compensation should occur as close to the areas of impact as possible; the 

Stormwater Planning Division of the Fairfax County Department of Public Works and 

Environmental Services (703-324-5500) may be able to provide guidance regarding stream 

mitigation/compensation opportunities. 

8. At a minimum, Fort Belvoir should provide erosion and sediment control measures, 

stormwater management measures, and water quality best management practices that are 

consistent with county requirements. The EIS should clearly establish that these requirements 

will be satisfied. 

9. The EIS should address opportunities to minimize impervious cover and to use other low 

impact development and better site design techniques. For all new development and 

redevelopment at Fort Belvoir, designs should be pursued that would serve, to the extent 

possible, to replicate predevelopment hydrologic conditions through infiltration of stormwater 

runoff. 

Site Contamination

1. The EIS should identify sites on the Main Post, Engineer Proving Ground, and GSA 

Warehouses that have been subject to contamination and the status of efforts to clean these 

sites. The EIS should further identify the relationship, if any, between site contamination 

issues and siting decisions for new development. 
Page 11 of 11 

Cultural Resources

1. The EIS should identify the potential impacts of each alternative on historic and archaeological 

resources. Projects impacting on cultural resources should comply with the Secretary of 

Interior’s Standards and planning should be done in accordance with these standards. If a 

determination is made that project activities (undertakings) have the potential to adversely 

affect cultural resources on or near Fort Belvoir, the Areas of Potential Effect should be 

identified and mitigation to protect the resources should include the preparation of a 

Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement allowing for the involvement of the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Fairfax 

County Park Authority Cultural Resource Management and Protection Section, Alexandria 

Friends Meeting – Religious Society of Friends, and the National Trust for Historic 

Preservation as signatories to such agreements. Any new development and construction 

activities within the Fairfax County Woodlawn and Pohick Church Historic Overlay Districts 

and within the District’s viewsheds should be subject to review and comment by Fairfax 

County. 

2. A statement should be included in the EIS that would require all Section 106 archeological 

work (scopes of work and reports) be coordinated with the Fairfax County Park Authority. It is 

a requirement under Section 106 that consultation be made with all interested parties, of which 

the Park Authority is the prime one regarding archeology. Having done much of the survey 

work in that area and conducted data recovery on the Barnes/Owsley Plantation located there, 

FCPA is the most knowledgeable entity regarding the archeology on Fort Belvoir. The 

property has numerous significant prehistoric and historic sites including the ca. 1700 grave of 

Maj. Thomas Owsley, which has yet to be located. 

Other

1. We have previously expressed concern about a possible Old Colchester Road site for the 

proposed National Museum of the U.S. Army and wish to reiterate this concern in light of new 

uncertainty regarding where on Fort Belvoir this facility may be located. The cumulative 

impacts of the museum, BRAC, and other programmed development at Fort Belvoir should be 

addressed in the EIS. In addition to environmental and transportation impacts, impacts to the 

Fairfax County Woodlawn and Pohick Church Historic Overlay Districts and viewsheds 

associated with these districts should be considered in any siting decision for this facility.

2. The EIS should document anticipated operations at Davison Army Airfield and identify 

associated noise impacts. Of particular interest would be any differences that might occur in 

airfield operations under the various options.