Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

C-1

Appendix C 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

Consistency Determination 

for Proposed BRAC Implementation 

at Fort Belvoir 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

C-2

This page is intentionally left blank.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

C-3

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Consistency Determination 

For Proposed Implementation of BRAC at Fort Belvoir 

This document provides the Commonwealth of Virginia with the Fort Belvoir Consistency 

Determination under CZMA section 307(c) (1) and 15 CFR Part 930, sub-part C, for 

implementation of BRAC actions at the installation. The information in this Consistency 

Determination is provided pursuant to 15 CFR section 930.39. The proposed action involves 

those activities described below. 

[The following paragraphs of text summarize the proposed federal activity. A full 

description of the proposed activity may be found in the Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Implementation of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission’s 

Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, which is 

incorporated by reference into this Consistency Determination]. 

In July 2006, the Army considered three conceptual development strategies to address the 

question of where facilities could be sited for a net increase of 22,000 personnel being assigned to 

Fort Belvoir.1

 That review process resulted in identification of a preferred land use strategy that 

reflected the best aspects of each of the three conceptual development strategies.2

 The preferred 

land use strategy was then used as the basis for the proposed amendment to Fort Belvoir’s land 

use plan. 

Accommodation of personnel being realigned must take into account the needs of six major 

groups slated for realignment by the BRAC Commission: Washington Headquarters Services 

(WHS), consisting of WHS and elements of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and defense 

agencies; National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA); various Army entities moving from 

leased space in the National Capital Region (NCR) (collectively referred to as Army Lease); U.S. 

Army Medical Command3

 (MEDCOM); Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information 

Systems (PEO EIS); and Missile Defense Agency Headquarters Command Center (MDA 

HQCC). Details of the BRAC Commission’s recommendation can be found at 

http://www.brac.gov. 

Proposed Facilities 

The proposed BRAC facilities would be sited as follows. NGA and WHS would be on the 

eastern portion of EPG. Army lease units, agencies, and activities would be on South Post at sites 

on Gunston Road and Belvoir Road. The Dewitt Army Community Hospital complex would be 

on the South Post golf course. PEO EIS and MDA would be on South Post at sites on Gunston 

Road and Belvoir Road. Other associated actions supporting these functions, such as child care 

facilities and the Post Exchange expansion, would be located at various sites throughout Fort 

Belvoir. 

Construction and renovation of facilities to support approximately 22,000 additional personnel at 

Fort Belvoir would result in more than 7 million square feet of new and renovated built space and 

about 7 million square feet of parking structures. 

 

1

 The three conceptual development strategies—Town Center, City Center, and Satellite Campus—are discussed in 

detail in Section 3.0, Alternatives. 

2

 Chief considerations in evaluating the conceptual development strategies included transportation needs, 

environmental constraints, utilities and infrastructure requirements and availability, security, existing and future 

development potential, constructability, implementation (schedule and risk), and cost. 

3

 This group essentially involves relocations of functions and personnel from Walter Reed Army Medical Center to a 

new DeWitt Army Community Hospital proposed at Fort Belvoir. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

C-4

Fort Belvoir would require essentially two types of construction projects. First, Fort Belvoir must 

construct or renovate facilities to create working space or other types of special use space for the 

proposed additional workforce. Second, Fort Belvoir must expand its general support capabilities 

to meet the needs of a larger on-post population. 

The following provides details on facilities construction and renovation projects that are proposed 

to occur through fiscal year 2011. 

• NGA Administrative Facility (65416, Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-11, Map Number (MN) 1 

in Figure 2-6). This project would provide a 2,419,000-square-foot Sensitive 

Compartmented Information Facility for use by the NGA sited on east EPG. The project 

would include a Remote Inspection Facility for the receipt of mail and materiel sent to the 

NGA facilities. 

• WHS Administrative Facility (64234, FY 2008–10, MN 2). This project would 

provide 2,219,000 square feet of secure administrative space for various units, agencies, 

and activities relocating to Fort Belvoir from leased facilities in the NCR sited on east 

EPG. The project would include uninterruptible power supply and standby power 

generation. 

• MDA Facility (MDA 580, FY 2008–09, MN 3). This project would provide a 107,000 

square foot administrative facility to serve as the MDA Headquarters Command Center 

sited in the 200 Area on the South Post. 

• Hospital (64238, 65676, and 65677, FY 2008–10, MN 4). This project, incrementally 

funded, would provide a new hospital. Primary facilities would include the hospital 

(1,200,000 square feet), special foundations, central energy plant, helipad, ambulance 

shelter (2,200 square feet), vehicle parking garage, and building information systems sited 

on South Post golf course. 

• Dental Clinic (64241, FY 2010-11, MN 5). This project would provide a 16,000-squarefoot expansion to the existing dental clinic in Building 1099. 

• North Atlantic Regional Medical Center Headquarters (NARMC HQ) Building

(65871, FY 2009, MN 6). This project would construct a 50,000-square-foot general 

administration building sited on South Post golf course. 

• Corps of Engineers Integration Office (Temporary) (FY 2007, MN 7). This project 

would involve the location of approximately 36,100 square feet of temporary facilities to 

house personnel of the Baltimore District Corps of Engineers. One facilitys would be 

located on EPG, north of existing Cissna Road and northwest of Building 5073, and 

another on the proposed hospital site.

• Infrastructure (64097, 67487, and 67959, FY 2008–10, MN 8). This project would 

provide a 25,000-square-foot communications center, access control facilities, one 

10,000-square-foot heating plant building, one 10,000-square-foot refrigeration and air 

conditioning, and water, sewer, and electrical services for the EPG. The project includes 

approximately 80 acres of new road surfaces, replacement of two bridges, and 

construction of one new bridge. The project also includes demolition of 57,000 square 

feet of existing space. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

C-5

• Emergency Services Center (64076, FY 2008, MN 9). This project would provide 

14,700 square feet of space and 15,000 square yards of maintenance apron for emergency 

services functions at EPG. 

• Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS) (65448, FY 2010, MN 10). This project 

would provide a 6,525-square-foot operations center, a 10,000-square-foot storage area, 

and a 14,000-square-yard satellite yard sited on southern portion of South Post. 

• U.S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency Support Facility (65447, FY 2008, MN 

11). This project, which would provide 20,000 square feet of space, is required to support 

U.S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency (USANCA) personnel as part of BRAC 2005. 

Building 238 would be renovated to accommodate USANCA personnel.

• Child Development Center (NGA) (55661, FY 2011, MN 12). This project would 

provide a child development center having 19,590 square feet of space and a 24,430- 

square-foot outdoor area for 244 children sited on east EPG. 

• Child Development Center (EPG) (55662, FY 2011, MN 13). This project would 

provide a child development center having 24,000 square feet of space and a 40,300-

square-foot outdoor area for 303 children sited on east EPG. 

• Administrative Facility (Buildings 211, 214, 215, and 220) (65450, FY 2011, MN 14). 

This project is required to implement BRAC 2005 by modernizing existing facilities to 

provide 133,000 square feet of general and secure administrative space and structured 

parking for various units, agencies, and activities relocating to Fort Belvoir from leased 

facilities in the NCR sited in the 200 Area on the South Post. 

• Access Control Point (63571, FY 2009, MN 15). This project would construct an 

access control point (ACP) with vehicle inspection station, access control building (280 

square feet), booth, and canopy, vehicle turnarounds, security lighting, and backup 

generator, and a two-lane access road (306,000 square feet) with sidewalks/bike path, 

street lighting, drainage, traffic signal, and Richmond Highway (U.S. Route 1) left and 

right turns. The access point is sited just north of U.S. Route 1. 

• AMC Relocatables (66228, FY 2007, MN 16). This project would purchase the 

facilities at Fort Belvoir that were procured to house the headquarters function of the U.S. 

Army Materiel Command (AMC). Facilities consist of two modular, two-story office 

buildings having a total of 230,000 square feet of space. These buildings include open 

and closed office space along with special purpose areas to include an Emergency 

Operations Center (EOC), sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF), 

auditorium, secure and nonsecure conference rooms, video teleconference center, 

technical library, data process center, and office support space. The facilities are located 

along Gunston Road. 

• PEO EIS Administrative Facility (65592/67231, FY 2007, MN 17). Project Number 

65592 would provide 290,000 square feet of general administrative space and a parking 

garage, and Project Number 67321 would provide an additional 157,400 square feet of 

secure administrative space sited in the 200 Area on the South Post. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

C-6

• Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (54347, FY 2011, MN 18). This project would 

construct a parking structure with a capacity of 400 parking spaces in the 200 Area of 

South Post. 

• Modernize Barracks (62892, FY 2011, MN 19). This project would provide 

renovations to six barracks buildings in the McRee Barracks Complex on North Post. 

• MWR Family Travel Camp (66807, FY 2007–10, MN 20). This project would provide 

a Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Family Travel Camp with 52 recreational 

vehicle (RV) campsites, a camp support facility, 15 cabins, and 12 tent sites in four 

phases, each of which would be complete and usable upon completion. The camp support 

facility would include a laundry section, camper’s lounge space, restrooms/showers, and 

vending machine space. The project would also include relocating the existing Johnson 

Road to provide better camp circulation and space, landscaping, site lighting, sewage lift 

stations, and utility upgrades. The area is sited on the southwest corner of South Post.

Refer to Section 4.0, Affected Environment and Consequences, for further discussion.

Consistency Determination 

The Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program contains the applicable enforceable 

policies in the left column of the table below. Fort Belvoir has determined that the 

implementation of the BRAC Commission’s recommendations would affect the land or water 

uses or natural resources of Virginia as described in the right column of the table below. This 

column also identifies actions in accordance with federal and state regulations and in response to 

comments from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) that will bring the 

effects into consistency. 

In its comments on the Draft EIS, VDEQ objected to the Army’s determination of consistency on 

the basis of insufficient information required to determine the consistency of the projects with the 

Air Pollution Control enforceable policy of the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program 

(VCP). To mitigate these concerns, the Army has identified additional mitigation measures for 

air quality as specified in Section 4.4.2.3 of the EIS and is continuing coordination with VDEQ to 

work out the specific measures required to achieve conformity and consistency with the state’s 

enforceable Coastal Zone Management policies. 

Based upon the information, data, and analysis, as contained in the EIS, Fort Belvoir finds that 

the proposed action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies 

of the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program. Pursuant to 15 CFR section 930.41, the 

Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program has 60 days from the receipt of this document 

in which to concur with or object to this Consistency Determination, or to request an extension 

under 15 CFR section 930.41(b). Virginia’s concurrence will be presumed if its response is not 

received by Fort Belvoir on the 60th day from receipt of this determination. The 

Commonwealth’s response should be sent to Mr. Patrick McLaughlin, Fort Belvoir Department 

of Public Works-Environmental and Natural Resources Division, 9430 Jackson Loop, Fort 

Belvoir, Virginia, 22060. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

C-7

Applicable Enforceable Policy Effects of the Federally Proposed Action 

Fisheries Management 

The program stresses the conservation and 

enhancement of finfish and shellfish resources and 

the promotion of commercial and recreational 

fisheries to maximize food production and 

recreational opportunities. This program is 

administered by the Virginia Marine Resources 

Commission (VMRC) (Virginia Administrative 

Code (VAC) §28.2-200 to §28.2-713) and the 

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 

(VDGIF) (VAC §29.1-100 to §29.1-570). 

The State Tributyltin (TBT) Regulatory Program 

has been added to the Fisheries Management 

program. The General Assembly amended the 

Virginia Pesticide Use and Application Act as it 

related to the possession, sale, or use of marine 

antifoulant paints containing TBT. The use of TBT 

in boat paint constitutes a serious threat to important 

marine animal species. The TBT program monitors 

boating activities and boat painting activities to 

ensure compliance with TBT regulations 

promulgated pursuant to the amendment. The 

VMRC, VDGIF, and Virginia Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) share 

enforcement responsibilities (VAC §3.1-249.59 to 

§3.1-249.62). 

NO EFFECT 

The proposed action would not involve 

building, dumping, or otherwise trespassing on or 

over, encroaching on, taking or using any material 

from the beds of the bays, ocean, rivers, streams, or 

creeks within Virginia. The proposed action would 

not have a reasonably foreseeable effect on fish 

spawning, nursery, or feeding grounds, and 

therefore none on fisheries management. 

No paints containing TBT will be used under 

this proposed action.

Subaqueous Lands Management 

The management program for subaqueous lands 

establishes conditions for granting or denying 

permits to use state-owned bottomlands based on 

considerations of potential effects on marine and 

fisheries resources, wetlands, adjacent or nearby 

properties, anticipated public and private benefits, 

and water quality standards established by VDEQ, 

Water Division. The program is administered by 

VMRC (VAC §28.2-1200 to §28.2-1213). 

NO EFFECT 

No subaqueous land use is proposed under this 

action. This project involves no encroachments in, 

on, or over state-owned submerged lands. Should it 

be determined that utility crossings be required 

under Accotink Creek instead of under road bridge 

decks, the installation would apply for a 

subaqueous lands permit. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

C-8

Wetlands Management 

The purpose of the wetlands management 

program is to preserve tidal wetlands, prevent their 

despoliation, and accommodate economic 

development in a manner consistent with wetlands 

preservation. 

(i) The tidal wetlands program is administered 

by VMRC (VAC §28.2-1301 through §28.2-1320). 

(ii) The Virginia Water Protection Permit 

program administered by VDEQ includes protection 

of wetlands—both tidal and non-tidal. This program 

is authorized by VAC §62.1-44.15.5 and the Water 

Quality Certification requirements of Section 401 of 

the Clean Water Act of 1972. 

MINOR EFFECT 

The proposed action would not affect any tidal 

wetlands at Fort Belvoir. Up to three acres of nontidal wetland disturbance would occur, and the 

proposed action would require a Virginia Water 

Protection (VWP) Permit if any of the following 

activities are conducted in a wetland: 

1. New activities to cause draining that 

significantly alters or degrades existing wetland 

acreage or functions. 

2. Filling or dumping. 

3. Permanent flooding or impounding. 

4. New activities that cause significant alteration 

or degradation of existing wetland acreage or 

functions. 

The Army submitted a Joint Permit Application 

(JPA) in May 2007 that stated 2.3 acres and 

approximately 6,000 linear feet of wetlands would 

be impacted by the proposed action on EPG. The 

permit states the Army would contribute 

appropriate funds to the Virginia Aquatic Resources 

Trust Fund (VARTF) to achieve no net loss of 

wetlands functions and values on EPG. For the 

Main Post, during the course of the proposed 

action, once the precise amount of impact is 

determined, the installation would apply for a VWP 

permit prior to commencing the activity. 

Additionally, the installation would prepare and 

adhere to a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan to 

prevent sedimentation from entering surface waters 

(see non-point source pollution control section 

below). 

Dunes Management 

Dune protection is carried out pursuant to The 

Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act and is 

intended to prevent destruction or alteration of 

primary dunes. This program is administered by 

VMRC (VAC §28.2-1400 through §28.2-1420). 

NO EFFECT 

No permanent alteration of or construction upon 

any coastal primary sand dune will take place under 

the proposed action. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

C-9

Non-point Source Pollution Control 

Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Law 

requires soil-disturbing projects to be designed to 

reduce soil erosion and to decrease inputs of 

chemical nutrients and sediments to the Chesapeake 

Bay, its tributaries, and other rivers and waters of 

the Commonwealth. This program is administered 

by the Virginia Department of Conservation and 

Recreation (VDCR) (VAC §10.1-560 et seq.). 

MINOR EFFECT 

The proposed action would require a substantial 

amount of ground disturbance for facility 

construction. The construction activities would 

comply with the installation’s Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Virginia 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) 

Municipal Sanitary Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) 

permit requirements. Construction contractors 

would be using phase erosion, sediment control, 

and post-construction best management practices 

(BMPs) as effective storm water controls. Sitespecific storm water management plans developed 

by the construction contractors will provide 

information relevant to each activity. A storm water 

drainage system master plan study is planned to be 

conducted by the installation to identify current 

deficiencies and determine infrastructure needs to 

meet BRAC requirements and long-term growth to 

2030. 

Point Source Pollution Control 

The point source program is administered by the 

State Water Control Board pursuant to VAC §62.1-

44.15. Point source pollution control is 

accomplished through the implementation of the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit program established pursuant to 

Section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act and 

administered in Virginia as the VPDES permit 

program. 

MINOR EFFECT 

Fort Belvoir holds the following VPDES 

permits: MS4, wastewater treatment for mobile 

reverse osmosis water purification units, general 

permit for storm water discharges from construction 

sites, and general permit for storm water discharges 

associated with industrial activities. Fort Belvoir 

would work with VDEQ to revise the permits as 

necessary as the BRAC program was implemented, 

and would adhere to all conditions of the permits. 

Storm water discharged through conveyances, such 

as separate storm sewers, ditches, channels or other 

conveyances are considered point sources under the 

Clean Water Act (CWA), and subject to regulation 

through the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Fort 

Belvoir’s MS4 permit requires the contractor to 

comply with the installations’ permit prior to 

construction activities. This includes submitting a 

sediment and erosion control plan to DPW-ENRD 

when more than 1 acre of ground is disturbed. 

Shoreline Sanitation 

The purpose of this program is to regulate the 

installation of septic tanks, set standards concerning 

soil types suitable for septic tanks, and specify 

minimum distances that tanks must be placed away 

from streams, rivers, and other waters of the 

Commonwealth. This program is administered by 

the Virginia Department of Health (VAC §32.1-164 

through §32.1-165). 

NO EFFECT 

Fort Belvoir relies on its sanitary sewer system 

and does not employ septic systems. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

C-10

Air Pollution Control 

The program implements the federal Clean Air 

Act to provide a legally enforceable State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the attainment and 

maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). This program is administered 

by the State Air Pollution Control Board (VAC §10-

1.1300). 

MODERATE EFFECT 

The action would cause moderate increases in 

emissions within the region. These increases would 

conform to the SIP, would not contribute to a 

violation of any federal, state, or local air 

regulations, or introduce localized carbon monoxide 

(CO) or particulate matter (PM) concentrations 

greater than the NAAQS. 

The Army is developing a Construction 

Performance Contract Plan that would include 

reasonable emission control measures, reporting 

requirements, and enforcement measures to 

minimize the impacts of construction activities 

related to the project on air quality. These would 

include limiting construction on Code Orange, Red, 

and Purple ozone days; requiring all non-road diesel 

equipment not meeting Tier 2 or better standards be 

retrofitted with emission control devices; 

implementing anti-idling restrictions for both 

onroad and non-road vehicles and equipment; the 

required use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, alternate 

fuels, or fuel additives; and meeting new engine 

standards for non-road vehicles. 

In addition, the Army has confirmed with the 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ 

(MWCOG’s) Transportation Planning Board that 

the most current employment and traffic projections 

reflecting BRAC will be incorporated into the 

Round 7.1 Cooperative Forecast to help facilitate 

their next regional transportation conformity 

determination for the National Capital AQCR. 

Coastal Lands Management 

A state–local cooperative program administered 

by the VDCR’s Division of Chesapeake Bay Local 

Assistance and 84 localities in Tidewater, Virginia 

established pursuant to the Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Act; VAC §10.1-2100 through §10.1-

2114 and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area 

Designation and Management Regulations; Virginia 

Administrative Code 9 VAC10-20-10 et seq. 

MINOR EFFECT 

Buffer areas of not less than 100 feet adjacent to 

and landward of the components listed in 9 VAC 

10-20-80. Approximately 14 acres of Resource 

Protection Areas would be impacted by the 

Preferred Alternative, however, encroachment 

would be limited to road and utility corridors. 

BMPs will be developed and implemented in 

accordance with the NPDES SWPPP. Site-specific 

storm water management plans will be developed 

by the construction contractors prior to site 

disturbance activities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-1 

Appendix D 

TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-2 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-3 

Appendix D Tables

Table D-1 Turning Movement Counts—Existing Conditions ............................................................ D-5 

Table D-2 Turning Movement Counts—No Action Alternative ........................................................ D-6 

Table D-3 Turning Movement Counts—Preferred Alternative .......................................................... D-7 

Table D-4 Turning Movement Counts—Town Center Alternative .................................................... D-8 

Table D-5 Turning Movement Counts—City Center Alternative ...................................................... D-9 

Table D-6 Turning Movement Counts—Satellite Campuses Alternative ........................................ D-10 

Appendix D Figures

Figure D-1 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Existing Conditions—North ............... D-11 

Figure D-2 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Existing Conditions—South ............... D-12 

Figure D-3 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for No Action Alternative—North ........... D-13 

Figure D-4 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for No Action Alternative—South ........... D-14 

Figure D-5 2011 Population and Employment for the Preferred Alternative................................... D-15 

Figure D-6 AM Peak Period Influence Area—Preferred Alternative............................................... D-16 

Figure D-7 PM Peak Period Influence Area—Preferred Alternative ............................................... D-17 

Figure D-8 Key Locations Comparison Between Preferred Alternative and No Action 

Alternative—AM Peak Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG................. D-18 

Figure D-9 Key Locations Comparison Between Preferred Alternative and No Action 

Alternative—PM Peak Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG ................. D-19 

Figure D-10 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Preferred Alternative—North ............. D-20 

Figure D-11 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Preferred Alternative—South ............. D-21 

Figure D-12 Town Center Alternative Population and Employment ................................................. D-22 

Figure D-13 AM Peak Period Influence—Town Center Alternative ................................................. D-23 

Figure D-14 PM Peak Period Influence Area—Town Center Alternative ......................................... D-24 

Figure D-15 Key Locations Comparison Between Town Center Alternative and No Action 

Alternative—AM Peak Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG................. D-25 

Figure D-16 Key Locations Comparison Between Town Center Alternative and No Action 

Alternative—PM Peak Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG ................. D-26 

Figure D-17 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Town Center Alternative—North ....... D-27 

Figure D-18 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Town Center Alternative—South ....... D-28 

Figure D-19 City Center Alternative Population and Employment.................................................... D-29 

Figure D-20 AM Peak Period Influence Area—City Center Alternative........................................... D-30 

Figure D-21 PM Peak Period Influence Area—City Center Alternative............................................ D-31 

Figure D-22 Key Locations Comparison Between City Center Alternative and No Action 

Alternative—AM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG ......................... D-32 

Figure D-23 Key Locations Comparison Between City Center Alternative and No Action 

Alternative—PM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG .......................... D-33 

Figure D-24 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for City Center Alternative—North.......... D-34 

Figure D-25 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for City Center Alternative—South.......... D-35 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-4 

Appendix D Figures, continued

Figure D-26 Satellite Campuses Alternative Population and Employment........................................ D-36 

Figure D-27 AM Peak Period Influence Area—Satellite Campuses Alternative............................... D-37 

Figure D-28 PM Peak Period Influence Area—Satellite Campuses Alternative................................ D-38 

Figure D-29 Key Locations Comparison Between Satellite Campuses Alternative and No 

Action Alternative—AM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG.............. D-39 

Figure D-30 Key Locations Comparison Between Satellite Campuses Alternative and No 

Action Alternative—PM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EPG .............. D-40 

Figure D-31 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Satellite Campuses 

Alternative—North ........................................................................................................ D-41 

Figure D-32 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Satellite Campuses 

Alternative—South ........................................................................................................ D-42 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-5 

Table D-1: Turning Movement Counts—Existing Conditions 

Intersections and Time Period NB SB EB WB 

L T R L T R L T R L T R 

Commerce St./ Old Keene Mill Rd. am 0 0 0 60 0 130 275 2385 0 0 845 45

 pm 0 0 0 170 0 450 290 1280 0 0 2345 150 

Commerce St./ Amherst Ave. am 20 1175 90 85 375 115 245 105 15 100 60 20

 pm 110 460 95 135 1015 370 265 245 90 170 245 30

Commerce St./ Backlick Rd. am 50 165 240 200 40 45 65 255 40 50 165 290

 pm 80 345 360 460 95 75 60 380 40 80 345 360

Commerce St./ Franconia Rd. am 590 205 165 255 135 260 80 405 615 45 1145 367

 pm 795 285 275 570 360 225 70 695 990 105 945 440

Backlick Rd./ Calamo St. am 80 1710 890 5 585 25 20 10 30 30 5 5

 pm 75 855 390 15 1800 40 25 10 30 180 15 20

Loisdale Rd./ Spring Mall Dr. am 0 430 210 140 260 0 225 270 45 200 0 170

 pm 0 400 205 625 620 0 200 265 20 245 0 185

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 40 5 190 95 5 25 50 4215 15 55 1615 90

Spring Village Dr. pm 45 5 150 90 10 50 70 2230 95 250 4130 100

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 170 1380 5 5 565 85 1375 5 250 5 5 5

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 260 990 5 5 1095 255 615 5 160 5 5 5

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 275 2480 0 0 470 325 180 0 185 0 0 0

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 470 1135 0 0 1095 1115 215 0 260 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ I-95 am 195 0 240 0 0 0 195 2935 0 0 1330 155

HOV Ramps pm 0 0 0 270 0 500 0 1910 300 530 2975 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 0 230 120 325 495 0 615 5 825 0 0 0

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 0 990 520 1055 250 0 525 5 165 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 140 705 0 0 890 165 0 0 0 20 5 570

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 580 755 0 0 1540 910 0 0 0 20 5 625

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 965 670 145 95 210 310 390 1325 465 95 1045 200

Beulah St. pm 780 515 235 220 455 365 370 1915 780 205 1270 165

Fairfax County Parkway./ Fullerton am 10 235 1150 670 685 5 10 15 10 600 10 50

Rd. pm 5 310 1290 985 520 5 5 20 15 640 20 170

Fairfax County Parkway./ Terminal am 60 1185 20 90 2345 335 25 5 145 10 5 75

Rd. pm 25 1900 15 40 1305 80 215 10 5 20 5 55

Fairfax County Pkwy SB Ramps./ am 0 0 0 120 0 220 0 1160 110 190 230 0

Telegraph Rd. pm 0 0 0 225 0 575 0 450 35 165 980 0

Fairfax County Pkwy NB Ramps./ am 20 5 225 0 0 0 330 950 0 0 400 175

Telegraph Rd. pm 115 0 325 0 0 0 205 470 0 0 1030 220

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J am 30 940 395 1095 910 60 15 60 20 20 20 130

Kingman Rd. pm 30 885 45 160 760 10 40 20 55 430 25 1015

Telegraph Rd./ Beulah St. am 5 110 50 260 490 275 380 770 20 230 300 70

 pm 30 405 190 95 210 465 335 465 15 90 740 265

Telegraph Rd./ S. Van Dorn St. am 0 0 0 310 0 85 145 885 0 0 645 395

 pm 0 0 0 480 0 260 85 670 0 0 820 400

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old am 15 170 260 50 20 210 880 2115 5 15 580 75

Colchester Rd. pm 5 25 30 70 175 800 220 715 55 150 1960 35

Route 1./ Fairfax County Parkway. am 0 0 0 840 0 20 340 2085 0 0 650 920

 pm 0 0 0 635 0 350 65 730 0 0 1880 675

Route 1./ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. am 115 15 10 165 75 10 15 1840 1070 100 1445 100

 pm 1100 70 25 185 15 10 5 1220 140 10 1430 90

Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. am 155 0 85 0000 1720 295 270 1590 0

 pm 80 0 185 0 0 0 0 1420 20 170 1450 0

Route 1./ Woodlawn Rd. am 0 0 0 70 0 25 70 1735 0 0 1835 130

 pm 0 0 0 240 0 80 85 1510 0 0 1540 165

Route 1./ Old Mill Rd. am 445 50 85 25 60 150 120 1245 440 180 1370 10

 pm 340 135 110 25 25 100 200 1210 340 55 1285 20

Loisdale Rd./ GSA Access Rd am 0 605 10 100 975 0 0 0 0 15 0 85

 pm 0 505 10 30 525 0 0 0 0 15 0 55
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-6 

Table D-2: Turning Movement Counts—No Action Alternative 

Intersections and Time Period NB SB EB WB 

L T R L T R L T R L T R 

am 40 1270 120 90 430 120 250 130 30 120 70 20 Commerce St./ Amherst Ave. 

pm 130 470 140 180 1050 380 280 320 110 190 260 30

am 50 170 320 260 50 50 60 310 40 70 190 360 Commerce St./ Backlick Rd. 

pm 90 390 440 510 120 80 80 510 50 90 370 370

am 100 1790 990 10 770 30 30 10 40 40 10 10 Backlick Rd./ Calamo St. 

pm 100 970 420 15 1910 40 30 10 50 210 20 20

am 0 490 220 150 360 0 250 300 60 250 0 190 Loisdale Rd./ Spring Mall Dr. 

pm 0 470 205 700 810 0 240 280 30 250 0 200

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 50 10 210 110 10 30 60 4530 20 60 1785 100

Spring Village Dr. pm 50 10 160 110 20 70 100 2350 110 270 4175 130

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 170 1410 10 10 620 130 1620 10 250 10 10 10

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 340 1020 10 10 1140 450 750 10 160 10 10 10

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 420 2550 0 0 540 325 250 0 180 0 0 0

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 460 1170 0 0 1070 1130 330 0 310 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ I-95 am 250 0 340 0 0 0 310 2970 0 0 1380 230

HOV Ramps pm 0 0 0 420 0 530 0 2150 350 600 3095 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 0 250 140 400 560 0 690 5 890 0 0 0

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 0 1050 540 1070 280 0 590 5 190 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 150 790 0 0 930 190 0 0 0 30 5 610

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 670 770 0 0 1570 950 0 0 0 30 5 680

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 1050 780 150 110 220 370 465 1365 470 90 1050 230

Beulah St. pm 780 680 260 290 570 450 450 2190 780 230 1440 220

Fairfax County Parkway./ Terminal am 90 1200 40 150 2380 400 30 10 170 20 10 80

Rd. pm 40 1950 30 60 1355 90 230 30 10 30 10 50

Fairfax County Pkwy SB Ramps./ am 0 0 0 180 0 270 0 1450 150 230 230 0

Telegraph Rd. pm 0 0 0 290 0 690 0 560 60 230 1120 0

Fairfax County Pkwy NB Ramps./ am 30 5 320 0 0 0 440 1170 0 0 430 200

Telegraph Rd. pm 160 0 370 0 0 0 280 570 0 0 1210 240

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J am 40 1020 460 1110 1010 60 20 90 20 20 20 160

Kingman Rd. pm 40 970 60 200 820 10 50 30 70 490 20 1130

am 10 140 60 270 480 290 560 910 30 250 320 100 Telegraph Rd./ Beulah St. 

pm 30 420 190 130 220 620 430 490 20 120 730 320

am 0 0 0 450 0 130 220 1020 0 0 660 460 Telegraph Rd./ S. Van Dorn St. 

pm 0 0 0 630 0 360 140 680 0 0 830 580

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old am 20 190 250 80 20 250 1190 2120 10 30 540 130

Colchester Rd. pm 10 30 30 100 190 950 280 700 50 150 1990 60

am 0 0 0 930 0 30 390 2050 0 0 660 1000 Route 1./ Fairfax County Parkway. 

pm 0 0 0 660 0 360 70 760 0 0 1900 710

am 130 20 20 180 80 20 20 1780 1190 120 1460 110 Route 1./ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. 

pm 1180 110 40 190 20 10 10 1280 140 20 1490 60

am 120 5 110 80 5 20 140 1620 210 310 1570 260 Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. 

pm 80 5 180 220 5 35 80 1400 30 170 1455 265

am 460 130 100 310 140 260 240 1250 320 250 1420 250 Route 1./ Old Mill Rd. 

pm 360 260 120 340 60 230 340 1200 260 100 1300 280

am 0 640 20 110 1000 0 0 0 0 20 0 90 Loisdale Rd./ GSA Access Rd 

pm 0 650 30 30 560 0 0 0 0 20 0 60
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-7 

Table D-3: Turning Movement Counts—Preferred Alternative 

Intersections and Time Period NB SB EB WB 

L T R L T R L T R L T R 

am 40 1260 150 120 480 120 260 160 30 170 100 40 Commerce St./ Amherst Ave. 

pm 140 550 160 210 1070 380 300 350 100 210 290 50

am 70 180 310 260 110 60 100 350 60 70 230 320 Commerce St./ Backlick Rd. 

pm 100 430 450 510 120 110 100 560 60 90 390 390

am 100 1800 1010 10 1090 30 30 10 50 60 10 10 Backlick Rd./ Calamo St. 

pm 100 1090 430 20 1920 40 30 10 50 220 30 30

am 0 490 240 200 430 0 260 310 70 260 0 200 Loisdale Rd./ Spring Mall Dr. 

pm 0 520 230 700 840 0 240 340 30 260 0 200

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 170 20 470 60 60 30 60 4220 250 670 1835 80

Spring Village Dr. pm 330 60 780 90 30 70 90 2210 270 500 3890 90

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 140 1420 10 10 780 210 1630 0 170 10 10 10

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 370 1000 10 10 1060 490 820 0 230 10 10 10

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 400 2540 0 0 630 535 290 0 150 0 0 0

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 430 1200 0 0 1020 1100 340 0 290 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ I-95 am 310 0 350 0 0 0 380 2930 0 0 1780 230

HOV Ramps pm 0 0 0 420 0 580 0 2560 340 620 3000 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 0 260 140 400 570 0 690 5 890 0 0 0

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 0 1050 560 1080 280 0 840 5 200 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 170 790 0 0 940 490 0 0 0 30 5 620

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 660 1020 0 0 1560 960 0 0 0 30 5 700

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 1030 810 170 120 220 345 405 1430 405 100 1165 240

Beulah St. pm 750 680 240 290 580 460 510 2195 815 220 1395 230

Fairfax County Parkway./ Terminal am 100 1670 40 130 2450 410 40 10 170 20 10 70

Rd. pm 70 1925 50 40 1860 70 220 40 30 50 10 30

Fairfax County Pkwy SB Ramps./ am 0 0 0 170 0 290 0 1360 160 260 250 0

Telegraph Rd. pm 0 0 0 280 0 750 0 530 70 260 1050 0

Fairfax County Pkwy NB Ramps./ am 80 5 470 0 0 0 600 930 0 0 420 190

Telegraph Rd. pm 170 0 380 0 0 0 280 520 0 0 1150 250

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J am 50 1310 620 1200 1600 50 20 40 60 80 20 220

Kingman Rd. pm 40 1630 110 250 1080 20 50 40 60 450 20 1140

am 10 210 50 310 680 310 580 800 20 240 300 130 Telegraph Rd./ Beulah St. 

pm 30 650 250 140 310 660 420 470 20 110 720 330

am 0 0 0 460 0 130 230 1010 0 0 750 480 Telegraph Rd./ S. Van Dorn St. 

pm 0 0 0 640 0 360 160 790 0 0 850 570

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old am 20 160 320 160 10 310 1150 2350 10 40 790 170

Colchester Rd. pm 10 30 40 180 160 870 240 1060 40 190 2030 80

am 0 0 0 1320 0 90 570 2260 0 0 910 1140 Route 1./ Fairfax County Parkway. 

pm 0 0 0 840 0 440 150 1130 0 0 1870 1380

am 350 20 20 250 90 10 40 2100 1400 120 1790 140 Route 1./ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. 

pm 1580 110 40 270 20 10 10 1640 310 80 1670 110

am 370 10 240 120 10 10 160 1790 420 490 1670 170 Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. 

pm 210 10 310 210 10 30 110 1680 160 480 1620 280

am 530 130 120 310 120 270 290 1420 440 260 1530 250 Route 1./ Old Mill Rd. 

pm 560 210 140 370 60 380 440 1420 340 90 1440 270

am 0 650 20 110 1110 0 0 0 0 20 0 90 Loisdale Rd./ GSA Access Rd 

pm 0 760 30 30 560 0 0 0 0 20 0 60
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-8 

Table D-4: Turning Movement Counts—Town Center Alternative 

Intersections and Time Period NB SB EB WB 

L T R L T R L T R L T R 

am 40 1290 130 110 460 130 260 150 30 140 80 30 Commerce St./ Amherst Ave. 

pm 130 530 150 200 1070 380 310 340 110 220 300 50

am 60 180 310 280 70 70 80 340 50 70 210 350 Commerce St./ Backlick Rd. 

pm 90 410 460 510 120 100 90 550 60 100 410 390

am 100 1790 1010 20 930 40 30 10 50 50 10 10 Backlick Rd./ Calamo St. 

pm 90 1030 420 30 1910 40 30 10 50 210 20 30

am 0 480 250 230 410 0 260 300 70 250 0 210 Loisdale Rd./ Spring Mall Dr. 

pm 0 530 220 700 820 0 260 320 30 250 0 240

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 50 10 210 110 10 30 60 4160 20 60 1500 100

Spring Village Dr. pm 50 10 160 110 20 70 100 2170 110 270 4190 130

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 170 1410 10 10 700 150 1620 0 250 10 10 10

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 370 1000 10 10 1080 490 780 0 160 10 10 10

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 400 2560 0 0 530 385 270 0 170 0 0 0

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 440 1190 0 0 1050 1100 330 0 290 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ I-95 am 250 0 340 0 0 0 310 2950 0 0 1470 230

HOV Ramps pm 0 0 0 410 0 500 0 1910 320 540 3220 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 0 260 140 620 570 0 690 5 890 0 0 0

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 0 1050 560 1080 280 0 640 5 200 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 150 790 0 0 1150 270 0 0 0 30 5 620

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 660 780 0 0 1560 960 0 0 0 30 5 900

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 1140 730 190 110 310 330 520 1380 830 180 1050 270

Beulah St. pm 870 710 290 280 580 430 450 2370 850 230 1430 210

Fairfax County Parkway./ Terminal am 70 1550 30 160 2990 450 50 10 160 10 10 70

Rd. pm 40 2370 30 70 1500 100 250 20 10 30 10 50

Fairfax County Pkwy SB Ramps./ am 0 0 0 220 0 310 0 1380 170 270 230 0

Telegraph Rd. pm 0 0 0 280 0 750 0 520 70 270 1020 0

Fairfax County Pkwy NB Ramps./ am 100 5 530 0 0 0 560 1000 0 0 450 150

Telegraph Rd. pm 180 0 390 0 0 0 300 500 0 0 1130 260

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J am 40 1930 900 1810 1840 50 20 90 20 70 20 340

Kingman Rd. pm 30 1450 170 460 1130 10 40 50 60 900 20 1840

am 10 210 70 260 1080 320 580 900 50 370 320 80 Telegraph Rd./ Beulah St. 

pm 70 800 290 90 320 600 380 490 30 100 830 220

am 0 0 0 500 0 130 240 1020 0 0 850 480 Telegraph Rd./ S. Van Dorn St. 

pm 0 0 0 640 0 360 200 880 0 0 830 590

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old am 20 170 270 80 10 260 1120 2480 10 30 1010 170

Colchester Rd. pm 10 30 40 190 150 840 240 910 40 200 2340 90

am 0 0 0 1560 0 160 1090 1730 0 0 1070 1420 Route 1./ Fairfax County Parkway. 

pm 0 0 0 860 0 820 230 910 0 0 1820 1060

am 700 20 80 240 120 20 20 1580 1690 250 1570 200 Route 1./ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. 

pm 1210 430 150 150 110 10 10 1500 270 120 1670 100

am 220 0 630 0000 1780 130 650 1790 0 Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. 

pm 250 0 320 0 0 0 0 1700 100 430 1710 0

am 630 150 100 370 130 400 350 1380 440 260 1680 260 Route 1./ Old Mill Rd. 

pm 540 230 130 350 60 340 450 1410 380 90 1440 270

am 0 650 20 110 1150 0 0 0 0 20 0 90 Loisdale Rd./ GSA Access Rd 

pm 0 800 30 30 560 0 0 0 0 20 0 60
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-9 

Table D-5: Turning Movement Counts—City Center Alternative 

Intersections and Time Period NB SB EB WB 

L T R L T R L T R L T R 

am 30 1270 140 140 530 120 260 160 30 170 100 40 Commerce St./ Amherst Ave. 

pm 150 610 160 210 1070 380 310 330 90 210 320 60

am 80 180 320 260 120 100 100 360 60 70 240 310 Commerce St./ Backlick Rd. 

pm 120 450 460 520 120 120 100 530 60 90 400 390

am 100 1800 1020 20 1130 30 30 10 50 60 10 10 Backlick Rd./ Calamo St. 

pm 100 1140 430 20 1920 50 40 10 50 210 20 30

am 0 490 240 200 875 0 260 310 420 335 0 200 Loisdale Rd./ Spring Mall Dr. 

pm 0 1190 380 700 830 0 240 350 30 260 0 230

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 180 30 480 60 60 30 60 3900 270 680 1600 80

Spring Village Dr. pm 360 20 780 80 40 70 120 1920 390 680 3810 110

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 140 1420 10 10 780 210 1630 0 170 10 10 10

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 360 1010 10 10 1070 500 840 0 230 10 10 10

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 420 2530 0 0 620 545 300 0 160 0 0 0

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 410 1220 0 0 1060 1110 340 0 290 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ I-95 am 310 0 350 0 0 0 390 2950 0 0 1870 230

HOV Ramps pm 0 0 0 410 0 580 0 2220 330 620 3300 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 0 260 140 400 570 0 690 5 890 0 0 0

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 0 1050 560 1080 280 0 890 5 200 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 170 790 0 0 940 540 0 0 0 30 5 620

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 660 1070 0 0 1560 960 0 0 0 30 5 700

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 1120 810 170 120 220 380 480 1610 460 100 1240 240

Beulah St. pm 730 670 250 290 590 420 510 2360 870 230 1320 230

Fairfax County Parkway./ Terminal am 100 1560 40 130 2360 410 40 10 170 20 10 70

Rd. pm 70 1925 40 40 1530 70 220 40 30 50 10 30

Fairfax County Pkwy SB Ramps./ am 0 0 0 170 0 280 0 1380 140 240 270 0

Telegraph Rd. pm 0 0 0 290 0 750 0 530 60 250 1060 0

Fairfax County Pkwy NB Ramps./ am 80 5 470 0 0 0 600 930 0 0 420 190

Telegraph Rd. pm 170 0 370 0 0 0 280 540 0 0 1160 240

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J am 40 1270 580 1000 1230 50 30 10 90 100 20 270

Kingman Rd. pm 40 1230 80 240 1090 10 50 30 70 560 20 1080

am 10 140 50 300 410 280 570 810 20 240 310 120 Telegraph Rd./ Beulah St. 

pm 30 410 180 150 240 680 420 480 20 90 720 330

am 0 0 0 450 0 130 220 1010 0 0 720 460 Telegraph Rd./ S. Van Dorn St. 

pm 0 0 0 640 0 360 130 740 0 0 850 560

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old am 20 180 260 70 10 300 1130 2180 10 30 880 130

Colchester Rd. pm 10 30 40 170 170 870 270 980 50 180 2030 70

am 0 0 0 1120 0 70 580 1910 0 0 980 1090 Route 1./ Fairfax County Parkway. 

pm 0 0 0 730 0 560 170 1010 0 0 1790 850

am 330 30 20 340 90 40 40 1800 1190 80 1710 150 Route 1./ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. 

pm 1060 200 70 210 50 10 10 1530 200 40 1570 90

am 150 0 180 0000 1950 220 400 1600 0 Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. 

pm 60 0 190 0 0 0 0 1770 30 350 1810 0

am 520 130 110 310 130 260 280 1430 440 270 1390 250 Route 1./ Old Mill Rd. 

pm 550 170 150 380 60 360 420 1190 330 90 1440 270

am 0 650 140 1000 1110 0 0 0 0 20 0 90 Loisdale Rd./ GSA Access Rd 

pm 0 760 30 30 560 0 0 0 0 170 0 960
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-10 

Table D-6: Turning Movement Counts—Satellite Campuses Alternative 

Intersections and Time Period NB SB EB WB 

L T R L T R L T R L T R 

am 40 1290 130 110 480 130 260 150 30 140 80 30 Commerce St./ Amherst Ave. 

pm 130 530 160 220 1060 380 290 360 100 230 290 50

am 60 180 310 280 70 70 80 340 50 70 210 350 Commerce St./ Backlick Rd. 

pm 90 410 460 510 120 100 140 550 60 100 410 390

am 100 1790 1010 20 910 40 30 10 50 40 10 10 Backlick Rd./ Calamo St. 

pm 90 1010 410 30 1910 40 30 10 50 210 20 30

am 0 480 250 210 430 0 260 300 70 250 0 210 Loisdale Rd./ Spring Mall Dr. 

pm 0 550 240 720 800 0 260 320 30 270 0 260

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 50 10 210 110 10 30 60 4140 20 60 1480 100

Spring Village Dr. pm 50 10 160 110 20 70 100 2200 110 270 4190 130

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 140 1440 10 10 690 160 1590 0 230 10 10 10

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 380 990 10 10 1070 480 780 0 200 10 10 10

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 390 2580 0 0 590 385 250 0 150 0 0 0

Ramp./ Backlick Rd. pm 440 1190 0 0 1030 1100 350 0 330 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ I-95 am 250 0 340 0 0 0 310 2950 0 0 1370 230

HOV Ramps pm 0 0 0 410 0 500 0 1910 320 550 3300 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB am 0 260 140 580 570 0 690 5 890 0 0 0

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 0 1050 560 1080 280 0 630 5 200 0 0 0

Franconia Springfield Parkway WB am 150 790 0 0 1110 250 0 0 0 30 5 620

Ramp./ Frontier Dr. pm 660 770 0 0 1560 960 0 0 0 30 5 850

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ am 1130 750 180 110 310 350 510 1450 770 160 1070 260

Beulah St. pm 840 740 290 280 580 410 420 2600 790 220 1410 200

Fairfax County Parkway./ Terminal am 70 1560 30 160 3080 440 50 10 170 20 10 70

Rd. pm 50 2480 40 60 1410 90 240 30 10 30 10 50

Fairfax County Pkwy SB Ramps./ am 0 0 0 250 0 420 0 1410 110 290 470 0

Telegraph Rd. pm 0 0 0 320 0 700 0 720 80 270 1020 0

Fairfax County Pkwy NB Ramps./ am 230 5 460 0 0 0 700 860 0 0 510 90

Telegraph Rd. pm 210 0 310 0 0 0 340 690 0 0 1220 170

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J am 340 1280 950 1270 1450 330 100 20 330 160 20 420

Kingman Rd. pm 60 1400 150 340 1020 20 430 30 230 690 20 1360

am 10 210 70 350 850 350 530 890 20 250 470 120 Telegraph Rd./ Beulah St. 

pm 50 650 250 100 260 600 450 450 30 120 730 300

am 0 0 0 470 0 130 240 1020 0 0 850 480 Telegraph Rd./ S. Van Dorn St. 

pm 0 0 0 640 0 360 170 880 0 0 830 590

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old am 20 190 250 60 10 280 1240 2260 10 30 1030 150

Colchester Rd. pm 10 30 40 240 200 990 230 930 30 160 2170 90

am 0 0 0 1550 0 140 940 1620 0 0 980 1420 Route 1./ Fairfax County Parkway. 

pm 0 0 0 830 0 720 210 1000 0 0 1820 930

am 290 10 10 210 70 50 70 1780 1330 50 1890 170 Route 1./ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. 

pm 1100 390 100 140 120 10 10 1570 260 80 1640 80

am 230 0 350 0000 1810 200 520 1760 0 Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. 

pm 310 0 250 0 0 0 0 1660 140 390 1600 0

am 600 160 100 350 130 350 350 1440 450 270 1620 260 Route 1./ Old Mill Rd. 

pm 510 280 110 360 60 410 450 1410 370 90 1420 270

am 0 650 20 110 1180 0 0 0 0 20 0 90 Loisdale Rd./ GSA Access Rd 

pm 0 830 30 30 560 0 0 0 0 20 0 60
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-11 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Existing Conditions—North Fort Belvoir, Virginia Figure D-1 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-12 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Existing Conditions—South Fort Belvoir, Virginia Figure D-2 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-13 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for No Action Alternative—North Fort Belvoir, Virginia Figure D-3 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-14 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for No Action Alternative—South Fort Belvoir, Virginia Figure D-4 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-15 

2011 Population and Employment 

for the Preferred Alternative 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-5

LEGEND 

Interstate Highway 

Highway 

River/ Water
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-16 

AM Peak Period Influence Area 

 Preferred Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-6

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-17 

PM Peak Period Influence Area 

 Preferred Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-7

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-18 Key Locations Comparison Between Preferred Alternative and No Action Alternative—AM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-8 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-19 Key Locations Comparison Between Preferred Alternative and No Action Alternative—PM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-9 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-20 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Preferred Alternative—North Fort Belvoir, Virginia Figure D-10 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-21 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Preferred Alternative—South Fort Belvoir, Virginia Figure D-11 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-22 

Town Center Alternative 

 Population and Employment 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-12

LEGEND 

Interstate Highway 

Highway 

River/ Water
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-23 

AM Peak Period Influence Area 

 Town Center Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-13

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-24 

PM Peak Period Influence Area 

 Town Center Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-14

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-25 Key Locations Comparison Between Town Center Alternative and No Action Alternative—AM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-15 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-26 Key Locations Comparison Between Town Center Alternative and No Action Alternative—PM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-16 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-27 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Town Center Alternative—North Fort Belvoir, Virginia Figure D-17 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-28 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Town Center Alternative—South Fort Belvoir, Virginia Figure D-18 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-29 

City Center Alternative 

 Population and Employment 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-19

LEGEND 

Interstate Highway 

Highway 

River/ Water
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-30 

AM Peak Period Influence Area 

 City Center Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-20

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-31 

PM Peak Period Influence Area 

 City Center Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-21

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-32 Key Locations Comparison Between City Center Alternative and No Action Alternative—AM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-22 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-33 Key Locations Comparison Between City Center Alternative and No Action Alternative—PM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-23 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-34 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for City Center Alternative—North Fort Belvoir, Virginia Figure D-24 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-35 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for City Center Alternative—South Fort Belvoir, Virginia Figure D-25 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-36 

Satellite Campuses Alternative 

 Population and Employment 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-26

LEGEND 

Interstate Highway 

Highway 

River/ Water
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-37 

AM Peak Period Influence Area 

 Satellite Campuses Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-27

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-38 

PM Peak Period Influence Area 

 Satellite Campuses Alternative

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-28

LEGEND 

 River/ Water 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-39 Key Locations Comparison Between Satellite Campuses Alternative and No Action Alternative—AM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-29 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-40 Key Locations Comparison Between Satellite Campuses Alternative and No Action Alternative—PM Peak Period—Trips Toward Fort Belvoir and EP

G

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Figure D-30 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-41 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Satellite Campuses Alternative—North Fort Belvoir, Virginia Figure D-31 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

D-42 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for Satellite Campuses Alternative—South Fort Belvoir, Virginia Figure D-32 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E-1

Appendix E 

AIR QUALITY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 

E.1 – Draft General Conformity Determination 

E.2 – Vehicle Micro-scale CO Concentration Modeling

E.3 – Criteria Air Pollutant—Sources and Impacts

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

E.5 – Draft Construction Performance Plan for the Reduction of Air Emissions 
APPENDIX E.1 

DRAFT GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Recommendations and Related 

Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Prepared for 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

by the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District 

March 2007 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Army is in the process of preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to 

assess implementation of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission’s 

recommendations at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and the update to the installation’s land use plan. Fort 

Belvoir is within an area currently designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) as in non-attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone 

(O3; 8-hour standard) and fine particulates (PM2.5). Therefore, under Section 176(c) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Army must demonstrate that its actions within the region conform to 

EPA’s and the Commonwealth of Virginia’s plans to attain these NAAQS. 

EPA promulgated two sets of conformity rules to implement Section 176(c) of the CAA––

Transportation Conformity Rules and General Conformity Rules. The Transportation Conformity 

Rules establish the criteria and procedures for determining that transportation plans, programs, 

and projects funded under Title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) or the Federal Transit Act 

conform to State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Because the Proposed Action and Alternatives are 

not transportation projects, the transportation conformity rules do not apply. 

The General Conformity Rules (GCR) are applicable to federal actions that are not encompassed 

by the Transportation Conformity Rules and are within non-attainment areas. The GCR are not 

applicable to certain federal actions, such as those which would result in total emission levels 

below applicable thresholds, those that would result in no emissions increase or an increase that is 

de minimis (of minimal importance), or actions for which the emissions are not reasonably 

foreseeable. In addition, general conformity determinations are not required for portions of 

actions that include major new or modified stationary sources that require a permit under the New 

Source Review (NSR) program (USEPA and FAA 2002). 

Currently, the region has no applicable SIP for the 8-hour O3 or PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP 

revisions to address non-attainment conditions with respect to the new 8-hour O3 and PM2.5

NAAQS are being developed and are expected to be approved by EPA by 2008 and 2009, 

respectively. In the interim, EPA has published some guidance to help address compliance with 

the CAA with respect to the new NAAQS. The applicable SIP revision in the Northern Virginia 

Area is for the 1-hour O3 NAAQS. Although EPA recently revoked the 1-hour O3 NAAQS, the 

GCR dictate the use of the in-place “applicable” SIP for determining the conformance of the 

proposed federal action. The 1-hour attainment demonstration O3 SIP was developed and 

submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and approved by EPA 

on May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688). 

This purpose of this Draft General Conformity Determination (GCD) is to demonstrate that the 

emissions associated with two proposals at Fort Belvoir––implementation of base realignment 

and the update of the land use plan––conform to the purpose and intent of the applicable SIP. 

On September 8, 2005, the BRAC Commission recommended numerous realignment and closure 

actions for domestic military installations. President Bush concurred with the 2005 BRAC 

Commission’s report and sent it to Congress on September 15, 2005. Therefore, the BRAC 

actions at Fort Belvoir must be initiated by no later than September 15, 2007, and completed by 

no later than September 15, 2011. On November 9, 2005, the recommendations became law, and 

now they must be implemented as provided for in the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 

of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), as amended. The BRAC Commission’s recommendations will 

generate a net increase of approximately 22,000 people in the workforce on Fort Belvoir. The 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

ES-2 

vast majority of these people, however, are already located within the National Capital Region 

(NCR). Fort Belvoir established its RPMP in 1993. In light of substantial changes at the post 

due to base realignment, the land use plan needs to be updated. 

Fort Belvoir is approximately 15 miles south of Washington, D.C., in northern Virginia (Figure 

ES-1). The post is the host for one major command headquarters (Army Material Command), 

two Direct Reporting Unit headquarters (U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command and U.S. 

Army Criminal Investigation Command), and more than 100 other elements of the Army and 

Department of Defense (DoD), including the Defense Logistics Agency headquarters, Army 

Management Staff College, Defense Acquisition University, and the National GeospatialIntelligence Agency College. 

The following paragraphs summarize the methodologies used to evaluate the applicability of the 

GCR to the Army’s proposed action and alternatives, the methodologies used to evaluate total 

direct and indirect project-related emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), PM2.5, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the sources subject to the GCR, and the 

results of the conformity evaluation. 

Applicability. To determine whether the GCR are applicable, net (project-related) emission levels 

of VOC, NOx, PM2.5, and SO2 were compared to applicability threshold levels. The applicability 

threshold levels for the 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 NAAQS were used (50 tons of VOCs or 100 tons of 

NOx, PM2.5, and SO2). On the basis of the results of the comparison, it was determined that the 

GCR apply to the proposed realignment activities at Fort Belvoir with respect to both NOx and 

VOCs. 

Construction Activity. The construction emission budgets in the currently approved SIP do not 

identify specific or individual projects with respect to emissions resulting from regional 

construction activity. Therefore, the BRAC-related emission estimates were compared to SIPbased projected emissions for the region for this type of activity to determine whether the 

emissions could reasonably be accounted for in the regional (nonroad and area) totals. The 

results of the comparison indicate that the greatest level of construction-related VOC and NOx

emissions would represent approximately 0.7 and 1.9 percent of VDEQ’s regional emissions, 

respectively (Table ES-1). Because the project-related construction emissions would represent a 

relatively small percentage of the regional projections, the U.S. Army, in consultation with 

VDEQ, determined that it is reasonable to assume that the construction emissions can be 

accounted for in the inventories for the 1-hour O3 SIP for the Proposed Actions and Alternatives 

(VDEQ 2007). 

Motor Vehicles. The realignment of Fort Belvoir would decrease both the number of vehicles and 

the total vehicle miles traveled within the region. In turn, motor vehicle emissions would 

decrease. This decrease would be primarily due to a net reduction of approximately 1,700 

personnel from the region and a slight overall decrease in vehicle miles traveled by the people 

remaining. These BRAC-related reductions in emissions would constitute an ongoing net benefit 

to the region’s air quality. Therefore, although there is a SIP-based regional budget for on-road 

vehicles, it was unnecessary to perform a direct comparison. 

The GCR state that notwithstanding the other requirements of the rules, a proposed action may 

not be determined to conform unless the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action is in 

compliance or consistent with all relevant requirements and milestones in the applicable SIP 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

ES-3 

Table ES-1 

Comparison of 2010 Project-related Emissions to SIP-based Inventories: 

Construction Activities 

Approved 1-hour SIP 

Pollutant 

SIP regional 

emission inventory 

(tons/summer 

weekday) 

Project-related 

non-road emissions 

 (tons/summer 

weekday) 

Percent of 

regional 

emissions 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 82.8a 1.58 1.9% 

Volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) 147.3b

 0.98 0.7% 

Draft 8-hour SIP 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 76.9c 1.58 2.1% 

Volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) 191.8d

 0.98 0.5% 

Source: MWCOG, 2004a 

a

 Reflects 2005 nonroad controlled NOx emissions inventory b

 Reflect 2005 area controlled VOC emissions inventory 

c

 Reflects 2009 nonroad controlled NOx emissions inventory d

 Reflect 2009 area controlled VOC emissions inventory 

(Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 93.158(c)). This requirement 

includes but is not limited to such issues as reasonable further progress schedules, assumptions 

specified in the attainment or maintenance demonstration, prohibitions, numerical emission 

limits, and work practice standards. 

EPA and VDEQ have already promulgated, and will continue to promulgate, numerous 

requirements to support the goals of the CAA with respect to the NAAQS. Typically, these 

requirements take the form of rules regulating emissions from significant new sources, including 

emission standards for major stationary point sources and classes of mobile sources, as well as 

permitting requirements for new stationary point sources. Because states have the primary 

responsibility for implementing and enforcing requirements under the CAA and can impose 

stricter limitations than EPA, the EPA requirements often serve as guidance to the states in 

formulating their air quality management strategies. 

In operating Fort Belvoir, the U.S. Army observes, and will continue to act in accordance with, a 

myriad of rules and regulations implemented and enforced by federal, state, regional, and local 

agencies to protect and enhance ambient air quality in the Metropolitan Washington Region. The 

U.S. Army will continue to act in accordance with all existing applicable air quality regulatory 

requirements for activities over which it has direct control and will meet in a timely manner all 

regulatory requirements that become applicable in the future. Likewise, the U.S. Army actively 

encourages all tenants and users of its facilities to comply with applicable air quality 

requirements. 

In accordance with Section 176 of the CAA, the U.S. Army has assessed whether pollutant and 

pollutant precursor emissions that would result from its actions with respect to the proposed 

realignment at Fort Belvoir would conform to the Virginia SIP. Emission estimates for the GCD 

were prepared: 

Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

ES-5 

• Using the latest planning assumptions 

• Using the latest and most accurate emission estimation techniques 

• Based on the applicable air quality models, databases, and other requirements specified in 

the most recent version of EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models, including 

supplements 

On the basis of the results of the evaluation, the total direct and indirect project-related emissions 

of NOx, VOCs, PM2.5, and SO2 were determined to be below the applicability threshold levels, 

accounted for in the emission projections incorporated into the 1-hour O3 attainment 

demonstration SIP (the applicable SIP), or reasonably accounted for in established emission totals 

and/or excess regional emission estimates. 

For these reasons, the U.S. Army has determined that the emissions associated with the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives conform to the CAA and, by definition, will not significantly impede the 

timely attainment of the NAAQS in the region.
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

ES-6 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

i 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1-1 

SECTION 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION........................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 LAND USE PLAN UPDATE................................................................................ 2-1 

2.1.1 Fort Belvoir’s Existing Land Use Plan ..................................................................2-2

2.1.2 Proposed Land Use Plan Revision .........................................................................2-4

2.2 BASE REALIGNMENT ....................................................................................... 2-8 

2.2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................2-8

2.2.2 Allocation of Facilities and Personnel .................................................................2-10

2.2.3 Construction and Renovation...............................................................................2-10

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED 

CONSIDERATION ............................................................................................. 2-18 

2.3.1 Town Center.........................................................................................................2-19

2.3.2 City Center ...........................................................................................................2-21

2.3.3 Satellite Campuses ...............................................................................................2-23

2.3.4 Preferred Alternative............................................................................................2-23

2.4 ALTERNATIVES FOR BRAC IMPLEMENTATION ...................................... 2-25 

SECTION 3.0 GENERAL CONFORMITY ................................................................. 3-1 

3.1 EMISSIONS ESTIMATIONS AND METHODOLOGY..................................... 3-3 

3.1.1 Demolition and Construction Emissions................................................................3-4

3.1.3 Operational Activities ............................................................................................3-9

3.1.4 Total Annual Emission.........................................................................................3-13

3.2 APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS........................................................................... 3-13 

3.3 CONFORMITY EVALUATION ........................................................................ 3-14 

3.3.1 Evaluation Cases ..................................................................................................3-14

3.3.2 Comparison Project-Related Emissions to SIP-Based Inventories ......................3-16

3.3.3 Consistency with Requirements and Milestones in Applicable SIP ....................3-21

3.4 SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 3-21 

3.5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS/FREQUENCY OF DETERMINATIONS.... 3-22 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... R-1 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................... R-3 

LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................... R-5 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

ii 

TABLES 

Table ES-1 Comparison of 2010 Project-related Emissions to SIP-based 

Inventories: Construction Activities................................................................................3

Table 2-1 Comparison of 1993 and 2011 Land Use Allocations..................................................2-6

Table 2-2 Personnel Realigning to Fort Belvoir .........................................................................2-10

Table 2-3 Proposed Construction and Renovation Projects........................................................2-11

Table 3-1 Attainment status of Fairfax County and Fort Belvoir ................................................3-2

Table 3-2 Estimated Construction Emissions ...............................................................................3-4

Table 3-3 Estimated Annual Emissions from Construction and Demolition 

Equipment.....................................................................................................................3-6

Table 3-4 Estimated Annual Emissions from Construction Worker Vehicles..............................3-7

Table 3-5 Annual VOC Emissions from Architectural Coatings.................................................3-8

Table 3-6 Annual VOC Emissions from Asphalt Curing .............................................................3-8

Table 3-7 Annual PM2.5 Emissions from Surface Disturbance.....................................................3-9

Table 3-8 Estimated Net Operating Emissions Subject to the General 

Conformity Rule.........................................................................................................3-10

Table 3-9 Annual Emissions from New Small Heating and Cooling Sources............................3-12

Table 3-10 Annual Emissions from New Employees’ Vehicles (Net Decrease).......................3-12

Table 3-11 Total Annual Emissions from the 2005 Realignment of Fort Belvoir......................3-13

Table 3-12 Applicability Thresholds for the National Capital Interstate Air 

Quality Control Region ..............................................................................................3-14

Table 3-13 Annual Project-related Emission Levels Subject to Conformity 

Determination .............................................................................................................3-15

Table 3-14 Daily Project-related Emission Levels Subject to Conformity 

Determination .............................................................................................................3-16

Table 3-15 Regional NOx Emission Inventory ...........................................................................3-17

Table 3-16 Regional VOC Emission Inventory..........................................................................3-17

Table 3-17 Comparison of 2008 and 2009 Project-related Emissions to SIP-based 

Inventories ..................................................................................................................3-19

Table 3-18 Comparison of 2010 Project-related Emissions to SIP-based 

Inventories ..................................................................................................................3-20

Table A1-1 Nonroad Heavy Equipment Emissions.....................................................................A-2

Table A1-2 Worker Vehicle Emissions .......................................................................................A-6

Table A1-3 Architectural Coating Emissions ............................................................................A-14

Table A1-4 Paving Off-gas Emissions ......................................................................................A-15

Table A1-5 Fugitive Particle Emissions ....................................................................................A-16

Table A1-6 Emissions from Small Heating and Cooling Activities..........................................A-17

Table A1-7 Employee Vehicle Emissions .................................................................................A-18

Figures 

Figure ES-1 Location of Fort Belvoir........................................................................................ ES-4

Figure 2-1 1993 Land Use Designations.......................................................................................2-3

Figure 2-2 Proposed Land Use Plan .............................................................................................2-5

Figure 2-3 Construction Project Locations .................................................................................2-12

Figure 2-4 Town Center Conceptual Development ....................................................................2-20

Figure 2-5 City Center Conceptual Development.......................................................................2-22

Figure 2-6 Satellite Campuses Conceptual Development...........................................................2-24
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

1-1 

SECTION 1.0 

INTRODUCTION 

Within areas designated non-attainment or maintenance for any of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that federal agencies ensure that 

their actions conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIPs). The requirements for determining 

conformity to SIPs are detailed in Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 51 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 51). 

In accordance with Section 176 of the CAA, in consultation with VDEQ, the U.S. Army has 

assessed whether pollutant and pollutant precursor emissions that would result from the update of 

the installation’s land use plan and the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)-related activities 

at Fort Belvoir conform to the Virginia SIP. This document provides the supporting material, 

analytical methods, and conclusions relied on by the U.S. Army in performing the applicability 

analysis described in 40 CFR Part 51 and making a General Conformity Determination (GCD). 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

1-2 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-1 

SECTION 2.0 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The U.S. Army proposes to update Fort Belvoir’s land use plan and to implement the BRAC 

Commission’s recommendations. The BRAC realignment actions would involve constructing 

and renovating facilities and, consistent with the BRAC law, relocating units, agencies, and 

activities to the post by September 2011. 

2.1 LAND USE PLAN UPDATE 

Fort Belvoir’s mission is to provide a secure, safe operating environment for numerous missions 

and functions, including the following:

• Administrative, logistics, and operations support for regional and worldwide military 

missions 

• A creative learning environment for Army and DoD school students 

• Military support for a variety of National Capital Region (NCR) contingency missions 

• Regional housing for active duty military families 

• Quality of life support for the military community, that includes health and recreation 

• Environmental stewardship in concert with adequate land and facilities. 

Land Use Plan Update Long-range Component. To support the foregoing, the Army proposes 

to adopt and implement a land use plan update to respond to changing conditions at the post to 

comply with AR 210-20, Real Property Master Planning for Army Installations, which mandates 

updates of existing plans as circumstances require. This GCD pertains to the initial step of the 

land use plan update process, the revision of the land use plan, which is necessary to siting of 

facilities for BRAC implementation. The update to the RPMP centers on the land use analysis 

and plan portion of the long-range component (LRC). This portion of the LRC shows the current 

and future relationships and use of installation land by generalized areas, including such facilities 

as family housing, troop housing, administration, and range and training areas. 

Planning Principles. The following principles embody the aspirations for the future evolution of 

Fort Belvoir. These principles, compiled by Belvoir New Vision Planners and Fort Belvoir, 

provide guidance in deciding the future direction of facilities, space needs and meeting the goals 

of the installation, the Army, and the community. Adherence to these principles can provide the 

most efficient use of land, maximum use of previously disturbed areas, the least environmental 

impact and, ultimately, a world-class installation. 

• Transform Fort Belvoir: Create a world-class installation. 

• Achieve a diversity of use and activities: Enrich the program—a 24/7 environment. 

• Achieve environmental brilliance: A sustainable approach in everything that is done. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-2 

• Strengthen the natural habitat: Protect and enhance the creeks, wetlands, and wildlife 

corridors.

• View the installation as arboretum.

• Build compact neighborhoods: Strengthen the sense of community and place. 

• Improve connectivity: Consider strategies that allow people to park once.

• Emphasize the public realm: Create walkable neighborhoods. 

• Respect Fort Belvoir history: Continue the legacy for future generations. 

• Community benefits: Strengthen existing Army and surrounding neighborhoods. 

Land use planning is a continual, collaborative, and integrated process, primarily performed at the 

installation level. While land use planning reflects local mission requirements, it is strongly 

influenced by the plans, guidance, and initiatives of higher headquarters. An installation RPMP 

is, therefore, the principal real property management tool in support of overall installation real 

property operation, management, development, privatization, realignment, cleanup, and disposal. 

2.1.1 Fort Belvoir’s Existing Land Use Plan 

The land use plan that is the subject of this GCD is the 1993 land use plan and a 2002 update of 

the Fort Belvoir RPMP. The 1993 master plan consisted of four elements: Real Property Master 

Plan Long-Range Component—1993; Real Property Master Plan Short-Range Component—

1993–2000; a Capital Investment Strategy; and a Mobilization Mission Planning Component. 

Figure 2-1 illustrates the 1993 land use plan. 

Fort Belvoir created its current master plan in 1993 to reflect the post’s transition from primarily 

a troop support and training mission to that of an administrative center providing support to 

multiple organizations within the NCR. Specifically, the U.S. Army Engineer School moved to 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, in 1988, and BRAC directives realigned the Belvoir Research and 

Development Engineering Center (BRDEC). BRAC directives also resulted in relocating 

administrative functions to Fort Belvoir. 

The 1993 long-range component identified Fort Belvoir’s role as the “major administrative and 

logistics center for the Northern Virginia portion” of the Military District of Washington (MDW). 

As such, and recognizing that Fort Belvoir would continue to attract military tenants, the plan 

attempted to determine total build out (TBO—defined as the total daily employment when all land 

uses have been fully developed under the constraints and limitations of the plan). The plan 

recognized that TBO might never be reached and that “Progress toward TBO is mission-driven 

but infrastructure-constrained.” The plan articulated goals, objectives, and assumptions that 

focused on the amount and type of development anticipated and attempted to limit impacts on the 

natural and man-made environments. The EPG was not included in the 1993 plan. 

The 1993 land use plan shown in Figure 2-1 identified 3,287 acres on Main Post as developable. 

The TBO that could be supported was estimated to be 74,230 people housed in 30.5 million 

square feet of space. By comparison, in 2005 about 24,000 personnel work at Fort Belvoir daily; 

they are housed in about 10.8 million square feet of space. 

Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-4 

The 1993 Real Property Master Plan was revised in 2002 upon the adoption of a Regional 

Community Support Center Subarea Development Plan. The plan revision addressed a desire to 

locate additional related activities in the portion of the Lower North Post area designated in 1993 

as the Regional Community Support Center. In particular, the 2002 Subarea Plan recommended 

that DeWitt Hospital (now on South Post) be relocated to the Regional Community Support 

Center area, that the post exchange (PX) be expanded, and a chapel be developed. The 

amendment also decreased the amount of land classified for community facilities, designated land 

for medical use, and increased the amount of land classified as environmentally sensitive. 

2.1.2 Proposed Land Use Plan Revision 

The proposed land use plan is shown in Figure 2-2. It differs from the 1993 land use plan in 

several important respects in that it: 

• Includes the EPG in planning for future development. 

• Uses fewer—but broader—land use designations that encompass compatible land uses. 

For example, the 1993 land use plan provided for Administration and Education and 

Research and Development categories; these are now included in the category of 

Professional/Institutional. These new categories allow for more flexible groupings of 

compatible types of facilities. 

• Identifies additional areas for present and future Professional/Institutional and Residential 

uses. 

• Relocates the Troop area from North Post to South Post. 

• Changes land use designations for a number of areas on the basis of revised assessment 

of their suitability for particular uses, projection of future needs, and the desire to make 

land uses broader and more encompassing. 

Table 2-1 provides a comparison of the land use areas in the 1993 master plan, as amended in 

2002, to those proposed in the long-range component of the RPMP revision. 

The difference between the total number of acres for the 1993 land use plan as amended in 2002 

(7,687) and the total for the proposed land use plan (8,508) is the result of including the EPG and 

several land areas being added or recognized as belonging to Fort Belvoir since 1993. These 

include 4 acres of islands in Accotink Bay and Gunston Cove; 16 acres west of Colchester Road 

that became part of Fort Belvoir following realignment of Colchester Road; a net increase of 16 

acres resulting from the swap of the McNaughton ballfields; and an area of Humphreys 

Engineering Center (HEC) west of the proposed Connector Road shown as Residential and 

designated for potential acquisition on the proposed land use plan. 

The proposed land use plan aggregates land uses into larger, more flexible areas than did the 1993 

plan (compare Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). Reflecting the evolution in Fort Belvoir’s mission, the 

land use categories gaining land are those that support its regional mission as an administrative, 

logistics, and operations center; military support center; classroom center; housing center; 

military community support center; and a leader in environmental stewardship. The Airfield land 

use gained land because it consumed areas formerly designated as Environmentally Sensitive 

around the airfield. Land use categories losing land—particularly Training Range and Supply, 

Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-6 

Table 2-1 

Comparison of 1993 and 2011 Land Use Allocations 

1993 master plan Proposed land use plan 

Land use Acres Land use Acresa

Administration & Education 724 Airfield 697 

Airfield 391 Community 2,950 

Community Facilities 452 Industrial 213 

Family Housing 576 Professional/Institutional 2,132 

Industrial 126 Residential 1,116 

Medical 97 Training 1,287 

Outdoor Recreation 1,006 Troop 101 

Research & Development 340 

Supply, Storage, & Maintenance 378 

Training Range 462 

Troop Housing 72 

Environmentally Sensitive 3,063 

Total 7,687 8,508 

a

 All proposed land use designation acreages were calculated in GIS, and the totals may differ from the official acreages 

for the installation. 

Storage & Maintenance—reflect Fort Belvoir’s earlier missions that require fewer resources and 

less land today. 

Principal features and elements of the proposed land use plan include the following: 

• Professional/Institutional. The Administration & Education and Research & 

Development land use categories used in the 1993 land use plan would change to 

Professional/Institutional. The proposed land use plan increases the amount of land 

designated for Professional/Institutional use. A substantial part of the increase is due to 

the inclusion of EPG as well as medical facilities in the Professional/ Institutional 

category. 

• Residential. The proposed land use plan would increase the land area dedicated to family 

housing on both the North and South Posts. Fort Belvoir Residential Communities, the 

program through which family housing has been privatized, is in the process of building 

and rehabilitating 2,070 family housing units. A portion of the land designated for 

Residential would be reserved for future development related to long-term growth on the 

installation. 

• Open Space. Much of the area designated as Environmentally Sensitive in the 1993 land 

use plan would be redesignated as Community. This category includes safety clearances, 

security areas, water areas, wetlands, conservation areas, resource protection areas 

(RPAs), forest stands, and former training areas. These lands could be used for 

recreation, conservation, outdoor training, and general uses not involving the construction 

of facilities. Environmentally constrained land areas would continue to have all 

regulatory protections in place. 

• McNaughton Ballfields Land Swap. The three McNaughton ballfields along Pole Road on 

the southern border of Woodlawn Village are pending exchange for the Berman Tract

immediately east of Woodlawn Village, which will result in a net increase of 16 acres for 

Fort Belvoir. This area would be designated as Community land use. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-7 

• South Post Golf Course. The proposed land use plan would change the land use 

designation of most of the South Post golf course from Outdoor Recreation to 

Professional/Institutional. 

• Supply, Storage, and Maintenance Facilities. The proposed land use plan would enable 

demolition of outdated and inefficient warehouses; relocation of most of the Supply, 

Storage, and Maintenance Operations in the 1400 Area to the 700/1100 Areas; and 

redevelopment of the eastern portion of the 1400 Area east of Gunston Road for 

Professional/Institutional uses. 

• Unaccompanied Personnel Housing. The proposed land use plan would change the land 

use designation from Troop Housing to Troop and convert North Post areas designated 

for Troop uses to Professional/Institutional. A new Troop land use area would be 

provided on South Post, west of Gunston Road. 

• DeWitt Army Community Hospital. In the 2002 master plan amendment, Fort Belvoir 

planned to site a new DeWitt Army Community Hospital on a parcel of land south of 

Kingman Road on North Post. The proposed land use plan now enables the new hospital 

to be sited on the South Post Golf Course in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of 

Route 1 and Belvoir Road. The present DeWitt hospital site would be designated for 

Community use. 

In the revised land use plan, a new Troop Area would be established on South Post on 

approximately 75 acres west of Gunston Road in the western portion of the 1400 Area. Industrial 

uses in that area would relocate to other designated Industrial sites on post. The present Troop 

Area in the 2100 Area and consisting of approximately 50 acres generally bounded by Gunston, 

Abbot, Beauregard, and Goethals Roads on North Post, would become available for 

Professional/Institutional uses upon relocation of Soldier billeting and activities to the new Troop 

Area. Notwithstanding the proposed changes in land use classifications of these two areas, 

current land uses would continue until such time as the Army constructs and occupies necessary 

troop facilities at the new location on South Post. 

In several cases the change in land use designations from the 1993 plan would allow Fort Belvoir 

to prepare for potential changes to its mission in the future even though, except to accommodate 

BRAC realignment actions, no specific uses for the sites are currently under consideration. For 

example, this is the case with the area that would be designated for Community at the site now 

occupied by Woodlawn Village. 

The proposed land use plan has been structured so that only the best development sites are 

identified for growth. The best sites are those that have the fewest environmental, operational, 

cultural resource, and constructability constraints. 

Force Protection Standards. The proposed land use plan has been developed to achieve 

compliance with force protection requirements for military facilities as set forth in DoD Unified 

Facilities Criteria 4-010-01, Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings (2003). The effect of the 

standards on the master plan is to require that buffer zones around buildings and roads be 

reserved as force protection standoff areas. The buffer zones affect the amount of land needed for 

any one facility as well as dictate its relationship to other facilities. Future military construction 

projects will be required to adhere to force protection setbacks. Buildings already built are 

exempt; however, it is strongly recommended that these requirements be implemented to the 

fullest extent possible. Any major investment requiring renovations or modifications where costs 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-8 

exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost of the building require the entire building to be in 

compliance with the standards.

Buildings that are affected by the standoff requirements include those routinely occupied by 50 or 

more personnel (designated as a primary gathering structure) or buildings inhabited by 11 or more 

personnel and with a population density of greater than one person per 430 gross square feet 

(GSF). The standoff buffer for inhabited structures is 33 feet minimum; for primary gathering 

structures, it is 82 feet minimum, and some facilities require much greater distances than the 

minimum. Standoff distances from uncontrolled roads (such as U.S. Route 1) are to be 148 feet 

minimum, and for controlled roads, 82 feet minimum. 

The standards recommend that a vulnerability assessment be conducted for existing buildings and 

that changes be made as necessary to improve building security. These changes can take varying 

form, from procedures and planning to physical changes to the buildings, such as replacing glass 

windows with reinforced glass in key areas. 

2.2 BASE REALIGNMENT 

2.2.1 Introduction 

In July 2006 the U.S. Army considered three conceptual development strategies to address the 

question of where facilities could be sited to accommodate an increase of 22,000 additional 

personnel being assigned to Fort Belvoir from their existing locations in the NCR. That review 

process resulted in identifying a preferred land use strategy that reflected the best aspects of each 

of the three conceptual development strategies. The preferred land use strategy was then used as 

the basis for the proposed amendment to Fort Belvoir’s land use plan. 

BRAC realignment would result in a net increase of approximately 22,000 personnel at Fort 

Belvoir. The increase in personnel and facilities requires an updated land use plan. Siting of new 

facilities for the base realignment action would then comport with the updated land use plan. The 

land use planning, facilities construction, and personnel assignment functions are closely 

interrelated. 

Most BRAC realignment actions for the U.S. Army conform to existing, sufficient master plans 

that are flexible and recognize future needs. BRAC realignment at Fort Belvoir involves two 

important considerations. First, the post’s current master plan does not encompass the EPG 

because of past intentions to dispose of that 800-acre area for other development. The EPG must 

be incorporated into a new master plan. Second, the proposed increase of 22,000 personnel 

represents the largest relocation of personnel in the BRAC 2005 round. Approximately 7 million 

square feet of new and renovated facilities and approximately 7 million square feet of parking 

must be ready for use before September 15, 2011. 

The following are the specific federal actions under this provision that are associated with the 

proposed realignment of Fort Belvoir. 

• Realign the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), with various U.S. Army 

entities moving from leased space in the NCR (Army Lease) to Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

• Realign the Washington Headquarters Services (WHS), consisting of WHS and 

elements of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and defense agencies to Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-9 

• Realign U.S. Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) to Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

• Realign Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems (PEO EIS) to 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

• Realign Missile Defense Agency Headquarters Command Center (MDA HQCC) to 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating U.S. Army Prime Power School to Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating and consolidating Sensors, Electronics, 

and Electronic Warfare Research, Development and Acquisition activities to Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, Maryland. 

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation 

Command (CID) to Marine Corp Base Quantico, Virginia. 

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating Soldier magazine to Fort Meade, 

Maryland. 

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) 

and the Security Assistance Command (USASAC, an AMC major subordinate command) 

to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. 

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating the Chemical Biological Defense Research 

component of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to Edgewood Chemical Biological 

Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating the U.S. Army Research Office to the 

National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. Realign the Defense Threat 

Reduction Agency Telegraph Road facility, Alexandria, Virginia, by relocating the 

Extramural Research Program Management function (except conventional armaments 

and chemical biological defense research) to the National Naval Medical Center, 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

• Realign Fort Belvoir, Virginia, by relocating Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

National Command Region conventional armament research to Eglin Air Force Base, 

Florida. 

Accommodation of personnel being realigned must take into account the needs of six major 

groups slated for realignment by the BRAC Commission: Washington Headquarters Services 

(WHS), consisting of WHS and elements of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and defense 

agencies; National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA); various U.S. Army entities moving 

from leased space in the NCR (Army Lease); U.S. Army Medical Command (MedCom); Program 

Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems (PEO EIS); and Missile Defense Agency 

Headquarters Command Center (MDA HQCC). The numbers of personnel associated with each 

of these groups are shown in Table 2-2. Details of the BRAC Commission’s recommendation 

can be found at http://www.brac.gov. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-10 

Table 2-2 

Personnel Realigning to Fort Belvoir 

Agency Staff Contractors Total 

Washington Headquarters Services 7,759 1,504 9,263 

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 4,400 4,100 8,500 

Army Lease 2,720 0 2,720 

U.S. Medical Command 2,069 0 2,069 

Program Executive Office, Enterprise Info Systems 480 0 480 

Missile Defense Agency (HQ Command Center) 137 155 292 

Total 17,565 5,759 23,324 

Note: Personnel being realigned from Fort Belvoir to other installations result in a net increase at Fort Belvoir of 

approximately 22,000 personnel. Realignments from Fort Belvoir include the relocation of Army Materiel Command 

Headquarters and U.S. Army Security Assistance Command to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; Prime Power School to Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri; U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division Headquarters to Marine Corps Base, Quantico, 

Virginia; Soldiers magazine to Fort Meade, Maryland; Biomedical Science and Technology programs of the Defense 

Threat Reduction Agency to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; Defense Threat Reduction Agency conventional 

armaments research to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida; and Information Systems, Research, Development and Acquisition 

to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Evaluation of environmental impacts associated with these realignments will be 

performed by the receiving locations. 

2.2.2 Allocation of Facilities and Personnel 

The July 2006 preferred land use strategy translates to an amended siting plan. Accommodations 

of BRAC requirements would involve the following siting of facilities: 

• NGA and WHS would be on the eastern portion of EPG. 

• Army lease units, agencies, and activities would be on South Post at sites on Gunston 

Road and Belvoir Road. 

• The Dewitt Army Community Hospital would be on the South Post Golf Course. 

• PEO EIS and MDA HQCC would be on South Post at sites on Gunston Road and Belvoir 

Road. 

2.2.3 Construction and Renovation 

Construction and renovation of facilities to support additional personnel at Fort Belvoir would 

result in more than 7 million square feet of additional built space and about 7 million square feet 

of parking structures. 

Fort Belvoir would require essentially two types of construction projects. First, Fort Belvoir must 

construct or renovate facilities to create working space or other types of special use space for the 

proposed additional workforce. Second, Fort Belvoir must expand its general support capabilities 

to meet the needs of a larger on-post population. Table 2-3 identifies these projects, and Figure 

2-3 shows where they would be sited under the preferred alternative. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-11 

Table 2-3 

Proposed Construction and Renovation Projects 

Map 

number 

Project 

number Project title Fiscal year 

Building 

size (ft2

) 

Estimated 

impervious 

acreage 

1 65416 NGA Administrative Facility 2007–2011 2,419,000 20.3 

2 64234 WHS Administrative Facility 2008–2010 2,219,000 22.8 

3 MDA 580 MDA Facility 2008–2009 107,000 1.3 

4 64238 Hospital 2008 868,800 7.5 

4 65676 Hospital 2009 - - 

4 65677 Hospital 2010 - - 

5 64241 Dental Clinic 2010–2011 16,000 0.2 

6 65871 NARMCa Headquarters Building 2009 50,000 1.0 

7 n/a Corps of Engineers Project Integration Offices 2008 58,600 n/a 

8 64097 Infrastructure 2008 n/a n/a 

8 67487 Infrastructure 2009 n/a n/a 

8 67959 Infrastructure 2010 25,000 0.6 

9 64076 Emergency Services Center (EPG) 2008 14,700 3.4 

10 65448 Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS) 2010 21,525 0.3 

11 65447 USANCAb Support Facility 2008 20,000 n/a 

12 55661 Child Development Center (NGA) 2011 19,590 0.5 

13 55662 Child Development Center 2011 24,036 0.6 

14 65450 Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 214, 215, 220) 2011 133,000 0.0 

15 63571 Access Road/Control Point 2009 280 8.2 

16 66228 AMCc Relocatables 2007 230,000 0.0 

17 65592/67231 PEO EIS Administrative Facility 2008 290,000 2.2 

17 67231 PEO EIS Administrative Facility 2008 157,400 1.2 

18 54347 Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area 2011 n/a 1.0 

19 62892 Modernize Barracks 2011 171,000 n/a 

20 54898 MWRd Family Travel Camp 2007–2010 1658 1.5 

Notes: Project number is the construction project number assigned by the Army. Estimated impervious footprint acreage column was 

calculated based on the estimated number of building floors and adjacent parking spaces for each project. Parking garages were assumed for 

the larger projects. 

a

North Atlantic Regional Medical Center 

b

U.S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency 

c

Army Materiel Command 

d

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 

Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-13 

The following paragraphs provide details on facility construction and renovation projects listed in 

Table 2-3 that are proposed to occur through fiscal year 2011. 

• NGA Administrative Facility (Project number 65416, FY 2007-2011, Map number [MN] 

1 in Figure 2-6). This project would provide a 2,419,000-square-foot Sensitive 

Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) for use by the NGA. This project is required 

to implement the BRAC 2005 recommendation to consolidate NGA intelligence and 

training operations; provide a secure facility to enhance command and control; promote 

acquisition, assimilation, and analysis of real-time intelligence; and enhance 

organizational productivity and intra-agency connectivity and operability. NGA elements 

are currently housed in numerous government-owned and leased facilities in and around 

the NCR. Their physical separation negatively affects their intelligence mission. There 

are no existing facilities at Fort Belvoir sufficient to support consolidation of all NGA 

intelligence operations, administrative functions, and training programs. 

• WHS Administrative Facility (64234, FY 2008–2010, MN 2). This project would provide 

2,219,000 square feet of secure administrative space for various units, agencies, and 

activities relocating to Fort Belvoir from leased facilities in the NCR. The project would 

include uninterruptible power supply and standby power generation. It would provide 

facilities on a secure installation, thereby improving force protection. This project would 

consolidate a number of similar activities with a resultant improvement in coordination, 

information exchange, and productivity. Various DoD offices are in leased facilities, 

primarily in Arlington and Alexandria, Virginia. Most of these facilities do not meet 

minimal DoD antiterrorism/force protection (AT/FP) construction standards for setbacks, 

progressive collapse, laminated windows, and so on. The facilities are dispersed 

throughout the NCR, negatively affecting direct coordination. 

• MDA Facility (MDA 580, FY 2008–2009, MN 3). This project would provide a 107,000 

square-foot administrative facility to serve as the MDA Headquarters Command Center 

for approximately 292 personnel. The project would consist of a multistory reinforced 

concrete or structural steel building on concrete footings. Functional areas that would be 

provided include administrative space, command suite, security operations center, 

sensitive compartmentalized information facilities, special access areas, and meeting 

rooms. AT/FP measures would include building standoff distances, structural preventive 

collapse, laminated glass, lighting, bollards, and control gates. 

• Hospital (64238, 65676, and 65677, FY 2008–2010, MN 4). This project would provide a 

new hospital. Primary facilities would include the hospital (868,800 square feet), special 

foundations, central energy plant, helipad, ambulance shelter (2,200 square feet), vehicle 

parking garage, and building information systems. This project is required to provide a 

hospital to support BRAC 2005 restationing actions within the NCR affecting Walter 

Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) in Washington, D.C.; National Naval Medical 

Center (NNMC) at Bethesda; Malcolm Grow Medical Center (MGMC) at Andrews Air 

Force Base; and Dewitt Army Community Hospital at Fort Belvoir. This project is 

required for integrating WRAMC and NNMC and for establishing the new Walter Reed 

National Military Medical Center at Bethesda and a large Army community hospital at 

Fort Belvoir. The NCR medical service market supports care for more than 439,000 

beneficiaries. A robust Army community hospital is required to support the relocation of 

nontertiary patient care functions consequent to the BRAC 2005 restationing actions, 

which include the closure of WRAMC and closure of inpatient care at MGMC. The 

restationing actions result in a growth of the NCR South Submarket (supported by a new 

Army community hospital) of more than 76,000 eligible beneficiaries to a total of 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-14 

220,803 beneficiaries; a tripling of inpatient workload to more than 9,500 annual 

admissions; and a doubling of outpatient care, most of which is specialty care. The 

existing DeWitt Army Community Hospital at Fort Belvoir was constructed in 1957 as a 

250-bed inpatient facility and still has the original heating, ventilating, and air 

conditioning system; plumbing system; medical gas system; and electrical distribution 

system. The building structure remains intact and usable, but the facility and its major 

utility systems fall far short of meeting the requirements of a modern medical treatment 

facility. Outpatient care must be performed in areas designed for inpatient care, resulting 

in personnel and space inefficiency and patient inconvenience. There are asbestoscontaining materials in the existing pipe insulation, floor tile, and mastic at various 

locations, which significantly delays and escalates the cost of projects to upgrade and 

improve the facility.

• Dental Clinic (64241, FY 2010-2011, MN 5). This project would provide renovation of, 

and construction to add to, Building 1099 for a 16,000-square-foot dental clinic. The 

project is required to provide a quality dental clinic to support BRAC 2005 restationing 

actions of assigned troops working and living on or near Fort Belvoir. The existing 

facility, Building 1099, is not large enough to provide 40 dental treatment rooms, the 

necessary number to serve the larger population at Fort Belvoir. There is no available 

capacity elsewhere to support the increase in dental workload generated by the projected 

increase at Fort Belvoir of 4,200 active duty Soldiers as directed by the BRAC 2005 

restationing actions. 

• NARMC HQ Building (65871, FY 2009, MN 6). This project would construct a 50,000-

square-foot general administration building for the North Atlantic Regional Medical 

Command (NARMC), as well as other Office of the Secretary of Defense Supporting 

Units and regional support offices, such as the North Atlantic Regional Dental Command, 

North Atlantic Regional Veterinary Command, and the North Atlantic Regional 

Contracting Office. The project is required to provide administrative and operational 

space for activities to be relocated to Fort Belvoir in accordance with the 

recommendations of BRAC 2005. Related medical administrative activities are currently 

located at the WRAMC, Washington, D.C. Currently, there is no adequate, permanent 

administrative space available at Fort Belvoir to accommodate proposed relocations of 

medical activities. This project would accommodate such activities by constructing a 

new, permanent multi-story administrative facility at Fort Belvoir within the proposed 

hospital campus. 

• Corps of Engineers Project Integration Offices (Temporary) (FY 2007, MN 7). This 

project would place temporary facilities for personnel of the Baltimore District Corps of 

Engineers Integration Office, which would provide integration of BRAC construction 

management for facilities being developed to accommodate realigned units, agencies, and 

activities. There would be approximately 22,500 square feet of temporary facilities 

(relocatable buildings) on EPG, north of Cissna Road and northwest of Building 5073. 

There would be another 36,100 square feet of temporary facilities on the northwest 

portion of the South Post golf course. These facilities would be in use for the duration of 

facilities construction in support of BRAC requirements. 

• Infrastructure (64097, 67487, and 67959, FY 2008–2010, MN 8). These three projects 

would provide a 25,000-square-foot communications center, access control facilities, one 

10,000-square-foot heating plant building, one 10,000-square foot refrigeration and air 

conditioning unit, and water, sewer, and electrical services for the EPG. The projects 

include demolishing 57,000 square feet of existing space. They are required to provide 

necessary infrastructure for units, agencies, and activities relocating to EPG and to 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-15 

maintain adequate levels of infrastructure support at Main Post. Current infrastructure at 

EPG is minimal. There is no access control, and heating and air conditioning is provided 

through self-contained systems adequate to support only past or current use requirements. 

Communications are virtually nonexistent. The road network consists of a two-lane road 

in poor condition. The Bailey Bridge over Accotink Creek is structurally compromised 

and is closed to vehicular traffic. The projects would provide replacement of the present 

bridge over Accotink Creek, as well as an additional bridge over Accotink and 

replacement of the bridge over Dogue Creek (South Post). Water, sanitary sewer, and 

electrical support are sized to the one occupied building. The perimeter fencing is in such 

poor condition that it affords little impediment to unauthorized access. Table 2-4 

identifies the principal elements of infrastructure included in these projects, as well as 

infrastructure that would be constructed or installed in support of Main Post 

requirements. 

• Emergency Services Center (64076, FY 2008, MN 9). This project would provide 14,700 

square feet of space and 15,000 square yards of maintenance apron for emergency 

services functions at EPG. The project is required to provide military police, Enhanced 

911, hazardous materials response, and fire prevention and protection services at EPG in 

support of the facilities proposed to be constructed to implement BRAC 2005. The 

project would provide a combined police and fire station to provide traffic control and 

law enforcement in support of the agencies and activities on EPG and to provide rapid 

response to structural fires and medical emergencies. Currently, there is no police or fire 

station at EPG. There are three fire stations at Fort Belvoir—Building 191 constructed in 

1934 and in poor condition, Building 2119 constructed in 1993, and Building 3242 

constructed in 2003 at Davison Army Airfield. The military police station, Building 

2124, was constructed in 2002. Because of their physical separation, none of these 

facilities is adequate to support EPG with emergency services. The fire stations are too 

far away to meet minimum response times. The police station is capable of supporting 

EPG with patrols but is too distant to effectively deliver any other law enforcement 

services. 

• Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS) (65448, FY 2010, MN 10). This project 

would provide a 6,525-square-foot operations center, a 10,000-square-foot storage area, 

and a 14,000-square-yard satellite yard. The project is required to provide satellite test 

facilities in support of the BRAC 2005 recommendation to station Project Manager 

Defense Communications and Army Transmission Systems (PM DCATS) at Fort 

Belvoir. There are no facilities at Fort Belvoir to support satellite testing and stationing of 

PM DCATS. 

• USANCA Support Facility (65447, FY 2008, MN 11). This project, which would 

approximately 20,000 square feet of renovated spaced in Building 238 required to 

support additional U.S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency (USANCA) personnel as 

part of BRAC 2005. The project would provide replacement facilities for the USANCA 

facilities on EPG, thereby allowing construction of multimillion-square-foot campuses 

for units, agencies, and activities relocating to EPG. USANCA is the unit charged with 

providing the Army’s core critical nuclear and chemical expertise. Primary USANCA 

missions include enhanced force survivability in nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) 

environments; communication of the impact of nuclear and other weapons of mass 

destruction on military operations; enhanced interoperability of forces in NBC 

environments; planning Army employment of and assessing vulnerability to nuclear 

weapons; safe and secure storage and demilitarization of the DoD chemical weapons 

stockpile; and safe and secure operation and maintenance of Army nuclear reactors, 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-16 

active or deactivated. USANCA now occupies Building 5073, a 13,618-square-foot 

facility constructed in 1954 at the EPG. Building 5073 is in the center of the most 

developable portion of EPG. Its location and associated access and force-protection 

issues significantly reduce possible development in support of BRAC 2005. 

• Child Development Center (NGA) (55661, FY 2011, MN 12). This project would provide 

a child development center with 19,590 square feet of space and a 24,430 square-foot 

outdoor area for 244 children. The project is required to provide a safe, healthy, and 

affordable developmental environment for dependent children of eligible personnel 

assigned to EPG. This project would improve morale and performance by providing 

affordable, on-site developmental services, thereby improving employees’ peace of mind 

and reducing the time of daily commutes. There are currently three child development 

centers at Fort Belvoir. They are in Buildings 1028, 1745, and 2468, which were 

constructed in 1988, 1992, and 1997, respectively. Though in relatively good condition, 

the facilities are at or near capacity, with waiting lists for some categories of services. 

• Child Development Center (55662, FY 2011, MN 13). This project would provide a child 

development center with 24,000 square feet of space and a 40,300-square-foot outdoor 

area for 303 children. See the description for the similar project MN 12 above. 

• Administrative Facility (Buildings 211, 214, 215, and 220) (65450, FY 2011, MN 14). 

This project is required to implement BRAC 2005 by modernizing existing facilities to 

provide 133,000 square feet of general and secure administrative space and structured 

parking for various units, agencies, and activities relocating to Fort Belvoir from leased 

facilities in the NCR. This project would provide facilities on a secure installation, 

thereby improving force protection. It would consolidate a number of similar activities, 

improving coordination, information exchange, and productivity. Currently, the 

following are in leased facilities, primarily in Arlington and Alexandria, Virginia: 

administrative assistants to the Secretary of the Army (SA); Office of the Assistant SA 

Financial Management and Comptroller; Office of the Chief of Chaplains; 

Communication and Electronics Command; Defense Finance and Accounting Service; 

Defense Human Resource Activities; Defense Technology Security Administration; 

Department of Defense Education Activity; Deputy Under SA—Operations Research; 

DoD Inspector General; MDA HQCC; Office of the Secretary of Defense; PM 

Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology Enterprise Systems and Services; Senior 

Executive Public Affairs Training; U.S. Army Audit Agency; U.S. Army Environmental 

Policy Institute; U.S. Army G1/Army Research Institute; U.S. Army G1/Civilian 

Personnel Office; U.S. Army G3/Army Simulation; U.S. Army G6; U.S. Army G8/Force 

Development; U.S. Army Network Enterprise Technology Command; U.S. Army Office 

of Environmental Technology; U.S. Army Office of the Chief of Army Reserve; U.S. 

Army Safety Office; U.S. G1/Personnel Transformation; and U.S. Army Legal Services 

Agency. The majority of these facilities do not meet minimal DoD AT/FP construction 

standards for setbacks, progressive collapse, laminated windows and the like. The 

facilities are dispersed throughout the NCR, negatively affecting direct coordination. 

• Access Road/Control Point (63571, FY 2009, MN 15). This project would construct an 

access control point (ACP) with vehicle inspection station; access control building (280 

square feet); booth, and canopy, vehicle turnarounds; security lighting; backup generator; 

two-lane access road (306,000 square feet) with sidewalks/bike path; street lighting; 

drainage; traffic signal; and Richmond Highway (U.S. Route 1) left and right turns. The 

ACP, directly across Richmond Highway from Pence Gate, is required to provide safe 

force protection-compliant controlled access from Richmond Highway onto Fort Belvoir 

North Post. It would provide an ACP meeting DoD AT/FP construction standards with 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-17 

sufficient marshalling area and an adequate vehicle inspection station. This project is 

required to provide a second access onto North Post reducing congestion on Gunston 

Road and providing alternate access during periods of force protection conditions Charlie 

and Delta. The only access point from U.S. Route 1 onto North Post is Woodlawn Gate 

(Route 618). Woodlawn Gate is currently closed. The existing ACP is inadequate. 

Constructed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, the ACP meets minimal DoD 

criteria for an ACP; however, the staging area is inadequate, the vehicle inspection 

station is temporary, the guard post is not hardened, and there is no overhead cover. The 

configuration of the ACP places the guard force at risk of being hit by vehicles while 

performing their force protection duties. If this project is not provided, the level of 

service on U.S. Route 1 would be such that there would be a breakdown in traffic flow 

resulting in extreme congestion during peak periods. AT/FP would not be provided in 

accordance with DoD standards. Traffic flow would be degraded, control and inspection 

of vehicles and personnel entering the installation would be inadequate, and military and 

contract law enforcement personnel would continue to be at risk from inadequate 

separation from vehicles and inadequate protective facilities. 

• AMC Relocatables (66228, FY 2007, MN 16). This project would purchase the facilities 

at Fort Belvoir that were leased to house the headquarters function of the U.S. Army 

Materiel Command (AMC). The facilities consist of two modular, two-story office 

buildings having a total of 230,000 square feet of space. The buildings include open and 

closed office space, along with special-purpose areas like an Emergency Operations 

Center (EOC), SCIF, auditorium, secure and nonsecure conference rooms, video 

teleconference center, technical library, data process center, and office support space. The 

facilities, located along Gunston Road, will be vacated upon the tenant’s relocation to 

Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, as required by BRAC 2005. Several Fort Belvoir tenants 

occupy buildings that do not meet minimum requirements. Inadequate office space 

negatively affects individual job performance, as does lack of special use space such as 

training and conference rooms, on-site storage, video conferencing, and so on. In 

addition, one-tenth of the general-purpose administrative space inventory is inadequate 

and exacerbates space deficit impacts. Fort Belvoir anticipates that its working population 

increase will place a further strain on the capacity of the general-purpose administrative 

space inventory. The two two-story, contractor-owned buildings are available for 

purchase. 

• PEO EIS Administrative Facility (65592 and 67231, FY 2007, MN 17). Project Number 

65592 would provide 290,000 square feet of general administrative space and a parking 

garage, and Project Number 67321 would provide an additional 157,400 square feet of 

secure administrative space. The projects are required to accommodate elements of PEO 

EIS relocating to Fort Belvoir as a consequence of BRAC 2005 and to consolidate 

operations to enhance operational efficiencies and to reduce total square footage 

requirements. Approximately 370 personnel assigned to PEO EIS are at the post in 

Building 1445 (a converted barracks and dining facility constructed in 1969) and 

Buildings 322 and 323 (World War II facilities originally constructed as vehicle 

maintenance shops). Another 454 personnel are at Fort Monmouth, and 802 personnel 

are in leased space in the NCR. Overall mission performance is degraded by the physical 

separation of activities, and the lack of adequate space negatively affects mission 

readiness. 

• Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (54347, FY 2011, MN 18). This project would 

construct a parking structure with a capacity of 400 parking spaces in the 200 Area of 

Fort Belvoir. The structure would be constructed of reinforced concrete with structural 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-18 

steel framing, and it would have parking decks and a sloped interior ramp system. Fort 

Belvoir is required to provide parking for both its military personnel and civilian 

workforce. Based on 60 percent of the working population in this area, 1,730 parking 

spaces are required to accommodate vehicle parking. The 200 Area is extensively used 

by Defense Systems Management College and numerous administrative activities. 

Parking in this area is extremely inadequate. All land suitable for parking is being used, 

and there is no room for expansion. The only means of accommodating the shortfall of 

parking spaces is to construct a parking structure on the existing area. If the project is not 

provided, the lack of adequate parking will continue to adversely affect the morale and 

efficiency of personnel who work or conduct business the 200 Area. 

• Modernize Barracks (62892, FY 2011, MN 19). This project would provide renovations 

to 171,000 square feet of space in six barracks buildings in the McRee Barracks 

Complex. Renovation work would extend to living modules, hallways, stairwells, 

utilities, fire alarms and suppression systems, and building information systems. The 

existing barracks do not meet current standards for privacy, space, or amenities. The 

barracks are severely deteriorated. Inadequate heating, air conditioning, and ventilation 

systems contribute to mold growth and unhealthy living conditions. 

• MWR Family Travel Camp (54898, FY 2007–2010, MN 20). This project would provide 

a Family Travel Camp with 52 recreational vehicle (RV) campsites, a camp support 

facility, 15 cabins, and 12 tent sites in four phases, each of which would be usable upon 

completion. The camp support facility would include a laundry section, camper’s lounge 

space, restrooms and showers, and vending machine space. The project would also 

include relocating the existing Johnson Road to provide better camp circulation and 

space, landscaping, site lighting, sewage lift stations, and utility upgrades. Provisions for 

persons with disabilities would be provided. This project is required to provide adequate 

outdoor camping opportunities for the Belvoir/NCR customers. The project would 

provide for the high demand for RV camp sites, and for those looking for cabin camping 

opportunities. This project would enhance the morale and quality of life of Soldiers, 

family members, retirees, and DoD civilians. Currently, there are no family travel 

campgrounds on-post for customers assigned to or supported by Fort Belvoir, or for those 

visiting the area. Customers are forced to seek service from commercially operated 

facilities that are overcrowded in the peak travel times, have higher cost, and are an 

average of 45 minutes from Washington, D.C. 

2.2.2.4 Schedule 

Implementation of the various aspects of the proposed actions would occur until approximately 

the end of fiscal year 2011. Actions with respect to the land use plan revision would begin upon 

issuance of the EIS ROD and continue until further revision of the master plan. Construction and 

renovation of facilities in support of base realignment and other requirements of Fort Belvoir 

would begin in fiscal year 2007 and continue through fiscal year 2011. 

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED 

CONSIDERATION 

In June and July 2006, the Army considered three conceptual development strategies for 

accommodating the increase in units, agencies, and activities associated with base realignment at 

Fort Belvoir. The strategies, named in a manner suggesting the principal concept of each, were 

identified as Town Center, City Center, and Satellite Campuses. Each strategy had two 

alternative plans for allocating land to specific functions (e.g., NGA, Army Lease) being 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-19 

realigned to Fort Belvoir; thus, the Army considered six different ways to meet base realignment 

requirements. 

The following sections present alternatives related to each of the strategies. Also presented is the 

preferred alternative which emerged as a hybrid of the three conceptual development strategies. 

2.3.1 Town Center 

Under the Town Center alternative, the majority of new facilities to accommodate base 

realignment would be sited between J.J. Kingman Road on North Post and 12th Street on South 

Post. Developed areas bounded by 16th and 21st Streets and Gunston Road and Belvoir Road 

would be available for future redevelopment. The EPG, Davison Army Airfield, and the North 

Post golf course would remain available for future growth after 2011. Figure 2-4 shows the 

Town Center alternative. For land use planning, several land parcels affected by the Town Center 

strategy would be redesignated for Professional/Institutional or Community uses. 

Accommodation of BRAC realignments under this alternative would result in the following major 

sitings: 

• NGA and associated parking structures would be sited in the area bounded by Route 1, 

Belvoir Road, 9th Street, and Gunston Road. This would be facilitated by changing the 

South Post golf course land use designation from Community to 

Professional/Institutional. 

Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-21 

• WHS and associated parking structures would be sited in the area bounded by Route 1, 

Belvoir Road, 9th Street, and Gunston Road and in the adjacent area north of Route 1 that 

is bounded by Constitution Drive, Route 1, and Gunston, Abbot, and Beauregard Roads. 

This would be facilitated by changing the South Post golf course land use designation 

from Community to Professional/Institutional and by changing the land use designations 

north of Route 1 from Community and Troop to Professional/Institution. 

• Army Lease and associated parking structures would be sited on North Post, in the 

southern half of the area bounded by Woodlawn, Abbott, Gunston, and J.J. Kingman 

Roads. This would be facilitated by changing the present land use designations from 

Community to Professional/Institutional. Army Lease would also be located in the 200 

area, in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Belvoir Road and 21st Street. 

• Medical Command and MDA and associated parking structures would be sited in the area 

that is bounded by Constitution Drive, Route 1, and Gunston, Abbot, and Beauregard 

Roads. This would be facilitated by changing the land use designations north of Route 1 

from Community and Troop to Professional/Institution. 

• PEO EIS and associated parking structures would be sited on North Post, in the southern 

half of the area bounded by Woodlawn, Abbott, Gunston, and J.J. Kingman Roads. This 

would be facilitated by changing the present land use designations from Community to 

Professional/Institutional. 

Since EPG would not be developed in order to accomplish BRAC realignment actions, the 

proposed emergency services center project and much of the infrastructure project would not be 

required and would not proceed at EPG. Under this alternative, areas of EPG west of Accotink 

Creek would be designated for Community use, and areas east of the creek would be designated 

for Professional/Institutional use to support future development. 

2.3.2 City Center 

Under the City Center alternative, all new facilities to accommodate base realignment would be 

sited on EPG and a nearby 65-acre parcel currently occupied by the General Services 

Administration (GSA). North and South Posts at Fort Belvoir would remain available for future 

growth after 2011. Figure 2-5 shows the City Center alternative. For land use planning, parcels 

affected by the City Center alternative would be redesignated for Professional/Institutional use. 

Accommodation of BRAC realignments under this alternative would result in the following major 

sitings: 

• NGA, Army Lease, Medical Command, PEO EIS, and MDA and associated parking 

structures would be sited at EPG. 

• Portions of Army Lease would be sited in existing facilities along the east side of 

Gunston Road between Route 1 and 9th Street, and in the northwest quadrant of the 

intersection of Belvoir Road and 21st Street. Units, agencies, and activities that could not 

be assigned to the existing facilities would occupy EPG. 

• WHS would be sited at the GSA parcel on Loisdale Road. 

Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-23 

Army adoption of the City Center alternative would require measures not inherent in other 

alternatives. The Army would expect GSA to vacate its facilities, relocate GSA functions to 

other facilities at a location other than Fort Belvoir,1

 demolish all existing structures, conduct any 

cleanup required under hazardous waste laws, and transfer administrative control of the property 

to the Army. These actions would have to occur within a timeframe that would provide the Army 

sufficient time to construct facilities for WHS use. 

2.3.3 Satellite Campuses 

Under the Satellite Campuses alternative, new facilities to accommodate base realignment would 

be sited on Davison Army Airfield, North Post golf course, and North Post and South Post (from 

Kingman Road to 12th Street). Figure 2-6 shows the Satellite Campuses alternative. For land use 

planning, land parcels affected by the Satellite Campuses strategy would be redesignated for 

Professional/Institutional or Community uses. Accommodation of BRAC realignments under this 

alternative would result in the following major sitings: 

• NGA and associated parking structures would be sited at Davidson Army Airfield. This 

would be facilitated by changing the present land use designations from Airfield to 

Professional/Institutional. 

• WHS and MDA and associated parking structures would be sited in the North Port area 

that is bounded by Constitution Drive, Route 1, and Gunston, Abbott, and Beauregard 

Roads. This would be facilitated by changing the land use designations north of Route 1 

from Community and Troop to Professional/Institution. 

• Army Lease would be sited in existing facilities along the east side of Gunston Road 

between Route 1 and 9th Street, and in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of 

Belvoir Road and 21st Street in renovated facilities. 

• Medical Command and associated parking structures would be sited on the southern 

portion of the North Post golf course. This would be facilitated by changing the land use 

designation from Recreation to Community. 

• PEO EIS and associated parking structures would be sited on North Post, in the southern 

half of the area bounded by Woodlawn, Abbot, Gunston, and J.J. Kingman Roads. This 

would be facilitated by changing the present land use designations from Community to 

Professional/Institutional. 

2.3.4 Preferred Alternative 

Consideration of the Town Center, City Center, and Satellite Campuses conceptual development 

strategies resulted in a determination that any single strategy was insufficient to meet Fort 

Belvoir’s base realignment needs. The Army reached this determination based on giving high 

priority to traffic-related issues and development density; specifically, use of EPG for all base 

realignment units, agencies, and activities would have resulted in development densities that 

 

1

The Army estimates that relocation of GSA warehouse functions would require a site of 40 to 60 acres. In areas 

classified for industrial use, no such site is available at Fort Belvoir. 

Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-25 

might not be supportable due to traffic congestion. In light of these circumstances, the Army 

identified the Preferred Land Use Strategy. 

The Preferred Land Use Plan contains two sub-alternatives with respect to the present and 

proposed Troop Area. The proposed plan would change the Troop Area on North Post to 

Professional/Institutional uses and create a new Troop Area on South Post in an Industrial area 

(the western portion of the 1400 area) along Gunston Road. Availability of funding, however, 

might cause current uses in the present and proposed Troop Areas to continue for an 

indeterminate period. 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES FOR BRAC IMPLEMENTATION 

The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act requires implementation of base realignment 

actions by not later than September 15, 2011, 6 years following the President’s sending the 

BRAC Commission’s recommendation to Congress. Because those recommendations became 

law effective November 9, 2005, the Army is required to implement them in accordance with 

their terms. Consideration of alternatives such as not relocating personnel or relocating them to 

other installations is not legally permissible. 

The implementation of base realignment at Fort Belvoir essentially centers on what facilities must 

be provided, where those facilities would be sited, and which personnel would be assigned to new 

or renovated facilities. The determinations on these matters are, in large part, guided by the 

post’s land use plan, which identifies areas appropriate for Professional/Institutional purposes. 

This GCD examines four land use plan alternatives that serve as the surrogate for alternative 

means of accommodating the units, agencies, and activities being relocated. No other alternatives 

to BRAC implementation are evaluated in this GCD.
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

2-26 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-1 

SECTION 3.0 

GENERAL CONFORMITY 

In November 1993 EPA promulgated two sets of conformity rules to implement Section 176(c) of 

the CAA––Transportation Conformity Rules (58 FR 62188) and General Conformity Rules (58 

FR 63214). The Transportation Conformity Rules are applicable to highways and mass transit 

projects within non-attainment areas and establish the criteria and procedures for determining that 

transportation plans, programs, and projects that are funded under Title 23 of the U.S.C., or the 

Federal Transit Act, conform to SIPs. Projects adopted, accepted, approved, or funded by the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) must be 

included in a conforming transportation improvement plan (TIP). Because the Proposed Action 

and Alternatives are not transportation projects and not adopted, accepted, approved, or funded by 

the FHWA or FTA, the Transportation Conformity Rules do not apply. 

The General Conformity Rules (GCR) are applicable to all federal actions within non-attainment 

areas that are not covered by the Transportation Conformity Rules. Because the proposed Fort 

Belvoir BRAC action is a non-transportation project supported by a federal agency, compliance 

with the GCR must be assessed. Notably, some actions are exempt from the GCR. In addition to 

exempt actions, some other action-related emissions are also not subject to conformity. These 

include emissions from sources subject to New Source Review; those covered by the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act or by other 

environmental laws; actions that are not reasonable foreseeable; and those for which federal 

agencies would have no continuing program responsibility. 

Fort Belvoir is within Fairfax County, Virginia. Fairfax County is included in an area that EPA 

has designated as in moderate non-attainment for the 8-hour O3 NAAQS and in non-attainment 

for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA had designated Fairfax County as within a severe non-attainment area for the 1-hour O3

NAAQS (56 FR 56694). In April 2004, EPA published the final rules that are guiding the 

implementation of a new 8-hour O3 NAAQS (69 FR 23951). These rules specified that the 1-

hour NAAQS would be revoked on June 15, 2005 (69 FR 23954 and 69 FR 23858). The 

mandated date by which the area is to attain the 8-hour NAAQS is June 15, 2010. Areas are not 

obligated to continue to demonstrate conformity to the 1-hour O3 NAAQS as of the effective date 

of the revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS (June 15, 2005). At that time, conformity to the 8-hour 

O3 NAAQS became required. Until such time that states are required to submit SIPs that will 

address the 8-hour O3 NAAQS (2007), the SIP that addresses the 1-hour O3 NAAQS is the 

“applicable” SIP. In addition, in December of 2006 a federal appellate court partially invalidated 

EPA’s implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard (United States Court of Appeals 2006). 

As of this time, no changes in effective regulations or guidances have been issued based on this 

court decision. 

On December 17, 2004, EPA designated areas of the United States with respect to the NAAQS 

for PM2.5 (70 FR 944). The CAA mandates areas designated non-attainment for fine particulate 

matter to attain the NAAQS for this pollutant by no later than the year 2010. 

Finally, there are areas within the NCR designated as maintenance areas for carbon monoxide. 

These areas include Washington, D.C.; Arlington County; Alexandria; and parts of Montgomery 

and Prince George counties (MWCOG 2004). None of these areas encompasses (partially or 

wholly) Fort Belvoir. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-2 

Fairfax County (and, therefore, Fort Belvoir) is designated in attainment for all other criteria air 

pollutants. Table 3-1 summarizes the air quality status of Fairfax County with respect to the 

NAAQS. 

Table 3-1 

Attainment status of Fairfax County and Fort Belvoir 

Pollutant Designation Mandated Attainment Year 

Carbon monoxide Attainment NA 

Nitrogen dioxide Attainment NA 

O3 Non-attainment (moderate) 2010 

PM10 Attainment NA 

PM2.5 Non-attainment 2010 

Sulfur dioxide Attainment NA 

Lead Attainment NA 

Notes: NA = not applicable. 

PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in size. 

PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in size. 

Source: 40 CFR Part 81, Air Quality Designations and Classifications. 

For the purpose of the Fort Belvoir BRAC GCD, the following discussion of conformity is 

limited to the air pollutants and criteria that are applicable to the National Capital Interstate Air 

Quality Control Region and, specifically, Fort Belvoir. The criteria for determining whether the 

GCR apply or the action conforms to the applicable SIP are as follows: 

• Total project-related direct and indirect emissions are below applicability threshold levels

or 

• Total project-related direct and indirect emissions are specifically identified and 

accounted for in the SIP or 

• The total project-related emissions from the action(s) are fully offset within the same 

non-attainment or maintenance area through a revision to the SIP, or similarly 

enforceable measure, that effects emission reductions so that there is no net increase in 

emissions of that pollutant or 

• VDEQ determines that the level of emissions, which together with all other emissions in 

the non-attainment (or maintenance) area, would not exceed the emission targets 

specified in the SIP, or 

• VDEQ commits to include the project-related emissions in the upcoming SIP and to 

accommodate the increased emissions by achieving reductions from other sources or 

• Any combination of the above. 

Emissions associated with BRAC-related programs are not typically identified or accounted for in 

SIPs. Therefore, guidance issued by EPA states that if emissions are not readily identifiable in a 

SIP inventory, the federal agency should coordinate with the state to determine what portion of a 

category, if any, could or would be allocated to any given project. The determination of whether 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-3 

a project/action is specifically identified in a SIP is made case by case in consultation with the 

state/local air quality agency and the EPA regional office (USEPA and FAA 2002). The EPA 

guidance also states that if total emissions for the project/action are below the levels identified or 

accounted for in the SIP, it has been demonstrated that the project/action conforms to the 

applicable SIP. 

3.1 EMISSIONS ESTIMATIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

The GCR require the federal agency to consider net emissions generated from all direct and 

indirect sources of air emission that are reasonably foreseeable. Direct emissions are emissions 

that are caused or initiated by a federal action and occur at the same time and place as the action. 

Indirect emissions are defined as reasonably foreseeable emissions that are caused by the action 

but might occur later in time and/or be farther removed in distance from the action itself, and that 

the federal agency can practicably control. For the evaluation of the RPMP update and the Fort 

Belvoir realignment, direct emissions subject to the GCR are considered emissions from 

construction activities, motor vehicles, and point sources that are not large enough to be subject to 

the Major New Source Review permitting process (USEPA and FAA 2002). More specifically, 

project-related direct emissions would result from the following: 

• Demolition and construction activities: the use of nonroad equipment (e.g., bulldozers, 

backhoes), worker vehicles, the use of VOC paints, paving off-gasses, and fugitive 

particles from surface disturbances 

• Operational activities: Emergency generators and small heating boilers not subject to 

major new source review, and the use of private motor vehicles 

No direct or indirect emissions are associated with the planning activities associated with the 

federal action; all direct and indirect emissions would be associated with the BRAC activities. 

Regardless of the alternative, all activities associated with the BRAC action that would generate 

direct and indirect emissions would be identical in magnitude and occur within the region. Slight 

variation in the siting of the new facilities on Fort Belvoir would not change the emission 

estimations, the applicability of the GCR, or the determination of conformity. Therefore, the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives were carried forward under a single analysis regardless of 

planning alternative. 

The emissions from major new or modified stationary sources subject to the Major New Source 

Review will undergo analysis as part of the review required by those programs, and it is not 

necessary to include them in the general conformity review. The GCR specifically exempt those 

emissions (40 CFR 93.153(d)(1)). 

Permits for minor stationary and area sources under VDEQ’s new minor source review program 

are not specifically exempt from analysis under the regulations. To issue such a permit, however, 

VDEQ must determine that the emissions are in conformity with the SIP (40 CFR 51.160(a) and 

9 VAC 5-160-160(5)(A)(1).). The permits, once issued, will demonstrate emissions from the 

minor permitted sources were determined and documented by the state agency primarily 

responsible for the applicable SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together with all other 

emissions in the nonattainment (or maintenance) area, would not exceed the emissions budgets 

specified in the applicable SIP. Therefore, the U.S. Army presumes that all stationary sources of 

emission subject to the permitting process will conform, and the U.S. Army will use the permit as 

evidence in documentation that the emissions are included in the SIP (40 CFR 3.158(a)(5)(i)(A)) 

(USEPA and FAA 2002) (VDEQ 2007). The only stationary units of air emissions carried 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-4 

forward for detailed analysis are those small enough not to be subject to VDEQ’s permitting 

procedures. 

3.1.1 Demolition and Construction Emissions 

Demolition and construction emissions associated with the use of construction equipment (e.g., 

bulldozers, backhoes), worker vehicles, the use of VOC paints, paving off-gasses, and fugitive 

particles from surface disturbances are tabulated in Table 3-2 for all the years of construction. 

Table 3-2 

Estimated Construction Emissions 

 Construction Emissions (tons/yr) 

Year NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

2007 129 76 10 19 

2008 323 188 21 48 

2009 329 216 21 52 

2010 374 238 26 63 

2011 130 69 13 24 

 

2007 Annual Construction 

Emissions Construction Activity NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

Heavy equipment emissions 128 12 8 19 

Worker trip emissions 2 1 0 0 

Architectural coating emissions 0 63 0 0 

Paving off-gas emissions 0 0 0 0 

Fugitive dust emissions 0 0 1 0 

Total 129 76 10 19 

 

2008 Annual Construction 

Emissions Construction Activity NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

Heavy equipment emissions 318 29 20 48 

Worker trip emissions 5 4 0 0 

Architectural coating emissions 0 155 0 0 

Paving off-gas emissions 0 0 0 0 

Fugitive dust emissions 0 0 1 0 

Total 323 188 21 48 

 

2009 Annual Construction 

Emissions Construction Activity NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

Heavy equipment emissions 323 29 20 52 

Worker trip emissions 6 5 0 0 

Architectural coating emissions 0 181 0 0 

Paving off-gas emissions 0 0 0 0 

Fugitive dust emissions 0 0 0 0 

Total 329 216 21 52 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-5 

Table 3-2 

Estimated Construction Emissions (continued)

 Construction Emissions (tons/yr) 

Year NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

2010 Annual Construction 

Emissions Construction Activity NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

Heavy equipment emissions 368 33 24 63 

Worker trip emissions 6 6 0 0 

Architectural coating emissions 0 200 0 0 

Paving off-gas emissions 0 0 0 0 

Fugitive dust emissions 0 0 1 0 

Total 374 238 26 63 

2011 Annual Construction 

Emissions Construction Activity NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

Heavy equipment emissions 128 11 12 24 

Worker trip emissions 2 2 0 0 

Architectural coating emissions 0 56 0 0 

Paving off-gas emissions 0 0 0 0 

Fugitive dust emissions 0 0 1 0 

Total 130 69 13 24 

 Note: Rounded to the nearest whole number. 

This section also outlines all the calculations and assumptions made to derive these construction 

emission estimations. 

3.1.1.1 Heavy Construction Equipment 

Pollutant emissions resulting from activities associated with constructing the new buildings, 

parking facilities, and roadways were estimated. The typical demolition and construction would 

involve such activities as demolition of existing buildings or structures, utility installation, road 

construction, site clearing and grading, building construction, asphalt paving, and landscaping. 

Demolition and construction would involve the use of various nonroad equipment, power 

generators, and trucks. Pieces of equipment to be used for building construction include, but are 

not limited to, backhoes, loaders, excavators, air compressors, chain saws, chipping machines, 

dozers, cranes, pavers, graders, rollers, and heavy trucks. Information regarding the number of 

pieces and types of construction equipment to be used on the project, the schedule for deployment 

of equipment (monthly and annually), and the approximate daily operating time (including power 

level or usage factor) were estimated for each individual construction project based on a schedule 

of construction activity. 

Emissions from construction activities were estimated based on the projected construction 

activity schedule, the number of vehicles/pieces of equipment, and vehicle/equipment utilization 

rates. Emission factors for heavy-duty diesel equipment were obtained from EPA’s

NONROAD2005 Emissions Model (USEPA 2004). This model, which is the current EPA 

standard for nonroad vehicle emission, calculated emission factors based on information in the 

following documents: 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-6 

• Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling––CompressionIgnition (USEPA 2004a); 

• Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling––Spark-Ignition (USEPA 

2004b); 

• Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions 

Modeling (USEPA 2004c) 

• Nonroad Engine Population Estimates (USEPA 2004d) 

The equipment and vehicle operation hours were estimated based on R.S.Means’ Building Cost 

Construction Data, 64th annual edition (Waier 2006), and field experience from similar projects. 

Emission factors in grams of pollutant per hour were multiplied by the estimated running time to 

calculate total grams of pollutant from each piece of equipment. Finally, these total grams of 

pollutant were converted to tons of pollutant. The following formula was used to calculate hourly 

emissions from nonroad engine sources, including cranes, backhoes, and the like: 

Mi = N x EFi

where 

Mi = mass of emissions of ith pollutant during inventory period; 

N = source population (units); and 

EFi = average emissions of ith pollutant per unit of use (e.g., grams per hour). 

The total annual emissions levels are summarized in Table 3-3. In addition, estimated emissions 

from the potential demolition and construction are presented in Attachment 1. 

Table 3-3 

Estimated Annual Emissions from Construction and Demolition Equipment 

 Annual Emissions (tons/yr) 

Year NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

2007 127.6 11.7 8.1 18.5 

2008 318.5 28.5 19.7 48.3 

2009 323.4 29.4 20.4 51.9 

2010 367.9 32.6 24.1 62.9 

2011 127.8 11.2 11.5 23.5 

Sources: USEPA NONROAD2005; SQAQMD 1993. 

3.1.1.2 Construction Worker Vehicle Operations 

The emissions due to construction worker vehicle use were included in the analysis. Emission 

factors for motor vehicles were conservatively calculated using the EPA MOBILE6.2 mobile 

source emission factor model associated with input parameters provided by Metropolitan 

Washington Council of Government (MWCOG 2004). These emission factors were then 

multiplied by the vehicle operational hours to determine motor vehicle emissions. The analysis 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-7 

assumed conservatively that the worker’s vehicle would drive 30 miles per day on post at an 

average speed of 35 miles per hour. The total annual emissions levels are summarized in Table 3-

4. 

Table 3-4 

Estimated Annual Emissions from Construction Worker Vehicles 

Annual Emissions (tons/yr) 

Year NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

2007 1.6 1.4 0.1 0.1 

2008 4.8 4.5 0.2 0.1 

2009 5.6 5.1 0.2 0.2 

2010 6.2 5.7 0.2 0.2 

2011 1.9 1.8 0.1 0.1 

Sources: USEPA 2002, MOBILE6.2, SQAQMD 1993. 

In addition, estimated emissions from the potential demolition and construction are presented in 

Attachment 1. 

3.1.1.3 Emissions from Architectural Coatings 

Emission factors relating emissions to total square footage to be built were used to estimate VOC 

emissions from architectural coating activities. For office space, the area to be painted was 

assumed to be approximately twice the heated area of the facility and the dry film thickness was 

assumed to be three mils. The following formula was used to calculate emissions from the 

painting of the facilities: 

E = [(F x G) / 1000] x H

where 

E = emissions of VOCs from architectural coatings; 

F = pounds of VOC emissions per 1,000 ft2

 for a dry film thickness of 1 mil; 

G = total area to be coated (heated area x 2); and 

H = dry film thickness (3 mils). 

A sample calculation for an architectural coating VOC emissions during construction of example 

facility is provided below: 

Heated area = 100,000 ft2

Dry film thickness = 3 mils 

Standard water-based paint = 18.5 lb of VOCs per 1000 ft2 perfor a dry film thickness of 1 

mil 

E = [(18.5 [lb/1000 ft2

/mil] x (100,000 [ft2] x 2) / 1000] x 3 mils]/2,000 [lb/ton] 

 = 2.77 tons 

The total annual emissions levels are summarized in Table 3-5. In addition, estimated emissions 

from the potential demolition and construction are presented in Attachment 1. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-8 

Table 3-5 

Annual VOC Emissions from 

Architectural Coatings 

Year Annual VOC Emissions 

(tons/yr) 

2007 62.9 

2008 155.2 

2009 181.3 

2010 200.0 

2011 55.5 

Source: SQAQMD 1993. 

3.1.1.4 Asphalt Curing Emissions 

Asphalt paving would generate emissions from (1) asphalt curing, (2) operation of on-site paving 

equipment, and (3) operation of motor vehicles, including paving material delivery trucks and 

worker commuting vehicles. Because the emissions resulting from the operation of on-site 

paving equipment, trucks, and vehicles were included in the previous section, only asphalt curingrelated emissions are discussed in this section. Asphalt curing-related VOC emissions were 

calculated based on the amount of paving anticipated for the on-site parking lot and new 

roadways. The following assumptions were used in VOC emission calculations for asphalt curing 

(SQAQMD 1993): 

E = area paved x 2.62 lb VOC/ac 

A sample calculation is provided below: 

Paved area = 100 ac 

E = 100 ac x 2.62 lb VOC/ac/2000 lb/ton 

 = 0.131 ton 

The total annual emissions levels are summarized in Table 3-6. In addition, estimated emissions 

from the potential demolition and construction are presented in Attachment 1. 

Table 3-6 

Annual VOC Emissions from Asphalt Curing 

Year Annual VOC Emissions (tons/yr) 

2007 0.00 

2008 0.02 

2009 0.03 

2010 0.06 

2011 0.06 

Source: SQAQMD 1993. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-9 

3.1.1.5 Surface Disturbance 

The quantity of dust emissions from construction operations is proportional to the area of land 

being worked and to the level of construction activity. The following assumptions were used in 

PM2.5 emission calculations for fugitive dust emissions (AP-42 Section 13.2.3; USEPA 2005c). 

E = open area x EF x PM10/TSP x PM2.5/PM10 x capture fraction 

where 

Open area = number of acres open 

EF = 80 lb TSP/acre 

PM10/TSP = 0.45 lb PM10/lb TSP 

PM2.5/PM10 = 0.15 lb PM2.5/lb PM10 

Capture fraction = 0.5 

A sample calculation is provided below: 

Paved area = 100 acres 

E = 100 ac x 80 lb TSP/ac x 0.45 lb PM10/lb TSP x 0.15 lb PM2.5/ lb PM10 x 2000 lb/ton 

 = 1.35 tons 

The total annual emissions levels are summarized in Table 3-7. In addition, estimated emissions 

from the potential demolition and construction are presented in Attachment 1. 

Table 3-7 

Annual PM2.5 Emissions from Surface Disturbance 

Year Annual PM2.5 Emissions (tons/yr) 

2007 1.36 

2008 0.81 

2009 0.02 

2010 1.11 

2011 1.43 

Sources: AP-42 Section 13.2.3, USEPA 2005c. 

3.1.3 Operational Activities 

Operational emissions occur as a result of the operation of the new facilities associated with the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives. As previously stated, some action-related emissions are not 

subject to the GCR. These include emissions from sources subject to major New Source Review. 

Major New Source Review is a term used to describe EPA’s preconstruction permitting program. 

In addition, the minor new source review permitting procedures ensure that air quality conditions 

are not significantly degraded as a result of the addition of new and modified factories, industrial 

boilers, and power plants above a certain size. In non-attainment areas, this program ensures that 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-10 

new emissions do not slow progress toward cleaner air. With respect to the Fort Belvoir BRAC 

action, emissions associated with the heating/cooling plant, standby generators, and large boilers 

are subject to permitting. Therefore, emissions, although considered, have not been carried 

forward for detailed analysis in the conformity evaluation. The remaining direct and indirect 

emissions due to small heating boilers and commuter vehicles constitute a small net decrease in 

emissions when compared to the no-action (no-build) scenario. The total annual operational 

emissions levels are summarized in Table 3-8. Notably, the operating emissions are less than the 

no-build alternative; this is primarily due to the decrease in communing distance and the net 

decrease in commuters. 

Table 3-8 

Estimated Net Operating Emissions Subject to 

the General Conformity Rule 

 Operating Emissions (tons/yr) 

Roll-up (Total Operating Emissions) NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2 

2008 -4.4 -4.5 -0.2 -0.1 

2009 -8.1 -9.1 -0.3 -0.3 

2010 -9.6 -13.7 -0.2 -0.4 

2011 -10.2 -14.8 -0.2 -0.4 

2012 -11.6 -16.2 -0.3 -0.5 

 

2008 Additional Operating Emissions NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

Heating and cooling emissions 0 0 0 0 

Employee commuting emissions -4.4 -4.5 -0.2 -0.1 

Total -4.4 -4.5 -0.2 -0.1 

 

2009 Additional Operating Emissions NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

Heating and cooling emissions 0.9 0 0.1 0 

Employee commuting emissions -4.5 -4.6 -0.2 -0.1 

Total -3.6 -4.5 -0.1 -0.1 

 

2010 Additional Operating Emissions NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

Heating and cooling emissions 3.2 0.2 0.2 0 

Employee commuting emissions -4.7 -4.8 -0.2 -0.1 

Total -1.5 -4.6 0.1 -0.1 

 

2011 Additional Operating Emissions NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

Heating and cooling emissions 0.4 0 0 0 

Employee commuting emissions -1.1 -1.1 0 0 

Total -0.6 -1.1 0 0 

2012 Additional Operating Emissions NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

Heating and cooling emissions 0 0 0 0 

Employee commuting emissions -1.4 -1.4 -0.1 0 

Total -1.4 -1.4 -0.1 0 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-11 

3.1.3.1 Heating Boiler Emissions 

According to Virginia’s air pollution control regulations (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40), any fuel-burning 

equipment using a liquid and gaseous fuel with a maximum heat input of less than 10 million 

British thermal units (BTU) per hour is exempt from the air permitting process and is normally 

considered an insignificant emission source with minimal air quality impacts. Based on the size 

of the buildings that would be constructed as the action is implemented, many of the new heating 

boilers to be installed would likely have a heating capacity of less than 10 million BTU per hour. 

Emissions from these boilers would not be regulated under Virginia’s New Source Review airpermitting regulations, and therefore the emissions are subject to the GCR. 

The action also includes several large-scale facilities, such as NGA, WHS, Dewitt Hospital, and 

Army leased space. These facilities would likely be equipped with heating boilers that are 

regulated under Virginia’s air permitting regulations or connected to the proposed heating plant. 

When these projects reach the design phase, the developer will need to determine the actual size 

of the boilers and the amount of new emissions associated with each building to allow VDEQ to 

determine whether a stationary source air permit is required and establish whether significant 

stationary source impacts would occur. Those boilers are not subject to the GCR and therefore 

are not considered in this analysis. 

Each building is assumed to be adequately heated, with heating values based on the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity by Census Region for Sum of 

Major Fuels, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (DOE 1999). The heating area 

used is the net change of heating space, calculated by subtracting the known existing building 

spaces to be demolished, when applicable. In the case of a new facility where the demolition area 

would be greater than the area to be constructed, no net increase in boiler emissions was 

considered. An example calculation of heating gas requirements for an individual project is 

presented below: 

Total building size = 26,000 GSF 

Natural gas energy intensity = 31.4 ft3

/GSF 

 

Total natural gas = 26,000 GSF x 31.4 cubic feet/GSF 

 = 816,400 ft3

Emission estimates were calculated based on the EPA-provided AP-42 emission factors for a 

natural-gas boiler. An example calculation for the annual emission rate for VOCs from building 

boiler operations for a sample project is presented below: 

AP-42 emission factor = 5.5 lb/106 ft3

Annual emission level = 816,400 ft3

/year x 5.5 lb/106 ft3

 = 4.5 lb/year 

 = 0.0022 tons/yr 

It is expected that building boiler emissions from each building would occur immediately after 

the completion of the project. The total annual emissions levels are summarized in Table 3-9. In 

addition, estimated emissions from the potential demolition and construction are presented in 

Attachment 1. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-12 

Table 3-9 

Annual Emissions from New Small Heating and Cooling Sources 

Annual Emissions (tons/yr) 

Year NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

2009 0.85 0.05 0.06 0.01 

2010 3.17 0.17 0.24 0.02 

2011 0.45 0.02 0.03 0 

Sources: AP-42 Section 1.4, DOE 1999. 

3.1.3.2 Employee Commuting Vehicular Emissions 

Emission factors for motor vehicles were conservatively calculated for the year 2010 for 

commuter vehicles (modeled as light-duty gasoline vehicles and light-duty gasoline trucks such 

as SUVs) using the EPA MOBILE6.2 mobile source emission factor model. Metropolitan 

Washington Council of Government (MWCOG 2004) provided the most current input parameters 

containing the current planning assumptions for the region. A sample calculation for the annual 

emission rate for NOx from new employee vehicles from a sample project is presented below: 

Additional employees = 150 

Number of trips per day = 2 

Number of days per year = 250 

Average vehicle commute distance = 20 miles 

MOBIEL6.2 emission factor = 0.3 grams/mile 

Annual emission level = 150 x 2 x 250 x 20 x 0.3/907,185 grams/ton 

 = 0.49 ton/yr 

The estimated net annual vehicular emissions for applicable projects are calculated in detail in 

Table 3-10 and presented in Attachment 1. 

Table 3-10 

Annual Emissions from New Employees’ Vehicles (Net Decrease) 

 Annual Emissions (tons/yr) 

Year NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

2008 -4.44 -4.55 -0.16 -0.14 

2009 -4.47 -4.58 -0.16 -0.14 

2010 -4.71 -4.82 -0.17 -0.15 

2011 -1.05 -1.08 -0.04 -0.03 

2012 -1.38 -1.42 -0.05 -0.04 

Sources: USEPA 2002; MOBILE6.2. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-13 

3.1.4 Total Annual Emission 

Table 3-11 provides the total annual estimated action-related emissions of VOC, NOx, PM2.5, and 

SO2 respectively. The annual estimates are provided for the proposed construction schedule and 

for conditions estimated to occur under all the alternatives except the No Action Alternative. 

Notably, the construction-related activities would be the predominate source of emissions. 

Table 3-11 

Total Annual Emissions from the 2005 Realignment of Fort Belvoir 

Annual Emissions (tons/yr) 

Year NOx VOC PM2.5 SO2

2007 129.2 76.0 9.5 18.5 

2008 318.9 183.6 20.5 48.3 

2009 320.9 206.7 20.4 51.7 

2010 364.5 224.7 25.3 62.7 

2011 119.5 53.8 12.8 23.2 

2012+ -11.6 -16.2 -0.3 -0.5 

Sources: USEPA NONROAD2004; SQAQMD 1993; USEPA 2002; MOBILE6.2; USEPA AP-42; USEPA 2005; DOE 1999. 

3.2 APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS 

The GCR apply to federal actions in non-attainment areas. EPA established applicability 

threshold levels to exclude federal actions from the requirements to provide a GCD. It is 

understood that emissions below these levels would not impede an area’s ability to attain the 

NAAQS. If the total direct and indirect action-related emissions are below the applicability 

threshold levels, and the action-related emissions are determined not to be regionally significant, 

it is assumed that the emission level conforms to a state’s plans to attain or maintain the NAAQS. 

Project/action-related emissions are determined to be regionally significant if the emission level 

represents 10 percent or more of the regional total of emissions for which the area is in nonattainment. The applicability threshold levels for O3 and PM2.5 within the NCR are provided in 

Table 3-12. 

With respect to the proposed Fort Belvoir BRAC action, project-related emissions are those 

emissions that would occur with the action when compared to the emissions that would occur 

without the action (the net change in emission level). Table 3-12 presents the estimated increase 

in emissions with the proposed Fort Belvoir BRAC action (the project-related emissions). 

Because the total of direct and indirect emissions of NOx and VOC exceed the respective general 

conformity applicability thresholds, the general conformity requirements apply to these 

pollutants. Consequently, a formal conformity determination is required and these pollutants will 

be carried forward for detailed analysis. Notably, because the project-related emissions of these 

pollutants exceed the applicability threshold, performing the regional significance applicability 

test would be redundant. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-14 

Table 3-12 

Applicability Thresholds for the National Capital Interstate 

Air Quality Control Region 

Criteria pollutants 

Greatest Annual 

Project- Related 

Emissions 

Applicability 

 Threshold Levels

(tons/yr) 

Exceeds 

Applicability 

Threshold (yes/no) 

O3 (NOx or VOCs)

Marginal and moderate NAAs inside an O3 transport region

VOC 225 50 Yes 

NOx 365 100 Yes 

PM2.5 (PM2.5 , NOx, SO2) 

PM2.5 25 100 No 

NOx 365 100 Yes 

SO2 63 100 No 

Sources: 40 CFR 93.153; USEPA 2006. 

Note: 

NAA = non-attainment area. 

The total of direct and indirect emissions of PM2.5 and of SO2 is less than the applicability 

thresholds. Pending the full implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS, there is no current regional 

emission budget for PM2.5 or SO2. However, due to the limited size and scope of the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives when compared to the overall regional activity, it is not anticipated that 

emissions of PM2.5 or SO2 would be regionally significant. Therefore, the general conformity 

requirements do not apply to these pollutants, and there will be no further evaluation of these 

pollutants herein. 

3.3 CONFORMITY EVALUATION 

This section evaluates the ability of the Proposed Action and Alternatives to conform to the SIP 

with respect to the pollutants NOx and VOC, as outlined under the GCR. 

3.3.1 Evaluation Cases 

The GCR require that the analysis of project-related emissions reflect the scenarios expected to 

occur under each of the following cases: 

• The CAA-mandated attainment year or, if applicable, the farthest year for which 

emissions are projected in the maintenance plan 

• Any year for which the applicable SIP specifies an emission budget 

• The year during which the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action is 

expected to be the greatest on an annual basis 

The following paragraphs discuss each of the above cases as each relates to the proposed Fort 

Belvoir BRAC action. 

CAA-Mandated Attainment Year. The CAA-mandated attainment year for both the 8-hour O3

and the PM2.5 NAAQS is 2010, and therefore, project-related emissions in 2010 are subjected to 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-15 

the conformity evaluation. There are currently no maintenance plans in place for Fairfax County. 

Therefore, the GCR requirement to evaluate the farthest year for which emissions are projected in 

the maintenance plan is not applicable. 

Regional Emission Budgets. The 1-hour O3 attainment demonstration SIP also includes Rate of 

Progress-based regional emission target levels for the years 2002 and 2005. The earliest that the 

proposed action or alternatives would affect local or regional air quality conditions is the year 

2007 (assuming that the U.S. Army issues a Record of Decision for the proposed improvements 

in 2007 and construction begins). Therefore, project-related emission estimates for the year 2005 

were not subjected to the conformity evaluation. 

The draft 8-hour O3 attainment demonstration SIP also includes Rate of Progress-based regional 

emission target levels for the years 2008 and 2009. The proposed action or alternatives would 

included emissions during these years. Therefore, project-related emission estimates for the year 

2008 and 2009 were carried forward for informational purposes. 

Greatest Annual Project-Related Emissions. As shown, the greatest total direct and indirect 

project-related emissions would occur in the year 2010. Coincidentally, this is the CAAmandated attainment year for both the 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Table 3-13 summarizes the years and levels of project-related emissions meeting the requirements 

of the GCR. It should be noted that the project alternatives vary by scenario and by pollutant 

precursor. These combinations of years and emissions reflect the levels of project-related 

emissions that would occur in (1) the CAA-mandated attainment years for the 1-hour and 8-hour 

O3 NAAQS, (2) the year in which the SIP contains an emissions budget and the project would 

affect local and/or regional air quality conditions, and (3) the years in which the greatest projectrelated emissions of VOC and NOx are estimated to occur with the realignment of Fort Belvoir. 

The greatest annual project-related emissions of VOCs and NOx (409.7 and 264.3 tons, 

respectively) would occur in the year 2010. These levels of emissions are the greatest total 

project-related direct and indirect emissions estimated to occur over the planning horizon, 

regardless of year or alternative. 

Table 3-13 

Annual Project-related Emission Levels Subject to Conformity Determination 

 Annual Emissions (tons per year] 

Year

Nitrogen Oxides 

(NOx) 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

(VOCs) 

Act-mandated attainment year 

(O3 and PM2.5) 2010 364 224 

Regional emission budgets 2008 347 203 

2009 321 207 

Greatest annual project-related 

emissions 2010 364 224 

The current SIP emission estimates are expressed in tons of VOC and NOx emitted on a summer 

weekday. States use summer weekday emissions to assess regional emissions of VOCs and NOx, 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-16 

precursor emissions to the air pollutant O3, because the O3 NAAQS are generally exceeded during 

O3 season weekdays when the precursor emissions are greatest and meteorological conditions are 

more conducive to O3 formation. For comparing the Fort Belvoir-related emission estimates to 

the MWCOG-prepared regional inventories, the source emissions were converted from tons per 

year to tons per summer weekday. They are shown in Table 3-14. 

Table 3-14 

Daily Project-related Emission Levels Subject to Conformity Determination 

 Annual Emissions (tons per day] 

Year

Nitrogen Oxides 

(NOx) 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

(VOC) 

Act-mandated attainment year 

(O3 and PM2.5) 2010 1.58 0.98 

Regional emission budgets 2008 1.39 0.80 

2009 1.40 0.90 

Greatest annual project-related 

emissions 2010 1.58 0.98 

3.3.2 Comparison Project-Related Emissions to SIP-Based Inventories 

This section outlines a comparison of the project-related emissions with the regional emissions of 

like pollutants. As previously stated, the GCR state that when projects are within O3 nonattainment areas and project-related emissions of VOCs and NOx exceed the applicability 

thresholds, one of the criteria for determining conformity is that the emissions from the 

project/action are specifically identified and accounted for in the SIP. As also stated, EPA 

recognizes that emissions associated with BRAC programs are not specifically identified or 

accounted for in SIPs (USEPA and FAA 2002). 

3.3.2.1 The State Implementation Plan 

The CAA, as amended in 1990, mandates that state agencies adopt SIPs that target the 

elimination or reduction of the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS. SIPs set forth 

policies to expeditiously achieve and maintain attainment of the NAAQS. Currently, the region 

has no applicable SIP for the 8-hour O3 or the PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP revisions to address nonattainment conditions with respect to the new 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 NAAQS are being developed 

and are expected to be approved by EPA by 2008 and 2009, respectively. 

Because monitored levels of O3 in the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area exceeded the 1-hour 

NAAQS, the Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Maryland, and Washington, D.C., were 

required to develop SIPs that outline the actions that would be taken to achieve the 1-hour 

NAAQS before 2007. The current SIP presents the regional air quality plan for attaining the 

federal 1-hour NAAQS for ground-level O3 developed by the Metropolitan Washington Air 

Quality Committee (MWAQC) for the Washington, D.C., multi-jurisdictional non-attainment 

area. MWAQC was established in accordance with Section 174 of the CAA by the governors of 

Maryland and Virginia and the mayor of the District of Columbia to prepare a regionally 

coordinated air quality plan to comply with these requirements. On June 13, 2005, EPA approved 

the State Implementation Plan––Plan to Improve Air Quality in the Washington, DC-MD-VA 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-17 

Region (MWCOG 2004). The plan predicted that the 1-hour O3 NAAQS would be attained by 

2005. In addition, a draft SIP for the 8-hour ozone standard was recently developed (MWAQC 

2006). Although not finalized or approved by the region or EPA, information developed for the 

draft SIP was carried forward for informational purposes. 

Following requirements of the CAA, the MWCOG and VDEQ prepared a 1990 base year 

emissions inventory for the Washington non-attainment area. The inventory serves as the base 

year by which attainment plans were prepared for the 1-hour O3 NAAQS. The base year 1990 

emissions inventory was also used by the VDEQ, along with growth and control factors, to 

project year 2005 emission estimates. The general categories of sources included in the 

MWCOG’s inventory are point, area, nonroad, and on-road. General descriptions of these 

categories are outlined below, and the regional emission inventories for the categories are shown 

on Table 3-15 and 3-16. 

• Point Sources. Point sources are stationary, commercial, or industrial operations that 

emit more than 10 tons per year (tons/yr) of VOCs, or 100 tons/yr or more of NOx or 

carbon monoxide. The point source inventory within the SIP consists of actual emissions 

sources within the geographical area of the Washington DC-MD-VA non-attainment 

area. 

• Area Sources. Area sources are sources of emissions that are too small to be inventoried 

individually and collectively contribute significant emissions. Area sources include 

smaller stationary point sources not included in the states’ point source inventories, such 

Table 3-15 

Regional NOx Emission Inventory 

 Controlled Emissions (tons/d) 

Source Category 

1-Hour Attainment 

Year (2005) 

8-Hour 

 Rate-of-progress 

Year (2008) 

8-Hour 

Attainment Year 

(2009) 

Point 109 229 123 

Area 60 27 27 

Nonroad 82 77 75 

On-road 234 160 147 

Total 487 493 372 

Source: MWCOG 2004, MWAQC 2006. 

Table 3-16 

Regional VOC Emission Inventory 

 Controlled Emissions (tons/d) 

Source Category 

1-Hour Attainment 

Year (2005) 

8-Hour 

 Rate-of-progress 

Year (2008) 

8-Hour 

Attainment Year 

(2009) 

Point 16 14 14 

Area 147 192 192 

Nonroad 68 92 88 

On-road 97 71 67 

Total 325 369 362 

Source: MWCOG 2004, MWAQC 2006. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-18 

as printing establishments, dry cleaners, and auto refinishing companies, as well as nonstationary sources. 

• Nonroad Vehicle and Engine Sources. Nonroad sources include a wide variety of 

categories, including industrial, lawn and garden, construction, recreational, and farm 

equipment. Within the SIP, emissions from this category were obtained from a 1991 

EPA contractor's report titled “Non-Road Engine and Vehicle Emission Inventories for 

Carbon Monoxide and O3 Non-attainment Boundaries, Washington, D.C. MSA.” This 

group of sources is of primary interest because heavy construction vehicles are the 

primary source of emissions due to the Proposed Action and Alternatives. 

• On-road Mobile Sources. In the SIP, emissions from on-road mobile sources were 

derived from the use of the MWCOG travel demand forecasting procedure, which 

simulates vehicle travel across the region’s transportation system. Travel was simulated 

on all highways in the region, including both volume and speed of travel for each hour of 

the day. Input for this simulation included locally specific information such as age 

distribution of registered vehicles, evaporation characteristics of motor fuel, and 

temperature data. 

3.3.2.2 Milestone Budget Years 

The year 2005 was the last milestone year with an emission budget with respect to attaining the 1-

hour O3 NAAQS. In 2005 there were no project-related emissions. The earliest that the proposed 

action or alternatives would affect local or regional air quality conditions is the year 2007 

(assuming that the U.S. Army issues a Record of Decision for the proposed improvements in 

2007 and construction begins). Therefore, project-related activities are not subjected to the 

conformity evaluation for the year 2005 milestone budget year. 

The draft 8-hour O3 attainment demonstration SIP also includes Rate of Progress-based regional 

emission target levels for the years 2008 and 2009. The proposed action or alternatives would 

included emissions during these years. Therefore, project-related emission estimates for the year 

2008 and 2009 were evaluated. 

To evaluate whether the level of year 2008 and 2009 project-related construction emissions could 

be considered included within the regional estimates for this type of activity, the project-related 

construction emissions were compared with the total emissions for the non-attainment area (Table 

3-17). As shown, when comparing the project-related construction emissions of VOC and NOx

with the 2008 and 2009 draft emissions for the non-attainment area, project-related emissions 

would represent a small percentage of the like regional emissions, respectively. Notably, the 

regional inventory for nonroad sources was used for the NOx comparison because of the 

overwhelming contribution of these sources to the project-related NOx emissions. In addition, the 

regional inventory for area sources was used for the VOC comparison because of the 

overwhelming contribution of architectural coatings and paving off-gasses to the project-related 

emissions of VOCs. 

Because the project-related construction emission estimates represent a relatively small 

percentage of the regional projection, it is reasonable to assume that the project-related 

construction emissions can be accounted for in the inventories for the draft 8-hour O3 attainment 

demonstration SIP (40 CFR 93.158(a)(5); USEPA and FAA 2002; VDEQ 2007). 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-19 

Table 3-17 

Comparison of 2008 and 2009 Project-related Emissions to SIP-based Inventories 

 

Pollutant 

SIP regional 

emission inventory 

(tons/summer 

weekday) 

Project-related 

non-road emissions 

 (tons/summer 

weekday) 

Percent of 

regional 

emissions 

Draft 8-hour SIP (2008) 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 75.0a 1.39 1.9% 

Volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) 192.5b

 0.80 0.4% 

Draft 8-hour SIP (2009) 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 76.9c 1.40 1.8% 

Volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) 191.8d

 0.90 0.4% 

Source: MWCOG, 2006 

a

 Reflects 2008 nonroad controlled NOx emissions inventory b

 Reflect 2008 area controlled VOC emissions inventory 

c

 Reflects 2009 nonroad controlled NOx emissions inventory d

 Reflect 2009 area controlled VOC emissions inventory 

3.3.2.3 Act-mandated Attainment Year and Greatest Annual Project-related Emissions 

(2010) 

This section of the documentation discusses the evaluation of project-related emissions that 

would occur in the act-mandated attainment year for both the 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the year when the greatest annual project-related emissions are expected (2010). Project-related 

emissions from construction activities and from the operation of motor vehicles within the 

defined study area were evaluated. 

The draft 8-hour SIP does not contain a regional emission projection for the 2010 attainment year. 

Consequently, it is not possible to compare project-related year 2010 emission estimates with 

regional estimates for the same years. To be conservative and to provide an indication of the 

magnitude of project-related emissions beyond the attainment year with respect to emission levels 

in the 1-hour O3 and the draft 8-hour attainment demonstration SIP, the 2010 project-related 

emissions were compared with the regional projections previously presented for the year 2005 

and 2009 respectively. 

Construction. At the time that EPA prepared VDEQ’s 1990 estimates of emissions from 

construction-related activities for the non-attainment area, VDEQ or MWCOG would not have 

had an estimate of construction-related equipment emissions for the 2005 BRAC action at Fort 

Belvoir. Furthermore, because of the methodology used by MWAQC to calculate the regional 

emissions from this type of source, it can be said that no individual projects were considered. 

Therefore, the inventories prepared in support of the attainment demonstration for the 1-hour O3

or the 8-hour NAAQS do not specifically identify construction-related emissions for any of the 

alternatives under consideration. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-20 

To evaluate whether the level of year 2010 project-related construction emissions could be 

considered included within the regional estimates for this type of activity, the project-related 

construction emissions were compared with the total emissions for the non-attainment area (Table 

3-18). As shown, when comparing the project-related construction emissions of VOC and NOx

with the emissions inventories for the non-attainment area, project-related emissions would 

represent a small percentage of the like regional emissions. Notably, the regional inventory for 

nonroad sources was used for the NOx comparison because of the overwhelming contribution of 

these sources to the project-related NOx emissions. In addition, the regional inventory for area 

sources was used for the VOC comparison because of the overwhelming contribution of 

architectural coatings and paving off-gasses to the project-related emissions of VOCs. 

Table 3-18 

Comparison of 2010 Project-related Emissions to SIP-based Inventories 

 

Pollutant 

SIP regional 

emission inventory 

(tons/summer 

weekday) 

Project-related 

non-road emissions 

 (tons/summer 

weekday) 

Percent of 

regional 

emissions 

Approved 1-hour SIP (2005) 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 82.8a 1.58 1.9% 

Volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) 147.3b

 0.98 0.7% 

Draft 8-hour SIP (2009) 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 76.9c 1.58 2.1% 

Volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) 191.8d

 0.98 0.5% 

Source: MWCOG 2004a and MWAQC 2006 

a

 Reflects 2005 nonroad controlled NOx emissions inventory b

 Reflect 2005 area controlled VOC emissions inventory 

c

 Reflects 2009 nonroad controlled NOx emissions inventory d

 Reflect 2009 area controlled VOC emissions inventory 

Because the project-related construction emission estimates represent a relatively small 

percentage of the regional projection, it is reasonable to assume that the project-related 

construction emissions can be accounted for in the inventories for the 1-hour O3 attainment 

demonstration SIP (40 CFR 93.158(a)(5); USEPA and FAA 2002; VDEQ 2007). 

On-road Vehicle Emissions. The realignment of Fort Belvoir would decrease both the number of 

vehicles and subsequently the total vehicle miles traveled within the region. In turn, regional 

motor vehicle emissions would decrease. This decrease would be primarily because of a net 

reduction of approximately 1,700 personnel leaving Fort Belvoir to locations outside the region. 

Although overall additional personnel at Fort Belvoir is expected to increase, the new personnel 

and the miles they currently commute are already with in the NCR. In addition, many of the new 

personnel are expected to either relocated to or be replaced by individuals living in areas outside, 

primarily south of, the region. These BRAC-related reductions in emissions would constitute an 

ongoing net benefit to the region’s air quality. Therefore, although there is an SIP-based regional 

budget for motor vehicles, it was unnecessary to perform a direct comparison. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-21 

3.3.3 Consistency with Requirements and Milestones in Applicable SIP 

The GCR state that notwithstanding the other requirements of the rules, a proposed action or 

alternatives may not be determined to conform unless the total of direct and indirect emissions 

from the action is in compliance or consistent with all relevant requirements and milestones in the 

applicable SIP (40 CFR 93.158(c) and 9 VAC 5-160-160(c)). This requirement includes but is 

not limited to such issues as reasonable further progress schedules, assumptions specified in the 

attainment or maintenance demonstration, prohibitions, numerical emission limits, and work 

practice standards. This section briefly addresses how the Proposed Action and Alternatives were 

assessed for SIP consistency for this evaluation. 

EPA and VDEQ have already promulgated, and will continue to promulgate, numerous 

requirements to support the goals of the CAA with respect to the NAAQS. Typically, these 

requirements take the form of rules regulating emissions from significant new sources, including 

emission standards for major stationary point sources and classes of mobile sources as well as 

permitting requirements for new major stationary point sources. Because states have the primary 

responsibility for implementing and enforcing requirements under the CAA and can impose 

stricter limitations than EPA, the EPA requirements often serve as guidance to the states in 

formulating their air quality management strategies. 

In operating Fort Belvoir, the U.S. Army already observes, and will continue to act in accordance 

with a myriad of rules and regulations implemented and enforced by federal, state, regional, and 

local agencies to protect and enhance ambient air quality in the Metropolitan Washington Region. 

The U.S. Army will continue to act in accordance with all existing applicable air quality 

regulatory requirements for activities over which it has direct control and will meet in a timely 

manner all regulatory requirements that become applicable in the future. Likewise, the U.S. 

Army actively encourages all tenants and users of its facilities to comply with applicable air 

quality requirements.

3.4 SUMMARY 

Within areas designed non-attainment or maintenance for any of the NAAQS, the CAA requires 

that federal agencies ensure that their actions conform to SIPs. The requirements for determining 

conformity to SIPs are detailed in Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 51 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 51). 

In accordance with Section 176 of the CAA, in consultation with VDEQ, the U.S. Army has 

assessed whether the pollutant and pollutant precursor emissions that would result from the U.S. 

Army’s actions with respect to the proposed realignment at Fort Belvoir are in conformance with 

the Virginia SIP. 

The emission estimates for the GCD were prepared 

• Using the latest planning assumptions 

• Using the latest and most accurate emission estimation techniques 

• Based on the applicable air quality models, databases, and other requirements specified in 

the most recent version of EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models, including 

supplements. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

3-22 

On the basis of the results of the evaluation, the total direct and indirect project-related emissions 

of NOx, VOCs, PM2.5, and SO2 and were determined to be 

• Below the applicability thresholds or 

• Accounted for in the emission projections incorporated into the 1-hour O3 attainment 

demonstration SIP (the applicable SIP) or

• Reasonably accounted for in established emission totals and/or excess regional emission 

estimates 

For these reasons, the U.S. Army has determined that the emissions associated with the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives conform to the CAA. 

3.5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS/FREQUENCY OF DETERMINATIONS 

Following the requirements of the GCR, federal agencies must make public their draft and final 

conformity determinations by placing a notice in a daily newspaper of general circulation in the 

area affected by the action and by providing 30 days to obtain any written public comments prior 

to taking any formal action on the determinations. Also required are responses to all comments 

received on the Draft GCD. The federal agency must make these responses available within 30 

days of the agency’s final conformity determination. 

It is the intent of the U.S. Army to publish a notice of the availability of this Draft GCD and the 

Final GCD in the Washington Post, Springfield Times, Mt. Vernon Gazette, Mt. Vernon Voice, 

and Belvoir Eagle. 

This Draft GCD is being published as an appendix to the DEIS. The DEIS provides a detailed 

evaluation of the affect of the realignment at Fort Belvoir on air quality. The U.S. Army intends 

to publish the Final GCD as an appendix to the Final EIS. 

The conformity status of a federal action automatically lapses after a period of 5 years (from the 

date a final conformity determination is reported) unless the federal action has been completed or 

a continuous program has been commenced to implement the federal action within a reasonable 

time. Furthermore, if, after the final conformity determination is made, the federal action is 

changed so that there is an increase in the total direct and indirect emissions from the action, 

above the applicability threshold levels, a new conformity determination is required.
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

R-1 

REFERENCES

MWCOG (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). 2004. State Implementation Plan––Plan 

to Improve Air Quality in the Washington, DC-MD-VA Region.

South Coat Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration). 1999. Consumption and Gross 

Energy Intensity by Census Region for Sum of Major Fuels, Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey. 

MWAQC (Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee). 2006. Moderate Area SIP November 7, 

2006 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 

AP-42, 5th edition, Vol. I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. User’s Guide to MOBILE6.2: Mobile Source 

Emission Factor Model. EPA420-R-02-028. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004a. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for 

Nonroad Engine Modeling––Compression-Ignition, NR-009c. EPA420-P-04-009. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004b. Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine 

Modeling––Spark-Ignition, NR-010d. EPA420-P-04-010. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004c. Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor 

Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling, NR-005c. EPA420-P-04-005. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004d. Nonroad Engine Population Estimates, NR006b. EPA420-P-02-004. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005d. User’s Guide for the Final NONROAD2005 

Model. EPA420-R-05-013. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004e. 40 CFR Parts 50, 51 and 81. Federal 

Register Vol. 69, No. 84; Friday, April 30, 2004. Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour O3 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 1. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005a. 40 CFR Parts 51, 52, and 80. Federal Register 

Vol. 70, No. 228 ;/Tuesday, November 29, 2005. Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour O3 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard; 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

R-2 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005b. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52. Federal Register 

Vol. 70, No. 210; Tuesday, November 1, 2005. Proposed Rules Part II Proposed Rule To Implement 

the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005c. Methodology to Estimate the Transportable 

Fraction (TF) of Fugitive Dust Emissions for Regional and Urban Scale Air Quality Analyses. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. PM2.5 De Minimis Emission Levels for 

General Conformity Applicability. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0491; FRL-8197-4. 

USEPA and FAA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Aviation Administration). 2002. 

General Conformity Guidance for Airports––Questions and Answers. September 25. 

VDEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). 2007. Electronic Communication. Fort Belvoir 

BRAC General Conformity February 5th 2007

Waier, Phillip R. 2006. Building Cost Construction Data, 64th annual edition. R.S.Means Construction 

Publishers and Consultants, Kingston, MA. 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

R-3 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AAFES Army and Air Force Exchange Service 

ACP access control point 

AKO Army Knowledge Online 

AMC Army Materiel Command 

AR Army Regulation 

AT/FP Antiterrorism/ Force Protection 

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure 

BRDEC Belvoir Research and Development Engineering Center 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CID Criminal Investigations Command 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DGCD Draft General Conformity Determination 

DOE Department of Energy 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPG Engineer Proving Ground 

FTA Federal Transit Authority 

FWHA Federal Highway Administration 

FY fiscal year 

GCR General Conformity Rules 

GSA General Services Administration 

GSF gross square feet 

HEC Humphreys Engineering Center 

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

LRC long-range component 

MDA HQCC Missile Defense Agency Headquarters Command Center 

MDW Military District of Washington 

MedCom U.S. Army Medical Command 

MGMC Malcolm Grow Medical Center 

MN map number 

MWAQC Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee 

MWCOG Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 

MWR Army and Air Force Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NBC nuclear, biological, and chemical 

NCR National Capital Region 

NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 

NNMC National Naval Medical Center 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NPS National Park Service 

NSF net square feet 

NSR New Source Review 

O3 ozone 

PCS Permanent Change of Station 

PDA Physical Disability Agency 

PEO EIS Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems 

PM DCATS Project Manager Defense Communications and Army Transmission Systems 

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

R-4 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

PX post exchange 

RFI request for information 

ROD Record of Decision 

RPA Resource Protection Area 

RPMP real property master plan 

RV recreational vehicle 

SA Secretary of the Army 

SCIF sensitive compartmented information facility 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

TBO total build- out 

TIP Transportation Improvement Plan 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USASAC Secretary Assistance Command 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

VAC Virginia Administrative Code 

VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

WHS Washington Headquarters Services 

WRAMC Walter Reed Army Medical Center 

WWII World War II 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

R-5 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

LPES, Inc. Engineering and Planning 

Timothy Lavallee, P.E. 

M.S., Environmental Health, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, 1997. 

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, 1992. 

15 Years of Experience 
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

R-6 

This page is intentionally left blank.
Draft General Conformity Determination for Implementation of 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

 Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-1 

Attachment 1 

Emission Calculations 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-2 

 Table A1-1 

Nonroad Heavy Equipment Emissions 

Project NOx (tons) VOC (tons) PM2.5 (tons) SO

Family Travel Camp, Clearing and Grading 0.99 0.09 0.07 MDA (2007), Building Construction 3.85 0.36 0.23 MDA, Clearing and Grading 0.15 0.01 0.01 

NGA Admin (EPG), Clearing and Grading 14.79 1.27 1.05 

PEO EIS Administrative Facility - Parking Garage, Building Construction 37.27 3.50 2.25 

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Building Construction 37.27 3.50 2.25 

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Clearing and Grading 1.77 0.15 0.13 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Clearing and Grading 16.76 1.44 1.19 

EPG Infrastructure (EPG) (2008), Building Construction 0.98 0.09 0.06 

EPG Infrastructure (EPG), Clearing and Grading 5.60 0.36 0.37 

Family Travel Camp, Building Construction 1.77 0.16 0.11 

Gunston Road Improvements, Clearing and Grading 3.41 0.22 0.22 

Gunston Road Improvements, Paving 5.07 0.33 0.34 

Hospital (2008), Building Construction 30.74 2.82 1.89 

Hospital, Clearing and Grading 10.92 0.71 0.72 

MDA (2008), Building Construction 5.52 0.51 0.34 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Building Construction 4.49 0.41 0.28 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Clearing and Grading 0.73 0.05 0.05 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Demolition 0.17 0.01 0.01 

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 64.20 5.89 3.95 

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 64.20 5.89 3.95 

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Landscaping 0.25 0.03 0.01 

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Paving 0.20 0.01 0.01 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Building Construction 117.78 10.81 7.25 

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Clearing and Grading 0.91 0.06 0.06 

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Demolition 0.04 0.00 0.00 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-3 

Table A1-1

Nonroad Heavy Equipment Emissions (continued)

Project NOx (tons) VOC (tons) PM2.5 (tons) 

USANCA Support Facility, Building Construction 1.05 0.10 0.06 USANCA Support Facility, Clearing and Grading 0.10 0.01 0.01 Access Road/Control Point, Clearing and Grading 0.07 0.00 0.00 

Access Road/Control Point, Paving 0.09 0.01 0.01 

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Building Construction 1.29 0.12 0.08 

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.04 0.00 0.00 

EPG Infrastructure (EPG) , Paving 1.08 0.07 0.07 

Family Travel Camp, Paving 0.16 0.01 0.01 

Gunston Road Improvements, Landscaping 0.37 0.04 0.02 

Hospital (2009), Building Construction 28.92 2.63 1.83 

MDA, Landscaping 0.03 0.00 0.00 

MDA, Paving 0.06 0.00 0.00 

NARMC HQ Building, Building Construction 0.66 0.06 0.04 

NARMC HQ Building, Clearing and Grading 0.06 0.00 0.00 

NARMC HQ Building, Landscaping 0.01 0.00 0.00 

NARMC HQ Building, Paving 0.02 0.00 0.00 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Landscaping 0.02 0.00 0.00 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Paving 0.28 0.02 0.02 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Building Construction 0.29 0.03 0.02 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Clearing and Grading 0.09 0.01 0.01 

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 60.39 5.50 3.82 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2009 Parking Garage), Building Construction 99.85 9.10 6.31 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2009), Building Construction 110.79 10.09 7.00 

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (2009), Building Construction 12.78 1.16 0.81 

USANCA Support Facility, Landscaping 0.01 0.00 0.00 

USANCA Support Facility, Paving 0.06 0.00 0.00 

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Building Construction 0.56 0.05 0.04 

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Clearing and Grading 0.04 0.00 0.00 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-4 

Table A1-1 

Nonroad Heavy Equipment Emissions (continued) 

Project NOx (tons) VOC (tons) PM2.5 (tons) 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Clearing and Grading 0.31 0.02 0.02 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Demolition 0.02 0.00 0.00 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Parking Garage 8.24 0.75 0.54 Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Building Construction 0.91 0.08 0.06 

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.32 0.02 0.02 

Child Development Center (EPG), Building Construction 1.68 0.15 0.11 

Child Development Center (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.40 0.03 0.03 

Dental Clinic, Building Construction 1.40 0.13 0.09 

Dental Clinic, Clearing and Grading 0.08 0.00 0.01 

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Paving 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Family Travel Camp, Landscaping 0.08 0.01 0.00 

Hospital (2010), Building Construction 27.29 2.48 1.78 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Building Construction 1.74 0.16 0.11 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Clearing and Grading 25.22 1.63 1.77 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Paving 9.56 0.61 0.67 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Landscaping 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Paving 0.03 0.00 0.00 

NGA Admin (EPG) , Landscaping 0.68 0.08 0.04 

NGA Admin (EPG) , Paving 0.18 0.01 0.01 

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 57.00 5.19 3.71 

NGA Admin (EPG), Parking Structure, Building Construction 227.99 20.76 14.83 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Landscaping 0.81 0.10 0.05 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Paving 0.30 0.02 0.02 

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (2010), Building Construction 2.97 0.27 0.19 

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Landscaping 0.03 0.00 0.00 

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Landscaping 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Paving 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Landscaping 0.03 0.00 0.00 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-5 

Table A1-1 

Nonroad Heavy Equipment Emissions (continued) 

Project NOx (tons) VOC (tons) PM2.5 (tons) 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Paving 0.05 0.00 0.01 Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Landscaping 0.02 0.00 0.00 

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Paving 0.09 0.01 0.01 

Child Development Center (EPG), Landscaping 0.02 0.00 0.00 

Child Development Center (EPG), Paving 0.06 0.00 0.01 

Dental Clinic , Landscaping 0.01 0.00 0.00 Dental Clinic , Paving 0.03 0.00 0.00 

Hospital (2011 Parking Garage), Building Construction 85.77 8.27 7.57 

Hospital , Landscaping 0.42 0.06 0.04 

Hospital , Paving 0.27 0.02 0.03 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Clearing and Grading 30.99 2.09 2.89 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Landscaping 1.30 0.17 0.12 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Paving 8.71 0.58 0.81 Source: USEPA NONROAD2004; SQAQMD 1993. 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-6 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions 

Project 

Trips Per Day 

Duration (days) VMT 

EFNOx

(g/mile) 

NOx

(tons) 

EFVOC (g/mile) 

VOC (tons) 

 EF PM2.5

(g/mile) 

PM2.

(tons

Family Travel Camp, Clearing and Grading 2 170 10605 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0MDA (2007), Building Construction 37 151 169865 0.32 0.06 0.29 0.05 0.01 0.0MDA, Clearing and Grading 3 19 1560 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

NGA Admin (EPG), Clearing and Grading 46 113 157765 0.32 0.05 0.29 0.05 0.01 0.0

PEO EIS Administrative Facility - Parking Garage, Building Construction 322 170 1644177 0.32 0.57 0.29 0.53 0.01 0.0

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Building Construction 322 170 1644177 0.32 0.57 0.29 0.53 0.01 0.0

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Clearing and Grading 17 38 18860 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.0

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Clearing and Grading 53 113 178771 0.32 0.06 0.29 0.06 0.01 0.0

EPG Infrastructure (EPG) (2008), Building Construction 18 85 45937 0.32 0.02 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.0

EPG Infrastructure (EPG), Clearing and Grading 23 85 57780 0.32 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.0
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-7 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions (continued) 

Project 

Trips Per 

Day 

Duration (days) VMT 

EFNOx

(g/mile) 

NOx

(tons) 

EFVOC (g/mile) 

VOC (tons) 

EF PM2.5

(g/mile) 

PM2.

(tons

Family Travel Camp, Building Construction 12 230 82757 0.32 0.03 0.29 0.03 0.01 0.0Gunston Road Improvements, Clearing and Grading 21 57 35157 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.0Gunston Road Improvements, Paving 16 170 79902 0.32 0.03 0.29 0.03 0.01 0.0

Hospital (2008), Building Construction 209 230 1438733 0.32 0.50 0.29 0.46 0.01 0.0

Hospital, Clearing and Grading 33 113 112727 0.32 0.04 0.29 0.04 0.01 0.0MDA (2008), Building Construction 37 230 258336 0.32 0.09 0.29 0.08 0.01 0.0Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Building Construction 53 132 210085 0.32 0.07 0.29 0.07 0.01 0.0

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Clearing and Grading 7 38 7538 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Demolition 1 57 1702 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 435 230 3004398 0.32 1.04 0.29 0.96 0.01 0.0

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 435 230 3004398 0.32 1.04 0.29 0.96 0.01 0.0

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Landscaping 5 28 4377 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Paving 4 28 3203 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Building Construction 799 230 5511996 0.32 1.92 0.29 1.76 0.01 0.0
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-8 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions (continued)

Project 

Trips Per 

Day 

Duration (days) VMT 

EFNOx 

(g/mile) 

NOx 

(tons) 

EFVOC (g/mile) 

VOC (tons) 

EF PM2.5(g/mile) 

PM2.

(tons

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Clearing and Grading 3 113 9392 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Demolition 0 38 423 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0USANCA Support Facility, Building Construction 14 113 48999 0.32 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.0

USANCA Support Facility, Clearing and Grading 2 19 1038 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Access Road/Control Point, Building Construction 0 38 229 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Access Road/Control Point, Clearing and Grading 1 19 721 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Access Road/Control Point, Paving 1 38 1423 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Building Construction 14 151 64353 0.32 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.0

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Clearing and Grading 1 19 456 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0EPG Infrastructure (EPG) , Paving 21 28 18037 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.0

Family Travel Camp, Paving 1 170 2664 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Gunston Road Improvements, Landscaping 4 57 6818 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Hospital (2009), Building Construction 209 230 1438733 0.32 0.50 0.29 0.46 0.01 0.0

MDA, Landscaping 1 28 509 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

MDA, Paving 1 28 1068 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-9 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions (continued)

Project 

Trips Per Day 

Duration (days) VMT 

EFNOx 

(g/mile) 

NOx

(tons) 

EFVOC (g/mile) 

VOC (tons) 

EF PM2.5(g/mile) 

PM2.5

(tons) 

NARMC HQ Building, Building Construction 6 170 33075 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.0NARMC HQ Building, Clearing and Grading 1 19 649 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0NARMC HQ Building, Landscaping 0 19 117 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

NARMC HQ Building, Paving 1 19 356 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Landscaping 0 28 360 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Paving 6 28 4754 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Building Construction 4 132 14292 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Clearing and Grading 1 38 1038 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 435 230 3004398 0.32 1.04 0.29 0.96 0.01 0.04 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2009 Parking Garage), Building Construction 720 230 4968000 0.32 1.73 0.29 1.59 0.01 0.0

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2009), Building Construction 799 230 5511996 0.32 1.92 0.29 1.76 0.01 0.0

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (2009), Building Construction 92 230 635904 0.32 0.22 0.29 0.20 0.01 0.0
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-10 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions (continued)

Project 

Trips Per 

Day 

Duration (days) VMT 

EFNOx 

(g/mile) 

NOx(tons) 

EFVOC (g/mile) 

VOC (tons) 

EF PM2.5

(g/mile) 

PM2.5 

(tons

USANCA Support Facility, Landscaping 0 28 196 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0USANCA Support Facility, Paving 1 28 1068 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Building Construction 6 151 29400 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.0Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Clearing and Grading 1 19 440 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Clearing and Grading 3 38 3592 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Demolition 0 19 221 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Parking Garage 96 151 434462 0.32 0.15 0.29 0.14 0.01 0.0

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Building Construction 14 113 47995 0.32 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.0

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Clearing and Grading 3 38 3717 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Child Development Center (EPG), Building Construction 17 170 88331 0.32 0.03 0.29 0.03 0.01 0.0

Child Development Center (EPG), Clearing and Grading 3 57 4710 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Dental Clinic, Building Construction 12 214 74044 0.32 0.03 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.0

Dental Clinic, Clearing and Grading 2 19 878 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Paving 0 19 135 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0

Family Travel Camp, Landscaping 1 57 1466 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-11 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions (continued)

Project 

Trips Per 

Day 

Duration (days) VMT 

EFNOx 

(g/mile) 

NOx 

(tons) 

EFVOC (g/mile) 

VOC (tons) 

EF PM2.5 

(g/mile) 

PM2

(ton

Hospital (2010), Building Construction 209 230 1438733 0.32 0.50 0.29 0.46 0.01 0.Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Building Construction 18 170 91874 0.32 0.03 0.29 0.03 0.01 0.Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Clearing and Grading 58 170 294734 0.32 0.10 0.29 0.09 0.01 0.

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Paving 50 113 169488 0.32 0.06 0.29 0.05 0.01 0.

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Landscaping 0 28 98 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Paving 1 28 534 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

NGA Admin (EPG) , Landscaping 16 28 13214 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

NGA Admin (EPG) , Paving 4 28 3203 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 435 230 3004398 0.32 1.04 0.29 0.96 0.01 0.

NGA Admin (EPG), Parking Structure, Building Construction 1742 230 12017592 0.32 4.18 0.29 3.84 0.01 0.

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Landscaping 19 28 15746 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-12 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions (continued)

Project 

Trips Per 

Day 

Duration (days) VMT 

EFNOx

(g/mile) 

NOx

(tons) 

EFVOC (g/mile) 

VOC (tons) 

EF PM2.5(g/mile) 

PM2

(ton

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Paving 6 28 5329 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (2010), Building Construction 46 113 156798 0.32 0.05 0.29 0.05 0.01 0.Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Landscaping 1 19 626 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Landscaping 0 19 117 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Paving 0 19 147 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Landscaping 1 28 651 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Paving 1 28 1068 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Landscaping 0 28 383 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Paving 2 28 1830 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Child Development Center (EPG), Landscaping 1 28 470 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Child Development Center (EPG), Paving 1 28 1179 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Dental Clinic , Landscaping 0 28 313 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Dental Clinic , Paving 1 28 534 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.

Hospital (2011 Parking Garage), Building Construction 720 230 4968000 0.32 1.73 0.29 1.59 0.01 0.

Hospital , Landscaping 11 28 9141 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-13 

Table A1-2 

Worker Vehicle Emissions (continued) 

Project 

Trips 

Per Day 

Duration 

(days) VMT 

EFNOx

(g/mile) 

NOx 

(tons) 

EFVOC 

(g/mile) 

VOC 

(tons) 

EF PM2.5 

(g/mile) 

PM2.

(tons

Hospital , Paving 6 28 5329 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.0Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Clearing and Grading 58 230 398436 0.32 0.14 0.29 0.13 0.01 0.0Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Landscaping 12 76 28149 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.0

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Paving 50 113 169488 0.32 0.06 0.29 0.05 0.01 0.0

Sources: USEPA and FAA 2002; MOBILE 6.2; SQAQMD 1993. 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-14 

Table A1-3 

Architectural Coating Emissions 

Project Heated Area Wall Surface Expand and Renovate PX and Commissary, Building Construction 186300 372600 MDA (2007), Building Construction 52000 104000 PEO EIS Administrative Facility - Parking Garage, Building Construction 447400 894800 

PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Building Construction 447400 894800 

EPG Infrastructure (EPG) (2008), Building Construction 25000 50000 

Family Travel Camp, Building Construction 16658 33316 

Hospital (2008), Building Construction 289600 579200 

MDA (2008), Building Construction 52000 104000 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Building Construction 73500 147000 

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 604750 1209500 

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 604750 1209500 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Building Construction 1109500 2219000 

USANCA Support Facility, Building Construction 20000 40000 

Access Road/Control Point, Building Construction 280 560 

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Building Construction 19700 39400 

Hospital (2009), Building Construction 289600 579200 

NARMC HQ Building, Building Construction 9000 18000 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Building Construction 5000 10000 

NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 604750 1209500 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2009 Parking Garage), Building Construction 1000000 2000000 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2009), Building Construction 1109500 2219000 

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (2009), Building Construction 128000 256000 

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Building Construction 9000 18000 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Parking Garage 133000 266000 

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Building Construction 19590 39180 

Child Development Center (EPG), Building Construction 24036 48072 

Dental Clinic, Building Construction 16000 32000 

Hospital (2010), Building Construction 289600 579200 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-15 

Table A1-3 

Architectural Coating Emissions (continued) 

Project Heated Area Wall Surface Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Building Construction 25000 50000 NGA Admin (EPG), Building Construction 604750 1209500 NGA Admin (EPG), Parking Structure, Building Construction 2419000 4838000 

Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area (2010), Building Construction 64000 128000 

Hospital (2011 Parking Garage), Building Construction 1000000 2000000 Source: SQAQMD 1993. 

Table A1-4 

Paving Off-gas Emissions 

Project Paved Area (Acres) EFVOC (lbs/acre) VOC (toGunston Road Improvements, Paving 12.52 2.62 0.016 PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Paving 3.01 2.62 0.004 

Access Road/Control Point, Paving 1 2.62 0.001 

EPG Infrastructure (EPG) , Paving 16.96 2.62 0.022 

Family Travel Camp, Paving 0.42 2.62 0.001 

MDA, Paving 1 2.62 0.001 

NARMC HQ Building, Paving 0.5 2.62 0.001 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Paving 4.47 2.62 0.006 

USANCA Support Facility, Paving 1 2.62 0.001 

Emergency Services Center (EPG), Paving 0.19 2.62 0.000 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Paving 39.85 2.62 0.052 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Paving 0.5 2.62 0.001 

NGA Admin (EPG) , Paving 3.01 2.62 0.004 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Paving 5.01 2.62 0.007 

Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Paving 0.21 2.62 0.000 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Paving 1 2.62 0.001 

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Paving 1.72 2.62 0.002 

Child Development Center (EPG), Paving 1.11 2.62 0.002 

Dental Clinic , Paving 0.5 2.62 0.001 

Hospital , Paving 5.01 2.62 0.007 

Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Paving 39.85 2.62 0.052 Source: SQAQMD 1993. 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-16 

Table A1-5 

Fugitive Particle Emissions 

Project PM10/TSP 

PM2.5/

PM10

EF TSP 

(lb/ac/d) 

Capture 

Fraction 

Duration 

of Grading 

(days) 

 Cleared 

Area 

(acres) 

Family Travel Camp, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 170.14 1.66 MDA, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 2.2 NGA Admin (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 113.42 37.09 PEO EIS Administrative Facility, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 37.81 13.3 Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 113.42 42.03 EPG Infrastructure (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 85.07 18.11 Gunston Road Improvements, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 56.71 16.53 Hospital, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 113.42 26.5 Network Enterprise Communications Facility 

(AKO), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 37.81 5.32 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Demolition 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 56.71 0.8 Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 113.42 2.21 Structured Parking Facility, 200 Area, Demolition 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 37.81 0.3 USANCA Support Facility, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 1.46 Access Road/Control Point, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 1.02 Emergency Services Center (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 0.64 NARMC HQ Building, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 0.92 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-17 

Table A1-5 

Fugitive Particle Emissions (continued) 

Project PM10/TSP 

PM2.5/

PM10

EF TSP 

(lb/ac/d) 

Capture 

Fraction 

Duration 

of Grading 

(days) 

 Cleared 

Area 

(acres) 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 37.81 0.73 Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 0.62 Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 37.81 2.53 Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Demolition 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 0.31 Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 37.81 2.62 Child Development Center (EPG), Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 56.71 2.21 Dental Clinic, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 18.9 1.24 Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 170.14 46.2 Infrastructure Upgrades - Fort Belvoir, Clearing and Grading 0.45 0.15 80 0.5 230 46.2 Total Fugitive Dust Emissions Sources: AP-42 Section 13.2.3; USEPA 2005c. 

Table A1-6 

Emissions from Small Heating and Cooling Activities 

Project Name Heated Area

 Fuel Used 

(cubic feet) NOx VOC PM2.5 

Access Road/Control Point, Operations 280 26796 0.0013 0.0001 0.0001 EPG Infrastructure (EPG) (2008), Operations 25000 2392500 0.1196 0.0066 0.0091 MDA (2007), Operations 104000 3036800 0.1518 0.0084 0.0115 

NARMC HQ Building, Operations 9000 861300 0.0431 0.0024 0.0033 

NARMC HQ Building, Operations 39825 3811252.5 0.1906 0.0105 0.0145 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 73500 2528400 0.1264 0.007 0.0096 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 73500 2528400 0.1264 0.007 0.0096 

USANCA Support Facility, Operations 20000 1914000 0.0957 0.0053 0.0073 

Dental Clinic, Operations 16000 1531200 0.0766 0.0042 0.0058 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia March 2007 

A-18 

Table A1-6 

Emissions from Small Heating and Cooling Activities (continued) 

Project Name Heated Area

 Fuel Used 

(cubic feet) NOx VOC PM2.5 

Family Travel Camp, Operations 16658 1594170.5 0.0797 0.0044 0.0061 Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Operations 5000 478500 0.0239 0.0013 0.0018 Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Operation 9000 861300 0.0431 0.0024 0.0033 

Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Operations 133600 3901120 0.1951 0.0107 0.0148 

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Operations 19590 1874763 0.0937 0.0052 0.0071 

Child Development Center (EPG), Operations 24036 2300245.25 0.115 0.0063 0.0087 Sources: AP-42 Section 1.4; DOE 1999. 

Table A1-7 

Employee Vehicle Emissions 

Project Name 

 Number of Employees

 Average 

Commutea

 EFNOx

 (tons) 

 NOx

 (tons)

EFVOC 

(tons) 

VOC 

 (tons)

EF PM2.5

 (tons) 

PM2.5

(tons)

EF S

 (ton

PEO EIS, Commuters 480 -3 0.31 -0.24 0.31 -0.25 0.01 -0.01 0.0Realigned Away From Belvoir, Commuters -1769 14 0.31 -4.2 0.31 -4.3 0.01 -0.15 0.0NGA , Commuters 8500 -3 0.31 -4.32 0.31 -4.43 0.01 -0.16 0.0

MDA, Commuters 292 -3 0.31 -0.15 0.31 -0.15 0.01 -0.01 0.0

WHS , Commuters 9263 -3 0.31 -4.71 0.31 -4.82 0.01 -0.17 0.0

MEDCOM , Commuters 2069 -3 0.31 -1.05 0.31 -1.08 0.01 -0.04 0.0

Army Lease , Commuters 2720 -3 0.31 -1.38 0.31 -1.42 0.01 -0.05 0.0Sources: USEPA and FAA 2002, MOBILE6.2. a Represents the net change in commuting distance due to the action. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E-2

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-1 

APPENDIX E.2 

VEHICLE MICROSCALE 

CO CONCENTRATION MODELING 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-2 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-3 

The CO microscale air quality analysis is based on procedures outlined in the following 

documents: 

• Guideline for Modeling CO From Roadway Intersections (USEPA 1992); and 

• Mobile 6.2 User’s Guide (USEPA 2003). 

Carbon monoxide concentrations are determined in two steps: 1) vehicle exhaust emission factors 

are calculated using the USEPA Mobile 6.2 computer model; and 2) these emission factors are 

subsequently used as input for the USEPA CAL3QHC dispersion model. The models used are 

described as follows: 

• Mobile 6.2 generates vehicular emission factors based on locality-specific vehicle fleet 

characteristics including vehicle age, operating mode of vehicles (hot/cold starts), and 

percentage of oxygenated fuel used. Input files containing the latest planning assumptions 

for Fairfax County were provided by the Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Governments (MWCOG) (MWCOG 2005). 

• CAL3QHC predicts the level of CO or other pollutant concentrations from motor 

vehicles traveling near roadway intersections. The model incorporates inputs such as 

roadway geometry, traffic volumes, vehicular emission rates, and meteorological 

conditions. 

The intersection location determinations and CO estimations were made through the following 

process: 

1. Traffic, operating conditions, roadway configurations and geometry information was 

gathered for roadways and intersections of interest. 

2. Potential worst-case roadways were identified based on the level of service and traffic 

flow. 

3. Worst-case receptor locations were identified as the location of maximum CO 

concentration. 

4. Mobile 6.2 and CAL3QHC were used to calculate CO concentrations due to vehicle 

traffic at identified “worst-case” roadway and receptor locations. Assumptions outlined 

in the 1985 Caltrans Report, Development of Worst Case Meteorology Criteria (Nokes 

and Benson 1985) were used for the analysis. 

5. Persistence factor of 0.7 was used to estimate the 8-Hour concentration from the 1-Hour 

concentration. 

6. Background concentrations at the intersection were determined using local monitoring 

data obtained from the VDEQ and added to modeled concentrations. 

Data Inputs and results tabulated below (Table E.2-1). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-4 

Table E.2-1 

Peak hour CO levels for all alternative and intersections analyzed 

Intersection Location 1-hour [CO] 8-hour [CO]

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J Kingman Rd. Existing 6.6 4.6 

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J Kingman Rd. No-Action 6.7 4.7 

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J Kingman Rd. Preferred 6.8 4.8 

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J Kingman Rd. Town Center 7.0 4.9 

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J Kingman Rd. City Center 6.7 4.7 

Fairfax County Parkway./ John J Kingman Rd. Satellite 7.0 4.9 

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB Ramp./ Backlick Rd. Existing 7.6 5.3 

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB Ramp./ Backlick Rd. No-Action 7.6 5.3 

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB Ramp./ Backlick Rd. Preferred 7.6 5.3 

Franconia Springfield Parkway EB Ramp./ Backlick Rd. City Center 7.6 5.3 

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ Beulah St. Existing 6.7 4.7 

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ Beulah St. No-Action 7.0 4.9 

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ Beulah St. Preferred 6.8 4.8 

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ Beulah St. Town Center 6.8 4.8 

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ Beulah St. City Center 6.8 4.8 

Franconia Springfield Parkway./ Beulah St. Satellite 6.8 4.8 

Franconia Springfield Parkway/ Spring Village Dr. Existing 6.2 4.3 

Franconia Springfield Parkway/ Spring Village Dr. No-Action 6.7 4.7 

Franconia Springfield Parkway/ Spring Village Dr. Preferred 7.3 5.1 

Franconia Springfield Parkway/ Spring Village Dr. City Center 7.3 5.1 

Route 1./ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. Existing 5.2 3.6 

Route 1/ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. No-Action 5.6 3.9 

Route 1/ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. Preferred 6.0 4.2 

Route 1/ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. Town Center 6.3 4.4 

Route 1/ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. City Center 5.7 4.0 

Route 1/ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. Satellite 6.1 4.3 

Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. Existing 5.0 3.5 

Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. No-Action 5.0 3.5 

Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. Preferred 5.7 4.0 

Route 1./ Belvoir Rd. Town Center 5.4 3.8 

Route 1/Fairfax County Parkway. Existing 5.8 4.1 

Route 1/ Fairfax County Parkway. No Action 5.9 4.1 

Route 1/ Fairfax County Parkway. Preferred 6.2 4.3 

Route ./ Fairfax County Parkway. Town Center 6.6 4.6 

Route 1/ Fairfax County Parkway. City Center 6.1 4.3 

Route 1/ Fairfax County Parkway. Satellite 6.4 4.5 

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old Colchester Rd. Existing 6.2 4.3 

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old Colchester Rd. No-Action 6.6 4.6 

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old Colchester Rd. Preferred 6.9 4.8 

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old Colchester Rd. Town Center 6.8 4.8 

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old Colchester Rd. City Center 6.8 4.8 

Route 1./ Telegraph Rd. - Old Colchester Rd. Satellite 6.8 4.8 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-5 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - Fairfax County Parkway./ John J Kingman Rd. 

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR [GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12 

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0 

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 208 

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2 

 

Existing Conditions 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

START X1 (FEET) -96 -96 108 108 108 18 36 54 -24 -48 -66

START YI (FEET) -6 -18 6 18 30 -72 -72 -60 84 84 -60

END X2 (FEET) -500 -500 500 500 500 18 36 54 -24 -48 -66

END Y2 (FEET) -6 -18 6 18 108 -500 -500 -500 500 500 500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 15 60 20 20 20 130 30 940 395 1095 910 60

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 12 12 12 12 12 12 24 12 24 24 12

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208

AVERAGE RED 176 176 161 161 84 186 156 156 131 101 101

CLEARANCE LOST TIME 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

SATURATION FLOW RATE 

(per lane) 1770 1792 1681 1770 1583 1770 1769.5 1583 1716.5 1769.5 1583

 

AVERAGE GREEN 32 32 47 47 124 22 52 52 77 107 107

SATURATION FLOW RATE 1770 1792 1681 1770 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 0 0 36 36 -48 -48

START YI (FEET) -18 -18 18 18 0 0 0 0

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 -500 36 36 -48 -48

END Y2 (FEET) -18 -18 18 18 -500 500 500 -500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 95 1550 170 110 2430 1085 2065 950

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 34 34 46 22 46 34 70 34

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 2 2 3 1 3 2 5 2

 

No-Action Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 50 30 70 490 20 1130 40 970 60 200 820 10

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208

AVERAGE RED 196 196 87 87 73 196 149 149 194 147 147

AVERAGE GREEN 12 12 121 121 135 12 59 59 14 61 61

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 150 290 1640 70 1230 2150 1030 1380

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-6 

Preferred Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 50 40 60 450 20 1140 40 1280 70 250 1080 20

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208

AVERAGE RED 196 196 101 101 85 196 137 137 192 133 133

AVERAGE GREEN 12 12 107 107 123 12 71 71 16 75 75

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 150 360 1610 80 1600 2470 1350 1590

 

Town Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 20 90 20 70 20 340 40 1930 900 1810 1840 50

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208

AVERAGE RED 194 194 196 196 111 195 111 111 123 39 39

AVERAGE GREEN 14 14 12 12 97 13 97 97 85 169 169

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 130 2800 430 110 4640 2290 3700 1930

 

City Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 50 30 70 560 20 1080 40 1230 80 240 1090 10

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208

AVERAGE RED 196 196 102 102 85 196 137 137 191 132 132

AVERAGE GREEN 12 12 106 106 123 12 71 71 17 76 76

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 150 350 1660 70 1550 2360 1340 1720

 

Satellite Campus Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 430 30 230 690 20 1360 60 1400 150 340 1020 20

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208

AVERAGE RED 174 174 121 121 103 196 141 141 190 135 135

AVERAGE GREEN 34 34 34 87 87 105 12 67 67 18 73 73

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 690 520 2070 100 1890 3190 1380 1940
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-7 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - FSP and Backlick

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR [GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12 

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0 

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 150 

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2 

Existing Conditions 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 

START X1 (FEET) -48 -48 6 60 -6 -18

START YI (FEET) -12 -30 -48 -48 48 48

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 6 24 -6 -18

END Y2 (FEET) -12 -30 -500 -500 500 500

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1375 250 170 1380 565 85

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE 

WIDTH 

12 12 12 24 24 12

NUMBER OF 

LANES IN QUEUE 

1 1 1 2 2 1

TOTAL SIGNAL 

LENGTH 

150 150 150 150 150 150

AVERAGE RED 101 59 101 101 131 

CLEARANCE LOST 

TIME 

2 2 2 2 2 2

SATURATION 

FLOW RATE (per 

lane) 

1681 1583 1770 1769.5 1769.5 1583

AVERAGE GREEN 49 91 49 49 19 19

SATURATION 

FLOW RATE 

1681 1583 1770 3539 3539 1583

 EBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD FSP WBFSP EB I95

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 60 60 -6 -6 144 144 264

START YI (FEET) -18 24 0 0 0 0 0 -120 1000

END X2 (FEET) -500 -500 60 60 -6 -6 0 0 264

END Y2 (FEET) -18 24 -500 500 500 -500 -114 -222 -1000

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1625 255 1380 2755 650 815 1270 2120 2280

0

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE 

WIDTH 

46 34 46 34 46 34 46 82 178

NUMBER OF 

LANES IN QUEUE 

3 2 3 2 3 2 3 6 14

No-Action Alternative

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1500 10 220 10 10 10 170 1410 10 10 620 110

TOTAL SIGNAL 

LENGTH 

150 150 150 150 150 150

AVERAGE RED 81 51 51 81 111 111

AVERAGE GREEN 69 99 99 69 39 39

 EBA WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD 

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1730 30 290 1430 2920 740 850 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-8 

Preferred Alternative

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1510 0 140 10 10 10 140 1420 10 10 780 190

TOTAL SIGNAL 

LENGTH 

150 150 150 150 150 150

AVERAGE RED 81 51 51 81 111 111

AVERAGE GREEN 69 99 99 69 39 39

 EBA WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD 

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1650 30 340 1440 2940 980 930 

City Center Alternative

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1510 0 140 10 10 10 140 1420 10 10 780 190

TOTAL SIGNAL 

LENGTH 

150 150 150 150 150 150

AVERAGE RED 81 51 51 81 111 111

AVERAGE GREEN 69 99 99 69 39 39

 EBA WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD 

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

1650 30 340 1440 2940 980 930 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-9 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - Franconia Springfield Parkway./ Beulah St. 13 

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR [GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12 

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0 

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 180 

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2 

Existing Conditions 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

START X1 (FEET) -60 -60 60 60 0 24 -6 -24

START YI (FEET) -6 -24 -6 12 -60 -60 48 48 

END X2 (FEET) -500 -500 500 500 0 24 -6 -24

END Y2 (FEET) -6 -24 -6 12 -500 -500 500 500 

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 410 2120 860 205 1270 165 780 515 235 220 445 365

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 12 24 12 24 24 24 12 24 

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 

1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 

AVERAGE RED 91 91 80 106 146 146 149 149

CLEARANCE LOST TIME 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

SATURATION FLOW 

RATE (per lane) 

1641 1769.5 1770 1769.5 1716.5 1769.5 1770 1769.5

 

AVERAGE GREEN 89 89 100 74 34 34 31 31 

SATURATION FLOW 

RATE 

1641 3539 1770 3539 3433 3539 1770 3539

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 0 0 24 24 -24 -24

START YI (FEET) -24 -24 12 12 0 0 0 0

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 -500 24 24 -24 -24

END Y2 (FEET) -24 -24 12 12 -500 500 500 -500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 3390 2575 1640 2415 970 1090 1030 1510

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 58 46 58 46 58 46 58 46

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 

4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3

 

No-Action Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 480 2260 810 230 1400 220 760 680 260 290 570 430

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 

AVERAGE RED 44 84 88 106 145 140 154 149

AVERAGE GREEN 136 96 92 74 35 40 26 31 

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 3550 2810 1850 2590 1230 1380 1290 1610

Preferred Alternative

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

540 2320 860 220 1340 230 720 680 240 290 580 440

TOTAL SIGNAL 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-10 

LENGTH 

AVERAGE RED 36 80 90 107 148 143 154 149

AVERAGE GREEN 144 100 90 73 32 37 26 31 

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

3720 2850 1790 2500 1210 1450 1310 1660

 

Town Center Alternative

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

540 2320 860 220 1340 230 720 680 240 290 580 440

TOTAL SIGNAL 

LENGTH 

180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 

AVERAGE RED 36 80 90 107 148 143 154 149

 

AVERAGE GREEN 144 100 90 73 32 37 26 31

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

3720 2850 1790 2500 1210 1450 1310 1660

 

City Center Alternative

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

510 2300 870 230 1320 230 730 670 250 290 590 420

TOTAL SIGNAL 

LENGTH 

180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 

AVERAGE RED 41 83 89 107 147 141 154 148

AVERAGE GREEN 139 97 91 73 33 39 26 32 

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

3680 2840 1780 2470 1210 1410 1300 1690

 

Satellite Campus Alternative

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

420 2330 790 220 1410 200 840 740 290 280 580 410

TOTAL SIGNAL 

LENGTH 

180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 

AVERAGE RED 51 84 83 100 144 138 155 149

AVERAGE GREEN 129 96 97 80 36 42 25 31 

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME 

[VPH] 

3540 2900 1830 2660 1310 1360 1270 1590
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-11 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - Franconia Springfield Parkway/ Spring Village Dr.

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR [GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12 

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0 

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 180 

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2 

 

Existing Conditions 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

START X1 (FEET) -48 -48 -48 48 48 48 -6 6 18 6 -6 -18

START YI (FEET) -6 -30 -42 -6 18 42 -72 -72 -72 72 72 72

END X2 (FEET) -500 -500 -500 500 500 500 -6 6 18 6 -6 -18

END Y2 (FEET) -6 -30 -42 -6 18 42 -500 -500 -500 500 500 500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 70 1905 95 250 4130 100 45 5 150 90 10 50

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 12 36 12 12 36 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 

1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 53 53 53 45 45 45 152 152 152 152 152 152

CLEARANCE LOST TIME 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

SATURATION FLOW RATE 

(per lane) 

60 1695 1583 1770 1695 1583 1770 1863 1583 1711 1863 1583

 

SATURATION FLOW RATE 60 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 1863 1583 1711 1863 1583

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 0 0 6 6 -6 -6

START YI (FEET) -30 -30 18 18 0 0 0 0

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 -500 6 6 -6 -6

END Y2 (FEET) -30 -30 18 18 -500 500 500 -500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2070 2145 4480 4225 245 175 150 355

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 46 46 46 46 34 34 34 34

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 

3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2

 

No-Action Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 100 1900 110 270 4130 130 50 10 160 110 20 70

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 76 88 88 16 58 58 134 134 134 134 134 134

AVERAGE GREEN 104 92 92 164 122 122 46 46 46 46 46 46

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2110 2170 4530 4250 280 240 200 400

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-12 

Preferred Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 60 3820 250 670 1570 80 170 20 470 60 60 30

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276

AVERAGE RED 108 120 120 58 58 58 230 230 230 230 230 230

AVERAGE GREEN 168 156 156 218 218 218 46 46 46 46 46 46

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 4130 4350 2320 1770 550 160 150 980

 

City Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 60 3800 270 680 1600 80 180 30 480 60 60 30

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276

AVERAGE RED 108 120 120 58 58 58 230 230 230 230 230 230

AVERAGE GREEN 168 156 156 218 218 218 46 46 46 46 46 46

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 4130 4340 2360 1810 570 170 150 1010
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-13 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - Route 1/ Backlick Rd. - Pohick Rd. 

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR [GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12 

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0 

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 180 

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2 

 

Existing Conditions 

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

START X1 (FEET) -60 -60 -60 48 48 -6 6 -30 -18 -6

START YI (FEET) 6 -12 -30 -6 12 -60 -60 60 60 -72

END X2 (FEET) -500 -500 500 500 500 -6 6 -30 -18 -6

END Y2 (FEET) 6 -12 -30 -6 12 -500 -500 500 500 500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 5 1220 140 10 1430 90 110 70 25 185 15 10

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 12 24 12 12 24 12 12 12 12 12

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 

1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 74 90.5 90.5 74 90.5 130 130 156 156 156

CLEARANCE LOST TIME 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

SATURATION FLOW 

RATE (per lane) 

1770 1769.5 1583 1770 1753.5 1681 1689 1593 1676 1478

 

AVERAGE GREEN 106 89.5 89.5 106 89.5 50 50 24 24 24

SATURATION FLOW 

RATE 

1770 3539 1583 1770 3507 1681 1689 1593 1676 1478

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 0 0 6 6 -18 -18

START YI (FEET) -12 -12 12 12 0 0 0 0

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 -500 6 6 -18 -18

END Y2 (FEET) -12 -12 12 12 -500 500 500 -500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1365 1430 1530 1550 280 165 210 165

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 58 34 58 34 34 22 46 22

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 

4 2 4 2 2 1 3 1

 

No-Action Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 10 1280 140 20 1490 60 1180 110 40 190 20 10

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 96 107.5 107.5 96 107.5 121 121 143 143 143

AVERAGE GREEN 84 72.5 72.5 84 72.5 59 59 37 37 37

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1430 1510 1570 2680 340 180 220 180

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-14 

 

Preferred Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 10 1680 180 80 1850 110 890 350 110 170 90 10

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 89 100.5 100.5 89 100.5 128 128 143 143 143

AVERAGE GREEN 91 79.5 79.5 91 79.5 52 52 37 37 37

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1870 1960 2040 2750 630 470 270 350

 

Town Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 10 1500 270 120 1670 100 1210 430 150 150 110 10

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 98 109.5 109.5 98 109.5 119 119 143 143 143

AVERAGE GREEN 82 70.5 70.5 82 70.5 61 61 37 37 37

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1780 1800 1890 2890 730 540 270 500

 

City Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 10 1530 200 10 1570 90 1060 200 70 210 50 10

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 94 105.5 105.5 94 105.5 123 123 123 123 123

AVERAGE GREEN 86 74.5 74.5 86 74.5 57 57 57 57 57

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1740 1810 1670 2640 480 300 270 260

 

Satellite Campus Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 10 1570 260 80 1640 80 110 390 100 140 120 10

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 96 107.5 107.5 96 107.5 121 121 143 143 143

AVERAGE GREEN 84 72.5 72.5 84 72.5 59 59 37 37 37

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1840 1810 1800 1760 630 480 270 460
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-15 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - Route 1/ Belvoir 

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR 

[GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12 

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0 

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 180 

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2 

 

Existing Conditions 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

START X1 (FEET) -36 -36 36 36 6 18 

START YI (FEET) -12 -18 6 24 -48 -48 

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 500 6 18 

END Y2 (FEET) -12 -18 6 24 -500 -500 

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1720 295 270 1590 155 85 

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 24 12 12 24 12 12 

NUMBER OF LANES IN QUEUE 2 1 1 2 1 1 

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 

AVERAGE RED 65 65 138.5 23.5 156.5 156.5 

CLEARANCE LOST TIME 2 2 2 2 2 2 

SATURATION FLOW RATE (per lane) 1769.5 1583 1770 1769.5 1770 1583 

 

AVERAGE GREEN 115 115 41.5 156.5 23.5 23.5 

SATURATION FLOW RATE 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1583 

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA SBD

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 0 0 0 0

START YI (FEET) -12 -12 24 24 0 0

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 -500 0 0

END Y2 (FEET) -12 -12 24 24 -500 0

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2015 1805 1860 1745 85 565

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 34 34 46 34 34 34

NUMBER OF LANES IN QUEUE 2 2 3 2 2 2

 

 

No-Action Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1760 210 310 1590 120 110 

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 

AVERAGE RED 66 66 23 23 137 157 

AVERAGE GREEN 114 114 157 157 43 23 

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1970 1870 1900 1710 110 520

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-16 

Preferred Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2050 320 410 1600 430 390 

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 

AVERAGE RED 80 80 143 43 137 137 

AVERAGE GREEN 100 100 37 137 43 43 

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2370 2440 2010 2030 390 730

 

Town Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1780 130 650 1790 220 630 

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 

AVERAGE RED 92 92 32 32 148 148 

AVERAGE GREEN 88 88 148 148 32 32 

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1910 2410 2440 2010 630 780
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-17 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - Route 1/ Fairfax County Parkway 

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR 

[GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12 

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0 

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 180 

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2 

 

Existing Conditions 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

START X1 (FEET) -60 -60 60 -24 -42

START YI (FEET) -12 -36 12 60 48

END X2 (FEET) -500 -500 500 -24 -42

END Y2 (FEET) -12 -36 12 500 500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 340 2085 650 920 840 20

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 24 24 24 24 12

NUMBER OF LANES IN QUEUE 2 2 2 2 1

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 150 57.5 87.5 122.5 150

CLEARANCE LOST TIME 2 2 2 2 2

SATURATION FLOW RATE (per lane) 1716.5 1769.5 1769.5 1716.5 1583

 

AVERAGE GREEN 30 122.5 92.5 57.5 30

SATURATION FLOW RATE 3433 3539 3539 3433 1583

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA 

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

START YI (FEET) -36 -36 12 12 0 0 0 

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 -500 0 0 0

END Y2 (FEET) -36 -36 12 12 -500 500 500 

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2425 2925 1570 670 840 1260 860

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 58 34 46 34 46 34 46 

NUMBER OF LANES IN QUEUE 4 2 3 2 3 2 3

 

No-Action Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 390 2050 660 1000 930 30

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 147 59 92 121 88

AVERAGE GREEN 33 121 88 59 92

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2440 2980 1660 690 930 1390 960 0

 

Preferred Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 710 1860 1070 1240 1260 90

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 150 57.5 87.5 122.5 92.5

AVERAGE GREEN 30 122.5 92.5 57.5 87.5

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2570 3120 2310 1160 1260 1950 1350 0

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-18 

Town Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1090 1730 1070 1420 1560 160

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 128 74 126 106 54

AVERAGE GREEN 52 106 54 74 126

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2820 3290 2490 1230 1560 2510 1720 0

 

City Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 580 1910 980 1090 1120 70

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 150 57.5 87.5 122.5 92.5

AVERAGE GREEN 30 122.5 92.5 57.5 87.5

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2490 3030 2070 1050 1120 1670 1190 0

 

Satellite Campus Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 940 1620 980 1420 1550 140

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 131 78 127 102 53

AVERAGE GREEN 49 102 53 78 127

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 2560 3170 2400 1120 1550 2360 1690 0
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-19 

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION - Route 1/ Telegraph 

IDLE EMISSION FACTOR 

[GRAMS/HOUR] 53.715 

MOVING EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 

LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12 

SOURCE HEIGHT (FEET) 0 

SIGNAL LENGTH (S) 180 

CLEARANCE LOST TIME (S) 2 

 

Existing Conditions 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

START X1 (FEET) -72 -72 84 84 84 -6 6 18 0 -18 -42

START YI (FEET) -12 -42 -6 12 42 -84 -84 -84 60 60 60

END X2 (FEET) -500 -500 -500 500 -500 -6 6 18 0 -18 -42

END Y2 (FEET) -12 -42 -6 12 42 500 500 500 500 500 500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 220 715 55 150 1960 35 5 25 30 70 175 800

EMISSION FACTOR 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715 53.715

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 24 36 12 48 12 12 12 12 24 12 36

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 2 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 3

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 154.5 84 162.5 92 92 158 158 158 135.5 135.5 135.5

CLEARANCE LOST TIME 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

SATURATION FLOW 

RATE (per lane) 1716.5 1695 1770 1602 1583 1770 1863 1583 1716.5 1860

1203.3

33

 

AVERAGE GREEN 25.5 96 17.5 88 88 22 22 22 44.5 44.5 44.5

SATURATION FLOW 

RATE 3433 5085 1770 6408 1583 1770 1863 1583 3433 1860 3610

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

START X1 (FEET) 0 0 0 0 -84 -84 60 60

START YI (FEET) -42 -42 12 12 0 0 0 0

END X2 (FEET) -500 500 500 -500 -84 -84 60 60

END Y2 (FEET) -42 -42 12 12 -500 500 500 -500

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 990 815 2145 2765 125 280 1045 380

EMISSION FACTOR 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972 4.972

SOURCE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIXING ZONE WIDTH 70 46 82 58 46 34 82 22

NUMBER OF LANES IN 

QUEUE 5 3 6 4 3 2 6 1

 

No-Action Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 280 700 50 150 1990 60 10 30 30 100 190 950

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 158 129 158 122 122 130 130 130 130 130 130

AVERAGE GREEN 22 51 22 58 58 50 50 50 50 50 50

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1030 830 2200 2950 160 370 1240 390

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.2-20 

Preferred Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 260 1040 40 210 2000 80 10 30 40 200 140 860

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 158 128 149 119 72 130 130 130 133 133 133

AVERAGE GREEN 22 52 31 61 108 50 50 50 47 47 47

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1340 1280 2290 2870 270 370 1200 390

 

Town Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 240 910 40 200 2340 90 10 30 40 190 150 840

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 158 127 144 113 72 130 130 130 139 139 139

AVERAGE GREEN 22 53 36 67 108 50 50 50 41 41 41

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1190 1140 2630 3190 260 360 1180 390

 

City Center Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 270 980 50 180 2030 130 10 30 40 170 170 870

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 158 124 153 119 130 130 130 130 133 133 133

AVERAGE GREEN 22 56 27 61 50 50 50 50 47 47 47

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1300 1190 2340 2910 240 430 1210 400

 

Satellite Campus Alternative 

 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 230 930 30 160 2170 90 10 30 40 240 200 990

TOTAL SIGNAL LENGTH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

AVERAGE RED 158 127 149 118 72 130 130 130 134 134 134

AVERAGE GREEN 22 53 31 62 108 50 50 50 46 46 46

 

 EBA EBD WBA WBD NBA NBD SBA SBD

TRAFFIC VOLUME [VPH] 1190 1210 2420 3170 310 350 1430 390
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.3-1 

APPENDIX E.3 

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS—SOURCES AND IMPACTS 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.3-2 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.3-3 

Criteria Pollutants—Sources and Impacts 

Pollutants and Their Sources Health and Environmental Impacts 

Ozone (O3): a gas composed of three oxygen atoms. It is not 

usually emitted directly into the air, but at ground level is 

created by a chemical reaction between oxides of NOx and 

VOC in the presence of heat and sunlight. Ozone has the 

same chemical structure whether it occurs miles above the 

earth or at ground level and can be "good" or "bad," depending 

on its location in the atmosphere. "Good" ozone occurs 

naturally in the stratosphere approximately 10 to 30 miles 

above the earth's surface and forms a layer that protects life on 

earth from the sun's harmful rays. In the earth's lower 

atmosphere, ground-level ozone is considered "bad." 

a) VOC + NOx + Heat + Sunlight = Ozone 

Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline 

vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources 

of NOx and VOC, that help to form ozone. Sunlight and hot 

weather cause ground-level ozone to form in harmful 

concentrations in the air. As a result, it is known as a 

summertime air pollutant. Many urban areas tend to have high 

levels of "bad" ozone, but even rural areas are also subject to 

increased ozone levels because wind carries ozone and 

pollutants that form it hundreds of miles away from their original 

sources. 

Health Problems: 

Ozone can irritate lung airways and cause inflammation much 

like a sunburn. Other symptoms include wheezing, coughing, 

pain when taking a deep breath, and breathing difficulties 

during exercise or outdoor activities. People with respiratory 

problems are most vulnerable, but even healthy people that are 

active outdoors can be affected when ozone levels are high. 

Repeated exposure to ozone pollution for several months may 

cause permanent lung damage. Anyone who spends time 

outdoors in the summer is at risk, particularly children, and 

other people who are active outdoors. Even at very low levels, 

ground-level ozone triggers a variety of health problems 

including aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, and 

increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia 

and bronchitis. 

Plant and Ecosystem Damage: 

Ground-level ozone interferes with the ability of plants to 

produce and store food, which makes them more susceptible to 

disease, insects, other pollutants, and harsh weather. Ozone 

damages the leaves of trees and other plants, ruining the 

appearance of cities, national parks, and recreation areas. 

Ozone reduces crop and forest yields and increases plant 

vulnerability to disease, pests, and harsh weather. 

Carbon Monoxide (CO): a colorless, odorless gas that is 

formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It is a 

component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 

56 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. Other non-road 

engines and vehicles (such as construction equipment and 

boats) contribute about 22 percent of all CO emissions 

nationwide. Higher levels of CO generally occur in areas with 

heavy traffic congestion. In cities, 85 to 95 percent of all CO 

emissions may come from motor vehicle exhaust. Other 

sources of CO emissions include industrial processes (such as 

metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential 

wood burning, and natural sources such as forest fires. 

Woodstoves, gas stoves, cigarette smoke, and unvented gas 

and kerosene space heaters are sources of CO indoors. The 

highest levels of CO in the outside air typically occur during the 

colder months of the year when inversion conditions are more 

frequent. The air pollution becomes trapped near the ground 

beneath a layer of warm air. 

Health Problems

CO can cause harmful health effects by reducing oxygen 

delivery to the body's organs (like the heart and brain) and 

tissues. 

Cardiovascular Effects. The health threat from lower levels of 

CO is most serious for those who suffer from heart disease, like 

angina, clogged arteries, or congestive heart failure. For a 

person with heart disease, a single exposure to CO at low 

levels may cause chest pain and reduce that person's ability to 

exercise; repeated exposures may contribute to other 

cardiovascular effects. 

Central Nervous System Effects. Even healthy people can 

be affected by high levels of CO. People who breathe high 

levels of CO can develop vision problems, reduced ability to 

work or learn, reduced manual dexterity, and difficulty 

performing complex tasks. At extremely high levels, CO is 

poisonous and can cause death. 

Smog. CO contributes to the formation of smog and ground 

level O3, which can trigger serious respiratory problems. 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): SO2 belongs to the family of sulfur oxide 

gases (SOx). Sulfur is prevalent in all raw materials, including 

crude oil, coal, and ore that contains common metals like 

aluminum, copper, zinc, lead, and iron. SOx gases are formed 

when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil, is burned, and 

when gasoline is extracted from oil, or metals are extracted 

from ore. SO2 dissolves in water vapor to form acid, and 

interacts with other gases and particles in the air to form 

sulfates and other products that can be harmful to people and 

their environment. 

SO2 causes a wide variety of health and environmental impacts 

because of the way it reacts with other substances in the air. 

Particularly sensitive groups include people with asthma who 

are active outdoors and children, the elderly, and people with 

heart or lung disease. 

Health Problems: 

Respiratory Effects from Gaseous SO2 

Peak levels of SO2 in the air can cause temporary breathing 

difficulty for people with asthma who are active outdoors. 

Longer-term exposures to high levels of SO2 gas and particles 

cause respiratory illness and aggravate existing heart disease. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.3-4 

Over 65% of SO2 released to the air, or more than 13 million 

tons per year, comes from electric utilities, especially those that 

burn coal. Other sources of SO2 are industrial facilities that 

derive their products from raw materials like metallic ore, coal, 

and crude oil, or that burn coal or oil to produce process heat. 

Examples are petroleum refineries, cement manufacturing, and 

metal processing facilities. Also, locomotives, large ships, and 

some non-road diesel equipment currently burn high sulfur fuel 

and release SO2 emissions to the air in large quantities. 

Respiratory Effects from Sulfate Particles 

SO2 reacts with other chemicals in the air to form tiny sulfate 

particles. When these are breathed, they gather in the lungs 

and are associated with increased respiratory symptoms and 

disease, difficulty in breathing, and premature death. 

Visibility Impairment 

Haze occurs when light is scattered or absorbed by particles 

and gases in the air. Sulfate particles are the major cause of 

reduced visibility in many parts of the U.S., including our 

national parks. 

Plant and Ecosystem Damage: 

Acid Rain 

SO2 and nitrogen oxides react with other substances in the air 

to form acids, which fall to earth as rain, fog, snow, or dry 

particles. Some may be carried by the wind for hundreds of 

miles. 

Plant and Water Damage 

Acid rain damages forests and crops, changes the makeup of 

soil, and makes lakes and streams acidic and unsuitable for 

fish. Continued exposure over a long time changes the natural 

variety of plants and animals in an ecosystem. 

Aesthetic Damage 

SO2 accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, 

including irreplaceable monuments, statues, and sculptures 

that are part of our nation's cultural heritage. 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2): the generic term for a group of highly 

reactive gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in 

varying amounts. Many of the nitrogen oxides are colorless 

and odorless. However, one common pollutant, NO2, along 

with particles in the air can often be seen as a reddish-brown 

layer over many urban areas. 

Nitrogen oxides form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, 

as in a combustion process. The primary sources of NOx are 

motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, 

commercial, and residential sources that burn fuels. 

NOx causes a wide variety of health and environmental impacts 

because of various compounds and derivatives in the family of 

nitrogen oxides, including nitrogen dioxide, nitric acid, nitrous 

oxide, nitrates, and nitric oxide. 

Health Problems: 

Ground-level ozone (smog) is formed when NOx and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) react in the presence of heat and 

sunlight. Children, people with lung diseases such as asthma, 

and people who work or exercise outside are susceptible to 

adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and reduction in 

lung function. Ozone can be transported by wind currents and 

cause health impacts far from original sources. Millions of 

Americans live in areas that do not meet the health standards 

for ozone. 

Particles 

NOx reacts with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to 

form nitric acid and related particles. Human health concerns 

include effects on breathing and the respiratory system, 

damage to lung tissue, and premature death. Small particles 

penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and can 

cause or worsen respiratory disease such as emphysema and 

bronchitis, and aggravate existing heart disease. 

Toxic Chemicals 

In the air, NOx reacts readily with common organic chemicals 

and even ozone, to form a wide variety of toxic products, some 

of which may cause biological mutations. Examples of these 

chemicals include the nitrate radical, nitroarenes, and 

nitrosamines. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.3-5 

Visibility Impairment

Nitrate particles and nitrogen dioxide can block the 

transmission of light, reducing visibility in urban areas and on a 

regional scale in our national parks. 

Plant and Ecosystem Damage: 

Direct impacts from ozone include damaged vegetation and 

reduced crop yields.

Acid Rain 

NOx and sulfur dioxide react with other substances in the air to 

form acids, which fall to earth as rain, fog, snow, or dry 

particles. Some may be carried by wind for hundreds of miles. 

Acid rain damages; causes deterioration of cars, buildings and 

historical monuments; and causes lakes and streams to 

become acidic and unsuitable for many fish. 

Water Quality Deterioration 

Increased nitrogen loading in water bodies, particularly coastal 

estuaries, upsets the chemical balance of nutrients used by 

aquatic plants and animals. Additional nitrogen accelerates 

"eutrophication," which leads to oxygen depletion and reduces 

fish and shellfish populations. NOx emissions in the air are 

one of the largest sources of nitrogen pollution in the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Global Warming 

One member of the NOx family, nitrous oxide, is a greenhouse 

gas. It accumulates in the atmosphere with other greenhouse 

gasses causing a gradual rise in the earth's temperature. This 

will lead to increased risks to human health, a rise in the sea 

level, and other adverse changes to plant and animal habitat. 

Particulates (PM10 and PM2.5): Particulate matter (PM) is the 

term for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, 

smoke, and liquid droplets. Particles can be suspended in the 

air for long periods of time. Some particles are large or dark 

enough to be seen as soot or smoke. Others are so small that 

individually they can only be detected with an electron 

microscope. 

Some particles are directly emitted into the air. They come from 

a variety of sources such as cars, trucks, buses, factories, 

construction sites, tilled fields, unpaved roads, stone crushing, 

and burning of wood. 

Other particles may be formed in the air from the chemical 

change of gases. They are indirectly formed when gases from 

burning fuels react with sunlight and water vapor. These can 

result from fuel combustion in motor vehicles, at power plants, 

and in other industrial processes. 

Health Problems: 

Many scientific studies have linked breathing PM to a series of 

health problems, including: 

• aggravated asthma 

• increases in respiratory symptoms like coughing and 

difficult or painful breathing 

• chronic bronchitis 

• decreased lung function 

• premature death 

Visibility Impairment

PM is the major cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the 

United States, including many of our national parks. 

Plant and Ecosystem Damage: 

Atmospheric deposition 

Particles can be carried over long distances by wind and then 

settle on ground or water. The effects of this settling include: 

• making lakes and streams acidic 

• changing the nutrient balance in coastal waters and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.3-6 

large river basins 

• depleting the nutrients in soil 

• damaging sensitive forests and farm crops 

• affecting the diversity of ecosystems 

Aesthetic damage 

Soot, a type of PM, stains and damages stone and other 

materials, including culturally important objects such as 

monuments and statues. 

Lead (Pb): a metal found naturally in the environment as well 

as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead 

emissions have historically been motor vehicles (such as cars 

and trucks) and industrial sources. Due to the phase out of 

leaded gasoline, metals processing is the major source of lead 

emissions to the air today. The highest levels of lead in air are 

generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources 

are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery 

manufacturers. 

People, animals, and fish are mainly exposed to lead by breathing 

and ingesting it in food, water, soil, or dust. Lead accumulates in 

the blood, bones, muscles, and fat. Infants and young children 

are especially sensitive to even low levels of lead.

Health Problems: 

Damages organs - Lead causes damage to the kidneys, liver, 

brain and nerves, and other organs. Exposure to lead may 

also lead to osteoporosis (brittle bone disease) and 

reproductive disorders. 

Affects the brain and nerves - Excessive exposure to lead 

causes seizures, mental retardation, behavioral disorders, 

memory problems, and mood changes. Low levels of lead 

damage the brain and nerves in fetuses and young children, 

resulting in learning deficits and lowered IQ. 

Affects the heart and blood - Lead exposure causes high 

blood pressure and increases heart disease, especially in men. 

Lead exposure may also lead to anemia, or weak blood. 

Plant and Ecosystem Damage: 

Affects animals and plants - Wild and domestic animals can 

ingest lead while grazing. They experience the same kind of 

effects as people who are exposed to lead. Low 

concentrations of lead can slow down vegetation growth near 

industrial facilities. 

Lead can enter water systems through runoff and from sewage 

and industrial waste streams. Elevated levels of lead in the 

water can cause reproductive damage in some aquatic life and 

cause blood and neurological changes in fish and other 

animals that live there. 

Source: (USEPA 2006a)
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-1 

APPENDIX E.4 

PERMITTED SOURCES OF AIR EMISSIONS— 

POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-2 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-3 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-4 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-5 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-6 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-7 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-8 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-9 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-10 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-11 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-12 

Preferred Alternative– Stationary Source Emissions Project Name Heated Area

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2

[tons] VOC [tons] 

EPG Infrastructure (EPG) (2008), Operations 25000 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Operations 19590 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.01 Child Development Center (EPG), Operations 24036 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 Emergency Services Center (EPG), Operations 14700 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Operations 2219000 17.22 7.17 2.05 0.12 1.36 NGA Admin (EPG), Operations 2419000 16.98 8.2 2.34 0.14 1.56 EPG Total 4721326 34.53 15.77 4.42 0.26 2.94 Project Name 

Number of 

Generators 

Size of 

Generators 

Hours of 

Operation 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Operations 5 2000 250 1.49 18.36 3.43 NGA Admin (EPG), Operations 8 2500 250 3.18 39.14 7.63 

EPG Total 4.67 57.5 11.06 

Project Name Heated Area

CO 

[tons] NOx [tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2

[tons] VOC [tons] 

Access Road/Control Point, Operations 280 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0001 MDA (2007), Operations 104000 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.0084 NARMC HQ Building, Operations 9000 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.0024 NARMC HQ Building, Operations 39825 0.16 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.0105 Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 

73500 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.007 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 

73500 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.007 

Dental Clinic, Operations 16000 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.0042 Family Travel Camp, Operations 16658 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.0044 Medical Guest House, Operations 100000 0.12 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.008 Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Operation 9000 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.0024 Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Operations 

133600 0.16 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.0107 

Hospital (2008), Operations 868000 1.17 1.39 0.11 0.01 0.0767 USANCA Support Facility, Operations 20000 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.0053 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-13 

Preferred Alternative– Stationary Source Emissions Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Operations 

5000 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.0013 

Main Post Total 1469163 2.26 2.69 0.20 0.02 0.1484 Sources: AP-42 Section 1.4 and DOE 1999 Project Name 

Number of 

Generators 

Size of 

Generators 

Hours of 

Operation 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

Hospital (2008), Operations 6 1500 500 0.00 33.21 0.20 USANCA Support Facility, Operations 1 125 500 0.28 1.29 0.09 Emergency Services Center (EPG), Operations 1 45 500 0.10 0.46 0.03 Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Operations 1 30 500 0.07 0.31 0.02 Total Main Post Total 0.45 35.27 0.34 Sources: AP-42 and Manufacturers SpecificationRoll-up 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2 

[tons] VOC [tons] 

Main Post 3 38 1 1 2 EPG 39 73 15 11 4 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-14 

Town Center and Satellite Campuses Alternative– Stationary Source Emissions Project Name 

Heated 

Area 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2

[tons] 

VOC 

[tons] 

Access Road/Control Point, Operations 280 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EPG Infrastructure (EPG) (2008), Operations 

25000 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 

MDA (2007), Operations 104000 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.01 NARMC HQ Building, Operations 9000 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 NARMC HQ Building, Operations 39825 0.16 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.01 Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 

73500 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 

73500 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Dental Clinic, Operations 16000 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 Family Travel Camp, Operations 16658 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 Medical Guest House, Operations 100000 0.12 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.01 Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Operation 9000 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Operations 

133600 0.16 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Operations 19590 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.01 Child Development Center (EPG), Operations 

24036 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Hospital (2008), Operations 868000 1.17 1.39 0.11 0.01 0.08 USANCA Support Facility, Operations 20000 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.01 Emergency Services Center (EPG), Operations 

14700 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Operations 

5000 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Operations 

2219000 17.22 7.17 2.05 0.12 1.36 

NGA Admin (EPG), Operations 2419000 16.98 8.20 2.34 0.14 1.56 Main Post Total 6495489 36.80 18.46 4.63 0.28 3.09 Sources: AP-42 Section 1.4 and DOE 1999 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-15 

Town Center and Satellite Campuses Alternative– Stationary Source Emissions Project Name 

Number of 

Generators

Size of 

Generators 

Hours of 

Operation 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

Hospital (2008), Operations 6 1500 500 0.00 33.21 0.20 USANCA Support Facility, Operations 1 125 500 0.28 1.29 0.09 Emergency Services Center (EPG), Operations 

1 45 500 0.10 0.46 0.03 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Operations 

1 30 500 0.07 0.31 0.02 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Operations 

5 2000 250 2.98 18.36 3.43 

NGA Admin (EPG), Operations 8 2500 250 3.18 39.14 7.63 Main Post Total 6.61 92.77 11.40 Source: AP-42 and manufacturer specificationsRoll-up 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2

[tons] 

VOC 

[tons] 

Main Post 43 111 16 11 6 EPG 0 0 0 0 0 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-16 

City Center Alternative – Stationary Source Emissions 

Project Name (EPG) 

Heated 

Area 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2

[tons] 

VOC 

[tons] 

EPG Infrastructure (EPG) (2008), Operations 

25000 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 

MDA (2007), Operations 104000 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.01 NARMC HQ Building, Operations 9000 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 NARMC HQ Building, Operations 39825 0.16 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.01 Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 

73500 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Family Travel Camp, Operations 16658 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 Medical Guest House, Operations 100000 0.12 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.01 Child Dev Center – 244 (EPG), Operations 19590 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.01 Child Development Center (EPG), Operations 

24036 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Hospital (2008), Operations 868000 1.17 1.39 0.11 0.01 0.08 Emergency Services Center (EPG), Operations 

14700 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Operations 

5000 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Operations 

2219000 17.22 7.17 2.05 0.12 1.36 

NGA Admin (EPG), Operations 2419000 16.98 8.20 2.34 0.14 1.56 EPG Total 36.35 17.92 4.58 0.28 3.06 Project Name (EPG) 

Number of 

Generators 

Size of 

Generators 

Hours of 

Operation 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

Hospital (2008), Operations 6 1500 500 0.00 33.21 0.20 Emergency Services Center (EPG), Operations 

1 45 500 0.10 0.46 0.03 

Network Operations Center (part of PEO EIS), Operations 

1 30 500 0.07 0.31 0.02 

Secure Admin Facility (EPG) (WHS) (2008), Operations 

5 2000 500 2.98 18.36 3.43 

NGA Admin (EPG), Operations 8 2500 500 3.18 39.14 7.63 EPG Total 6.33 91.48 11.31 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-17 

City Center Alternative – Stationary Source Emissions

Project Name (Main Post) 

Heated 

Area 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2

[tons] 

VOC 

[tons] 

Access Road/Control Point, Operations 280 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Network Enterprise Communications Facility (AKO), Operations 

73500 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Dental Clinic, Operations 16000 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 Admin Bldg, MEDCOM, Operation 9000 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Administrative Facility (Bldgs 211, 215, 219, 220), Operations 

133600 0.16 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.01 

USANCA Support Facility, Operations 20000 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.01 Main Post Total 6495489 0.45 0.54 0.04 0.00 0.03 Project Name(Main Post) 

Number of 

Generators 

Size of 

Generators 

Hours of 

Operation 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

USANCA Support Facility, Operations 1 125 500 0.28 1.29 0.09 Main Post Total 0.28 1.29 0.09 Roll-up 

CO 

[tons] 

NOx 

[tons] 

PM 

[tons] 

SO2

[tons] 

VOC 

[tons] 

Main Post 1 2 0 0 0 EPG 43 109 16 11 6 

Notes: Only actual equipment for the NGA and WHS facilities has been chosen at this time. Detailed methodologies for emissions calculations for 

Appendix E.1. Potential to emit estimation for emergency generators were based on a 250 hours of operations federally enforceable permit limitati

facilities, and 500 hours for all the other facilities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.4-18 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
 Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.5-1 

APPENDIX E.5 

DRAFT CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE PLAN FOR THE 

REDUCTION OF AIR EMISSIONS
 Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

E.5-2 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Draft Construction Performance Plan for the Reduction of Air Emissions for 

Implementation of 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Prepared for 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

by the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District 

May 2007 
Contents

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................ 3

2.0 Code Red and Purple Ozone Days ............................................................. 3

Requirements .................................................................................................... 3

Exemptions ....................................................................................................... 3

Reporting Requirements................................................................................... 3

3.0 Diesel Retrofit............................................................................................. 4

Requirements .................................................................................................... 4

Exemptions ....................................................................................................... 4

Reporting Requirements................................................................................... 4

4.0 Anti-Idling Restrictions.............................................................................. 4

Requirements .................................................................................................... 4

Exemptions ....................................................................................................... 4

Reporting Requirements................................................................................... 5

5.0 Use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel.......................................................... 5

Requirements .................................................................................................... 5

Exemptions ....................................................................................................... 5

Reporting Requirements................................................................................... 6

6.0 Required By Law........................................................................................ 6

Requirements .................................................................................................... 6

Exemptions ....................................................................................................... 6

Reporting Requirements................................................................................... 6

7.0 Enforcement................................................................................................ 6

Attachment 1 – Equipment Worksheet(s)............................................................ 8
1.0 Introduction

The U.S. Army has developed design and construction standards for equipment and 

vehicles that reduce air emissions through use restrictions on critical ozone days, diesel oxidation 

catalysts (DOCs), ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD), idling restrictions, and cleaner vehicle 

options. This construction performance contract plan outlines policy and procedures for 

complying with emissions reduction requirements and air quality laws of the Commonwealth of 

Virginia during the period of construction for the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and 

related activities at Fort Belvoir. 

2.0 Code Red and Purple Ozone Days

Requirements

Contractors and sub-contractors shall not operate diesel powered non-road construction 

equipment with engine horsepower (HP) ratings of 60 HP and above on Code Red and Purple 

Ozone days. This restriction will be in effect between 7am to 5pm on the first four Code Red or 

Purple Ozone days during the period beginning June 1 and ending on August 30 of each calendar 

year.

Exemptions

The following activities are exempt from this requirement: 

1. Operations mandatory for testing, servicing, repairing, or diagnostic purposes; 

2. Operations when verifying that the equipment is in safe operating condition as 

required by law and that all equipment is in good working order, either as part of a 

daily vehicle inspection or as otherwise needed, provided that such engine operation 

is mandatory for such verification; 

3. Operation of authorized emergency vehicles while in the course of providing services 

for which the vehicle is designed; or 

4. Operation for loading or offloading deliveries scheduled more than one day in 

advance. 

Reporting Requirements

There are no special reporting requirements under the Code Red and Purple Ozone Days 

policy. 
3.0 Diesel Retrofit

Requirements

All Contractor and sub-contractor diesel powered non-road construction equipment with 

engine horsepower (HP) ratings of 60 HP and above that are assigned to the contract for a period 

in excess of 30 consecutive calendar days shall be retrofitted with Emission Control Devices in 

order to reduce diesel emissions. The Retrofit Emission Control Devices shall consist of 

oxidation catalysts, or similar retrofit equipment control technology that (1) is included on the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Verified Retrofit Technology List and (2) is verified by 

EPA or certified by the manufacturer to provide a minimum emissions reduction of 20% PM10, 

40% CO, and 50% HC. 

Exemptions  

This requirement does not apply: 

1. If the vehicle or equipment is either EPA Tier 2, 3 or 4 Rule compliant; or 

2. To on-road vehicles and equipment. However, Contractors, Subcontractors and 

Suppliers that transport materials regularly to and from the project sites are 

encouraged to follow these requirements to the best of their ability. 

Reporting Requirements

Construction shall not proceed until the contractor submits a list of the non-road diesel 

powered construction equipment that will be used onsite during the initial month of onsite work. 

The list shall include (1) the equipment number, type, make, and contractor/sub-contractor name; 

(2) the emission control device make, model and EPA verification number; (3) the type and 

source of fuel to be used; and (4) total cumulative number of days on the site. The contractor 

shall submit monthly summary reports, updating the same information stated above. The addition 

or deletion of non-road diesel equipment shall be included on the monthly report. 

4.0 Anti­Idling Restrictions

Requirements

No contractor will allow any diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles or diesel non-road 

construction equipment to idle for a period greater than 5 minutes. 

Exemptions

The following activities are exempt from this requirement: 
1. Idling when the vehicle must remain motionless due to traffic conditions, an official 

traffic control device, or an official traffic control signal over which the driver has no 

control, or at the direction of a police officer; 

2. Idling of the primary engine or operating when forced to remain motionless due to 

immediate adverse weather conditions affecting the safe operation of the vehicle or 

due to mechanical difficulties over which the driver has no control; 

3. Idling of the primary engine or operating a diesel-fueled is mandatory for testing, 

servicing, repairing, or diagnostic purposes; 

4. Idling to verify that the vehicle is in safe operating condition as required by law and 

that all equipment is in good working order, either as part of a daily vehicle 

inspection or as otherwise needed, provided that such engine idling is mandatory for 

such verification; 

5. Idling of the primary diesel engine is necessary to power a heater, air conditioner, or 

any ancillary equipment during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth while on the 

project site; 

6. Idling of the primary engine or operating a diesel-fueled authorized emergency 

vehicles while in the course of providing services for which the vehicle is designed; 

or 

7. Idling during periods when ambient temperatures are less than 30 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Reporting Requirements

There are no special reporting requirements under the anti-idling policy. 

5.0 Use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel

Requirements

The contactor and subcontractor shall fuel all onroad construction and non-road diesel 

vehicles and equipment with only ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel with sulfur content of 15 ppm or 

lower. It should be noted that ULSD fuel is readily available in the project area. In addition, it 

should be noted that the requirements stated herein are compatible with, but in advance of, 

Federal requirements for the use of ULSD fuel for both on-road (2007) and off-road (2010) 

vehicles. 

Exemptions

This requirement does not apply to fueling activities outside the National Capital Region 

unless required by law.
Reporting Requirements

The contactor and/or subcontractor shall record and maintain onsite record of all fuel 

deliveries to the site. Documentations shall include information suitable for verification of the 

ULSD requirements. 

6.0 Required By Law

Requirements

All construction shall be accomplished in full compliance with Virginia Regulations for 

the 9 VAC 5, Chapter 40 (existing stationary sources), Part II (emission standards) of Control 

and Abatement of Air Pollution, through the use of compliant practices and/or products. They 

are: 

• Article 1, Visible emissions and fugitive dust and emissions (9 VAC 5-40-60); 

• Article 39, Asphalt paving operations (9 VAC 5-40-5490); 

• Article 40, Open burning (9 VAC 5-40-5600); 

• Article 49, Architectural and industrial maintenance coatings (9 VAC 5-40-7120); 

• Article 42, Portable fuel containers (9 VAC 5-40-5700); and, 

• Article 50, Consumer products (9 VAC 5-40-7240). 

This listing is not all-inclusive; contractors shall ensure compliance with all applicable 

Virginia air pollution control regulations. 

Exemptions

There are no exemptions. Mandatory compliance with all laws of the Commonwealth of 

Virginia is required. 

Reporting Requirements

There are no special reporting requirements. 

7.0 Enforcement

The contractor holds an affirmative obligation to maintain an adequate inspection system and to 

perform such inspections as will ensure that the work performed under the contract conforms to 

these requirements. The Contractor shall maintain complete inspection records and make them 

available to the Government. All work shall be conducted under the general direction of the 

Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) and is subject to Government inspection at all places 

and at all reasonable times to ensure strict compliance (FAR 52.246-12). 

When the ACO, or their agent, is notified, or determines a violation of policies and procedures 

outlined in this guidance exists, he/she will notify the Contractor in writing, and direct the 

Contractor to correct the deficiency within a specified timeframe. The specified timeframe, 
which begins upon Contractor notification, will be from immediately to 24 hours long, based on 

the urgency of the situation and the nature of the deficiency. The ACO or their agent shall be the 

sole judge of these conditions. 

The Administrative Contracting Officer may by written order to the Contractor, require the 

Contractor to stop all, or any part, of the work after the order is delivered to the Contractor (FAR 

52.242-15). Upon receipt of the order, the Contractor shall immediately comply with its terms 

and take all reasonable steps to come into compliance with policies and procedures outlined in 

this guidance. If a Contractor or sub-contractor accumulates three (3) violations for the same 

issue, the Contractor will be shut down until the deficiency is corrected and systems are put in 

place to ensure future compliance. 
Attachment 1 – Equipment Worksheet(s)
 

FORT BELVOIR BRAC ACTION AND ASSOCIATED PROJECTS 

CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT LISTING 

Construction Air Quality – Diesel Vehicle Emissions Control 

Machine 

# Description 

Unit 

# 

Serial 

# Year 

Horsepower 

Rating Tier 

Date 

Retrofitted 

(if 

applicable) 

Number of Days on 

Site (Cumulative) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Certify the above information is accurate. 

Company 

Print Name 

Title 

Signature 

Date 

REVIEWED BY: