Final

Environmental Impact Statement for

Implementation of 

2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

Recommendations and Related Army Actions at

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

prepared by

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District

with Technical Assistance from

Tetra Tech, Inc.

Fairfax, Virginia 22030

June 2007

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

TITLE OF PROPOSED ACTION: Implementation of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

Recommendations and Related Army Actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

LEAD AGENCIES: Department of the Army 

AFFECTED JURISDICTION: Fairfax County, Virginia 

PREPARED BY: Curtis M. Flakes, Chief, Planning and Environmental Division, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Mobile District 

APPROVED BY: Brian Lauritzen, Colonel, U.S. Army, Garrison Commander, Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia 

ABSTRACT: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) considers the proposed 

implementation of the BRAC recommendations at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The Final EIS 

identifies, evaluates, and documents the effects of four alternatives for facility construction, 

maintenance, management, and renovation on the environment and economic and social 

conditions at Fort Belvoir and surrounding areas that would result from the implementation of the 

realignment actions mandated by the BRAC Commission. A no action alternative is also 

evaluated to establish the environmental baseline against which the alternatives are analyzed. 

FEIS PUBLICATION: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced the publication of 

the Final EIS in its Notice of Weekly Receipts (NWR) of EISs, published in the Federal Register. 

Not less than 30 days after publication of the NWR, the Army will sign a Record of Decision 

(ROD) that will include an overview of the range of alternatives considered for Fort Belvoir, and 

will state which of the alternatives and which of the mitigation measures considered in the FEIS 

will be implemented. During the period between publication of the NWR and the ROD, copies of 

the Final EIS can be obtained by contacting Mr. Patrick McLaughlin, Fort Belvoir Directorate of 

Public Works Environmental and Natural Resources Division, Building 1442, 9430 Jackson 

Loop, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 22060-5116 (or by e-mail at environmental@ belvoir.army.mil). 

Copies have also been provided to the libraries listed in Section 7 of the Final EIS. The Final EIS 

is available on the following Web sites: http://www.belvoirbrac-eis.net, http://www.hqda.army. 

mil/acsim/brac/, and http://www.belvoir.army.mil/.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ORGANIZATION 

This FINAL Environmental Impact Statement addresses the proposed action to implement the BRAC 

recommendations and related Army actions at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. It has been developed in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act and implementing regulations issued by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508) and the Army (32 CFR 

651). Its purpose is to inform decision-makers and the public of the likely environmental and 

socioeconomic consequences of the proposed action and alternatives. 

An EXECUTIVE SUMMARY briefly describes the proposed action, environmental and socioeconomic 

consequences, and mitigation measures. 

CONTENTS 

SECTION 1.0: PURPOSE, NEED, AND SCOPE summarize the purpose of and need for the 

proposed action and describes the scope of the environmental impact analysis 

process. 

SECTION 2.0: PROPOSED ACTION describes the proposed action to implement the BRAC 

Commission’s recommendations at Fort Belvoir. 

SECTION 3.0: ALTERNATIVES examines alternatives to implementing the proposed action. 

SECTION 4.0: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES describes the existing 

environmental and socioeconomic settings at Fort Belvoir and identifies potential 

effects of implementing the proposed action. 

SECTION 5.0: CUMULATIVE EFFECTS identifies potential effects of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in addition to implementing the proposed 

action. 

SECTION 6.0: LIST OF PREPARERS identifies the preparers of the document. 

SECTION 7.0: DISTRIBUTION LIST indicates recipients of this Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

SECTION 8.0: REFERENCES provides bibliographical information for cited sources. 

SECTION 9.0: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS lists acronyms and abbreviations used in the 

document. 

APPENDICES A Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statements 

 B Agency Coordination and Public Meetings 

 C Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Consistency Determination for 

Proposed BRAC Implementation at Fort Belvoir 

 D Transportation Supporting Documentation 

 E Air Quality Supporting Documentation 

 F Storm Water and Watershed Modeling Methodology 

 G Economic Impact Forecast System (EIFS) Analysis and Population Estimations 

 H Off-Post Cumulative Projects List 

 I GSA Parcel Feasibility Study 

 J Project Footprint Impact Maps 

K Comments Received on Draft EIS and Response
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

ES.1 INTRODUCTION 

This environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluates the potential environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts of two proposals at Fort Belvoir: update of the land use plan of the post’s 

real property master plan (RPMP) and implementation of base realignment. 

Fort Belvoir established its RPMP in 1993 and amended it in 2002. In light of substantial 

changes at the post because of base realignment, the land use plan needs to be updated. 

On September 8, 2005, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC 

Commission) recommended numerous realignment and closure actions for domestic military 

installations. On November 9, 2005, the recommendations became law and now 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 22,000 people in the workforce on Fort Belvoir. 

ES.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTIONS 

The purpose of the proposed action with respect to the land use plan is to obtain a revised land 

use plan for allocation of functions and facilities at the post. Fort Belvoir requires a revised land 

use plan that will enable sound use of physical and natural resources at the post with respect to 

both current and future land use requirements. 

The purpose of the proposed action with respect to BRAC is to realign functions as directed by 

the BRAC Commission’s recommendations for Fort Belvoir. The need for the proposed action is 

to advance the goals of transformation by improving military capabilities and thereby enhancing 

military value. The Army must carry out the BRAC recommendations at Fort Belvoir to achieve 

these improvements and to comply with BRAC law. 

ES.3 SCOPE 

This EIS identifies, documents, and evaluates environmental effects of land use plan revision and 

realignment activities at Fort Belvoir in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA) and implementing regulations issued by the President’s Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Army.1

 The purpose of the EIS is to inform decision 

makers and the public of the likely environmental consequences of the proposed action and 

alternatives. 

ES.4 PROPOSED ACTION DETAILS 

The 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 

 1

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

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

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

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-2 

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

activities to the post by September 2011. 

BRAC realignment would result in a net increase in workforce 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. 

ES.4.1 Land Use Plan Update 

The EIS pertains to the initial step of the RPMP update process–to revise the land use plan, which 

must happen before the Army can begin siting facilities for BRAC implementation. 

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

primarily a troop support and training mission to its role as an administrative center providing 

support to multiple organizations in the National Capital Region (NCR). The 1993 Long Range 

Component (LRC) identified Fort Belvoir’s role as “the major administrative and logistics center 

for the Northern Virginia portion” of the Military District of Washington (MDW). The Engineer 

Proving Ground (EPG) was not included in the 1993 plan. The 1993 Real Property Master Plan 

was amended in 2002 upon the adoption of a Regional Community Support Center Subarea 

Development Plan. The plan amendment designated a portion of the Lower North Post area as 

the Regional Community Support Center. 

The proposed land use plan includes EPG in planning for future development. It also uses fewer, 

but broader, land use designations that are more flexible than the 1993 plan. The designations are 

Airfields, Community, Industrial, Professional/ Institutional, Residential, Training, and Troop. 

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. 

• Residential. The proposed land use plan would increase the land area dedicated to family 

housing on both the North and South Posts. 

• Open Space. Much of the area designated as Environmentally Sensitive in the 1993 land 

use plan would be redesignated as Community. This category also includes safety 

clearances, security areas, water areas, wetlands, conservation areas, resource protection 

areas (RPAs), forest stands, and former training areas. Environmentally constrained land 

areas would continue to have all regulatory protections in place. 

• 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. The proposed land use plan would enable the Army 

to demolish outdated and inefficient warehouses; relocate most of the Supply, Storage, 

and Maintenance operations in the 1400 Area to the 700/1100 Areas; and redevelop the 

eastern portion of the 1400 Area east of Gunston Road for Professional/Institutional uses. 

• Unaccompanied Personnel Housing. The proposed land use plan would 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-3 

• Army Community Hospital. The proposed land use plan would enable a 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 hospital site would be designated for Community 

uses. 

The proposed land use plan has been developed to achieve compliance with force protection 

requirements for military facilities as set forth in Department of Defense (DoD) Unified Facilities 

Criteria 4-010-01, DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings (2007). A key effect of 

the standards is the requirement 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 

and also dictate the facility’s relationship to other facilities. 

ES.4.2 Base Realignment 

Accommodation of personnel being realigned to Fort Belvoir must take into account the needs of 

six major groups slated for realignment by the BRAC Commission. The six groups and the 

number of personnel (staff and contractors) to be realigned are as follows: 

• Washington Headquarters Services (WHS)—9,263 personnel 

• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) —8,500 personnel 

• Army Lease—2,720 personnel 

• U.S. Medical Command (MEDCOM) —2,069 personnel 

• Program Executive Office, Enterprise Info Systems (PEO EIS) —480 personnel 

• Missile Defense Agency, HQ Command Center (MDA) —292 personnel 

These six groups total 23,324 personnel. The 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. 

Concurrent with the relocations directed by the BRAC Commission, the Army proposes to 

implement five discretionary moves–relocations not necessitated by BRAC Commission 

recommendations–of units, agencies, and activities to Fort Belvoir. The 146 personnel involved 

in these discretionary moves would directly support units, agencies, or activities realigned to Fort 

Belvoir by the BRAC Commission or join similar activities already assigned to the post. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, accommodating BRAC requirements would involve siting of the 

incoming organizations as follows. 

• NGA and WHS would be on the eastern portion of EPG. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-4 

• Army lease units, agencies, and activities would be on South Post at sites on Gunston 

Road and Belvoir Road. 

• The new Army community hospital 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. 

Construction and renovation of facilities to support additional personnel at Fort Belvoir would 

entail 20 separate projects totaling about 6.2 million square feet of built space and about 7 million 

square feet of parking structures. 

ES.4.3 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 Record of Decision (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. 

ES.5 ALTERNATIVES 

Section 2.2 of the EIS presents the Army’s preferred land use plan. This EIS also considers three 

other land use plans, referred to as the Town Center, City Center, and Satellite Campuses 

Alternatives. Each alternative is discussed below, and additional information on each alternative 

is provided in Section 3 of the EIS. The EIS also evaluates a No Action Alternative. 

ES.5.1 Town Center Alternative 

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 development after 2011. 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. 

• 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, Abbott, and Beauregard Roads. 

• Army Lease activities 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. 

• MEDCOM and MDA and associated parking structures would be sited in the area that is 

bounded by Constitution Drive, Route 1, and Gunston, Abbott, and Beauregard Roads. 

• 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-5 

ES.5.2 City Center Alternative 

Under the City Center Alternative, all new facilities to accommodate base realignment would be 

sited on EPG and a nearby 70-acre parcel occupied by the General Services Administration 

(GSA), known as the GSA Parcel. The North and South Posts at Fort Belvoir would remain 

available for future development. Accommodation of BRAC realignments under this alternative 

would result in the following major sitings: 

• NGA, Army Lease, MEDCOM, 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. 

Army adoption of the City Center Alternative would require measures not inherent in other 

alternatives. The Army would expect GSA to vacate its facilities, demolish all existing 

structures, conduct any environmental corrective action required under hazardous waste laws, and 

transfer administrative control of the property to the Army. These actions would have to occur 

within a time frame that would provide the Army sufficient time to construct facilities for WHS 

use. 

ES.5.3 Satellite Campuses Alternative 

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). Accommodation of BRAC realignments under this alternative 

would result in the following major sitings: 

• NGA and associated parking structures would be sited at Davison Army Airfield. 

• 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. 

• Army Lease would be sited in existing facilities along the east side of Gunston Road 

between Route 1 and 9th Street, and in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of 

Belvoir Road and 21st Street in renovated facilities. 

• MEDCOM and associated parking structures would be sited on the southern portion of 

the North Post golf course. 

• 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. 

ES.5.4 Preferred Alternative 

Consideration of the Town Center, City Center, and Satellite Campuses conceptual development 

strategies resulted in a determination that any single strategy was inadequate to meet Fort 

Belvoir’s base realignment needs. The Army reached this determination on the basis of giving 

high priority to traffic-related issues and development density; specifically, use of EPG for all 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-6 

base realignment units, agencies, and activities would have resulted in development densities that 

might not be supportable because of traffic congestion. In light of these circumstances, the Army 

identified another alternative for land use, referred to as the Preferred Alternative Land Use Plan. 

That alternative is presented in Section 2.2.2 of the EIS (and ES.4.2, above). 

ES.5.5 Alternatives for BRAC Implementation 

The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act requires implementation of base realignment 

actions by no 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. 

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. 

The EIS examines four land use plan alternatives that serve as the surrogates for alternative 

means of accommodating the units, agencies, and activities being relocated. 

ES.5.6 No Action Alternative 

Inclusion of the No Action Alternative is prescribed by the CEQ regulations and serves as the 

benchmark against which federal actions can be evaluated. No action assumes that the Army 

would continue its mission at Fort Belvoir as it existed in November 2005, with no units 

relocating from other locations and no new facilities being constructed. Because the BRAC 

Commission’s recommendations now have the force of law, continuation of the November 2005 

Fort Belvoir mission is not possible. Although the No Action Alternative is not possible to 

implement without further congressional action, it serves as a baseline alternative against which 

other alternatives can be evaluated. 

ES.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The environmental consequences of implementation of each of the alternatives on each of the 

resource areas analyzed are summarized below and in Table ES-1. 

ES.6.1 Land Use 

Preferred Alternative. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected upon adoption of 

the Preferred Alternative land use plan. Long-term minor beneficial and minor adverse effects 

would be expected upon implementation of BRAC. 

Town Center Alternative. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected upon adoption 

of the Town Center Alternative land use plan. Long-term minor beneficial and minor adverse 

effects would be expected upon implementation of BRAC. 

City Center Alternative. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected upon adoption of 

the City Center Alternative land use plan. Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected 

upon implementation of BRAC.
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007

ES-7 

Table ES-1 

Summary of potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences 

Resource area 

Potential effects of the Proposed Action 

Applicable BMPs for the resource area Mitigation measures Applicable perm

Land Use Long-term minor beneficial and 

adverse effects under all alternatives, except for long-term significant adverse effects under the Satellite Campuses Alternative; negligible adverse and beneficial cumulative effects 

None None 

Traffic and Transportation Long-term significant adverse 

effects under all alternatives; significant adverse cumulative effects 

None 13 specific transportation projects 

would be completed to mitigate adverse effects to road network. See Table 4.3-42. A Transportation Demand Management Program would be initiated, in which a designated coordinator would develop a Transportation Management Plan outlining mitigations for transportation infrastructure and mass transit (see Section 4.3.4.4). 

None 

Air Quality Short-term moderate and long-term 

minor adverse effects under all alternatives; minor adverse cumulative effects 

(1) BACT review for each criteria pollutant. (2) MACT review for regulated HAPs and designated categories. (3) Air quality analysis (predictive air dispersion modeling), upon VDEQ’s request. (4) Establishing procedures for measuring and recording emissions and/or process rates. (5) Meeting the NSPS and NESHAP requirements. 

(1) Tenant organizations, in consultation with Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works, would prepare and implement construction performance specifications with emission control measures to minimize impacts including: (a) Limit construction on Code Orange, Red, and Purple ozone days. (b) Require that all non-road diesel equipment not meeting Tier 2 or better standards be retrofitted with emission control devices. (c) Implementing anti-idling restrictions for both onroad and non-road vehicles and equipment.. (d) Use of Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) and alternative fuels. (e) The use of new emission standards for non-road vehicles. (2) For all BRAC construction, additional New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) boilers (greater than10 million BTU 

The Army has applied fminor Nonattainment NSource Review (NNSRconstruction permit for Similar permits may be for Main Post. projects. the Town Center and SCampuses Alternative, modification to Fort Belexisting Title V permit walso be anticipated. UnCity Center Alternative, NNSR permit would likerequired. 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007

ES-8 

Table ES-1 

Summary of Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences (continued

Resource area

Potential effects of the Proposed Action

Applicable BMPs for the resource area Mitigation measures Applicable perm

 heat input/hr) would emit no more 

than 9 ppm NOx. (3) Emergency generator testing would not beconducted on Code Orange, Red, and Purple ozone days during theacceptance phase of construction. Exceptions would be assessed for emergency testing requirements.

Noise Short- and long-term minor adverse 

effects under all alternatives; negligible adverse cumulative effects 

(1) Limit construction to predominately occur during normal weekday business hours in areas adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses such as residential areas, recreational areas, and off-post areas (2) Properly maintain construction equipment mufflers to be in good working order. 

None 

Geology and Soils Short- and long-term minor adverse 

effects under all alternatives; minor adverse cumulative effects 

(1) Develop and implementing a site specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (2) Follow statemandated BMPs for erosion and sediment control as well as for storm water control. 

None 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007

ES-9 

Table ES-1 

Summary of Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences (continued

Resource area 

Potential effects of the Proposed Action 

Applicable BMPs for the resource area Mitigation measures Applicable perm

Water Resources Surface Water Quality Short- and long-term minor adverse 

effects under all alternatives; minor adverse cumulative effects 

The Army has applied fPermit Application whicincludes Clean Water ASection 404 and 401 peVriginia Water ProtectioPermit, and subaqueoupermit; NPDES MS4 Pewould be updated as neAdditonal permits would obtained for Main Post as appropriate. 

Groundwater Quality Long-term minor adverse effects 

under all alternatives; minor adverse cumulative effects 

Water Resources Protection Short- and long-term minor

adverse effects under all alternatives; minor adverse cumulative effects 

(1) Plan and construct BMPs in accordance with all applicable state and local storm water, erosion control, and pollutant removal requirements. (2) During and following construction activities, continue to use constructionphase, enhanced erosion and sediment control BMPs beyond specifications and requirements integrated into design.(3) For each new development project protect downstream water quality by treating the majority of the site with BMPs that are at least 40% efficient at removing phosphorus. (4) Federal and state permits would be required for potential wetland and stream impacts from the proposed projects. (5) Implement postconstruction BMPs that exceed state and local requirements for the management of storm water runoff. (6) Incorporate stream restoration practices into designs of BRAC projects on the Main Post. 

(1) Once design studies are mature enough to quantify additional impervious cover resulting from BRAC construction at the facility level, identify candidate locations for removal of existing impervious cover to offset the increase. An initial action would be to remove closed section of Woodlawn Road from Kingman to Beulah Roads and revegetate the former roadbed in conjunction with the installation’s tree replacement program. (2) Design at least one new BRAC building project with a green roof. (3) Participate in Fairfax County’s Watershed Planning Process and in TMDL studies with VDEQ to meet water quality standards. 

Biological Resources Vegetation Long-term minor to moderate 

adverse effects under all alternatives, moderate adverse cumulative effects 

Wildlife Long-term minor to moderate 

adverse effects under all alternatives; moderate adverse cumulative effects 

Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species 

Long-term minor to moderate adverse effects under all alternatives; moderate adverse cumulative effects 

(1) Acquire a CWA Section 404(b)(1) wetland permit, Virginia Water Protection Permit and a Subaqueous Bed Permit, and contribute appropriate funds to the Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (VARTF) to achieve no net loss of wetlands functions and values. (2) Ensure no development occurs in SNAs to the maximum extent practicable (3) Minimize impacts on the habitats of sensitive species and on sensitive vegetative or ecological communities by designing facilities, roads, and 

(1) Protect mature and significant trees during construction by limiting grading in wooded areas. (2) Replace trees that are 4 inches or greater in diameter with two new trees. Conduct tree surveys and 

develop a Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for each BRAC construction project. Construction contractors would follow the installation’s tree protection policies as specified in requirements in the 2001 Fort Belvoir INRMP. (3) Implement an invasive/exotic 

The Army has applied fPermit Application for Ewhich includes Clean WSection 404 and 401 peVirginia Water ProtectioPermit, and subaqueoupermit. Additonal permbe obtained for Main Poprojects as appropriate
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007

ES-10 

Table ES-1 

Summary of Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences (continued

Resource area 

Potential effects of the Proposed Action 

Applicable BMPs for the resource area Mitigation measures Applicable perm

Sensitive Natural Areas Long-term moderate adverse 

effects under all alternatives; moderate adverse cumulative effects 

construction staging areas in areas that ENRD has demarcated as ecologically sensitive areas and habitats; the Forest and Wildlife Corridor; RPAs; and wetlands. (4) Comply with general performance criteria found in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations as they apply to RPAs and RMAs. (5) Adhere to Fort Belvoir Natural Resources management policies and goals, as specified in the INRMP(6) Avoid construction during breeding bird nesting seasons to the extent practicable. 9) Design road and utility crossings in EQCs to minimize the environmental disturbance associated with the crossings. (10) Enforce USFWS guidelines for activities around bald eagle nests and activity areas. (12) Consult with VDGIF and USFWS concerning ways to limit impacts on listed and rare species and habitats. 

vegetation control plan. The Army would develop and implement such a plan that would focus on controlling invasives in ecologically sensitive areas such as the kudzu in bald eagle habitats and Phragmites in wetlands. (4) Compensate for habitat loss by repairing and restoring habitat conditions in about 2.5 miles of degraded/impacted streams on EPG and the Main Post. (5) Expand the boundary of the Accotink Bay Wildlife Refuge (ABWR) in the Southwest Area of the installation to the 125-foot contour to include bald eagle habitat, steep slopes, wetlands, sensitive watershed and rare species habitats. (6) Expand the boundary of the Jackson Miles Abbott Wetland Refuge (JMAWR) westward to the proposed connector road corridor to include additional watershed area and rare species habitat. (7) Designate steep slopes within the T17 training area as an additional refuge area to protect the candidate species Stygobromus phreaticus (8) 

Designate area below 100-ft contour of T-17 as a new refuge area to protect bald eagle and Stygobromus phreaticus habitat. (9) Formally establish and dedicate the EQC at EPG as a Special Natural Area. (10) Establish and maintain habitat for PIF priority species on Fort Belvoir. (11) Remove Cissna Road roadbed throughout EPG and the bridge across Accotink Creek and revegetate the old roadbed. (12) Incorporate wildlife crossing structure on all road crossings of RPAs. 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007

ES-11 

Table ES-1 

Summary of Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences (continued

Resource area 

Potential effects of the Proposed Action 

Applicable BMPs for the resource area Mitigation measures Applicable perm

Cultural Resources (General) Long-term minor adverse and 

beneficial effects under all alternatives; minor adverse cumulative effects 

(1) Close off and monitor all National Register listed, eligible, and potentially eligible archaeological sites that are near proposed construction to prevent inadvertent effects and ensure adequate site protection. (2) Inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials, human remains, or associated funerary objects would be treated in accordance with the NHPA, 36 CFR 800, and NAGPRA. Requirements for notification and security and protection of any discoveries would be included in construction contractors’ contracts. 

In addition to the provisions of the Programmatic Agreement (PA), the following measures would be implemented: (1) Update the existing conditions survey of all of the National Register-eligible buildings on Fort Belvoir, excluding family housing. Based on survey results, Fort Belvoir would rehabilitate the exterior of all historic buildings to be affected by BRAC in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. (2) Update its Historic District National Register eligibility form to capture changes to the district that have occurred since it was first identified in 1986. 

None 

Archeological Long-term minor adverse and 

beneficial effects under all alternatives; minor adverse cumulative effects 

If avoidance and protection of archaeological sites are not feasible, measures would be implemented to mitigate the adverse effects, per the PA being developed between Fort Belvoir, the USACE, the Virginia SHPO, and the ACHP. 

None None 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007

ES-12 

Table ES-1 

Summary of Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences (continued

Resource area 

Potential effects of the Proposed Action 

Applicable BMPs for the resource area Mitigation measures Applicable perm

Architectural Long-term minor adverse effects 

under all alternatives; minor adverse cumulative effects 

(1) Conduct renovation activities in a manner that preserves the historical and architectural value of the property through compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (2) Use context-sensitive design for new buildings to match the style and appearance of surrounding historic buildings (3) Design buildings, landscapes, streetscapes, lighting, and signage to minimize visual, audible, and atmospheric intrusions (4) Use vegetation, topography, and other methods to screen the views of new buildings from historic properties(5) Conduct detailed recording of adversely affected historic properties in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation to include detailed historic contexts, plans, drawings, and photographs 

See above. None 

Socioeconomics None Housing Long-term minor beneficial effects 

under all alternatives; minor adverse and beneficial cumulative effects 

 

Police, Fire, Medical Long-term beneficial effects and 

short-term minor adverse effects under all alternatives; minor adverse and beneficial cumulative effects 

 

Schools Short- and long-term minor adverse 

effects under all alternatives; minor adverse cumulative effects 

(1) Army should confer with potentially affected school districts on estimated student enrollment increases that could occur if the Preferred Alternative is implemented. (2) Secure construction vehicles and equipment when not in use and place barriers and “No Trespassing” signs around construction sites. 

Complete the National Scenic Trail for hiking across Fort Belvoir. 

 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007

ES-13 

Table ES-1 

Summary of Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences (continued

Resource area 

Potential effects of the Proposed Action 

Applicable BMPs for the resource area Mitigation measures Applicable perm

Family Support and Social Services Long-term minor adverse and 

beneficial effects under all alternatives; minor adverse and beneficial cumulative effects 

 

Shops, Services, Recreation Long-term minor beneficial and 

long-term minor to significant adverse effects under all alternatives; minor to significant adverse and beneficial cumulative effects 

 

Environmental Justice No effects under all alternatives Protection of Children Long-term minor adverse effects 

under all alternatives 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources Minor short-term adverse effects 

and both minor adverse and beneficial long-term effects under all alternatives; minor to moderate adverse cumulative effects 

Planning and construction of BRAC facilities would be expected to follow the guidelines set forth in the Fort Belvoir Installation Design Guide

(1) Retain vegetated buffers at least 200 feet in width where possible along the northern boundary of EPG, to be supplemented with additional landscaping as needed, to provide an effective transition to off-post residential areas and other development. (2) Ambient lighting due to BRAC projects would be maintained at or below requirements similar to those outlined in the Fairfax County Public Facilities Manual as it pertains to residential units. 

None 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007

ES-14 

Table ES-1 

Summary of Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences (continued

Resource area 

Potential effects of the Proposed Action 

Applicable BMPs for the resource area Mitigation measures Applicable perm

Utilities Long-term minor adverse and 

beneficial effects and minor shortterm adverse effects under all alternatives; minor adverse cumulative effects 

(1) Training for staff and contractors on water conservation measures in domestic water use and water use for construction activities would be provided. (2) Required training would be provided for in-house staff on materials eligible for recycling municipal solid waste generated by BRAC tenants and methods for achieving the goals set by Fort Belvoir. (3) Adequate number of containers would be provided in all appropriate locations for collection of recycled municipal solid waste. (4) Army recycling requirements would be incorporated for CDD into all contracts awarded to outside contractors. 

(1) The Army would require that at least two of the three major projects institute rainwater catchment systems for use in landscape irrigation. (2) All BRAC construction would be designed to meet EO13423 total operational reduction goals for energy and water conservation. (3) At least one building project would be designed for gray water reuse, one with a green roof, one with a LEED Gold standard building, and one with a LEED Platinum standard building. (4) Army policy is to build new construction to the LEED Silver standard. Fort Belvoir would assess the long-term cost effectiveness of this program by constructing one major LEED Gold building on-post. (5) The Installation Recycling Program, loading docks, and compost facility would be expanded by fifty percent by 2012. 

 

Hazardous and Toxic Substances Long-term minor adverse effects 

under all alternatives; minor adverse cumulative effects 

Implement existing hazardous waste management programs, policies, regulations, and standard operating procedures. 

None None 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-15 

Satellite Campuses Alternative. Long-term minor beneficial and minor adverse effects would be 

expected upon adoption of the Satellite Campuses Alternative land use plan. Long-term 

significant adverse effects would be expected upon implementation of BRAC. 

ES.6.2 Transportation 

The BRAC action would be expected to have significant effects on the transportation system, 

regardless of the land use alternative selected. The effects of each alternative would vary because 

of the siting of each of the agencies affected by the BRAC action. For example, the Preferred 

Alternative land use plan concentrates most of the new development onto EPG, with some 

increases to South Post. The Town Center Alternative’s land use plan places all development on 

the Main Post on either side of U.S. Route 1. Thus, the effects on the transportation system 

caused by the new developments would vary by location. For example the Preferred Alternative 

would affect the Fairfax County Parkway adjacent to EPG greater than the Town Center 

Alternative because of the locations of the various agencies. The Town Center Alternative has 

the greatest effect along U.S. Route 1 because more development is concentrated in that segment 

of the Main Post. 

From a regional perspective, the alternatives are very similar. Overall, regional travel patterns 

would be expected to be identical, with any differences showing up only on a localized scale, 

depending upon the specific siting of individual BRAC elements within the immediate Fort 

Belvoir area. For all the alternatives, the significant transportation effects would be limited to the 

entrance points and the immediately adjacent transportation facilities. These significant effects 

would disappear into the regional traffic flow within 3 to 5 miles of Fort Belvoir. While the 

alternatives differ somewhat in terms of the detailed extent and location of these effects, on a 

regional basis, beyond the 3- to 5-mile range, the effects become negligible for all alternatives. 

The alternatives placing all BRAC-related development within the Main Post area have greater 

effects than those that disperse the activities between the Main Post and the EPG site. The most 

significant of these larger effects relates to the added traffic on the segment of the Fairfax County 

Parkway between I-95 and U.S. Route 1. Mitigation to address this issue under the Town Center 

and Satellite Campuses Alternatives is likely to require a Fairfax County Parkway cross-section 

in this area of eight lanes, including a two-lane reversible high-occupancy vehicles (HOV) 

facility. 

The City Center Alternative would also require additional mitigation because of the significant 

effect on the Franconia-Springfield Parkway by including the GSA Parcel into the BRAC 

planning regime. That site is relatively landlocked and would require additional access beyond 

what currently exists off Loisdale Road. This mitigation would include the construction of new 

access from the Franconia-Springfield Parkway, which would have significant costs and adverse 

effects on existing traffic. The Satellite Campuses Alternative is most similar to that of the Town 

Center Alternative, as the development is centered on Main Post and Davison Airfield. Slight 

differences in localized impacts exist due to the use of Davison Airfield. 

An additional consideration for the Preferred Alternative is the fact that the needed on-post 

transportation improvements can largely be constructed without interfering with existing traffic 

because the EPG site is largely undeveloped and the major access-related project would be 

constructing the new segment of the Fairfax County Parkway. Constructing this segment could 

be accomplished with minimal effect on existing traffic. Each of the other alternatives involves 

more highway projects that would need to be constructed within active traffic zones. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-16 

Any significant traffic effects as a result of the BRAC action should be mitigated with 

transportation improvements, such that the negative effects become minor or negligible. Any 

development would always have some effects on the transportation system; however, the state 

and local agencies require, for development they can control, that the developer mitigate those 

effects with some improvements to the transportation system. Fairfax County obtains proffers, 

wherever possible, from developers to offset the impacts to the transportation system, which 

includes roadway improvements. The level of mitigation depends on the alternative selected. 

The region’s transportation system is already strained under existing traffic volumes (2006 

conditions), and it will continue to be constrained under the No Action Alternative (2011), even 

with the transportation improvements proposed by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and Fairfax County in their transportation 

improvement programs. The 2011 conditions, which represent the opening year of BRAC, were 

assessed and compared to the 2011 No Action Alternative to determine the level of effects caused 

by the development in each land use alternative. Through the analyses of the four alternative land 

use plans, a series of transportation improvements have been identified to mitigate the effects of 

each of the proposed alternatives. These improvements would be needed to maintain the 

transportation system’s operational performance at an acceptable level of service and delay. 

Order-of-magnitude costs for the mitigation actions are estimated to be as follows: 

• Preferred Alternative, $458 million 

• Town Center, $732 million 

• City Center, $471 million 

• Satellite Campuses, $742 million 

For the Preferred and City Center Alternatives, the ability of transit to contribute to the mitigation 

is greater than for the other alternatives because these alternatives use sites that are closer to the 

regional rail network. Their locations make it easier to achieve the targeted 5 to 10 percent transit 

mode share goals. 

ES.6.3 Air Quality 

Short-term moderate and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected from implementing 

BRAC under any of the four alternatives. Increases in emissions would conform to the state 

implementation plan (SIP); would not be expected to contribute to a violation of any federal, 

state, or local air regulations; and would not introduce localized carbon monoxide concentrations 

greater than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

Regionally, the alternatives are very similar. A draft General Conformity Determination was 

prepared and included in the Draft EIS and is included in Appendix E of this Final EIS for 

reference purposes. The Army is continuing to work with the Commonwealth of Virginia to 

identify mitigation measures required to conform to air quality standards. These measures may 

include limiting construction on code ozone action days, meeting new engine standards for nonroad vehicles, diesel retrofitting, anti-idling restrictions, and the use of alternate fuels. The Army 

must make public its Clean Air Act conformity determination by placing a notice by prominent 

advertisement in a daily newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the action, and 

will do so once it is completed. Information on these mitigations will be included in the ROD. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-17 

For all the alternatives, both construction and operating permits for the new sources of air 

emission would be required. EPG and the GSA Parcel are noncontiguous with respect to the 

Main Post; therefore, they meet the requirements of separate facilities, thereby requiring separate 

operating permits. Exceedence of the major source thresholds would be anticipated with the 

implementation of the City Center and Town Center Alternatives. For these alternatives, a 

Nonattainment New Source Review permit may be required, and emission offsets at a ratio of 

1:1.15 would have to be located and obtained for all stationary sources that fell under this permit. 

For all the alternatives, implementing the BRAC action would decrease both the number of 

vehicles and the subsequent total vehicle miles traveled within the National Capital AQCR. 

Although the overall number of personnel at Fort Belvoir would increase, the new personnel and 

the miles they currently commute are already within the National Capital AQCR (Table 4.3-17). 

In addition, many of the new personnel are expected to either relocate to or be replaced by 

individuals living in areas outside and primarily south of the National Capital AQCR. In addition 

to those relocating within the region, decreases in regional travel would be primarily because of a 

net reduction of approximately 1,700 personnel leaving Fort Belvoir to locations outside the 

National Capital AQCR. These BRAC-related reductions in travel within the region would 

constitute an ongoing net reduction in mobile emissions. Increases in localized traffic near the 

installation, however, would result in minor increase in traffic congestion and subsequent longterm minor increases in localized carbon monoxide concentrations at nearby intersections. For all 

the alternatives, these minor increases would not be expected to contribute to a violation of the 

carbon monoxide NAAQS. The traffic changes would not cause significant long-term increases 

of other criteria pollutants. 

ES.6.4 Noise 

Short-term and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected for all development 

alternatives. Minor increases in noise would not be expected to contribute to a violation of any 

federal, state, or local regulations or introduce areas of incompatible land use due to noise. 

Each development alternative would require construction activities at the Main Post, EPG, or the 

GSA Parcel. Individual pieces of construction equipment typically generate noise levels of 80 to 

90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. With multiple items of equipment operating concurrently, noise 

levels can be relatively high during daytime periods at locations within several hundred feet of 

active construction sites. The zone of relatively high construction noise typically extends to 

distances of 400 to 800 feet from the site of major equipment operations. Locations more than 

1,000 feet from construction sites seldom experience noteworthy levels of construction noise. 

Given the temporary nature of proposed construction activities and the limited amount of noise 

that construction equipment would generate, this effect would be considered minor. 

Noise levels for noise-sensitive receptors (NSR) adjacent to the main traffic routes near the Main 

Post, EPG, and the GSA Parcel would not exceed the noise-abatement criterion (67 A-weighted 

decibels) for residential land uses. 

ES.6.5 Topography, Geology, and Soils 

Topography. Long-term minor effects would be expected upon implementation of any of the 

four alternatives. While the degree of impact on topography would be greater under the Town 

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

landscape level. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-18 

Geology. Negligible effects would be expected upon implementing any of the BRAC alternatives 

and other facilities projects within the Main Post and EPG. The geology of the area would 

remain unchanged, although small portions of the bedrock underlying the area could be affected 

by construction activities. Such effects would be inconsequential and extremely localized on a 

geologic scale. 

Soils. Short-term and long-term minor effects to soils’ productivity would be expected under all 

the BRAC alternatives resulting from construction activities and the installation of impervious 

surfaces. These effects would be minor when considered on the landscape level. Soils covering 

many areas within the Main Post and EPG that are amenable to construction have already been 

subject to previous construction and land-clearing activities; therefore, not all soils within the 

project areas are in their undisturbed state and at maximum productivity. With the acres of 

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

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

concentrated primarily in EPG. The Satellite Campuses Alternative would result in disturbance 

of 457 acres occurring primarily in the North Post and Davison Army Airfield. The Town Center 

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

North Post and South Post. Land use categories developed in consideration of environmental 

constraints would confine most construction activities to areas that are most conducive to 

development, thereby excluding or limiting effects to highly erodible or otherwise unsuitable 

soils, such as those with steep slopes (drainages) or high water tables. 

ES.6.6 Water Resources 

Short-term and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected, regardless of the land use 

plan and BRAC implementation alternative selected. The effects would occur at the watershed 

scale, with localized effects that could be more pronounced during the implementation of 

proposed changes. Each alternative would have varying effects due to the siting of each of the 

agencies affected by the BRAC action. For example, the Preferred Alternative’s land use plan 

concentrates most of the new development onto EPG with some increases to South Post. The 

Town Center Alternative’s land use plan places all development on Main Post, on either side of 

Route 1. Thus, the effects on water resources caused by the new developments would vary to 

some degree by location. 

Effects on water resources resulting from the BRAC action would relate to the potential for 

increases in storm water runoff, associated physical effects, and associated pollutants from land 

disturbance activities. These effects would be expected to occur during construction activities 

and their associated land disturbance as well as for a longer term as a result of increased 

impervious surfaces because of development. The number of acres of increased high- and 

medium-intensity development would be greatest under the Satellite Campuses Alternative (447 

acres) as compared with increases of about 348 acres under the Preferred Alternative, about 259 

acres under the City Center Alternative, and about 202 acres under the Town Center Alternative. 

Correspondingly, the amount of land area expected to be converted from pervious to impervious 

surface is greatest under the Satellite Campuses Alternative (207 acres), as compared with 

increases of about 183 acres under the Preferred Alternative, about 142 acres under the Town 

Center Alternative, and about 131 acres under the City Center Alternative. Similarly, the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative would be expected to result in the greatest disturbance to Chesapeake Bay 

RPAs (47 acres) and floodplain (7 acres), as compared with 12 acres of disturbed RPAs and 8 

acres disturbed floodplain under the Preferred and City Center Alternatives, and 14 acres of 

disturbed RPAs and 4 acres of disturbed floodplain under the Town Center Alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-19 

The greatest potential expected increases in total nitrogen and total phosphorous pollutant loading 

to surface waters would be expected to occur under the Preferred Alternative and the City Center 

Alternative, with five subwatersheds expected to increase their loads by more than 10 percent. 

This compares with an expected increase of more than 10 percent in only one subwatershed under 

both the Town Center Alternative and the Satellite Campuses Alternative. 

ES.6.7 Biological Resources 

Long-term moderate and minor adverse effects would be expected by implementing any of the 

four land use plans and by implementing BRAC. These effects would pertain to vegetation; 

wildlife; and endangered, threatened, and sensitive species. 

• Main Post. The primary areas of biological resources concentration on the Main Post are 

the Southwest Area, land bordering the shores of the South Post, and the Special Natural 

Areas (SNA). All the alternatives would reduce vegetated areas on the post to some 

degree and would be expected to indirectly affect vegetative communities and wildlife 

through habitat fragmentation and isolation and increased occurrences of invasive 

species, which would result in a loss of ecological integrity. The Preferred Alternative 

and City Center Alternative would adversely affect natural habitat on the installation to 

the greatest degree, followed by the Satellite Campuses Alternative and the Town Center 

Alternative. 

• EPG. Natural habitat on EPG has been re-establishing itself since the 1970s, when 

intensive training activities on EPG ceased. West of Accotink Creek, development has 

been minimal, and east of Accotink Creek, the developed areas have not been used 

intensively in recent years. Natural aspects of the area east of Accotink Creek—such as 

woody growth and the use of undisturbed open areas by breeding birds—have increased. 

The Preferred and City Center Alternatives would have the greatest adverse effect on the 

biological resources on EPG because they have more project development on EPG, while 

the Town Center and Satellite Campuses Alternatives concentrate development on the 

Main Post rather than EPG. 

Overall, the City Center Alternative and the Preferred Alternative would have the greatest adverse 

effect on the biological resources of Fort Belvoir, followed by the Satellite Campuses Alternative. 

The Town Center Alternative would have the least impact on biological resources. 

ES.6.8 Cultural Resources 

Long-term minor and beneficial effects would be expected upon adoption of the any of the four 

alternative land use plans. Minor adverse effects, including direct and indirect physical effects 

and direct visual effects and noise, would occur to both archaeological sites and historic resources 

under each of the alternatives. The nature of the effects is the same from one alternative to the 

next. Mitigation measures common to all the alternatives would avoid or reduce the adverse 

effects. Specific comparison of the land use alternatives at an impact-by-impact level is not 

possible until certain planned studies have been completed in the areas proposed for development. 

Long-term minor adverse effects would occur upon implementation of any of the four alternatives 

for implementing BRAC. These effects would occur with respect to archaeological sites and 

historic resources, with the nature of the effects being the same between alternatives and the same 

mitigation measures being applied to avoid or reduce the effects. Assessment of specific adverse 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-20 

effects to historic properties from the proposed BRAC projects depends on the exact location of 

the proposed projects and the specific design details of the projects. These details include such 

things as building materials, construction footprint, height of buildings, and building design. 

Many of these project details cannot be determined until Fort Belvoir initiates the project design 

process. Until these details are developed, the exact nature and extent of adverse effects cannot 

be determined. For each of the alternatives, a broad assessment of potential effects was based on 

general locations and characteristics of the proposed projects, as compared with information on 

historic property locations. 

A simple tally of the number of proposed projects under each alternative that would result in 

adverse effects shows that the Preferred Alternative has 10 such projects, Town Center 

Alternative has 11, City Center Alternative has 7, and Satellite Campuses Alternative has 13. 

This tally alone, however, does not provide information on the number of resources affected by 

each project or the type or extent of effects. 

ES.6.9 Socioeconomics 

The BRAC action would have minor beneficial economic effects, regardless of the land use 

alternative selected. The BRAC action, in general, would have the same economic effects under 

each alternative from construction expenditures and the increase of Fort Belvoir personnel. 

Estimated construction expenditures would be similar under each alternative, with variations 

among the alternatives for demolition and infrastructure. The construction and renovation 

expenditures would result in beneficial increases in region of influence (ROI) business sales 

volume, income, and employment. Although the proposed action’s expenditures would be quite 

substantial, Fort Belvoir is in such an economically large and robust region that the magnitude of 

the expenditures relative to the regional demographic and economic forces would be considered 

minor. Because construction projects are, by nature, temporary, the economic stimulus from 

construction of the proposed BRAC and associated facilities would diminish over time as the 

projects reach completion in 2011. 

The social effects of the BRAC action would range from short-term minor adverse to long-term 

significant adverse and long-term minor beneficial effects, regardless of the land use alternative 

selected. The siting of the BRAC facilities on Fort Belvoir would vary with each land use 

alternative; however, the effects on sociological resources from BRAC implementation and the 

effect on population and demand for housing and public services would be similar. On-post 

facilities would be inadequate to accommodate the incoming BRAC workforce. Additional 

police, fire, medical, shopping, and morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) sponsored programs 

and facilities would be needed. If facilities were not improved, levels of service would decrease. 

The ability to provide proper service and meet customer demands would degrade because of 

continued use of inadequate facilities, continued fragmentation of services, and increased demand 

from the additional population. Long-term significant adverse effects would be expected on 

MWR sponsored programs, such as Soldier and family support and recreational facilities and 

activities, because Fort Belvoir’s MWR would not have sufficient funds, facilities, or staff to 

support required MWR programs. Additional Fort Belvoir proposed action projects plan for the 

construction and staffing of on-post facilities such as a new hospital, new emergency services 

center, child development centers, and Family Travel Camp area. These new or expanded 

facilities would be designed to adequately serve the incoming BRAC population, resulting in 

long-term beneficial effects. MWR’s ability to build and operate these new recreational facilities 

depends on their available nonappropriated funds (NAF), which would be significantly reduced 

by BRAC actions such as loss of the South Post golf course to the proposed hospital. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-21 

From a regional perspective, the social effects of the BRAC action would have short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on regional services. The BRAC Commission’s recommendations would 

generate a net increase of 22,000 people in the workforce on Fort Belvoir. Most of these personnel 

already reside within a one-hour drive to Fort Belvoir. It is reasonable to assume that some of the 

affected personnel would change their home residence within the ROI to improve their commute to 

Fort Belvoir, in particular moving to areas along the Northern Virginia I-95 corridor including 

Fairfax County, Prince William County, and Stafford County, and the city of Fredericksburg. This 

would increase the population in these jurisdictions and the demand for services such as police, fire, 

and medical care; schools; social services; and shopping facilities. In the short-term, services would 

be expected to decrease as population increased. Expansion of services would be necessary to 

maintain levels of service. However, the population increases because of the BRAC action would 

be minor relative to projected regional population growth. In addition, population changes would 

occur over a number of years. The BRAC action would not be fully implemented until 2011. Tax 

revenues from new residents would provide funding for public services (police, fire, medical, 

schools, social services). The number and type of shopping and service businesses and community 

support morale, welfare, and recreation facilities and services would be expected to increase with 

demand as they would be market driven. 

ES.6.10 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 

The BRAC actions would be expected to have long-term minor adverse and beneficial impacts as 

well as long-term moderate adverse impacts on the aesthetic and visual resources of Fort Belvoir. 

There would be some difference in the effects the four alternatives have on aesthetics, with the 

City Center having the least impact and the other three alternatives having similar slightly larger 

impacts. 

Throughout its history and development, Fort Belvoir has strived to take advantage of the natural 

topography and vegetation of the area. For this reason, it has been able to preserve a relatively 

high amount of aesthetic value. Potential effects on the installation’s aesthetic value depend on 

how proposed actions affect those signature areas of the installation having high aesthetic 

integrity. These areas include the traditional buildings of Fort Belvoir and the landscaping that 

takes advantage of natural features and mature hardwoods, which are found primarily on South 

Post and, to a lesser extent, on North Post; the undisturbed areas of Fort Belvoir found in the 

Southwest Area; the wildlife corridors on North Post and western EPG; the golf courses on North 

and South Post; and the many vistas of the Potomac. The four proposed alternatives differ 

slightly on how they affect these areas. 

The City Center Alternative, which concentrates the majority of its actions on eastern EPG and 

the GSA Parcel, would have the fewest adverse effects on aesthetics because of the lack of major 

construction on either North or South Post. The eastern portion of EPG, especially the area inside 

of Heller Loop, has low aesthetic value because of training and testing activities that have 

occurred there over the years. This area also contains several abandoned structures that have 

progressed to an advanced state of dilapidation. Both the City Center Alternative and the 

Preferred Alternative make use of this area. The Preferred, Town Center, and Satellite Campuses 

Alternatives all have a greater adverse effect because of having developments on or near 

aesthetically sensitive areas of Main Post. The Preferred and Town Center Alternatives would 

have more adverse effects as a result of the hospital campus being sited on the South Post golf 

course. The Town Center Alternative also would situate a large amount of development on North 

Post above U.S. Route 1. Similarly, the Satellite Campuses Alternative places new structures in 

this area north of U.S. Route 1. Although it does not impact the South Post golf course, it would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-22 

site buildings on the North Post golf course. Despite their slight differences, none of the 

proposed alternatives would have a significant adverse effect on aesthetics and visual resources of 

the installation. 

ES.6.11 Utilities 

Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects would be expected upon adopting any of the four 

alternative land use plans and implementing BRAC. 

Different alternatives for implementing the BRAC action would have varying effects on existing 

utility systems, extent of upgrades, additions required to utility infrastructure, associated cost 

investment to implement the additions and time frame required to plan and implement them. In 

addition, the alternatives grade differently with respect to availability of additional capacity, onand off-site improvements required, redundancy available for ensuring reliability of service, and 

provision of centralized service. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, most of the development would be centralized around EPG 

where existing utility services are close to nonexistent. However, the site is in close proximity to 

most utility systems. The BRAC action would require expansion to the publicly owned 

infrastructure as well as to some of the utility owned infrastructure. 

For potable water and sanitary sewer, existing on-site utilities on EPG are currently largely 

inadequate to support the level of proposed development. New infrastructure would be needed on 

EPG for all on-site utility systems. The proposed BRAC facilities at EPG would require little if 

any improvements to off-site utility infrastructure, except for electricity and natural gas. 

Providing the required level of electricity at EPG would require substantial improvements to the 

existing off-site infrastructure. In addition, extending natural gas to EPG would require off-site 

improvements to existing infrastructure. 

In addition to the necessity for off-post improvements to utility infrastructure stated above, 

consideration should be given to the capacity constraints of the local utility network. Fort Belvoir 

purchases treatment capacity for potable water and sanitary sewer services from public utilities 

and is using only a portion of purchased capacity. Demands from the BRAC action would most 

likely consume all the purchased treatment capacity for both systems. Though there is adequate 

local capacity to provide natural gas for the proposed development at EPG, some on--post 

infrastructure improvements would be required. Similarly, providing electricity to meet the needs 

of BRAC tenants moving to EPG would require substantial on- and off-site upgrades, time, and 

investment. 

Redundancy is a fundamental principal in the design of all utility systems. Unified facilities 

criteria (UFC) recommend certain reliability and redundancy strategies designed to minimize 

outages from all systems; strategies include multiple feeds, looped water systems, and quick 

disconnects at buildings. Mission-critical activities such as NGA could have power fed from 

independent Dominion transmission circuits with automatic switching in addition to standby 

generators to support life-support and critical-data functions. It would be imperative to identify 

and quantify the redundancy requirements of each tenant as soon as possible because these 

requirements would have substantial cost effects to the utility infrastructure. Redundancy ratings 

for the different alternatives are comparable with one another for most utility services. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-23 

The City Center and Satellite Campuses Alternatives would be ranked the lowest in terms of 

providing centralized service. The centralized service provision ratings for the Preferred 

Alternative and the Town Center Alternative are comparable because most facilities would be 

concentrated on either EPG or the South Post, respectively, under these two alternatives. 

Municipal solid waste and construction and demolition debris collection and disposal are 

comparable for all the alternatives. The sites are in close proximity to one another. As such, their 

impact on available landfill capacity also would be similar for all considered alternatives. 

ES.6.12 Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Materials 

Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected for each alternative with respect to the 

construction and operations activities associated with a development project of this size. The 

construction activities would involve managing, storing, and disposing of hazardous substances 

and hazardous materials. In addition, long-term minor adverse effects would be expected in that 

the addition of tenants would result in the additional managing, storing, and disposing of 

hazardous substances and hazardous materials. 

Although not part of the proposed action, the predevelopment preparations requirements would 

have a long-term beneficial effect as the unexploded ordnance (UXO) and hazardous materials 

release sites are investigated and remediated, which would be beneficial to both human health and 

the environment. The most costly alternative for corrective action predevelopment activities 

would be the Satellite Campuses Alternative, largely due to the project sites being located in 

former training ranges with costly UXO clearance and removal. The least expensive would be the 

Preferred Alternative. In addition, corrective action for the Preferred Alternative could be 

completed on a faster track than the other alternatives. The estimates for the Town Center and 

Satellite Campuses Alternatives do not include costs of finding and obtaining swing space for 

current tenants to be relocated into while the program redevelops the Main Post. The costs and 

logistical requirement to execute these alternatives would also be substantial. 

ES.6.13 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 

Implementing the Preferred Alternative would result in a variety of adverse environmental 

effects, as detailed in Sections 4.2 through 4.13. Some of the effects could be minimized, 

avoided, or compensated for through mitigation, but others would be unavoidable. The principal 

unavoidable adverse effects on the environment are the following. 

• Transportation. Funding shortfalls may not allow all transportation mitigation 

recommendations in this EIS to be implemented, resulting in unavoidable adverse 

impacts on traffic. 

• Biological Resources. Unavoidable loss of approximately 310 acres of vegetated areas to 

accommodate incoming BRAC actions in a manner that would best serve the military 

mission at Fort Belvoir. 

• Water Resources. Unavoidable loss of pervious surfaces due to development, resulting in 

increases in runoff and pollutant loads. 

• Utilities. Unavoidable generation of about 10,176 tons of construction and demolition 

debris from the proposed action, which if not recycled would be disposed of in various 

landfill sites in the area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-24 

ES.7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

In addition to the 20 projects identified in Section 2.2.2, the Army foresees there being another 32 

projects at the installation. These 32 non-BRAC projects range from small scale projects 

involving only renovations of existing buildings to large projects involving the construction of 

new sizeable structures. Chief among this latter category would be proposals such as the National 

Museum of the U.S. Army and associated Museum Support Center, the expansion of the 

Information Dominance Center, and a potential Army Reserve complex. Additional numerous 

smaller projects would occur on-post as new facilities or, in several instances, as renovations of 

existing facilities. Each of these projects would undergo or have already undergone their own 

NEPA compliance. Fairfax County has identified 187 off-post, non-Army projects planned 

within 3 miles of Fort Belvoir. While many of these are small in scale and would have only a 

negligible effect on the environment as a whole, 20 projects are at least 25 acres in size. The 

following summarize principal conclusions with respect to potential cumulative impacts. 

• Land Use. Negligible cumulative effects on land use would be expected from 

implementing non-BRAC projects at Fort Belvoir. In general, the on-post cumulative 

projects would be compatible with existing land use or those associated with the 

proposed alternatives for BRAC actions. Negligible adverse and beneficial long-term 

effects on land use would be expected with respect to off-post development. Cumulative 

effects to land use upon implementation of the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan over 

the next 5 years would be minor if all approved/programmed roadway improvements are 

realized. 

• Transportation. On-post facilities projects outside the proposed action, taken together, 

would be expected to have negligible effects on Fort Belvoir area traffic. Impacts on the 

transportation network associated with off-post projects would be mitigated through 

roadway improvements by developers of the off-post road projects. The largest 

contributor to future impacts would be the proposed National Museum of the U.S. Army. 

This could be sited at either the North Post golf course or along Route 1, east of Pence 

Gate. At either location, additional road improvements would be required. To quantify 

the effects of the museum on the transportation system, trip generation and mode split 

would need to be developed for site traffic. 

• Air Quality. The proposed cumulative projects would have minimal long-term adverse 

effects on the region’s air quality. Other construction and development projects would 

occur within the National Capital Region (NCR), and each of the projects would produce 

some measurable amounts of air pollutants. The effects of all past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable projects in the region and associated emissions are taken into 

account during the development of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). This includes all 

on- and off-post projects including National Museum of the U.S. Army. Estimated 

emissions generated by all the alternatives would conform to the SIP. Therefore, by 

definition, the net effects of the BRAC action at Fort Belvoir in addition to all other 

collectively identified cumulative projects would not contribute to significant adverse 

cumulative air quality effects. 

• Noise. No long-term cumulative effects on noise would be expected. Implementing any 

of the alternatives would have negligible ongoing or cumulative effects on the noise 

environment because of construction or changes in traffic in or around the site. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-25 

construction activities associated with the BRAC alternatives would be temporary in 

nature, and the current noise environment would return after the projects’ completion. 

• Geology and Soils. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects proposed for Fort 

Belvoir and the immediate vicinity could result in localized changes to topography and 

minimal effects on geology. Soils in the area would undergo short- and long-term to 

permanent impacts depending on the nature of the disturbance. Overall, the topography 

of Fort Belvoir and the surrounding area would not change as a result of any of the 

BRAC-related projects in concert with previous or reasonably foreseeable actions. Soils 

throughout the EPG project area would undergo short- and long-term adverse cumulative 

effects. Urban and Cut and Fill soils have already been affected by development so in 

cases of redevelopment the impact to these soil types has already occurred. With native 

soils the effects related to construction would generally be minor and generally limited to 

the areas directly disturbed by those activities. The Museum of the U.S. Army, its 

Support Center, and the Fairfax County Parkway extension would all result in the 

permanent loss of the soil resource directly under the impervious surfaces. However, 

portions of these projects would occur on soils previously affected (Urban soils) and 

impacts to native soils would be localized. Off-post past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable projects would have similar types of impacts as those described for on-post 

projects, except over a broader scale. None of the projects considered in the cumulative 

impacts analysis are likely to contribute to a significant cumulative impact in terms of 

topography or geology. Likewise, assuming that regulatory requirements are followed, 

the soil resource should experience localized effects that would be both short- and longterm. 

• Water Resources. Long-term minor adverse effects on water resources would be 

expected due to cumulative actions. Various other on-post and off-post proposed 

development projects in the vicinity of Fort Belvoir would potentially increase storm 

water runoff from paved surfaces and nonpoint source pollutants (e.g., sediment, 

nutrients, petroleum hydrocarbons) in the area. A cumulative effects analysis was 

conducted using Generalized Watershed Loading Model to estimate potential changes in 

average annual flow volume and pollutant loads as a result of the change in impervious 

surface area in each watershed. The model results indicate that increases in flow volume 

and nutrient loadings are not expected to be significant at the watershed scale. 

Appropriate required storm water management designs would be expected to minimize 

the adverse effects of increased storm water and nonpoint source pollutants, and 

additional measures that permit infiltration are recommended for implementation on a 

watershed basis to limit cumulative effects to waterbodies within these watersheds and 

receiving waters downstream. 

• Biological Resources. Long-term moderate adverse cumulative effects would be 

expected. Cumulative natural resource effects of the proposed on-post non-BRAC 

projects such as the RCI housing project and the Army Museum would generally 

adversely affect the post’s biological resources. Proposed on-post non-BRAC projects 

and off-post non-army projects would further diminish the availability of forest and field 

habitats on and off the installation, and increase the possibility of occurrences of invasive 

species, edge effects on habitats, and habitat fragmentation under the Preferred 

Alternative and all other alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-26 

• Cultural Resources. Long-term minor adverse effects on cultural resources would be 

expected. Adverse visual effects on national, state, and county registered historic 

properties both on- and off-post would occur under each of the alternatives. These 

effects would be in addition to other modern developments that have already visually 

affected those properties. Increasing urbanization in the surrounding cities and counties, 

as exhibited by past and proposed future projects surrounding Fort Belvoir and proposed 

developments on Fort Belvoir, would likely contribute to more visual effects on these 

historic properties. The BRAC-related projects would have a minor adverse effect on the 

region’s historic properties. However, when the effects to these properties and the effects 

that would likely occur from the expanding population and subsequent improvements to 

the local infrastructure are added to the effects that past development in the region has 

already had, the cumulative impact to cultural resources would be noticeable and 

moderate. 

• Socioeconomics (Economic Development). Short- and long-term beneficial and adverse 

cumulative effects would be expected. The past action of the establishment and 

continued operation of Fort Belvoir continues to have positive effects on the local 

economy. The proposed realignment action would add to these beneficial economic 

effects by generating employment, income, and business sales in the ROI from 

construction and operation of the proposed new facilities. There are numerous other 

projects (in progress or planned for the future) on Fort Belvoir and in the ROI that could 

have short- and long-term effects on the local economy. On-post proposed projects 

include (but are not limited to) the National Museum of the U.S. Army, Museum Support 

Center, a physical fitness center in the Troop Cantonment Area and on EPG, a South Post 

fitness facility, modernization of the marina, expansion of the Main Post library, a 

shoppette on the South Post, a Soldier Support Center, an addition to the MP Station, and 

replacement of the South Post Fire Station. Projects in the ROI include, but are not 

limited to, ongoing development of the Lorton Town Center, housing development in 

Laurel Hill and Lorton, reconstruction of the I-95/I-395/I-495 interchange, improvements 

to Route 1, plus numerous other residential and commercial developments and 

transportation projects. These proposed projects would have short- and long-term 

beneficial economic effects in terms of employment, income generation, and business 

sales. There would be short-term beneficial effects from the construction projects and 

long-term beneficial effects from the continued operation, maintenance, and use of the 

facilities, businesses, and houses. The backfilling of office space vacated by the agencies 

moving to Fort Belvoir could create a change in regional employment. Adverse 

cumulative effects would occur because of the overlapping time frames for construction 

activities of the Proposed Action and ongoing and future projects, with the adverse 

effects resulting from possible construction labor and material shortages. However, 

impacts from projected changes under the proposed Fort Belvoir BRAC action would be 

diminished by other BRAC actions occurring at the same time in the NCR. This would 

reduce the population impacts from the proposed Fort Belvoir BRAC action on public 

infrastructure and social services. It also should be noted that even though there would 

be a loss of personnel in the ROI due to other BRAC actions, it is anticipated that the 

office space vacated by BRAC personnel would be backfilled with office workers. 

• Socioeconomics (Sociological Environment). Long-term beneficial and adverse effects 

would be expected on police, fire, and medical services, schools, housing, family support 

and social services, shops, services, and recreation. Long-term beneficial effects would 

occur on on-post police and fire services and medical services. Adverse effects could 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-27 

occur to off-post police, fire, and social services based on population projections that 

indicate continued population growth for the ROI. Long-term adverse effects would be 

expected to occur on off-post schools. However, other BRAC actions occurring in the 

ROI would result in the transfer of 14,500 jobs out of the NCR An estimated 12,700 

school-age children would be associated with these employees and would be moving out 

of the region. The outmigration of these families would reduce the impact of the Fort 

Belvoir BRAC action on public schools. Long-term beneficial and significant adverse 

effects would be expected with respect to family support, shops, services, and recreation. 

Fort Belvoir’s increased population would increase demand for shopping, service, and 

recreational facilities. Long-term significant adverse effects on Fort Belvoir’s MWR 

recreation program would occur from the construction of the Army Museum and 

Museum Support Center. If the museum would be constructed on the North Post golf 

course site, Fort Belvoir would lose a portion of this golf course, in addition to the South 

Post golf course, as the hospital is sited there under the Preferred Alternative. Fort 

Belvoir could lose about 60 percent of its golf course fairways, which would result in 

significant losses to the MWR NAF from lost revenue. Overall, the loss of these MWR 

programs and facilities would reduce the quality of life for Soldiers, retirees, and their 

families. 

• Aesthetic and Visual Resources. Minor adverse and beneficial effects on aesthetic and 

visual resources would be expected. The proposed on-post project with the largest 

cumulative aesthetic effect, the National Museum of the U.S. Army, has two possible 

sites: the North Post golf course and the Pence Gate site on the eastern side of South Post. 

Each site placement would have a moderate effect on aesthetics because of the size of the 

proposed structures, although the golf course siting would have more of an effect because 

of the high aesthetic integrity of the current land use. Other major changes would occur 

along Abbott Road on the North Post, the northeast portion of North Post, and in the 

Southwest Area. The building of the Operations Training Facility on the Southwest Area 

would have a moderate effect on the area because of the current forested conditions of the 

area, although it would be relatively secluded. The proposed Woodlawn Road 

replacement would have a moderate effect because of the high aesthetic integrity of the 

land it would pass through. Short-term adverse effects resulting from construction 

activities from cumulative projects would be expected to be similar to that of the 

Preferred Alternative. In general, the smaller buildings and additions would have a 

negligible adverse aesthetic change once construction is complete. The larger structures 

would have a more noticeable effect because of their size. Despite the large number of 

proposed off-post cumulative projects, there would not be a significant amount of 

aesthetic effects. The off-post portion of Fairfax County in the vicinity of Fort Belvoir, 

as a whole, has a large amount of development, which includes large areas of residential 

and commercial development along I-95 and Route 1. The existing development makes 

the addition of these cumulative projects result in a minor effect on the aesthetic integrity 

of this portion of Fairfax County. 

• Utilities. Short- and long-term minor adverse cumulative effects would be expected. 

Implementing the Preferred Alternative would result in short-term disconnections and 

reconnections of all buried and aboveground utility systems during the construction phase 

on- and off-post as required. Activities resulting from the BRAC action and other onand off-post development projects such as office buildings, shops, and housing 

complexes would result in additional building space requiring utility services, thus 

resulting in a cumulative increase in demand on the existing utility infrastructure. This 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-28 

would require existing private and public providers of utility services in the area to 

increase the quantity of utility services provided to meet the demand from users directly 

and indirectly associated with Fort Belvoir and its surroundings. These entities must 

review and revise the existing short- and long-term projections for providing adequate 

and reliable utility services for the area in the future. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(Public Law 109-58—August 8, 2005) stipulates that energy consumption per gross 

square foot of the Federal Buildings in fiscal years 2006 through 20015 be reduced in 

comparison to the base year of 2003. The percentage reduction required in 2006 is 2 

percent from the baseline consumption and 20 percent in 2015. Because the facilities 

being constructed would be more efficient, these requirements would be met. This 

required reduction will mitigate some of the cumulative effects of the above on- and offpost construction. The Preferred Alternative, together with on-post construction and 

renovation projects planned in the near term at Fort Belvoir and off-post projects would 

generate additional quantities of construction and demolition debris (CDD) and result in 

cumulative reduction of the lifespans of local area landfill sites. 

• Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Materials. Short- and long-term minor adverse 

cumulative effects would be expected. Short-term cumulative effects would be expected 

from the increased use of petroleum during construction. Construction would adhere to 

federal guidelines to minimize the risk of spills. Minor long-term adverse effects would 

be expected from the increase in generation of hazardous and solid waste generated as 

more people would work at Fort Belvoir and the surrounding area. 

ES.8 MITIGATION SUMMARY 

Mitigation measures for the four alternatives for implementing BRAC would be expected to 

reduce, avoid, or compensate for most adverse impacts. Mitigation does not include legal, 

regulatory, or policy-driven environmental protections and best management practices (BMPs) 

required to comply with federal and state laws, or Army and Fort Belvoir policies. These are 

already part of the Proposed Action. Only those resource areas for which mitigation has been 

identified as a means to reduce adverse environmental impacts and determined to be appropriate 

are discussed below. 

To ensure that mitigation measures are effectively documented and monitored, Fort Belvoir 

would install an Environmental Management System (EMS) and compliance tracking system. 

EIS mitigation measures would be entered into the EMS and reported to the Installation 

Commander in addition to other installation reporting requirements. 

ES.8.1 Transportation 

Mitigation for impacts to the transportation system could occur in the form of off-post 

transportation improvements and mass transit expansion. Also, the Army could designate a 

Transportation Demand Management Coordinator. 

Traffic and Transportation. The EIS examines several transportation improvements for each of 

the BRAC action alternatives. The following summarizes these improvements (shown in 

comparative format at Table 4.3-42. 

• Preferred Alternative. Fourteen actions, costing an estimated $458 million, are 

identified. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-29 

• Town Center Alternative. Fifteen actions, costing an estimated $732 million, are 

identified. 

• City Center Alternative. Fourteen actions, costing an estimated $471 million, are 

identified. 

• Satellite Campuses Alternative. Fifteen actions, costing an estimated $742 million, are 

identified. 

Mass Transit. Bus service of a high enough quality to realize a 5 to 10 percent mode share for 

transit could complement the road network mitigation actions and help to reduce congestion and 

limit vehicle delays. Transit services could include bus services and/or shuttle services to/from 

the Franconia-Springfield Metrorail Station. The EIS identifies five basic bus service areas, then 

proposes and examines general routes and service concepts to achieve 5 or 10 percent mode 

share. For all the alternatives, a 5 percent mode split would reduce by 360 the number of vehicles 

entering the post during peak hour. A 10 percent mode split would reduce by 725 the number of 

vehicles entering the post during peak hour. 

Transportation Demand Management Coordinator (TDMC). To help alleviate traffic 

congestion, the Army could appoint a TDMC. The TDMC would be knowledgeable of 

principles, practices, and methods of transportation demand management. These would include, 

but not be limited to, employee rideshare and commute programs; current regional programs 

regarding air quality and transportation; employer trip reduction requirements; marketing, 

promotion, and event planning practices; parking management practices; opportunities for 

walking and biking as alternative means of travel; and development of transportation feasibility 

studies. The TDMC’s principal function would be to develop, manage, and oversee development 

of a transportation management plan (TMP) for Fort Bevloir, focused on measures to reduce the 

number of single-occupancy vehicles. Appointing a TDMC before fiscal year 2009 would allow 

development of transportation program initiatives before BRAC relocation of personnel. A 

completed draft of the proposed TMP could be provided in the ROD. 

Transportation Management Plan (TMP). The Army could implement a TMP at Fort Belvoir to 

reduce single-occupany vehicle trips. During the implementation phase of the TMP, the specific 

TMP strategies that are adopted would be applied as appropriate to each individual tenant at Fort 

Belvoir, while considering the requirements of their employees. A TDMC could assist each 

tenant in developing and implementing the TMP. Such elements of a TMP include, but are not 

limited to, alternative work schedules, rideshare and carpool programs, bicyclists and pedestrian 

accommodations, parking policy, and supporting transit services. A comprehensive TMP could 

be developed as the design and Master Plan are carried forth. 

ES.8.2 Air Quality 

Mitigation to reduce impacts to air quality from BRAC-related construction and emissions from 

stationary sources in the form of new boilers and generator requirements for all alternatives could 

include: 

• Tenant organizations, in consultation with Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works, 

would prepare and implement construction performance specifications with emission 

control measures to minimize the impact of the construction activities related to BRAC 

projects to include, but not limited to, the following: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-30 

o Limiting construction on Code Orange, Red, and Purple ozone days 

o Requiring all non-road diesel equipment not meeting Tier 2 or better standards 

be retrofitted with emission control devices 

o Implementing anti-idling restrictions for both onroad and non-road vehicles and 

equipment 

o Using Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), alternate fuels, or fuel additives 

o Meeting new engine standards for nonroad vehicles 

• For all BRAC construction, additional New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

boilers (greater than10 million BTU heat input/hr) would emit no more than 9 ppm NOx 

• Emergency generator testing would not be conducted on Code Orange, Red, and Purple 

ozone days during the acceptance phase of construction. Exceptions would be assessed 

for emergency testing requirements 

Implementation of the City Center Alternative would require that oxides of nitrogen emission 

offsets at a ratio of 1:1.15 be located and obtained for all stationary sources sited on EPG under 

the nonattainment new source review permitting requirements. Emission offsets are generally 

unavailable in this region and could be extremely expensive if they could be obtained at all. 

ES.8.3 Water Resources 

Depending on the alternative selected for implementation of BRAC, up to nine subwatersheds at 

the post would be expected to have increases of more than 10 percent in 1-year or 10-year storm 

event peak discharges. Potential mitigation measures would be to develop a storm water drainage 

system master plan study and participate in Fairfax County’s Watershed Planning Process and in 

TMDL studies with VDEQ. These studies would identify current deficiencies (e.g. capacity 

problems, outfall problems, stream bank erosion) and determine infrastructure needs to meet 

BRAC requirements and long-term growth. 

Once design studies are mature enough to quantify additional impervious cover resulting from 

BRAC construction at the facility level, candidate locations for removal of existing impervious 

cover to offset the increase would be identified. An initial action would be to remove closed 

section of Woodlawn Road from Kingman to Beulah Roads and revegetate the former roadbed in 

conjunction with the installation’s tree replacement program. Additional locations would be 

added as part of master planning process. In addition, the Army would design at least one new 

BRAC building project with a green roof. 

ES.8.4 Biological Resources 

The following mitigations would address a range of BRAC-related effects to Fort Belvoir’s 

natural resources. These effects include habitat loss and fragmentation, introduction and spread 

of invasive species, and loss of tree coverage. The mitigation measures would rectify effects to 

biological resources by repairing and restoring habitat where possible. Where habitat is 

irreversibly lost to BRAC construction, compensatory mitigation would provide additional habitat 

resources on-post. Compensatory mitigation is based on initial estimates of lost and fragmented 

habitat based on available phases of design. Specific mitigation measures would include: 

• Protect mature and significant trees during construction by limiting grading in wooded 

areas 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-31 

• Replace trees that are 4 inches or greater in diameter with two new trees. The Army 

would conduct tree surveys and develop a Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for each 

BRAC construction project. Construction contractors would follow the installation’s 

tree protection policies as specified in requirements in the 2001 Fort Belvoir INRMP. 

The initial location for tree planting would be the closed section of Woodlawn Road 

between Kingman and Beulah Roads 

• Implement an invasive/exotic vegetation control plan. The Army would develop and 

implement such a plan that would focus on controlling invasives in ecologically 

sensitive areas such as the kudzu in bald eagle habitats and Phragmites in wetlands. 

Annually treat 100 acres of area impacted by invasive vegetation. Remove invasive 

vegetation from approximately 450 acres on-post in the following areas: the forest and 

wildlife corridor, EPG, EQC, and the installation wildlife refuges 

• Compensate for habitat loss by repairing and restoring habitat conditions in about 2.5 

miles of degraded/impacted streams on EPG and the Main Post. Restoration projects 

would: 

o Correct existing stormwater management problems 

o Stabilize eroded and undercut stream channels 

o Remove unnecessary impervious surfaces within riparian areas 

o Revegetate disturbed and cleared portions of riparian areas 

o Remove invasive and exotic vegetation from riparian areas and adjoining 

uplands 

• Expand the boundary of the Accotink Bay Wildlife Refuge (ABWR) in the Southwest 

Area of the installation to the 125-foot contour to include bald eagle habitat, steep 

slopes, wetlands, sensitive watershed and rare species habitats. This expansion would 

add approximately 520 acres to the ABWR 

• Expand the boundary of the Jackson Miles Abbott Wetland Refuge (JMAWR) 

westward to the proposed connector road corridor to include additional watershed area 

and rare species habitat. This expansion would add approximately 45 acres to the 

JMAWR 

• Designate steep slopes within the T-17 training area as an additional refuge area to 

protect the candidate species Stygobromus phreaticus as recommended by the VDCRNHP and as addressed in the 2001 Fort Belvoir INRMP 

• Designate area below 100-ft contour of T-17 as a new refuge area to protect bald eagle 

and Stygobromus phreaticus habitat. This designation would add about 60 acres 

• Formally establish and dedicate the EQC at EPG as a Special Natural Area. Develop a 

Memorandum of Agreement between the Installation Commander and the NGA 

Commander that would provide the same level of protection and land management of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-32 

the existing EQC within the NGA fenced complex. Preserve forest habitat of this area 

and provide roadside signage noting designation 

• Establish and maintain habitat for PIF priority species on Fort Belvoir. Compensate for 

approximately 300 acres of PIF priority grassland species habitat and 250 acres of PIF 

priority forest species habitat that would be lost to BRAC development. Maintain a 

100 to 200 acre parcel in the Southwest Area (to include the Cullum Woods landfill 

and T-6 site) as grassland habitat 

• Remove Cissna Road roadbed throughout EPG and the bridge across Accotink Creek. 

Revegetate the old roadbed 

• Incorporate wildlife crossing structure on all road crossings of RPAs. Twelve 

crossings on EPG and eight culvert crossings on the Main Post are estimated. Wildlife 

crossing structures would include construction and installation techniques to facilitate 

wildlife crossing. Where feasible, include bridges instead of culverts, and daylighting 

on long culverts 

ES.8.5 Cultural Resources 

In addition to the provisions of the Programmatic Agreement (PA), the following specific 

mitigation measures would compensate for the impacts to the historic and cultural resources at 

Fort Belvoir that would be lost through BRAC development. 

• Fort Belvoir would update the existing conditions survey of all of the National 

Register-eligible buildings on Fort Belvoir, excluding family housing. Based on 

survey results, Fort Belvoir would rehabilitate the exterior of all historic buildings that 

would be affected by BRAC in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. 

• Fort Belvoir would update the Fort Belvoir Historic District National Register 

eligibility form to capture changes to the district that have occurred since it was first 

identified in 1986. 

ES.8.6 Socioeconomic Resources 

The National Scenic Trail on Fort Belvoir would be completed to offset loss of recreational 

opportunities due to BRAC realignment. 

ES.8.7 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 

Vegetated buffers at least 200 feet in width where possible would be retained along the northern 

boundary of EPG, to be supplemented with additional landscaping as needed, to provide an 

effective transition to off-post residential areas and other development. In addition, ambient 

lighting due to BRAC projects would be maintained at or below requirements similar to those 

outlined in the Fairfax County Public Facilities Manual as it pertains to residential units. Design 

of facilities would account for these requirements. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-33 

ES.8.8 Utilities 

Mitigation measures for utilities include the following: 

• The Army would require that at least two of the three major projects institute rainwater 

catchment systems for use in landscape irrigation 

• All BRAC construction would be designed to meet EO13423 total operational reduction 

goals for energy and water conservation 

• At least one building project would be designed for gray water reuse, one with a green 

roof, one with a LEED Gold standard building, and one with a LEED Platinum standard 

building 

• Army policy is to build new construction to the LEED Silver standard. Fort Belvoir 

would assess the long-term cost effectiveness of this program by constructing one major 

LEED Gold building on-post 

• The Installation Recycling Program, loading docks, and compost facility would be 

expanded by fifty percent by 2012 

ES.8.9 Other Resources 

No other specific mitigation measures for the BRAC action are identified for affected resources. 

In general, actions with respect to affected resources are protected by a variety of BMPs that 

preserve and conserve the resources. For example, a permit would be required under the Virginia 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program for a construction project disturbing at least 

2,500 square feet; as part of the permit process, the Army would have to prepare a soil erosion 

and sediment control plan and storm water pollution prevention plan to guide sedimentation 

reduction during the construction process. BMPs typically are an inherent part of project design 

and implementation, and their funding is included in general project costs.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ES-34 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

i 

CONTENTS 

COVER SHEET 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... ES-1 

ES.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... ES-1 

ES.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTIONS......................................... ES-1 

ES.3 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ ES-1 

ES.4 PROPOSED ACTION DETAILS .................................................................................. ES-1 

ES.4.1 Land Use Plan Update ...................................................................................... ES-2 

ES.4.2 Base Realignment ............................................................................................. ES-3 

ES.4.3 Schedule............................................................................................................ ES-4 

ES.5 ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................................... ES-4 

ES.5.1 Town Center Alternative .................................................................................. ES-4 

ES.5.2 City Center Alternative..................................................................................... ES-5 

ES.5.3 Satellite Campuses Alternative......................................................................... ES-5 

ES.5.4 Preferred Alternative......................................................................................... ES-5 

ES.5.5 Alternatives for BRAC Implementation ........................................................... ES-6 

ES.5.6 No Action Alternative....................................................................................... ES-6 

ES.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..................................................................... ES-6 

ES.6.1 Land Use........................................................................................................... ES-6 

ES.6.2 Transportation................................................................................................. ES-15 

ES.6.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... ES-16 

ES.6.4 Noise ............................................................................................................... ES-17 

ES.6.5 Topography, Geology, and Soils .................................................................... ES-17 

ES.6.6 Water Resources ............................................................................................. ES-18 

ES.6.7 Biological Resources ...................................................................................... ES-19 

ES.6.8 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................... ES-19 

ES.6.9 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................. ES-20 

ES.6.10 Aesthetics and Visual Resources .................................................................... ES-21 

ES.6.11 Utilities ........................................................................................................... ES-22 

ES.6.12 Hazardous and Toxic Materials ...................................................................... ES-23 

ES.6.13 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ............................................... ES-23 

ES.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.......................................................................................... ES-24 

ES.8 MITIGATION SUMMARY......................................................................................... ES-28 

ES.8.1 Transportation................................................................................................. ES-28 

ES.8.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... ES-29 

ES.8.3 Water Resources ............................................................................................. ES-30 

ES.8.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................... ES-30 

ES.8.5 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................... ES-32 

ES.8.6 Socioeconomic Resources .............................................................................. ES-32 

ES.8.7 Aesthetics and Visual Resources .................................................................... ES-32 

ES.8.8 Utilities ........................................................................................................... ES-33 

ES.8.9 Other Resources.............................................................................................. ES-33 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ii 

SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE, NEED, AND SCOPE....................................................................1-1 

1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1-1 

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED.....................................................................................................1-1 

1.3 SCOPE ...............................................................................................................................1-3 

1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...............................................................................................1-4 

1.4.1 NEPA Public Involvement Process........................................................................1-4 

1.4.2 Notice of Intent ......................................................................................................1-7

1.4.3 Scoping Process .....................................................................................................1-7

1.4.4 Public Information Meeting .................................................................................1-11

1.4.5 Public Review of the Draft EIS............................................................................1-11

1.4.6 Public Hearing......................................................................................................1-12

1.4.7 Final EIS ..............................................................................................................1-13

1.4.8 Record of Decision...............................................................................................1-13

1.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS PERFORMED.............................................................................1-13 

1.6 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK....................................................................................1-14 

1.6.1 BRAC Procedural Requirements .........................................................................1-14

1.6.2 Enhanced Use Leasing .........................................................................................1-14

1.6.3 Defense Access Roads Program...........................................................................1-15

1.6.4 Relevant Statutes and Executive Orders ..............................................................1-16

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

2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................2-1 

2.2 PROPOSED ACTION DETAILS .....................................................................................2-1 

2.2.1 Land Use Plan Update............................................................................................2-1 

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

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

2.2.2 Base Realignment ................................................................................................2-11 

2.2.2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................2-11 

2.2.2.2 Allocation of Facilities and Personnel .........................................................2-13 

2.2.2.3 Construction and Renovation.......................................................................2-13 

2.3 SCHEDULE.....................................................................................................................2-25 

SECTION 3.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................3-1 

3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................3-1 

3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES .........................................................................3-1 

3.2.1 Means to Accommodate Realignments..................................................................3-1

3.2.2 Siting of New Construction....................................................................................3-1

3.2.3 Schedule.................................................................................................................3-2

3.3 ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLANS..............................................................................3-2 

3.3.1 Town Center Alternative........................................................................................3-2

3.3.2 City Center Alternative ..........................................................................................3-4

3.3.3 Satellite Campuses Alternative ..............................................................................3-9

3.3.4 Preferred Alternative............................................................................................3-13

3.4 ALTERNATIVES FOR BRAC IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................3-13 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

iii 

3.5 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE.......................................................................................3-14 

SECTION 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES .........................................................................................4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................4-1

4.2 LAND USE........................................................................................................................4-1

4.2.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................4-1

4.2.1.1 Regional Geographic Setting and Location ...................................................4-2 

4.2.1.2 Land Use on Fort Belvoir ..............................................................................4-3 

4.2.1.2.1 Existing Land Use Designations ...............................................................4-3

4.2.1.2.2 North Post .................................................................................................4-3

4.2.1.2.3 Davison Army Airfield .............................................................................4-4

4.2.1.2.4 South Post .................................................................................................4-6

4.2.1.2.5 Southwest Area .........................................................................................4-7

4.2.1.2.6 EPG...........................................................................................................4-7

4.2.1.2.7 GSA Parcel................................................................................................4-8

4.2.1.3 Antiterrorism and Force Protection ...............................................................4-8 

4.2.1.4 Surrounding Land Use ...................................................................................4-8 

4.2.1.4.1 Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan ......................................................4-10

4.2.1.4.2 Adjacent Fairfax County Planning Districts ...........................................4-12

4.2.1.4.3 Zoning.....................................................................................................4-15

4.2.1.5 Current and Future Development in the Region of Influence......................4-16 

4.2.1.6 Coastal Zone Management Program............................................................4-18 

4.2.2 Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative .................................4-18

4.2.2.1 Land Use Plan Update .................................................................................4-18 

4.2.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ............................................4-19 

4.2.2.3 BMPs/Mitigation..........................................................................................4-20 

4.2.3 Environmental Consequences of the Town Center Alternative ...........................4-21

4.2.3.1 Land Use Plan Update .................................................................................4-21 

4.2.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ............................................4-21 

4.2.3.3 BMPs/Mitigation..........................................................................................4-22 

4.2.4 Environmental Consequences of the City Center Alternative .............................4-22

4.2.4.1 Land Use Plan Update .................................................................................4-22 

4.2.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ............................................4-23 

4.2.4.3 BMPs/Mitigation..........................................................................................4-24 

4.2.5 Environmental Consequences of the Satellite Campuses Alternative..................4-24

4.2.5.1 Land Use Plan Update .................................................................................4-24 

4.2.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ............................................4-25 

4.2.5.3 BMPs/Mitigation..........................................................................................4-26 

4.2.6 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...............................4-26

4.2.7 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................4-27

4.3 TRANSPORTATION......................................................................................................4-29

4.3.1 Transportation Studies .........................................................................................4-29
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

iv 

4.3.1.1 Congressional Directive...............................................................................4-29 

4.3.1.2 Transportation Analyses and Design ...........................................................4-30 

4.3.1.3 Travel Demand Modeling Approach ...........................................................4-33 

4.3.2 Affected Environment..........................................................................................4-37

4.3.2.1 Existing Regional Transportation Network .................................................4-37 

4.3.2.2 Fort Belvoir Local Street Network...............................................................4-39 

4.3.2.3 The Transit System ......................................................................................4-40 

4.3.2.3.1 The Rail System......................................................................................4-40 

4.3.2.3.2 Bus Service—Routes Serving Main Post................................................4-40

4.3.2.3.3 Bus Service – Routes Operating in Proximity to Main Post...................4-42

4.3.2.3.4 Transit Service at EPG............................................................................4-42

4.3.2.3.5 Transit Service at the GSA Parcel...........................................................4-43

4.3.2.4 Travel Patterns to and from Fort Belvoir.....................................................4-43 

4.3.2.5 Available Capacity and Performance...........................................................4-50 

4.3.2.6 Transportation Plans ....................................................................................4-56 

4.3.3 No Action Alternative..........................................................................................4-62

4.3.3.1 Planned Transportation Projects ..................................................................4-63 

4.3.3.2 Fort Belvoir Main Post Roadway Network..................................................4-63 

4.3.3.3 The Transit System ......................................................................................4-63 

4.3.3.4 Travel Patterns .............................................................................................4-66 

4.3.3.5 Performance under Expected Conditions (2011) .........................................4-66 

4.3.4 Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative .................................4-72

4.3.4.1 Land Use Plan Update .................................................................................4-72 

4.3.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ............................................4-72 

4.3.4.2.1 Travel Patterns to and from Fort Belvoir ................................................4-72

4.3.4.2.2 Performance under Expected Conditions................................................4-78

4.3.4.3 Other Projects Sitings/Operations................................................................4-85 

4.3.4.4 Mitigation.....................................................................................................4-85 

4.3.5 Environmental Consequences of the Town Center Alternative ...........................4-94

4.3.5.1 Land Use Plan Update .................................................................................4-94 

4.3.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ............................................4-94 

4.3.5.2.1 Travel Patterns to and from Fort Belvoir ................................................4-95

4.3.5.2.2 Performance under Expected Conditions................................................4-98

4.3.5.3 Other Projects Sitings/Operations..............................................................4-102 

4.3.5.4 Mitigation...................................................................................................4-102 

4.3.6 Environmental Consequences of the City Center Alternative ...........................4-108

4.3.6.1 Land Use Plan Update....................................................................................4-108 

4.3.6.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-108 

4.3.6.2.1 Travel Patterns to and from Fort Belvoir ..............................................4-108

4.3.6.2.2 Performance under Expected Conditions..............................................4-111 

4.3.6.3 Other Projects Sitings/Operations ..................................................................4-115 

4.3.6.4 Mitigation...................................................................................................4-115 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

v 

4.3.7 Environmental Consequences of the Satellite Campuses Alternative................4-121

4.3.7.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-121 

4.3.7.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-122 

4.3.7.2.1 Travel Patterns to and from Fort Belvoir ..............................................4-122

4.3.7.2.2 Performance under Expected Conditions..............................................4-124

4.3.7.3 Other Projects Sitings/Operations..............................................................4-128 

4.3.7.4 Mitigation...................................................................................................4-129 

4.3.8 Security Implications .........................................................................................4-134

4.3.8.1 Gate Inspection Processing Rates ..............................................................4-135 

4.3.8.2 Potential Security Operating Scenario for EPG.........................................4-136 

4.3.8.3 Potential Security Operating Scenario for Main Post ................................4-137 

4.3.8.4 Potential Security Operating Scenario for the GSA Parcel........................4-137 

4.3.9 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................................4-137

4.4 AIR QUALITY..............................................................................................................4-141

4.4.1 Affected environment ........................................................................................4-141

4.4.1.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status ..............4-141 

4.4.1.2 State Implementation Plan .........................................................................4-141 

4.4.1.3 Clean Air Act Conformity .........................................................................4-142 

4.4.1.4 Local Ambient Air Quality ........................................................................4-143 

4.4.1.5 Mobile Sources ..........................................................................................4-144 

4.4.1.6 Stationary Sources and Permitting Requirements......................................4-148 

4.4.2 Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative ...............................4-151

4.4.2.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-151 

4.4.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-151 

4.4.2.2.1 General Conformity ..............................................................................4-153

4.4.2.2.2 Transportation Emissions and Localized CO Concentrations...............4-156

4.4.2.2.3 Regulatory Review and Air Permit Requirements................................4-156

4.4.2.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-157 

4.4.3 Environmental Consequences of the Town Center Alternative .........................4-158

4.4.3.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-159 

4.4.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-159 

4.4.3.2.1 General Conformity ..............................................................................4-159

4.4.3.2.2 Transportation Emissions and Localized CO Concentrations...............4-159

4.4.3.2.3 Regulatory Review and Air Permit Requirements................................4-160

4.4.3.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-160 

4.4.4 Environmental Consequences of the City Center Alternative ...........................4-160

4.4.4.1 Land Use Plan Update....................................................................................4-161 

4.4.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..............................................4-161 

4.4.4.2.1 General Conformity ..............................................................................4-161

4.4.4.2.2 Transportation Emissions and Localized CO Concentrations...............4-161

4.4.4.2.3 Regulatory Review and Air Permit Requirements................................4-162

4.4.4.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-163 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

vi 

4.4.5 Environmental Consequences of the Satellite Campuses Alternative................4-163

4.4.5.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-163 

4.4.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-163 

4.4.5.2.1 General Conformity ..............................................................................4-163

4.4.5.2.2 Transportation Emissions and Localized CO Concentrations...............4-164

4.4.5.2.3 Regulatory Review and Air Permit Requirements................................4-164

4.4.5.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-165 

4.4.6 No Action Alternative........................................................................................4-165

4.4.6.1 Transportation Emissions and Localized CO Concentrations ...................4-165 

4.4.7 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................................4-165

4.5 NOISE............................................................................................................................4-168

4.5.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................4-168

4.5.1.1 Noise Fundamentals...................................................................................4-168 

4.5.1.2 Traffic Noise ..............................................................................................4-168 

4.5.1.3 Aircraft Noise.............................................................................................4-169 

4.5.1.4 Existing Ambient Noise Levels .................................................................4-170 

4.5.2 Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative ...............................4-170

4.5.2.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-172 

4.5.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-172 

4.5.2.2.1 Construction Noise................................................................................4-173

4.5.2.2.2 Traffic Noise .........................................................................................4-173

4.5.2.2.3 Aircraft Noise and Military Training Noise..........................................4-174

4.5.2.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-175 

4.5.3 Environmental Consequences of the Town Center Alternative .........................4-175

4.5.3.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-175 

4.5.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-175 

4.5.3.2.1 Construction Noise................................................................................4-175

4.5.3.2.2 Traffic Noise .........................................................................................4-176

4.5.3.2.3 Aircraft Noise and Military Training Noise..........................................4-177

4.5.3.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-177

4.5.4 Environmental Consequences of the City Center Alternative ...........................4-177

4.5.4.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-177 

4.5.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-177 

4.5.4.2.1 Construction Noise................................................................................4-177

4.5.4.2.2 Traffic Noise .........................................................................................4-177

4.5.4.2.3 Aircraft Noise and Military Training Noise..........................................4-178

4.5.4.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-179

4.5.5 Environmental Consequences of the Satellite Campuses Alternative................4-179

4.5.5.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-179 

4.4.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-179 

4.5.5.2.1 Construction Noise................................................................................4-179

4.5.5.2.2 Traffic Noise .........................................................................................4-179

4.5.5.2.3 Aircraft Noise and Military Training Noise..........................................4-180
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

vii 

4.5.5.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-181 

4.5.6 No Action Alternative........................................................................................4-181

4.5.6.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-181 

4.5.6.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-181 

4.5.6.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-181 

4.5.7 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................................4-182

4.6 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS.................................................................4-184

4.6.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................4-184

4.6.1.1 Topography................................................................................................4-184 

4.6.1.2 Geology and Soils......................................................................................4-186 

4.6.1.2.1 Geology.................................................................................................4-186

4.6.1.2.2 Soils.......................................................................................................4-187

4.6.2 Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative ...............................4-193

4.6.2.1 Topography................................................................................................4-193 

4.6.2.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-193

4.6.2.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-193

4.6.2.2 Geology......................................................................................................4-193 

4.6.2.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-193

4.6.2.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-194

4.6.2.3 Soils ...........................................................................................................4-194 

4.6.2.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-194

4.6.2.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-194

4.6.2.4 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-197 

4.6.2.4.1 Topography ...........................................................................................4-197

4.6.2.4.2 Geology.................................................................................................4-197

4.6.2.4.3 Soils.......................................................................................................4-197

4.6.3 Environmental Consequences of the Town Center Alternative .........................4-197

4.6.3.1 Topography................................................................................................4-197 

4.6.3.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-197

4.6.3.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-198

4.6.3.2 Geology......................................................................................................4-198 

4.6.3.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-198

4.6.3.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-198

4.6.3.3 Soils ...........................................................................................................4-198 

4.6.3.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-198

4.6.3.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ....................................4-198

4.6.3.4 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-200 

4.6.4 Environmental Consequences of City Center Alternative .................................4-200

4.6.4.1 Topography................................................................................................4-200 

4.6.4.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-200

4.6.4.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-200

4.6.4.2 Geology......................................................................................................4-200 

4.6.4.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-200
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

viii 

4.6.4.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-201

4.6.4.3 Soils ...........................................................................................................4-201 

4.6.4.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-201

4.6.4.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-201

4.6.4.4 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-202 

4.6.5 Environmental Consequences of the Satellite Campuses Alternative................4-202

4.6.5.1 Topography................................................................................................4-203 

4.6.5.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-203

4.6.5.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-203

4.6.5.2 Geology......................................................................................................4-203 

4.6.5.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-203

4.6.5.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-203

4.6.5.3 Soils ...........................................................................................................4-203 

4.6.5.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-203

4.6.5.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-204

4.6.5.4 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-204 

4.6.6 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative .............................4-204

4.6.6.1 Topography................................................................................................4-205 

4.6.6.2 Geology......................................................................................................4-205 

4.6.6.3 Soils ...........................................................................................................4-205 

4.6.7 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................................4-206

4.6.7.1 Topography................................................................................................4-206 

4.6.7.2 Geology......................................................................................................4-206 

4.6.7.3 Soils ...........................................................................................................4-206 

4.7 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................4-207

4.7.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................4-207

4.7.1.1 Watershed Characterization .......................................................................4-207 

4.7.1.1.1 Watersheds and Subwatersheds ............................................................4-207

4.7.1.1.2 Flows and Exchanges............................................................................4-209

4.7.1.2 Surface Water Quality................................................................................4-211 

4.7.1.2.1 Applicable Standards ............................................................................4-211

4.7.1.2.2 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Listing...............................................4-213

4.7.1.2.3 In-Stream Water Quality.......................................................................4-213

4.7.1.3 Pollutant Sources .......................................................................................4-218 

4.7.1.3.1 Point Sources ........................................................................................4-218

4.7.1.3.2 Nonpoint Sources..................................................................................4-220

4.7.1.3.3 Storm Water Management ....................................................................4-221

4.7.1.4 Groundwater ..............................................................................................4-224 

4.7.1.5 Other Water Resources Policies.................................................................4-224 

4.7.1.5.1 Coastal Zone Management Act and Chesapeake Bay Initiatives..........4-225

4.7.1.5.2 Floodplain Management .......................................................................4-226

4.7.2 Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative ...............................4-226

4.7.2.1 Surface Water Quality................................................................................4-227 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

ix 

4.7.2.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-227

4.7.2.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-228

4.7.2.2 Groundwater Quality .................................................................................4-233 

4.7.2.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-233

4.7.2.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-233

4.7.2.3 Water Resources Protection.......................................................................4-234 

4.7.2.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-234

4.7.2.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-234

4.7.2.4 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-236 

4.7.2.4.1 Surface Water Quality...........................................................................4-236

4.7.2.4.2 Groundwater Quality.............................................................................4-238

4.7.2.4.3 Water Resources Protection ..................................................................4-238

4.7.3 Environmental Consequences of the Town Center Alternative .........................4-238

4.7.3.1 Surface Water Quality................................................................................4-238 

4.7.3.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-238

4.7.3.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-238

4.7.3.2 Groundwater Quality .................................................................................4-243 

4.7.3.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-243

4.7.3.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-243

4.7.3.3 Water Resources Protection......................................................................4-243 

4.7.3.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-243

4.7.3.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-244

4.7.3.4 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-244 

4.7.4 Environmental Consequences of the City Center Alternative ...........................4-244

4.7.4.1 Surface Water Quality................................................................................4-244 

4.7.4.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-244

4.7.4.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-245

4.7.4.2 Groundwater Quality .................................................................................4-249 

4.7.4.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-249

4.7.4.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-249

4.7.4.3 Water Resources Protection.......................................................................4-250 

4.7.4.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-250

4.7.4.3.2 BRAC Implementation/Other Facilities Projects..................................4-250

4.7.4.4 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-251 

4.7.5 Environmental Consequences of the Satellite Campuses Alternative................4-251

4.7.5.1 Surface Water Quality................................................................................4-251 

4.7.5.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-251

4.7.5.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-251

4.7.5.2 Groundwater Quality .................................................................................4-256 

4.7.5.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-256

4.7.5.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-256

4.7.5.3 Water Resources Protection.......................................................................4-256 

4.7.5.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-256
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

x 

4.7.5.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-256

4.7.5.4 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-257 

4.7.6 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative .............................4-257

4.7.6.1 Surface Water Quality................................................................................4-257 

4.7.6.2 Groundwater Quality .................................................................................4-258 

4.7.6.3 Water Resources Protection.......................................................................4-258 

4.7.6.4 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-258 

4.7.7 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................................4-258

4.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................4-260

4.8.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................4-262

4.8.1.1 Plant Communities.....................................................................................4-262 

4.8.1.2 Wetlands ....................................................................................................4-263 

4.8.1.3 Rare Plant Communities ............................................................................4-264 

4.8.1.4 Animals......................................................................................................4-264 

4.8.1.4.1 Mammals...............................................................................................4-264

4.8.1.4.2 Birds......................................................................................................4-265

4.8.1.4.3 Reptiles .................................................................................................4-266

4.8.1.4.4 Amphibians ...........................................................................................4-267

4.8.1.5 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species ...............................................4-267 

4.8.1.5.1 Wood Turtle ..........................................................................................4-267

4.8.1.5.2 Bald Eagle.............................................................................................4-269

4.8.1.5.3 Peregrine Falcon ...................................................................................4-270

4.8.1.5.4 Small Whorled Pogonia ........................................................................4-270

4.8.1.5.5 Northern Virginia Well Amphipod .......................................................4-270

4.8.1.5.6 Shortnose Sturgeon ...............................................................................4-271

4.8.2 Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative ...............................4-271

4.8.2.1 Vegetation..................................................................................................4-271 

4.8.2.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-271

4.8.2.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-273

4.8.2.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................................4-274 

4.8.2.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-274

4.8.2.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-274

4.8.2.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species........................................4-275 

4.8.2.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-275

4.8.2.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-275

4.8.2.4 Sensitive Natural Areas..............................................................................4-276 

4.8.2.4.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-276

4.8.2.4.2 BRAC Implementation/Other Facilities Projects..................................4-276

4.8.2.5 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-276 

4.8.3 Environmental Consequences of the Town Center Alternative .........................4-279

4.8.3.1 Vegetation..................................................................................................4-279 

4.8.3.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-279

4.8.3.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-279
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xi 

4.8.3.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................................4-280 

4.8.3.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-280

4.8.3.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-280

4.8.3.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species........................................4-281 

4.8.3.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-281

4.8.3.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-281

4.8.3.4 Sensitive Natural Areas..............................................................................4-281 

4.8.3.4.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-281

4.8.3.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-281

4.8.3.5 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-281 

4.8.4 Environmental Consequences of the City Center Alternative ...........................4-282

4.8.4.1 Vegetation..................................................................................................4-282 

4.8.4.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-282

4.8.4.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-282

4.8.4.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................................4-283 

4.8.4.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-283

4.8.4.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-284

4.8.4.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species........................................4-284 

4.8.4.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-284

4.8.4.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-284

4.8.4.4 Sensitive Natural Areas..............................................................................4-284 

4.8.4.4.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-284

4.8.4.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-285

4.8.4.5 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-285 

4.8.5 Environmental Consequences of the Satellite Campuses Alternative................4-285

4.8.5.1 Vegetation..................................................................................................4-285 

4.8.5.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-285

4.8.5.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-285

4.8.5.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................................4-287 

4.8.5.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-287

4.8.5.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-287

4.8.5.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species........................................4-287 

4.8.5.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-287

4.8.5.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-287

4.8.5.4 Sensitive Natural Areas..............................................................................4-287 

4.8.5.4.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-287

4.8.5.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-288

4.8.5.5 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-288 

4.8.6 No Action Alternative........................................................................................4-288

4.8.7 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................................4-288

4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................................4-290

4.9.1 Affected Environment.......................................................................................4-290

4.9.1.1 Prehistoric and Historic Contexts of Fort Belvoir .....................................4-290 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xii 

4.9.1.1.1 Prehistoric Period..................................................................................4-290

4.9.1.1.2 Historic Period ......................................................................................4-290

4.9.1.1.3 Federal Acquisition of Fort Belvoir ......................................................4-291

4.9.1.1.4 Interwar Period......................................................................................4-292

4.9.1.2 Cultural Resources Compliance at Fort Belvoir .......................................4-294 

4.9.1.2.1 Statutes, Regulations, and Policy..........................................................4-294

4.9.1.2.2 Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP).................4-295

4.9.1.2.3 Fort Belvoir Historic District Maintenance Plan ..................................4-295

4.9.1.2.4 Programmatic Agreements....................................................................4-295

4.9.1.2.5 Status of Cultural Resource Identification Efforts at Fort Belvoir........4-296

4.9.1.3 Archaeological Resources..........................................................................4-297 

4.9.1.3.1 Known Archaeological Sites.................................................................4-297

4.9.1.3.2 Cemeteries.............................................................................................4-298

4.9.1.4 Architectural Resources .............................................................................4-300 

4.9.2 Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative...............................4-303

4.9.2.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-306 

4.9.2.1.1 EPG.......................................................................................................4-307

4.9.2.1.2 Southwest Area .....................................................................................4-307

4.9.2.1.3 Davison Army Airfield .........................................................................4-307

4.9.2.1.4 North Post .............................................................................................4-307

4.9.2.1.5 South Post .............................................................................................4-308

4.9.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-308 

4.9.2.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-310 

4.9.2.3.1 Mitigation..............................................................................................4-310

4.9.2.3.2 General BMPs.......................................................................................4-311

4.9.2.3.3 BMPs for Potential Adverse Effects to 

Archaeological Resources.....................................................................4-311

4.9.2.3.4 BMPs for Potential Adverse Effects to 

Architectural Resources ........................................................................4-312

4.9.3 Environmental Consequences of the Town Center Alternative .........................4-313

4.9.3.1 Land Use Plan Update ..............................................................................4-313 

4.9.3.1.1 EPG.......................................................................................................4-313

4.9.3.1.2 Southwest Area .....................................................................................4-313

4.9.3.1.3 Davison Army Airfield .........................................................................4-314

4.9.3.1.4 North Post .............................................................................................4-314

4.9.3.1.5 South Post .............................................................................................4-315

4.9.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-315 

4.9.3.3 BMPs/Mitigation ......................................................................................4-316 

4.9.4 Environmental Consequences of the City Center Alternative ...........................4-317

4.9.4.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-317 

4.9.4.1.1 GSA Parcel............................................................................................4-317

4.9.4.1.2 EPG.......................................................................................................4-317

4.9.4.1.3 Southwest Area .....................................................................................4-317

4.9.4.1.4 Davison Army Airfield .........................................................................4-318
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xiii 

4.9.4.1.5 North Post .............................................................................................4-318

4.9.4.1.6 South Post .............................................................................................4-319

4.9.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-319 

4.9.4.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-320 

4.9.5 Environmental Consequences of the Satellite Campuses Alternative................4-320

4.9.5.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-320 

4.9.5.1.1 EPG.......................................................................................................4-321

4.9.5.1.2 Southwest Area .....................................................................................4-321

4.9.5.1.3 Davison Army Airfield .........................................................................4-322

4.9.5.1.4 North Post .............................................................................................4-322

4.9.5.1.5 South Post .............................................................................................4-322

4.9.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-323 

4.9.5.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-323 

4.9.6 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative .............................4-324

4.9.7 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................................4-325

4.9.7.1 Comparison of Land Use Plan Alternatives...............................................4-325 

4.9.7.2 Comparison of BRAC Project Alternatives...............................................4-326 

4.10 SOCIOECONOMICS ....................................................................................................4-328

4.10.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................4-328

4.10.1.1 Economic Development............................................................................4-328 

4.10.1.1.1 Employment and Industry.....................................................................4-328

4.10.1.1.2 Income...................................................................................................4-329

4.10.1.1.3 Population .............................................................................................4-330

4.10.1.2 Sociological Environment..........................................................................4-331 

4.10.1.2.1 Housing.................................................................................................4-331

4.10.1.2.2 Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, and Medical Services....................4-334

4.10.1.2.3 Schools..................................................................................................4-335

4.10.1.2.4 Family Support and Social Services .....................................................4-336

4.10.1.2.5 Shops, Services, and Recreation ...........................................................4-337

4.10.1.3 Environmental Justice................................................................................4-338 

4.10.1.4 Protection of Children................................................................................4-341 

4.10.2 Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative ...............................4-341

4.10.2.1 Economic Development (Employment, Industry, Income, Population) ....4-341 

4.10.2.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-341 

4.10.2.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-341 

4.10.2.2 Sociological Environment..........................................................................4-350 

4.10.2.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-350

4.10.2.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-350

4.10.2.3 Environmental Justice................................................................................4-356 

4.10.2.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-356

4.10.2.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-356

4.10.2.4 Protection of Children................................................................................4-357 

4.10.2.4.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-357
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xiv 

4.10.2.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-357

4.10.2.5 Mitigation...................................................................................................4-357 

4.10.2.5.1 Economic Development (Employment, Industry, Income, 

Population)............................................................................................4-357

4.10.2.5.2 Sociological Environment (Housing, Police, Fire, Medical, Schools, 

Family Support and Social Services, and Shops Services 

and Recreation) .....................................................................................4-357

4.10.2.5.3 Environmental Justice...........................................................................4-357

4.10.2.5.4 Protection of Children...........................................................................4-357

4.10.3 Environmental Consequences of the Town Center Alternative .........................4-358

4.10.3.1 Economic Development (Employment, Industry, Income, Population) ....4-358 

4.10.3.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-358

4.10.3.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-358

4.10.3.2 Sociological Environment..........................................................................4-361 

4.10.3.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-361

4.10.3.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-361

4.10.3.3 Environmental Justice................................................................................4-361 

4.10.3.4 Protection of Children................................................................................4-362 

4.10.3.5 Mitigation...................................................................................................4-362 

4.10.4 Environmental Consequences of the City Center Alternative ...........................4-362

4.10.4.1 Economic Development (Employment, Industry, Income, Population) ....4-362 

4.10.4.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-362

4.10.4.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-362

4.10.4.2 Sociological Environment.........................................................................4-365 

4.10.4.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-365

4.10.4.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-365

4.10.4.3 Environmental Justice................................................................................4-365 

4.10.4.4 Protection of Children................................................................................4-365 

4.10.4.5 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-365 

4.10.5 Environmental Consequences of the Satellite Campuses Alternative................4-366

4.10.5.1 Economic Development (Employment, Industry, Income, Population) ....4-366 

4.10.5.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-366

4.10.5.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-366

4.10.5.2 Sociological Environment..........................................................................4-369 

4.10.5.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-369

4.10.5.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-369

4.10.5.3 Environmental Justice................................................................................4-369 

4.10.5.4 Protection of Children................................................................................4-370 

4.10.5.5 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-370 

4.10.6 No Action Alternative........................................................................................4-370

4.10.6.1 Economic Development (Employment, Industry, Income, Population) ....4-370 

4.10.6.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-370

4.10.6.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-370
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xv 

4.10.6.2 Sociological Environment..........................................................................4-370 

4.10.6.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-370 

4.10.6.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-370

4.10.6.3 Environmental Justice................................................................................4-370 

4.10.6.4 Protection of Children................................................................................4-370 

4.10.6.5 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-370 

4.10.7 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................................4-371

4.11 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ..............................................................4-373

4.11.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................4-373

4.11.1.1 South Post ..................................................................................................4-374 

4.11.1.2 Southwest Area ..........................................................................................4-375 

4.11.1.3 North Post ..................................................................................................4-375 

4.11.1.4 Davison Army Airfield ..............................................................................4-376 

4.11.1.5 EPG............................................................................................................4-376 

4.11.1.6 GSA Parcel ................................................................................................4-376 

4.11.1.7 Off-Post......................................................................................................4-376 

4.11.1.8 Fort Belvoir Scenic Integrity .....................................................................4-377 

4.11.2 Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative ...............................4-382

4.11.2.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-382 

4.11.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-382 

4.11.2.2.1 North Post .............................................................................................4-382

4.11.2.2.2 South Post .............................................................................................4-383

4.11.2.2.3 EPG.......................................................................................................4-383

4.11.2.2.4 Davison Army Airfield .........................................................................4-383

4.11.2.2.5 Southwest Area .....................................................................................4-383

4.11.2.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-385 

4.11.3 Environmental Consequences of the Town Center Alternative .........................4-386

4.11.3.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-386 

4.11.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-386 

4.11.3.2.1 North Post .............................................................................................4-386

4.11.3.2.2 South Post .............................................................................................4-386

4.11.3.2.3 EPG.......................................................................................................4-388

4.11.3.2.4 Davison Army Airfield .........................................................................4-388

4.11.3.2.5 Southwest Area .....................................................................................4-388

4.11.3.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-388 

4.11.4 Environmental Consequences of the City Center Alternative ...........................4-388

4.11.4.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-388 

4.11.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-389 

4.11.4.2.1 North Post .............................................................................................4-389

4.11.4.2.2 South Post .............................................................................................4-389

4.11.4.2.3 EPG.......................................................................................................4-389

4.11.4.2.3 GSA Parcel............................................................................................4-389

4.11.4.2.4 Davison Army Airfield .........................................................................4-389
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xvi 

4.11.4.2.5 Southwest Area .....................................................................................4-389

4.11.4.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-390 

4.11.5 Environmental Consequences of the Satellite Campuses Alternative................4-391

4.11.5.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-391 

4.11.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-391 

4.11.5.2.1 North Post .............................................................................................4-391

4.11.5.2.2 South Post .............................................................................................4-391

4.11.5.2.3 EPG.......................................................................................................4-391

4.11.5.2.4 Davison Army Airfield .........................................................................4-392

4.11.5.2.5 Southwest Area .....................................................................................4-392

4.11.5.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-392 

4.11.6 No Action Alternative.......................................................................................4-393

4.11.6.1 North Post ..................................................................................................4-393 

4.11.6.2 South Post ..................................................................................................4-393 

4.11.6.3 EPG............................................................................................................4-393 

4.11.6.4 Davison Army Airfield ..............................................................................4-393 

4.11.6.5 Southwest Area ..........................................................................................4-393 

4.11.6.6 Mitigation...................................................................................................4-394 

4.11.7 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................................4-394

4.12 UTILITIES.....................................................................................................................4-395

4.12.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................4-395

4.12.1.1 Potable Water Supply and Distribution .....................................................4-395 

4.12.1.2 Sanitary Sewage Collection and Treatment ...............................................4-397 

4.12.1.3 Electricity...................................................................................................4-398 

4.12.1.4 Natural Gas ................................................................................................4-399 

4.12.1.5 Steam .........................................................................................................4-400 

4.12.1.6 Communications ........................................................................................4-400 

4.12.1.7 Solid Waste ................................................................................................4-400 

4.12.2 Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative ...............................4-401

4.12.2.1 Potable Water Supply and Distribution .....................................................4-402 

4.12.2.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-402

4.12.2.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-403

4.12.2.2 Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment .................................................4-404 

4.12.2.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-404

4.12.2.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-404

4.12.2.3 Electricity...................................................................................................4-405 

4.12.2.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-405

4.12.2.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-405

4.12.2.4 Natural Gas ................................................................................................4-406 

4.12.2.4.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-406

4.12.2.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-406

4.12.2.5 Steam .........................................................................................................4-406 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xvii 

4.12.2.5.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-406

4.12.2.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-406

4.12.2.6 Communications ........................................................................................4-407 

4.12.2.6.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-407

4.12.2.6.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-407

4.12.2.7 Solid Waste ................................................................................................4-407 

4.12.2.7.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-407

4.12.2.7.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-407

4.12.2.8 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-409 

4.12.2.8.1 Potable Water Supply and Distribution.................................................4-409

4.12.2.8.2 Sanitary Sewage Collection and Treatment ..........................................4-409

4.12.2.8.3 Electricity..............................................................................................4-409

4.12.2.8.4 Natural Gas ...........................................................................................4-409

4.12.2.8.5 Steam.....................................................................................................4-409

4.12.2.8.6 Communications ...................................................................................4-409

4.12.2.8.7 Solid Waste ...........................................................................................4-409

4.12.3 Environmental Consequences of the Town Center Alternative .........................4-410

4.12.3.1 Potable Water Supply and Distribution .....................................................4-410 

4.12.3.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-410

4.12.3.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-410

4.12.3.2 Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment .................................................4-411 

4.12.3.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-411

4.12.3.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-411

4.12.3.3 Electricity...................................................................................................4-411 

4.12.3.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-411

4.12.3.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-412

4.12.3.4 Natural Gas ................................................................................................4-412 

4.12.3.4.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-412

4.12.3.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-412

4.12.3.5 Steam .........................................................................................................4-412 

4.12.3.5.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-412

4.12.3.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-412

4.12.3.6 Communications ........................................................................................4-413 

4.12.3.6.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-413

4.12.3.6.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-413

4.12.3.7 Solid Waste ................................................................................................4-413 

4.12.3.7.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-413

4.12.3.7.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-413

4.12.3.8 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-414 

4.12.4 Environmental Consequences of the City Center Alternative ...........................4-414

4.12.4.1 Potable Water Supply and Distribution .....................................................4-414 

4.12.4.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-414

4.12.4.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-415
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xviii 

4.12.4.2 Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment .................................................4-416 

4.12.4.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-416

4.12.4.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-416

4.12.4.3 Electricity...................................................................................................4-417 

4.12.4.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-417

4.12.4.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-417

4.12.4.4 Natural Gas ................................................................................................4-417 

4.12.4.4.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-418

4.12.4.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-418

4.12.4.5 Steam .........................................................................................................4-418 

4.12.4.5.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-418

4.12.4.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-418

4.12.4.6 Communications ........................................................................................4-418 

4.12.4.6.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-418

4.12.4.6.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-419

4.12.4.7 Solid Waste ................................................................................................4-419 

4.12.4.7.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-419

4.12.4.7.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-419

4.12.4.8 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-420 

4.12.5 Environmental Consequences of the Satellite Campuses Alternative................4-420

4.12.5.1 Potable Water Supply and Distribution .....................................................4-420 

4.12.5.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-420

4.12.5.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-421

4.12.5.2 Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment .................................................4-421 

4.12.5.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-421

4.12.5.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-422

4.12.5.3 Electricity...................................................................................................4-422 

4.12.5.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-422

4.12.5.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-422

4.12.5.4 Natural Gas ................................................................................................4-423 

4.12.5.4.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-423

4.12.5.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-423

4.12.5.5 Steam .........................................................................................................4-423 

4.12.5.5.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-423

4.12.5.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-423

4.12.5.6 Communications ........................................................................................4-424 

4.12.5.6.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-424

4.12.5.6.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-424

4.12.5.7 Solid Waste ................................................................................................4-424 

4.12.5.7.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-424

4.12.5.7.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-424

4.12.5.8 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-425 

4.12.6 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative .............................4-425
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xix 

4.12.6.1 Potable Water Supply and Distribution ....................................................4-425 

4.12.6.1.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-425

4.12.6.1.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-425

4.12.6.2 Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment .................................................4-425 

4.12.6.2.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-425

4.12.6.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-425

4.12.6.3 Electricity...................................................................................................4-425 

4.12.6.3.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-425

4.12.6.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-425

4.12.6.4 Natural Gas ................................................................................................4-426 

4.12.6.4.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-426

4.12.6.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-426

4.12.6.5 Steam .........................................................................................................4-426 

4.12.6.5.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-426

4.12.6.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-426

4.12.6.6 Communications ........................................................................................4-426 

4.12.6.6.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-426

4.12.6.6.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-426

4.12.6.7 Solid Waste ................................................................................................4-426 

4.12.6.7.1 Land Use Plan Update...........................................................................4-426

4.12.6.7.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects .....................................4-426

4.12.6.8 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-427 

4.12.7 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives...........................................................4-427

4.13 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .........................4-429

4.13.1 Affected Environment.......................................................................................4-431

4.13.1.1 Petroleum Constituents ..............................................................................4-431 

4.13.1.2 Hazardous Waste .......................................................................................4-432 

4.13.1.3 Solid Waste ................................................................................................4-433 

4.13.1.4 Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs)....................................................4-435 

4.13.1.5 Lead-Based Paint (LBP) ............................................................................4-436 

4.13.1.6 PCBs ..........................................................................................................4-438 

4.13.1.7 Pesticides ...................................................................................................4-439 

4.13.1.8 Regulated Medical Waste ..........................................................................4-440 

4.13.1.9 Ordnance Areas..........................................................................................4-440 

4.13.1.10 Radioactive Materials ...............................................................................4-443 

4.13.1.11 Radon........................................................................................................4-444 

4.13.2 Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative ...............................4-445

4.13.2.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-445 

4.13.2.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-445 

4.13.2.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-450 

4.13.3 Environmental Consequences of the Town Center Alternative .........................4-450

4.13.3.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-450 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xx 

4.13.3.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-450 

4.13.3.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-456 

4.13.4 Environmental Consequences of the City Center Alternative ...........................4-456

4.13.4.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-456 

4.13.4.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-456 

4.13.4.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-462 

4.13.5 Environmental Consequences of the Satellite Campuses Alternative................4-462

4.13.5.1 Land Use Plan Update ...............................................................................4-462 

4.13.5.2 BRAC Implementation and Facilities Projects ..........................................4-462 

4.13.5.3 BMPs/Mitigation........................................................................................4-468 

4.13.6.No Action Alternative........................................................................................4-468

4.13.7 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................................4-468

4.14 MITIGATION SUMMARY..........................................................................................4-469

4.14.1 Transportation ....................................................................................................4-469

4.14.2 Air Quality .........................................................................................................4-470

4.14.3 Water Resources ................................................................................................4-471 

4.14.4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................4-471 

4.14.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................4-473

4.14.6 Socioeconomic Resources..................................................................................4-473

4.14.7 Aesthetics and Visual Resources .......................................................................4-473

4.14.8 Utilities...............................................................................................................4-473

4.14.9 Other General Mitigations..................................................................................4-474

4.15 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................4-475 

SECTION 5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY.........................................................5-1

5.1 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS.........5-1

5.1.1 Past Actions—Fort Belvoir....................................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Past Actions – Fairfax County ...............................................................................5-3

5.1.3 Recent and Future Actions.....................................................................................5-3

5.1.3.1 Other Proposed Projects on Fort Belvoir .......................................................5-4

5.1.3.2 Off Post Proposed Projects ............................................................................5-9

5.2 LAND USE........................................................................................................................5-9

5.2.1 On-Post Development Not Related to BRAC........................................................5-9

5.2.2 Off-Post Development .........................................................................................5-12

5.3 TRANSPORTATION......................................................................................................5-13

5.3.1 Army Museum Siting...........................................................................................5-13

5.3.2 Other Project Sitings ............................................................................................5-15

5.4 AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................5-15

5.5 NOISE..............................................................................................................................5-16

5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................5-16

5.7 WATER RESOURCES ...................................................................................................5-17

5.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .........................................................................................5-18

5.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................5-18
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xxi 

5.10 SOCIOECONOMICS ......................................................................................................5-19

5.10.1 Economic Development.......................................................................................5-19

5.10.2 Sociological Environment....................................................................................5-20

5.11 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ................................................................5-21

5.12 UTILITIES.......................................................................................................................5-22

5.13 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...........................5-23

5.14 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF 

RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................5-23

5.15 SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN’S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND 

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ..............................................5-23 

SECTION 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS........................................................................................6-1 

SECTION 7.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST ........................................................................................7-1 

SECTION 8.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................8-1

SECTION 9.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................9-1 

VOLUME OF APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A – NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENTS 

APPENDIX B – AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC MEETINGS 

APPENDIX C – COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) CONSISTENCY 

DETERMINATION FOR PROPOSED BRAC IMPLEMENTATION AT 

FORT BELVOIR 

APPENDIX D – TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 

APPENDIX E – AIR QUALITY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 

APPENDIX F – STORM WATER AND WATERSHED MODELING METHODOLOGY 

APPENDIX G – ECONOMIC IMPACT FORECAST SYSTEM (EIFS) ANALYSIS AND 

 POPULATION ESTIMATIONS 

APPENDIX H – OFF-POST CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST 

APPENDIX I – GSA PARCEL FEASIBILITY STUDY 

APPENDIX J – PROJECT FOOTPRINT IMPACT MAPS 

APPENDIX K – COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIS AND RESPONSES 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xxii 

Tables

Table ES-1 Summary of potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences ............... ES-7 

Table 1-1 BRAC statutory selection criteria .............................................................................1-15 

Table 2-1 Comparison of 1993 and 2011 land use allocations....................................................2-6 

Table 2-2 Personnel realigning to Fort Belvoir.........................................................................2-12 

Table 2-3 Proposed construction and renovation projects ........................................................2-15 

Table 2-4 Major proposed infrastructure elements ...................................................................2-21 

Table 3-1 Comparison of 1993 and Town Center Alternative land use allocations....................3-6 

Table 3-2 Comparison of 1993 and City Center Alternative land use allocations ......................3-9 

Table 3-3 Comparison of 1993 and Satellite Campuses Alternative land use allocations ........3-11 

Table 4.2-1 Land use summary for proposed off-post development projects.............................4-17

Table 4.2-2 Land use effects of the largest BRAC projects under the Preferred Alternative.....4-20

Table 4.2-3 Land use effects of the largest BRAC projects under the Town Center 

 Alternative ........................................................................................................4-22

Table 4.2-4 Land use effects of the largest BRAC projects under the City Center 

Alternative ........................................................................................................4-25 

Table 4.2-5 Land use effects of the largest BRAC projects under the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative.......................................................................................4-26 

Table 4.2-6 Comparison of land use category acreages between the 1993 land use plan and 

proposed land use plan......................................................................................4-27

Table 4.2-7 Summary of impacts to land use..............................................................................4-28

Table 4.3-1 Existing residential locations of Fort Belvoir employees........................................4-43

Table 4.3-2 2006 population, employment, productions, and attractions...................................4-47

Table 4.3-3 2006 Study Area Trips ............................................................................................4-50

Table 4.3-4 Capacity per lane by facility type............................................................................4-52

Table 4.3-5 Intersection measures of effectiveness—Existing conditions .................................4-54

Table 4.3-6 Inbound Gate Counts for Fort Belvoir Access Points .............................................4-56

Table 4.3-7 List of improvements to be constructed by 2011 ....................................................4-58

Table 4.3-8 List of improvements per the Constrained Long-Range Plan .................................4-58

Table 4.3-9 List of improvements beyond the Constrained Long-Range Plan...........................4-60

Table 4.3-10 Projects assumed to be completed by 2011 ...........................................................4-64

Table 4.3-11 Population and employment for the existing conditions (2006) and 

2011 No Action Alternative..............................................................................4-67

Table 4.3-12 Productions and attractions for the existing conditions (2006) and 

2011 No Action Alternative..............................................................................4-68

Table 4.3-13 Study area trips – 2011 No Action Alternative .....................................................4-68

Table 4.3-14 Intersection measures of effectiveness–2011 No Action Alternative....................4-71

Table 4.3-15 Existing residential locations of Fort Belvoir, WHS/DoD, and NGA 

employees .........................................................................................................4-76

Table 4.3-16 Assumed residential location of employees in Year 2011 due to the 

BRAC action.....................................................................................................4-76

Table 4.3-17 Change in Vehicle-Miles-Traveled due to the BRAC Action ...............................4-77
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xxiii 

Table 4.3-18 Population and employment for existing conditions (2006), 2011 

No Action Alternative, and 2011 Preferred Alternative ...................................4-78

Table 4.3-19 Productions and attractions for existing conditions (2006), 2011 No 

Action Alternative, and Preferred Alternative ..................................................4-79

Table 4.3-20 Study area trips–2011 Preferred Alternative .........................................................4-79

Table 4.3-21 Intersection measures of effectiveness – 2011 Preferred Alternative....................4-83

Table 4.3-22 Comparison of 2011 No Action Alternative and 2011 Preferred 

Alternative measures of effectiveness at selected intersections........................4-84

Table 4.3-23 Efficacy of transportation mitigation measures for the Preferred 

Alternative ........................................................................................................4-93

Table 4.3-24 Population and employment for existing conditions (2006), 2011 

No Action Alternative, and 2011 Town Center Alternative .............................4-96

Table 4.3-25 Productions and attractions for existing conditions (2006), 2011 No 

Action Alternative, and 2011 Town Center Alternative...................................4-96

Table 4.3-26 Study area trips – 2011 Town Center Alternative .................................................4-97

Table 4.3-27 Intersection measures of effectiveness—2011 Town Center 

Alternative ......................................................................................................4-100

Table 4.3-28 Comparison of 2011 No Action Alternative and 2011 Town Center 

Alternative measures of effectiveness at selected intersections......................4-101

Table 4.3-29 Efficacy of the transportation mitigation for the Town Center 

Alternative ......................................................................................................4-106

Table 4.3-30 Population and employment for existing conditions (2006), 2011 

No Action Alternative, and 2011 City Center Alternative..............................4-109

Table 4.3-31 Productions and attractions for existing conditions (2006), 2011 No 

Action Alternative, and 2011 City Center Alternative ...................................4-110

Table 4.3-32 Study area trips – 2011 City Center Alternative..................................................4-111

Table 4.3-33 Intersection measures of effectiveness—2011 City Center 

Alternative ......................................................................................................4-113

Table 4.3-34 Efficacy of the transportation mitigation for the City Center 

Alternative ......................................................................................................4-120

Table 4.3-35 Population and employment for existing conditions (2006), 2011 

No Action Alternative, and 2011 Satellite Campuses Alternative..................4-123

Table 4.3-36 Productions and attractions for existing conditions (2006), 2011 No 

Action Alternative, and 2011 Satellite Campuses Alternative .......................4-124

Table 4.3-37 Study Area Trips – 2011 Satellite Campuses Alternative ...................................4-124

Table 4.3-38 Intersection measures of effectiveness—2011 Satellite Campuses 

Alternative ......................................................................................................4-127

Table 4.3-39 Efficacy of the transportation mitigation for the Satellite Campuses 

Alternative ......................................................................................................4-133

Table 4.3-40 Gate capacity scenarios .......................................................................................4-136

Table 4.3-41 Queue lengths for various inspection scenarios...................................................4-136

Table 4.3-42 Transportation improvements as mitigation strategies........................................4-139

Table 4.4-1 Applicability thresholds for nonattainment areas ..................................................4-143

Table 4.4-2 2005 Local ambient air quality monitoring results................................................4-144
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xxiv 

Table 4.4-3 Existing peak hour CO levels ................................................................................4-147

Table 4.4-4 Major thresholds of pollutants regulated under the CAA within 

Fairfax County ................................................................................................4-148

Table 4.4-5 2005 emissions from stationary source emissions for Fort Belvoir 

(tpy) ..........................................................................................................................4-151

Table 4.4-6 Estimated construction emissions..........................................................................4-154

Table 4.4-7 Estimated total annual emissions subject to the general conformity 

rule from the 2005 realignment of Fort Belvoir..............................................4-155

Table 4.4-8 Applicability thresholds applicable to the National Capital Interstate 

Air Quality Control Region ............................................................................4-156

Table 4.4-9 Peak hour CO levels under the Preferred Alternative ...........................................4-157

Table 4.4-10 Estimated potential emissions for stationary sources for the 

Preferred Alternative.......................................................................................4-157

Table 4.4-11 Peak hour CO levels under the Town Center Alternative ...................................4-160

Table 4.4-12 Estimated potential emissions for stationary sources for the Town 

Center Alternative...........................................................................................4-160

Table 4.4-13 Peak hour CO levels under the City Center Alternative.....................................4-162

Table 4.4-14 Estimated potential emissions for stationary sources for the City 

Center Alternative...........................................................................................4-162

Table 4.4-15 Peak hour CO levels under the Satellite Campuses Alternative.........................4-164

Table 4.4-16 Estimated potential emissions for stationary sources for the 

Satellite Campuses Alternative.......................................................................4-165

Table 4.4-17 Peak hour CO levels under the No Action Alternative.......................................4-166

Table 4.5-1 Common sounds and their levels...........................................................................4-168

Table 4.5-2 Perception of changes in noise levels ....................................................................4-169

Table 4.5-3 FHWA noise-abatement criteria............................................................................4-169

Table 4.5-4 Estimated existing traffic noise levels for noise sensitive receptors .....................4-172

Table 4.5-5 Noise levels associated with outdoor construction................................................4-173

Table 4.5-6 Estimated traffic noise levels for noise sensitive receptors for the 

Preferred Alternative.......................................................................................4-174

Table 4.5-7 Estimated traffic noise levels for noise sensitive receptors for the 

Town Center Alternative ................................................................................4-176

Table 4.5-8 Estimated traffic noise levels for noise sensitive receptors for the 

City Center Alternative...................................................................................4-178

Table 4.5-9 Estimated traffic noise levels for noise sensitive receptors for the 

Satellite Campuses Alternative.......................................................................4-180

Table 4.5-10 Estimated traffic noise levels for noise sensitive receptors for the 

No Action Alternative.....................................................................................4-182

Table 4.6-1 Fort Belvoir Main Post soils..................................................................................4-188

Table 4.6-2 EPG soils ...............................................................................................................4-192

Table 4.6-3 Acreage of soil impact (disturbance footprint) under each Alternative.................4-195

Table 4.6-4 Soil types impacted by proposed BRAC projects under the Prefered 

Alternative ................................................................................................................4-196
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xxv 

Table 4.6-5 Soil types impacted by proposed BRAC projects under the Town 

Center Alternative.....................................................................................................4-199

Table 4.6-6 Soil types impacted by proposed BRAC projects under the City 

Center Alternative.....................................................................................................4-202

Table 4.6-7 Soil types impacted by proposed BRAC projects under the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative...............................................................................................4-205

Table 4.7-1 Fort Belvoir Watersheds........................................................................................4-211

Table 4.7-2 Virginia water quality standards and fish tissue screening levels .........................4-212

Table 4.7-3 303(d) Listed waterbodies within or downstream of Fort Belvoir ........................4-214

Table 4.7-4 Water quality summary for VDEQ stations near Fort Belvoir ..............................4-215

Table 4.7-5 Fairfax County Health Department water quality sampling results for 

1998-2002 for selected parameters in selected Fairfax County 

watersheds.......................................................................................................4-217

Table 4.7-6 Potential land use plan effects to water resources under the Preferred 

Alternative ......................................................................................................4-228

Table 4.7-7 Subwatersheds with greater than 10 percent increase in 1-year and/or 

10-year storm event peak discharge under the Preferred 

Alternative ......................................................................................................4-230

Table 4.7-8 Projects located within proximity of erosion and other problem sites 

under the Preferred Alternative.......................................................................4-231

Table 4.7-9 Subwatersheds with greater than 10-percent increase in TN and TP 

loads under the Preferred Alternative .............................................................4-233

Table 4.7-10 Water resources potentially affected by projects proposed under the 

Preferred Alternative (acres)...........................................................................4-235

Table 4.7-11 Potential land use plan effects to water resources under the Town 

Center Alternative...........................................................................................4-239

Table 4.7-12 Subwatersheds with greater than 10 percent increase in one-year or 

ten-year storm event peak discharge under the Town Center 

Alternative ......................................................................................................4-240

Table 4.7-13 Projects located within proximity of erosion and other problem sites 

under the Town Center Alternative.................................................................4-241

Table 4.7-14 Subwatersheds with greater than 10-percent uncrease in TN and TP 

loads under the Town Center Alternative .......................................................4-243

Table 4.7-15 Water resources potentially affected by projects proposed under the 

Town Center Alternative (acres).....................................................................4-244

Table 4.7-16 Potential land use plan effects to water resources under the City 

Center Alternative...........................................................................................4-245

Table 4.7-17 Subwatersheds with greater than 10-percent increase in 1-year 

and/or 10-year storm event peak discharge under the City Center 

Alternative ......................................................................................................4-247

Table 4.7-18 Projects located within proximity of erosion and other problem sites 

under the City Center Alternative...................................................................4-248

Table 4.7-19 Subwatersheds with greater than 10-percent increase in TN and TP 

loads under the City Center Alternative.........................................................4-249
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xxvi 

Table 4.7-20 Water resources potentially affected by projects proposed under the 

City Center Alternative (acres) .......................................................................4-250

Table 4.7-21 Potential long-range land use plan effects to water resources under 

the Satellite Campuses Alternative .................................................................4-252

Table 4.7-22 Subwatersheds with greater than 10-percent increase in 1-year 

and/or 10-year storm event peak discharge under the Satellite 

Campuses Alternative.....................................................................................4-253

Table 4.7-23 Projects located within proximity of erosion and other problem sites 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative .......................................................4-254

Table 4.7-24 Subwatersheds with greater than 10-percent increase in TN and TP 

loads under the Satellite Campuses Alternative.............................................4-255

Table 4.7-25 Water resources potentially affected by projects proposed under the 

Satellite Campuses Alternative (acres) ...........................................................4-257

Table 4.7-26 Summary of effects of BRAC implementation on water resources.....................4-259

Table 4.8-1 Plant Communities of Fort Belvoir .......................................................................4-262

Table 4.8-2 Wetlands of Fort Belvoir .......................................................................................4-263

Table 4.8-3 Environmentally sensitive and outdoor recreation land use 

designation changes under the Preferred Alternative land use 

plan .................................................................................................................4-272

Table 4.8-4 Vegetative community types potentially impacted by projects 

proposed under the Preferred Alternative (acres) ...........................................4-274

Table 4.8-5 Environmentally Sensitive and Outdoor Recreation land use 

designation changes under the Town Center Alternative land use 

plan .................................................................................................................4-279 

Table 4.8-6 Vegetative community types potentially affected by projects proposed under the 

Town Center Alternative (acres) ....................................................................4-280 

Table 4.8-7 Environmentally Sensitive and Outdoor Recreation land use 

designation changes under the City Center Alternative land use 

plan .................................................................................................................4-282

Table 4.8-8 Vegetative community types potentially affected by projects 

proposed under the City Center Alternative (acres).......................................4-283

Table 4.8-9 Environmentally Sensitive and Outdoor Recreation land use 

designation changes under the Satellite Campuses Alternative 

land use plan ...................................................................................................4-286

Table 4.8-10 Vegetative community types potentially affected by projects 

proposed under the Satellite Campuses Alternative (acres)............................4-286

Table 4.8-11 Potential BRAC project effects (in acres) on natural resources 

under all alternatives.......................................................................................4-289

Table 4.8-12 Maximum losses of vegetative community, by alternative ................................4-289

Table 4.9-1 Eligibility status of known archaeological sites on Fort Belvoir..........................4-297

Table 4.9-2 Historic cemeteries at Fort Belvoir........................................................................4-298

Table 4.9-3 Historic architectural resources within and near Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia...........................................................................................................4-301

Table 4.9-4 Criteria of adverse effects......................................................................................4-304
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xxvii 

Table 4.9-5 Potential effects on cultural resources ...................................................................4-305

Table 4.9-6 Proposed projects with potential adverse effects to cultural resources 

under the Preferred Alternative.......................................................................4-309

Table 4.9-7 Proposed projects with potential adverse effects to cultural resources 

under the Town Center Alternative.................................................................4-316

Table 4.9-8 Proposed projects with potential adverse effects to cultural resources 

under the City Center Alternative...................................................................4-320

Table 4.9-9 Proposed projects with potential adverse effects to cultural resources 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative .......................................................4-324

Table 4.9-10 Potential effects to cultural resources from land use plan 

alternatives......................................................................................................4-325

Table 4.9-11 Potential effects to cultural resources from BRAC project 

alternatives......................................................................................................4-326

Table 4.10-1 ROI Employment by Industry .............................................................................4-329

Table 4.10-2 Employment forecast...........................................................................................4-330

Table 4.10-3 Population projections .........................................................................................4-331

Table 4.10-4 Number of housing units .....................................................................................4-332

Table 4.10-5 Net home sales in 2001 and 2005........................................................................4-333

Table 4.10-6 New privately owned housing units authorized in 2005 .....................................4-333

Table 4.10-7 Minority or low-income population ....................................................................4-339

Table 4.10-8 Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social 

resources under the Preferred Alternative ................................................................4-342

Table 4.10-9 EIFS model output for the proposed BRAC Action at Fort Belvoir ...................4-346

Table 4.10-10 Redistribution of WHS, other DoD, and NGA employees by 

location ...........................................................................................................4-348

Table 4.10-11 Redistribution of Population by Location .........................................................4-348

Table 4.10-12 Comparison of projected population growth by location ..................................4-349

Table 4.10-13 Estimated redistribution of children ..................................................................4-354

Table 4.10-14 Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social 

resources under the Town Center Alternative ................................................4-358

Table 4.10-15 Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social 

resources under the City Center Alternative...................................................4-362

Table 4.10-16 Effects from proposed BRAC projects on economic and social 

resources under the Satellite Campuses Alternative.......................................4-366

Table 4.11-1 Scenic integrity definitions..................................................................................4-378

Table 4.11-2 Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on the North Post 

under the Preferred Alternative.......................................................................4-382

Table 4.11-3 Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on the South Post 

under the Preferred Alternative.......................................................................4-384

Table 4.11-4 Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on EPG under the 

Preferred Alternative.......................................................................................4-385

Table 4.11-5 Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on North Post 

under the Town Center Alternative.................................................................4-387
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xxviii 

Table 4.11-6 Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on South Post 

under the Town Center Alternative.................................................................4-388

Table 4.11-7 Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on EPG under the 

City Center Alternative...................................................................................4-390

Table 4.11-8 Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on the GSA Parcel 

under the City Center Alternative...................................................................4-390

Table 4.11-9 Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on North Post 

under the Satellite Campuses Alternative .......................................................4-392

Table 4.11-10 Aesthetic effects from proposed BRAC projects on Davison Army 

Airfield under the Satellite Campuses Alternative ........................................4-393

Table 4.12-1 Fort Belvoir potable water storage tanks.............................................................4-397

Table 4.12-2 Estimates of construction and demolition debris generated at Fort 

Belvoir under the Preferred Alternative and other alternatives ......................4-408 

Table 4.12-3 Estimates of construction and demolition debris generated at Fort 

Belvoir under the Town Center and Satellite Campuses 

Alternatives.....................................................................................................4-414 

Table 4.12-4 Estimates of construction and demolition debris generated at Fort 

Belvoir under the City Center Alternative......................................................4-420 

Table 4.13-1 Petroleum regulations and orders spplicable to Fort Belvoir ..............................4-431

Table 4.13-2 Hazardous waste regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir ...................4-432

Table 4.13-3 Solid waste regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir ............................4-434

Table 4.13-4 SWMU categories ...............................................................................................4-434

Table 4.13-5 ACM laws and regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir ......................4-436

Table 4.13-6 LBP regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir .......................................4-437

Table 4.13-7 PCB regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir .......................................4-438

Table 4.13-8 Pesticide laws and regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir .................4-439

Table 4.13-9 Regulated medical waste regulations and orders applicable to Fort 

Belvoir ............................................................................................................4-440

Table 4.13-10 Radon regulations and orders applicable to Fort Belvoir ..................................4-444

Table 4.13-11 Hazardous substances and hazardous materials resources affected 

by the Preferred Alternative............................................................................4-446

Table 4.13-12 Status of SWMUs within Preferred Alternative footprints................................4-448

Table 4.13-13 Hazardous substances and hazardous materials resources affected 

by the Town Center Alternative......................................................................4-451

Table 4.13-14 Status of SWMUs within Town Center Alternative footprints..........................4-453

Table 4.13-15 Hazardous substances and hazardous materials resources affected 

by the City Center Alternative ........................................................................4-457

Table 4.13-16 GSA parcel petroleum release sites ...................................................................4-458

Table 4.13-17 Status of SWMUs within the City Center Alternative footprints ......................4-459

Table 4.13-18 Hazardous substances and hazardous materials resources affected 

by the Satellite Campuses Alternative ............................................................4-463

Table 4.13-19 Status of SWMUs within Satellite Campuses Alternative footprints................4-465

Table 5-1 Other proposed on-post cumulative construction and renovation 

projects................................................................................................................5-4
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xxix 

Table 5-2 Proposed off-post projects over 25 acres within 3 miles of Fort Belvoir...................5-11

Table 5-3 Peak hour vehicular trips for museum........................................................................5-14

Table 5-4 Cumulative percent increase in flow volume, TN, and TP loads ...............................5-18

Figures 

Figure 1-1 Installation Location..................................................................................................1-2

Figure 1-2 Site Map ....................................................................................................................1-5

Figure 1-3 Region of Influence...................................................................................................1-6

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

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

Figure 2-3 Constraints on Development .....................................................................................2-8

Figure 2-4 Proposed Land Use Plan with Constrained Land Overlay ......................................2-10

Figure 2-5 Preferred Sitings for Major BRAC Tenants ............................................................2-14

Figure 2-6 Construction Project Locations ...............................................................................2-16

Figure 2-7 Conceptual Building Layouts..................................................................................2-17

Figure 3-1 Town Center Land Use Plan .....................................................................................3-3

Figure 3-2 Town Center Project Locations.................................................................................3-5

Figure 3-3 City Center Land Use Plan........................................................................................3-7

Figure 3-4 City Center Project Locations ...................................................................................3-8

Figure 3-5 Satellite Campuses Land Use Plan..........................................................................3-10

Figure 3-6 Satellite Campuses Project Locations .....................................................................3-12

Figure 4.2-1 Davison Army Airfield Safety Zones...................................................................4-5

Figure 4.2-2 Fort Belvoir Land Cover ......................................................................................4-9

Figure 4.2-3 County Zoning and Planning Districts ...............................................................4-13

Figure 4.3-1 MWCOG Regional Model Coverage Area ........................................................4-31

Figure 4.3-2 MWCOG Model Roadway Network within the Study Area..............................4-32

Figure 4.3-3 Reporting Districts within the Study Area .........................................................4-35

Figure 4.3-4 Existing Regional Transportation Network........................................................4-38

Figure 4.3-5 Bus Routes in Southern Fairfax County.............................................................4-41

Figure 4.3-6 Current Residential Distribution of Fort Belvoir Employees.............................4-44

Figure 4.3-7 AM Peak Hour Travel Time, Existing Fort Belvoir Conditions ........................4-45

Figure 4.3-8 PM Peak Hour Travel Time, Existing Fort Belvoir Conditions .........................4-46

Figure 4.3-9 2006 Population and Employment within the Study Area .................................4-48

Figure 4.3-10 2006 Existing Daily Volumes on Screen Lines..................................................4-51

Figure 4.3-11 Available Capacity .............................................................................................4-53

Figure 4.3-12 Inbound Gates Hour-by-Hour Flow Rate ...........................................................4-57

Figure 4.3-13 Transportation Improvements Identified by State and County 

Transportation Plans...........................................................................................4-61

Figure 4.3-14 Assumed Main Post Improvements under the No Action 

Alternative..........................................................................................................4-65

Figure 4.3-15 Population and Employment for the 2011 No Action Alternative .....................4-69
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xxx 

Figure 4.3-16 Daily Screen Line Volumes under the 2011 No Action Alternative..................4-70

Figure 4.3-17 Current Residential Distribution of NGA Employees........................................4-74

Figure 4.3-18 Current Residential Distribution of WHS Employees........................................4-75

Figure 4.3-19 Daily Screen Line Volumes under the 2011 Preferred Alternative....................4-81

Figure 4.3-20 Daily Screen Line Volumes under the Town Center Alternative.......................4-99

Figure 4.3-21 Daily Screen Line Volumes under the City Center Alternative .......................4-112

Figure 4.3-22 Daily Screen Line Volumes under the Satellite Campuses 

Alternative........................................................................................................4-126 

Figure 4.4-1 CO Modeling Intersections...............................................................................4-146

Figure 4.4-2 Potential Air Quality Permitting Scenarios ......................................................4-152

Figure 4.5-1 Noise Sensitive Receptors ................................................................................4-171

Figure 4.6-1 Topography of Fort Belvoir..............................................................................4-185

Figure 4.6-2 Soils of Fort Belvoir .........................................................................................4-190

Figure 4.7-1 Water Resources...............................................................................................4-208

Figure 4.7-2 Fort Belvoir Subwatersheds .............................................................................4-210

Figure 4.7-3 Monitoring Stations..........................................................................................4-216

Figure 4.7-4 Stormwater Lines .............................................................................................4-222

Figure 4.8-1 Sensitive Habitat...............................................................................................4-261

Figure 4.8-2 Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species Habitat ...........................................4-268

Figure 4.9-1 Historic Resources............................................................................................4-299

Figure 4.10-1 Minority and Low-income Block Groups ........................................................4-340

Figure 4.11-1 Scenic Integrity of Fort Belvoir Land Use Categories ....................................4-379

Figure 4.13-1 Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Materials .............................................4-430

Figure 5-1 On-Post Projects for Cumulative Impacts ............................................................5-8

Figure 5-2 Proposed Development Projects Surrounding Fort Belvoir ...............................5-10 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

xxxi 

This page is intentionally left blank.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

1-1

SECTION 1.0 

PURPOSE, NEED, AND SCOPE 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

This environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluates the potential environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts of two proposals at Fort Belvoir: update of the land use plan of the post’s 

real property master plan (RPMP), and implementation of base realignment. 

Fort Belvoir established its RPMP in 1993 and amended it in 2002. In light of substantial changes 

at the post that would occur due to the proposed base realignment activities, the land use plan 

needs to be updated. 

On September 8, 2005, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (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. On November 9, 2005, the recommendations became law and 

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

1990 (Public Law 101-510), as amended. Consistent with the law, 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. The BRAC Commission’s recommendations will generate a net increase of 

22,000 people in the workforce on Fort Belvoir. 

Fort Belvoir is located approximately 15 miles south of Washington, DC (Figure 1-1). The 

installation is the host for one major command headquarters (Army Materiel 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, 

Department of Defense (DoD), and Intelligence Community, including the Defense Logistics 

Agency headquarters, Army Management Staff College, Defense Acquisition University, and the 

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency College. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The proposed actions are to provide an updated land use plan and to implement the BRAC 

Commission’s recommendations pertaining to Fort Belvoir. The following identifies the purpose 

of and need for the Army’s two proposals. 

Land use plan update. The purpose of the proposed action with respect to the land use plan is to 

obtain a revised land use plan for allocation of functions and facilities at the post. Fort Belvoir 

requires a revised land use plan that will enable sound use of physical and natural resources at the 

post with respect to both current and future land use requirements. Master planning is required by 

Army Regulation (AR) 210-20, Real Property Master Planning for Army Installations. 

BRAC implementation. The purpose of the proposed action with respect to BRAC is to realign 

functions as directed by the BRAC Commission’s recommendations for Fort Belvoir. The need 

for the proposed action is to advance the goals of transformation by improving military 

capabilities and thereby enhancing military value. The following discusses major initiatives that 

contribute to and underlie the Army’s need for the proposed action. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

1-3

• Base Realignment and Closure. In previous rounds of BRAC, the explicit goal was to 

save money and downsize the military. In the 2005 BRAC round, DoD sought to 

reorganize its installation infrastructure to support its forces most efficiently, increase 

operational readiness, facilitate new ways of doing business, and improve force 

protection. Thus, BRAC represents more than cost savings. It supports advancing the 

goals of transformation, improving military capabilities, and enhancing the military value 

of its installations. The Army must carry out the BRAC recommendations at Fort Belvoir 

to achieve these improvements and to comply with BRAC law. 

• Installation Sustainability. On October 1, 2004, the Secretary of the Army and the Chief 

of Staff issued The Army Strategy for the Environment. This strategy focuses on the 

interrelationships of mission, environment, and community. A sustainable installation 

simultaneously meets current and future mission requirements, safeguards human health, 

improves quality of life, and enhances the natural environment. A sustained natural 

environment is necessary to allow the Army to train and maintain military readiness. 

1.3 SCOPE 

This EIS identifies, documents, and evaluates environmental effects of land use plan update and 

realignment activities at Fort Belvoir in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA) and implementing regulations issued by the President’s Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Army.1

 The purpose of the EIS is to inform 

decisionmakers and the public of the likely environmental consequences of the proposed action 

and alternatives. The range of actions, alternatives, and impacts considered in this EIS are 

intertwined with the requirements for BRAC analysis. As further described in the EIS, the scope 

pertains to the geographic areas potentially affected by the realignment activities at Fort Belvoir 

as well as the area of potential environmental effects, which varies by resource. 

The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (“BRAC Law”) specifies that NEPA 

does not apply to actions of the President, the Commission, or the Department of Defense, except 

“(i) during the process of property disposal, and (ii) during the process of relocating functions 

from a military installation being closed or realigned to another military installation after the 

receiving installation has been selected but before the functions are relocated” (Sec. 

2905(c)(2)(A), Public Law 101-510, as amended). The law further specifies that in applying the 

provisions of NEPA to the process, the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military 

departments concerned do not have to consider “(i) the need for closing or realigning the military 

installation which has been recommended for closure or realignment by the Commission, (ii) the 

need for transferring functions to any military installation which has been selected as the 

receiving installation, or (iii) military installations alternative to those recommended or selected” 

(Sec. 2905(c)(2)(B)). The Commission’s deliberation and decision, as well as the need for closing 

or realigning a military installation, are exempt from NEPA. Accordingly, this EIS does not 

address the need for realignment. 

Army policy calls for the environmental analysis to be proportionate to the nature and scope of 

the action, the complexity and level of anticipated effects on important resources, and the 

capacity of Army decisions to influence those effects in a productive, meaningful way from the 

 1

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

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

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

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

1-4

standpoint of environmental quality.2 The environmental analysis for this EIS is commensurate 

with the planning horizon and diverse array of actions associated with realignment at Fort 

Belvoir. The project site for the Army’s proposed actions includes Fort Belvoir’s Main Post 

(7,836 acres) and the Engineer Proving Ground (EPG) (807 acres).3

 Figure 1-2 provides a site 

map of Fort Belvoir. The region of influence (ROI) for each of the environmental and 

socioeconomic resource areas discussed in this EIS varies, depending on their nature and 

relationship to the project site. The transportation and socioeconomics resource areas have the 

largest ROIs, as shown in Figure 1-3. 

The land use plan proposed in this EIS represents the first step in Fort Belvoir’s ongoing efforts 

to revise its RPMP. Work on the revision is expected to take approximately 2 years, with 

completion of the effort projected to occur in 2008. The BRAC statutory deadline constrains the 

Army to complete environmental analysis of construction requirements not later than in mid-2007 

in order to allow sufficient time for planning, design, construction, commissioning, and 

occupancy of facilities required for units, agencies, and activities relocating to Fort Belvoir. The 

schedule for BRAC requirements renders the RPMP completion not ripe for consideration in this 

EIS. Accordingly, the Army will perform separate environmental impacts analysis for the 

remainder of its RPMP revision. 

Analysis of environmental impacts of the proposed action extends from the present to 2015. This 

timeframe captures reasonably foreseeable actions that might contribute to cumulative impacts 

associated with the proposed actions. Impacts beyond 2015 are not evaluated because their 

occurrence is too uncertain and their prediction would be speculative. 

1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

1.4.1 NEPA Public Involvement Process 

The evaluation of potential environmental effects of federal actions is open to the public. Public 

participation in the NEPA process promotes both open communications between the public and 

the Army and better decisionmaking. All persons and organizations that have a potential interest 

in the proposed action, including minority, low-income, disadvantaged, and Native American 

groups, are urged to participate in the NEPA environmental analysis process. 

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

regulations and Army regulation. The regulations provide for five major aspects of public 

participation available in conjunction with preparation of this EIS: (1) notice of intent (NOI), (2) 

scoping, (3) 60-day public review of the draft EIS, (4) public hearing on the draft EIS, and (5) 30-

day publication of the final EIS prior to issuance of the record of decision. In addition to these 

steps, a public information meeting was held following the scoping meeting and prior to the 

public hearing on the draft EIS. Each of these steps in the process provides for public 

involvement and is briefly discussed below. Throughout this process, the public may obtain 

information on the status and progress of the proposed action and the EIS through Fort Belvoir’s 

Directorate of Public Affairs Office (PAO) by calling 703-805-5001. 

 2

 32 CFR 651.5 

3

 Congress has authorized the Army to convey 170 acres of the EPG to Fairfax County, Virginia for the Fairfax County 

Parkway and another 11.45 acres to the Commonwealth of Virginia, a parcel for which the Army previously granted an 

easement related to construction of Interstate 95 (Section 2836, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2002, Pub. L. 107-107). 


Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

1-7

Additionally, interested persons seeking more information about the BRAC NEPA process for 

Fort Belvoir may visit the Web site http://www.belvoirbrac-eis.net. 

1.4.2 Notice of Intent 

The NOI informing the public of the preparation of an EIS is the first formal step in the NEPA 

public involvement process. The notice is published in the Federal Register before the start of the 

scoping process by the agency proposing the action. The NOI includes a description of the 

proposed action and gives the name and address of an agency contact person. The NOI declaring 

the Army’s intent to prepare an EIS for realignment of Fort Belvoir was published in the Federal 

Register on November 23, 2005. The NOI is provided in Appendix A. 

1.4.3 Scoping Process 

The purpose of scoping is to solicit public comment on issues or concerns that should be 

addressed in the EIS. Public comments are solicited through mailings, media advertisements, and 

both agency and public scoping meetings. While informal comments are welcome at any time 

throughout the process, the scoping period and the scoping meeting provide formal opportunities 

for public participation in and comment on the environmental impact analysis process. 

The Army held a public scoping meeting on June 7, 2006, at the Hilton Springfield Hotel on 

Loisdale Road in Springfield, Virginia, from 7:00 pm to 9:30 pm. More than 100 members of the 

public, including elected officials and representatives from agencies and the press, attended the 

public scoping meeting. The Army provided public notice of the meeting in the Washington Post

on May 28, 2006; Mount Vernon Gazette on May 25 and June 1, 2006; Springfield Times on June 

1, 2006; and Fort Belvoir News on June 1, 2006. Using a mailing list compiled by Fort Belvoir, 

agency and public scoping letters were mailed on May 17, 2006, to about 190 individuals, 

organizations, tribes, and federal, state, and local agencies to inform them of the proposed action, 

solicit their input concerning issues that should be addressed in the EIS, and invite them to attend 

the public scoping meeting. Recipients of the mailing were invited to send written comments to 

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

written or oral comments at the public scoping meeting. 

In addition to the public scoping meeting, the Army reserved a time to meet with agency officials 

to discuss the scope of the EIS. This meeting was conducted on June 7, before the public scoping 

meeting, at the Hilton Springfield Hotel at 1:30 pm. About 30 people representing approximately 

15 federal, state, and local agencies attended the meeting. 

Agency coordination letters and responses and the Scope of Statement scoping report are 

provided in Appendix B. 

The following comments provided by the public and agencies are within the scope of the EIS:4

 

4

 Some comments urged a particular outcome concerning the proposed action, while others were redundant or dealt 

with matters deemed out of scope. All comments are contained in the Scope of Statement Report, available through 

http://www.belvoirbrac-eis.net. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

1-8

Socioeconomics 

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

the number of incoming students, both during the construction phase and after military 

and civilian personnel move to the post. 

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

the Fort Belvoir area as a result of BRAC 2005. 

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

additional space to accommodate the influx of students. 

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

contractors serving DoD entities to be relocated and the dollar figures of contracts under 

which these contractors perform. 

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

of children who will attend Fairfax County Public Schools. 

Cultural resources 

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

Resources (VDHR) on the impact that the BRAC actions will have on historic properties 

and archaeological sites at Fort Belvoir. 

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

screened from view. 

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

from U.S. Route 1 be restored. 

Traffic and transportation 

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

congestion on I-495 and I-95. 

• Need to expand and improve public transportation regionally to accommodate the 

increase in population in the area. 

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

the immediate vicinity of Fort Belvoir. 

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

BRAC action at Fort Belvoir, along with mitigation measures. 

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

more than just the final segment of the Fairfax County Parkway and the I-95 fourth lane. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

1-9

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

visitors to Fort Belvoir to minimize disruption to surrounding communities, traffic, noise, 

and air pollution. 

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

ZIP Code area. 

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

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

residential development to the south. 

• Incorporate “demand management” of traffic. 

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

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

development; rail extension, more road construction, etc. 

• Need to study the BRAC impacts on the George Washington (GW) Parkway and the GW 

Memorial Highway. 

• Do not include the replacement of the Woodlawn Road project in the BRAC EIS. 

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

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

• The alternatives should identify approaches and mitigation that promote transportation 

mobility, accessibility and multi-modal transportation choices, minimizes singleoccupant vehicle use and encourages transit use. 

• The Metropolitan Washington Council of Government’s (MWCOG) Traffic model is not 

appropriately scaled for use in this analysis 

Land use 

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

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

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

development, including building parking areas to minimize runoff and impermeable 

surfaces, using green roofing and solar power, and recycling of grey water. 

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

non-erodible cofferdams to isolate the construction area, blocking no more than 50 

percent of the streamflow at any time, stockpiling excavated material in a manner that 

prevents reentry into the stream, restoring original streambed and streambank contours, 

revegetating barren areas with native vegetation, and implementing strict erosion and 

sediment control measures. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

1-10

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

unoccupied buildings for expansion instead of building new structures if they are not 

needed. 

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

on-base. 

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

Friends Meetinghouse at Woodlawn, that its proposed location be moved to EPG. 

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

• Eliminate free employee parking. 

Natural resources 

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

• Need to maintain undisturbed wooded buffers of at least 100 feet in width around all onsite wetlands and on both sides of all perennial streams. 

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

management ponds for mitigation of wetland impacts. 

• Suggest designing storm water controls to replicate and maintain the hydrographic 

condition of the site prior to construction. 

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

grass swales. 

• Consider building parking decks instead of parking lots because of environmental impact 

studies that have been done that show the ways in which parking lots affect wetlands and 

runoff. 

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

installation. 

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

threatened species. 

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

possible. If not, recommend countersinking culverts below the streambed at least 6 

inches, or use bottomless culverts to allow passage of aquatic organisms. 

• EIS should identify all 100-year floodplains and Resource Protection Areas (RPAs). 

• Fort Belvoir should participate in ongoing watershed planning efforts. 

• Concern with potential intensification of development in the southwest area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

1-11

• Consider installing floodplain culverts to carry bankfull discharges. 

• EIS should analyze the use of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 

certifications for all buildings and site development. 

• Use green roofs. 

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

mixed use, pedestrian-friendly, sustainable and connected urban designs that represent a 

significant component of the "Belvoir New Vision Goals." 

• It is essential to commit to avoidance of impacts to tidal and nontidal wetlands. 

• Fort Belvoir needs to honor prior agreements concerning environmental quality corridors. 

• The Accotink Bay Wildlife Refuge should not be subject to secondary development. 

• The western edge of the EPG should preserve a treed buffer to screen it from the 

parkway. 

Other 

• Conduct new baseline studies that reflect the cumulative effects of the non-BRAC 

projects that have occurred since the 1994 master plan, including the Defense Threat 

Reduction Agency (DTRA), Residential Communities Initiative (RCI), Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA), etc. for air quality, water quality, open space, traffic counts, child 

attendance in local schools. 

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

and evaluate appropriate security measures. 

• EIS should address potential need for additional utilities. 

1.4.4 Public Information Meeting 

The Army held a public information meeting on January 24, 2007, at the Hilton Springfield Hotel 

on Loisdale Road in Springfield, Virginia, from 7:00 pm to 9:30 pm. Approximately 250 

members of the public, including elected officials and representatives from agencies and the 

press, attended the public information meeting. The Army provided public notice of the meeting 

using means similar to the public scoping meeting described in Section 1.4.3. In addition, meeting 

announcement letters were sent to a mailing list of 1,700 interested agencies and citizens 

compiled by the Army’s Fort Belvoir master planning team. The purpose of the meeting was to 

provide the public with the most current and available information regarding the progress of the 

EIS and to provide an open forum for discussion among members of the public and the Army 

about topics specific to this EIS. 

1.4.5 Public Review of the Draft EIS 

The Army made a draft EIS available for public review and comment, published a notice of 

availability (NOA) of the draft EIS in the Federal Register, and sent copies of the draft EIS to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

1-12

federal, state, and local agencies, as well as people who requested copies. In addition, the Army 

provided copies of the draft EIS to local libraries in the vicinity of Fort Belvoir and posted the 

draft EIS on Web sites. The EIS distribution list is provided in Section 7 of this EIS. Agencies, 

organizations, and individuals were invited to review and comment on the document. Following 

EPA publication of the NOA, the draft EIS was available for a period of 60 days from March 2, 

2007 to May 1, 2007 for public review of the proposed action, the alternatives, and the adequacy 

of the statement. 

1.4.6 Public Meeting 

The Army held a public meeting to receive comments on the draft EIS during the 60-day review 

period on April 17, 2007. The meeting was held at Mount Vernon High School in Alexandria, 

Virginia from 6:00 pm to 9:30 pm. Approximately 200 members of the public, including elected 

officials and representatives from agencies and the press, attended the public meeting, which was 

conducted in a hearing style format. The Army provided public notice of the meeting using means 

similar to the public scoping meeting described in Section 1.4.3. The Army placed advertisements 

informing the public of the times and places of the meetings in the Washington Post, Mount 

Vernon Gazette, Mount Vernon Voice, and Fort Belvoir News. In addition, meeting 

announcement letters were sent to a mailing list of 1,700 interested agencies and citizens 

compiled by the Army’s Fort Belvoir master planning team. 

The Army received 88 comments on the draft EIS. This included transcripts of oral testimony 

from 7 elected officials and 19 citizens and 62 written comments (via letters, emails, and the 

belvoirbrac-eis.net website). Dividing the comments into specific issues pertaining to the same 

resource area or the same topic within a single resource area produced 880 issues. The 

breakdown of the 886 issues by resource area and the general themes of the comments within 

each resource area are listed below. The original sets of comments received and the Army’s 

responses for the comments are provided in Appendix K. 

• Transportation (269 issues) 

o Commitment to fund transportation mitigation projects 

o Identification of responsible (lead) agencies and timelines for mitigating actions 

o Adoption of transportation mitigation projects and completing designs/studies 

o Trails and non-motorized transportation 

o Requests for further details examining long-term elements of the transportation 

network 

o Study needs to consider rail to Fort Belvoir 

o Transportation modeling and analyses assumptions 

o Army Museum traffic impacts 

• General (Proposed Action, DOPAA, Other, Land Use, Cumulative Impacts) (263 

issues) 

o Changes to land use plan, particularly removal of environmentally sensitive 

category 

o Consideration of GSA Parcel as part of the preferred alternative 

o Ability to meet Congressionally-mandated 2011 BRAC deadline 

o Need for meetings with all stakeholders involved with BRAC action 

o Impacts of support contractors that would follow DoD agencies coming to Fort 

Belvoir (“contractor tail”) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

1-13

• Air Quality (69 issues) 

o General Conformity Determination and compliance with air quality regulations 

o Transportation congestion and impacts on air quality 

o Regional mobile emissions 

• Natural Resources (Geology and Soils, Water Resources, Biological Resources)

(118 issues)

o Impacts on surface water runoff

o Chesapeake Bay RPA encroachment

o Impacts on wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and wetlands

o Protection of Environmental Quality Corridors

• Cultural Resources and Aesthetics and Visual Resources (84 issues)

o Impacts on both on- and off-post historic resources

o Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

• Socioeconomics (37 issues)

o Impacts of projected changes in the number of school-age children on the school 

systems 

o Projected population and housing changes 

o Changes in availability of recreational facilities 

• Other (Noise, Utilities, Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Substances) (46 

issues) 

o Noise impacts from construction and operation activities 

o Compliance with energy efficiency regulations and guidelines 

o Corrective action activities to clean up sites proposed for BRAC development 

1.4.7 Final EIS 

As provided for in CEQ regulations, the Army has considered all comments provided by the 

public and agencies on the draft EIS. The final EIS incorporated changes suggested by the 

comments on the draft EIS, as appropriate, and contains responses to all comments received 

during the review period. The Army will publish an NOA of the final EIS in the Federal Register. 

1.4.8 Record of Decision 

No earlier than 30 days following publication of the final EIS, the Army will publish a record of 

decision (ROD) that will provide a discussion of all alternatives and the factors the Army 

considered in making its decision. The ROD will also identify or incorporate by reference 

mitigation measures. Upon signature of the ROD, the proposed action can proceed. Notice of the 

approved ROD will be published in the Federal Register. 

1.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS PERFORMED 

The EIS is structured to facilitate review in a logical manner. An interdisciplinary team of 

environmental scientists, biologists, planners, economists, engineers, archaeologists, historians, 

and military technicians has analyzed the proposed action and alternatives in light of existing 

conditions and has identified relevant beneficial and adverse effects associated with the action. 

The proposed action is described in Section 2.0, and alternatives, including the No Action 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

1-14

Alternative, are described in Section 3.0. Conditions existing as of 2005, considered to be the 

baseline conditions, are described in Section 4.0, Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences. The expected effects of the proposed action, also described in Section 4.0, are 

presented immediately following the description of baseline conditions for each environmental 

resource addressed in the EIS. Mitigation actions are identified for each aspect of the proposed 

actions, as appropriate. Section 5.0 addresses the potential for cumulative effects. 

Resources and environmental conditions addressed in this EIS include land use, air quality, noise, 

transportation, utilities, water resources, geology, infrastructure, hazardous and toxic materials, 

biological resources and ecosystems, cultural resources, visual resources, and socioeconomic 

resources. 

1.6 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

This section introduces discussion of pertinent laws and regulations that apply to the Army’s 

proposed actions. 

1.6.1 BRAC Procedural Requirements 

As noted in Section 1.3, the BRAC Law specifically addresses the applicability of NEPA to 

BRAC actions, the congressional waiver of the procedural elements of NEPA to the actions of 

DoD and the BRAC Commission in recommending bases for closure and realignment, and to the 

actions of the President in approving or disapproving the BRAC Commission’s 

recommendations. The BRAC Commission procedures for identifying affected installations and 

bases are specified by this law and include the DoD Force Structure Plan, selection criteria 

(published in the Federal Register for public comment and described below), DoD 

recommendations, review and recommendations by the BRAC Commission, and review by the 

President. The BRAC Commission assessed the DoD’s closure and realignment 

recommendations for consistency with the eight statutory selection criteria (see Table 1-1) and 

the DoD Force Structure Plan. 

Additionally, the BRAC Law requires that all closures and realignments must be initiated no later 

than 2 years after the date on which the President transmits a report to Congress including the 

recommendations for closures and realignments (Sec. 2904 (a)(3) Pub. L. 101-510, as amended) 

and complete all such closures and realignments no later than the end of the 6-year period 

beginning on the same date (Sec. 2904(a)(4), Pub. L. 101-510, as amended). President Bush 

concurred with and sent the 2005 BRAC Commission’s report to Congress on September 15, 

2005. Therefore, the BRAC actions at Fort Belvoir must be initiated no later than September 15, 

2007, and completed no later than September 15, 2011. 

1.6.2 Enhanced Use Leasing 

Enhanced use leasing (EUL), authorized in 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) 2667, allows the 

Army to leverage private-sector expertise and financial resources to obtain maximum value from 

land and buildings. The EUL program enables the Army to enter into leases that result in benefits 

to both the Army and the private sector. Under that law, the Army can do the following: 

• Lease available non-excess real property to the private sector. 

• Receive cash or in-kind services, equal to no less than fair market value of the property, 

while retaining ownership of the property. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

1-15

Table 1-1 

BRAC statutory selection criteria 

Military value (given priority consideration) 

1. The current and future mission capabilities and the impact on operational readiness of the total force of 

the DoD, including the impact on joint warfighting, training, and readiness. 

2. The availability and condition of land, facilities, and associated airspace (including training areas suitable 

for maneuver by ground, naval, or air forces throughout a diversity of climate and terrain areas and 

staging areas for the use of the Armed Forces in homeland defense missions) at both existing and 

potential receiving locations. 

3. The ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization, surge, and future total force requirements at both 

existing and potential receiving locations to support operations and training. 

4. The cost of operations and the manpower implications. 

Other considerations 

5. The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years, beginning with the 

date of completion of the closure or realignment, for the savings to exceed the costs. 

6. The economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations. 

7. The ability of the infrastructure of both the existing and potential receiving communities to support forces, 

missions, and personnel. 

8. The environmental impact, including the impact of costs related to potential environmental restoration, 

waste management, and environmental compliance. 

Source: BRAC Commission, 2005. 

• Apply at least 50 percent of cash payments to the installation from which the proceeds 

were derived. 

• Accept in-kind consideration for any property or facility under Army control, not just the 

installation where the leased property is located. 

Potential uses for EUL include office space, warehouse and industrial buildings, laboratories and 

research and development facilities, energy cogeneration plants, test tracks, and hotels, temporary 

lodging, and conference centers. In-kind or cash consideration received by the Army is available 

for a variety of base operating support functions, including construction or acquisition of new 

facilities; alteration, repair, and improvement of real property; lease of facilities for Army use; 

and facilities operation support. 

The Army is actively pursuing a variety of EUL projects at several installations. Future projects 

can be expected to occur at Fort Belvoir, but the details of those projects are not currently known 

with sufficient detail to enable analysis of their potential environmental and socioeconomic 

effects. As specific EUL proposals for Fort Belvoir arise the Army will evaluate their potential 

environmental effects under NEPA. 

1.6.3 Defense Access Roads Program 

The Defense Access Roads (DAR) program, authorized in 23 U.S.C. 210, provides a means by 

which the federal government may pay its fair share of the cost of highway improvements needed 

for adequate highway service to defense and defense-related installations. Administered jointly 

with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the DAR program provides a means for DoD 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

1-16

to work with state and local authorities who execute the projects. Funding for DAR projects is 

obtained through Military Construction Programs funds appropriated by Congress. 

To initiate a DAR project, the Army would identify the access or mobility needs and bring these 

deficiencies to the attention of the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC). In 

turn, SDDC would prepare a needs evaluation or request the FHWA to make an evaluation, in 

accordance with 23 CFR Part 660E (Defense Access Roads), for improvements that are necessary, 

develop a cost estimate, and determine the scope of work. The SDDC determines if the project is 

eligible for the DAR program and certifies the road as important to the national defense. The 

Army would request funding for the project through its normal budgeting process. Once the funds 

are provided by Congress, they are transferred to the FHWA and allocated to the agency 

administering the project. 

1.6.4 Relevant Statutes and Executive Orders 

A decision on whether to proceed with the proposed action rests on numerous factors such as 

mission requirements, schedule, availability of funding, and environmental considerations. In 

addressing environmental considerations, the Army is guided by relevant statutes (and their 

implementing regulations) and Executive Orders (EO) that establish standards and provide 

guidance on environmental and natural resources management and planning. Relevant statutes 

include the following: 

• Clean Air Act 

• Clean Water Act 

• Noise Control Act 

• Endangered Species Act 

• National Historic Preservation Act 

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

• Energy Policy Act of 2005 

• Coastal Zone Management Act 

• Sikes Act 

• Toxic Substances Control Act 

EOs bearing on the proposed action include the following: 

• EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) 

• EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) 

• EO 12088 (Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards) 

• EO 12580 (Superfund Implementation) 

• EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations) 

• EO 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks) 

• EO 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) 

• EO 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds) 

• EO 13423 (Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation 

Management) 

These authorities are addressed in various sections throughout this EIS when relevant to 

particular environmental resources and conditions. The full text of the laws, regulations, and EOs 

is available on the Defense Environmental Network & Information Exchange Web site at 

http://www.denix.osd.mil.