Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

3-1

SECTION 3.0 

ALTERNATIVES 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

A bedrock principle of NEPA is that an agency should consider reasonable alternatives to a 

proposed action. Considering alternatives helps to avoid unnecessary impacts and allows analysis 

of reasonable ways to achieve the stated purpose. To warrant detailed evaluation, an alternative 

must be reasonable. To be considered reasonable, an alternative must be “ripe” for 

decisionmaking (any necessary preceding events having taken place), affordable, capable of 

implementation, and satisfy the purpose of and need for the action. The following discussions 

identify alternatives considered by the Army and whether they are feasible and, hence, subject to 

detailed evaluation in this EIS. The section also describes the No Action Alternative. 

3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 

3.2.1 Means to Accommodate Realignments 

Realignment of units, agencies, and activities involves ensuring that the installation has adequate 

physical accommodations for personnel and their operational requirements. The Army considers 

four means of meeting increased space requirements: use of existing facilities, modernizing or 

renovating existing facilities, leasing of off-post facilities, and constructing new facilities. 

Army Regulation 210-20, Master Planning for Army Installations, establishes Army policy to 

maximize use of existing facilities. New construction is not authorized when support for a new 

mission can be achieved by using existing underused adequate facilities, provided that using such 

facilities does not degrade operational efficiency. Selection and use of facilities to support 

mission requirements adheres to the foregoing four choices in the order in which they are listed. 

That is, if there are adequate existing facilities to accommodate requirements, and absent other 

overriding considerations, further examination of renovation, leasing, or construction alternatives 

is not required. Similarly, if a combination of using existing facilities and renovation satisfies the 

Army’s needs, leasing or new construction need not be addressed. New construction may proceed 

only when using existing facilities, renovation, leasing, or a combination of such measures is 

inadequate to meet mission requirements. 

3.2.2 Siting of New Construction 

The Army considers new construction of facilities when using existing facilities, renovation, or 

leasing would fail to provide for adequate accommodations of realigned functions. The Army 

considers both general and specific siting criteria for construction of new facilities.

General siting criteria include consideration of compatibility between the functions to be 

performed and the installation’s land use designation for the site, adequacy of the site for the 

function, proximity to related activities, distance from incompatible activities, availability and 

capacity of roads, efficient use of property, development density, potential future mission 

requirements, and special site characteristics including potential environmental incompatibilities. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

3-2

Specific siting criteria include consideration of location of the workforce and efficient, 

streamlined management of functions. Co-locating similar types of functions, as opposed to 

dispersing them, generally permits more efficient use of equipment, vehicles, and other assets. 

3.2.3 Schedule 

Alternatives for scheduling of proposed realignment actions are principally affected by three 

factors: the availability of facilities to house realigned personnel and functions, efforts to 

minimize potential disruption of mission activities on the basis of the number of personnel 

involved in the relocation or the amount of work to be performed, and early realization of benefits 

to be gained by completion of the realignments. In most cases, minor shifts in schedule would not 

produce different environmental results. 

3.3 ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLANS 

In June and July 2006, the Army considered three conceptual development strategies for 

accommodating the increase in units, agencies, and activities associated with base realignment at 

Fort Belvoir. The strategies, named in a manner suggesting the principal concept of each, were 

identified as Town Center, City Center, and Satellite Campuses. Each strategy had two alternative 

plans for allocating land to specific functions (e.g., NGA, Army Lease) being realigned to Fort 

Belvoir; thus, the Army originally considered six different ways to meet base realignment 

requirements. The following sections present one alternative related to and representative of each 

of the strategies. Also presented is the Preferred Alternative which emerged as a hybrid of the 

three conceptual development strategies. Accordingly, this EIS evaluates four land use plan 

alternatives and four alternatives for implementation of BRAC realignments. 

3.3.1 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 growth after 2011. Figure 3-1 shows the Town 

Center Alternative. For land use planning, several land parcels affected by the Town Center 

strategy would be redesignated for Professional/Institutional or Community uses. 

Accommodation of BRAC realignments under this alternative would result in the following major 

sitings: 

• NGA and associated parking structures would be sited in the area bounded by U.S. Route 

1, Belvoir Road, 9th Street, and Gunston Road. This would be facilitated by changing the 

South Post golf course land use designation from Community to Professional/ 

Institutional. 

• WHS and associated parking structures would be sited in the area bounded by U.S. Route 

1, Belvoir Road, 9th Street, and Gunston Road and in the adjacent area north of U.S. 

Route 1 that is bounded by Constitution Drive, U.S. Route 1, and Gunston, Abbott, and 

Beauregard Roads. This would be facilitated by changing the South Post golf course land 

use designation from Community to Professional/Institutional and by changing the land 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

3-4

use designations north of U.S. Route 1 from Community and Troop to Professional/ 

Institutional. 

• Army Lease and associated parking structures would be sited on North Post, in the 

southern half of the area bounded by Woodlawn, Abbott, Gunston, and J.J. Kingman 

Roads. This would be facilitated by changing the present land use designations from 

Community to Professional/Institutional. Army Lease would also be located in the 200 

area, in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Belvoir Road and 21st Street. 

• Medical Command and MDA and associated parking structures would be sited in the area 

that is bounded by Constitution Drive, U.S. Route 1, and Gunston, Abbott, and 

Beauregard Roads. This would be facilitated by changing the land use designations north 

of U.S. Route 1 from Community and Troop to Professional/Institutional. 

• PEO EIS and associated parking structures would be sited on North Post, in the southern 

half of the area bounded by Woodlawn, Abbott, Gunston, and J.J. Kingman Roads. This 

would be facilitated by changing the present land use designations from Community to 

Professional/Institutional. 

Figure 3-2 shows the proposed locations for facilities projects (see Section 2.2.2.3 and Table 2-3). 

Since EPG would not be developed in order to accomplish BRAC realignment actions, the 

proposed emergency services center project and much of the infrastructure project would not be 

required and would not proceed at EPG. Under this alternative, EPG would be designated for 

Professional/Institutional use to support future development. 

Table 3-1 shows the allocation of land use designations under the Town Center Alternative, 

compared to the 1993 land use plan as amended in 2002. 

The Town Center Alternative contains two sub-alternatives with respect to the present and 

proposed Troop Area. The proposed plan would change the Troop Area on North Post to 

Professional/Institutional uses and create a new Troop Area on South Post in an Industrial area 

(the western portion of the 1400 area) along Gunston Road. Availability of funding, however, 

might cause current uses in the present and proposed Troop Areas to continue for an 

indeterminate period. Accordingly, this EIS evaluates both situations: first, relocation of the 

Troop Area to South Post, with the present Troop Area parcel becoming Professional/Institutional 

(proposed action) and, second, to continue uses of the North Post and South Post parcels for 

Troop Area and Industrial purposes, respectively (status quo; delayed implementation). 

3.3.2 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 currently 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 growth. Figure 3-3 shows the City Center Alternative. For land 

use planning, parcels affected by the City Center Alternative would be redesignated for 

Professional/Institutional use. Appendix I contains an Adaptive Re-Use Study for the GSA 

Parcel, a report to Congress that explores the feasibility of using the site for BRAC realignment. 

Accommodation of BRAC realignments under this alternative would result in the following major 

sitings: 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

3-6

• NGA, Army Lease, Medical Command, PEO EIS, and MDA and associated parking 

structures would be sited at EPG. 

• Portions of Army Lease would occupy existing facilities along the east side of Gunston 

Road between U.S. Route 1 and 9th Street, and in the southwest 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, relocate GSA functions to Fort 

Belvoir or another location,12 demolish all existing structures, ensure compliance with applicable 

laws governing remediation, and transfer administrative control of the property to the Army. 

These actions would have to occur within a timeframe that would provide the Army sufficient 

time to construct facilities for WHS use. Location of the WHS element on the GSA parcel would 

require a change in law; at present, the BRAC recommendations require WHS to relocate to Fort 

Belvoir, and the GSA parcel is not part of Fort Belvoir. Figure 3-4 shows the proposed locations 

for facilities projects (see Section 2.2.2.3 and Table 2-3) involved in the City Center Alternative. 

 12 The Army estimates that relocation of GSA warehouse functions would require a site of 40 to 60 acres in an area 

classified for Industrial use. In the event GSA functions relocated to Fort Belvoir, the GSA would prepare appropriate 

documentation pursuant to NEPA. 

Table 3-1 

Comparison of 1993 and Town Center Alternative land use allocations 

1993 Land Use Plan Proposed Land Use Plan 

Land use Acres Land use Acres a

Administration & Education 724 Airfield 690 

Airfield 391 Community 2,652 

Community Facilities 452 Industrial 212 

Family Housing 576 Professional/Institutional 2,242 

Industrial 126 Residential 1,315 

Medical 97 Training 1,280 

Outdoor Recreation 1,006 Troop 106 

Research & Development 340 

Supply, Storage, & Maintenance 378 

Training Range 462 

Troop Housing 72 

Environmentally Sensitive 3,063 

Total 7,687 8,497 

a

 All proposed land use designation acreages here and in Tables 3-4 and 3-6 were calculated in GIS, and the totals may 

differ from the official acreages for the installation.


Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

3-9

Table 3-2 shows the allocation of land use designations under the City Center Alternative, 

compared to the 1993 land use plan as amended in 2002. 

Table 3-2 

Comparison of 1993 and City Center Alternative land use allocations 

1993 master plan Proposed land use plan 

Land use Acres Land use Acres 

Administration & Education 724 Airfield 700 

Airfield 391 Community 2,806 

Community Facilities 452 Industrial 219 

Family Housing 576 Professional/Institutional 2,125 

Industrial 126 Residential 1,316 

Medical 97 Training 1,282 

Outdoor Recreation 1,006 Troop 116 

Research & Development 340 

Supply, Storage, & Maintenance 378 

Training Range 462 

Troop Housing 72 

Environmentally Sensitive 3,063 

Total 7,687 8,564 

The City Center Alternative contains two sub-alternatives with respect to the present and 

proposed Troop Area. The proposed plan would change the Troop Area on North Post to 

Professional/Institutional uses and create a new Troop Area on South Post in an Industrial area 

(the western portion of the 1400 area) along Gunston Road. Availability of funding, however, 

might cause current uses in the present and proposed Troop Areas to continue for an 

indeterminate period. Accordingly, this EIS evaluates both situations: first, relocation of the 

Troop Area to South Post, with the present Troop Area parcel becoming Professional/Institutional 

(proposed action) and, second, to continue uses of the North Post and South Post parcels for 

Troop Area and Industrial purposes, respectively (status quo; delayed implementation). 

3.3.3 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). Figure 3-5 shows the Satellite Campuses Alternative. For land use 

planning, land parcels affected by the Satellite Campuses strategy would be redesignated for 

Professional/Institutional or Community uses. 

Accommodation of BRAC realignments under this alternative would result in the following major 

sitings: 

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

would be closed). This would be facilitated by changing the present land use designations 

from Airfield to Professional/Institutional. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

3-11

• WHS and MDA and associated parking structures would be sited in the North Post area 

that is bounded by Constitution Drive, U.S. Route 1, and Gunston, Abbott, and 

Beauregard Roads. This would be facilitated by changing the land use designations north 

of U.S. Route 1 from Community and Troop to Professional/Institutional. 

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

between U.S. Route 1 and 9th Street, and in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of 

Belvoir Road and 21st Street in renovated facilities. 

• Medical Command and associated parking structures would be sited on the southern 

portion of the North Post golf course. This would be facilitated by changing the land use 

designation from Recreation to Community. 

• PEO EIS and associated parking structures would be sited on North Post, in the southern 

half of the area bounded by Woodlawn, Abbott, Gunston, and J.J. Kingman Roads. This 

would be facilitated by changing the present land use designations from Community to 

Professional/Institutional. 

EPG would be designated for Professional/Institutional use to support future development. 

Figure 3-6 shows the proposed locations for facilities projects (see Section 2.2.2.3 and Table 2-3). 

Since EPG would not be developed in order to accomplish BRAC realignment actions, the 

proposed emergency services center project and much of the infrastructure project would not be 

required and would not proceed at EPG. 

Table 3-3 shows the allocation of land use designations under the Satellite Campuses Alternative, 

compared to the 1993 land use plan as amended in 2002. 

Table 3-3 

Comparison of 1993 and Satellite Campuses Alternative land use allocations 

1993 master plan Proposed land use plan 

Land use Acres Land use Acres 

Administration & Education 724 Airfield 0 

Airfield 391 Community 2,712 

Community Facilities 452 Industrial 257 

Family Housing 576 Professional/Institutional 2,874 

Industrial 126 Residential 1,298 

Medical 97 Training 1,282 

Outdoor Recreation 1,006 Troop 73 

Research & Development 340 

Supply, Storage, & Maintenance 378 

Training Range 462 

Troop Housing 72 

Environmentally Sensitive 3,063 

Total 7,687 8,496 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

3-13

The Satellite Campuses Alternative contains two sub-alternatives with respect to the present and 

proposed Troop Area. The proposed plan would change the Troop Area on North Post to 

Professional/Institutional uses and create a new Troop Area on South Post in an Industrial area 

(the western portion of the 1400 area) along Gunston Road. Availability of funding, however, 

might cause current uses in the present and proposed Troop Areas to continue for an 

indeterminate period. Accordingly, this EIS evaluates both situations: first, relocation of the 

Troop Area to South Post, with the present Troop Area parcel becoming Professional/Institutional 

(proposed action) and, second, to continue uses of the North Post and South Post parcels for 

Troop Area and Industrial purposes, respectively (status quo; delayed implementation). 

3.3.4 Preferred Alternative 

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

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

Belvoir’s base realignment needs. The Army reached this determination based on giving high 

priority to traffic-related issues and development density; specifically, use of EPG for all base 

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

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

identified a seventh alternative for land use, referred to as the Preferred Alternative Land Use 

Plan. That alternative is presented in Section 2.2.2. 

The Preferred Alternative Land Use Plan contains two sub-alternatives with respect to the present 

and proposed Troop Area. The proposed plan would change the Troop Area on North Post to 

Professional/Institutional uses and create a new Troop Area on South Post in an Industrial area 

(the western portion of the 1400 Area) along Gunston Road. Availability of funding, however, 

might cause current uses in the present and proposed Troop Areas to continue for an 

indeterminate period. Accordingly, this EIS evaluates both situations––first, relocation of the 

Troop Area to South Post, with the present Troop Area parcel becoming Professional/Institutional 

(proposed action) and, second, continued use of the North Post and South Post parcels for Troop 

Area and Industrial purposes, respectively (status quo; delayed implementation). 

3.4 ALTERNATIVES FOR BRAC IMPLEMENTATION 

The BRAC Law requires implementation of base realignment actions by not later than September 

15, 2011, 6 years following the President’s sending the BRAC Commission’s recommendation to 

Congress. Because those recommendations became law effective November 9, 2005, the Army is 

required to implement them in accordance with their terms. Consideration of alternatives such as 

not relocating personnel or relocating them to other installations is not legally permissible. 

The implementation of base realignment at Fort Belvoir essentially centers on what facilities must 

be provided, where those facilities would be sited, and which personnel would be assigned to new 

or renovated facilities. The determinations on these matters are, in large part, guided by the post’s 

land use plan, which identifies areas appropriate for Professional/Institutional purposes. This EIS 

examines four land use plan alternatives that serve as the surrogate for alternative means of 

accommodating the units, agencies, and activities being relocated. No other alternatives to BRAC 

implementation are evaluated in this EIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

3-14

3.5 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 the fall of 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 fall 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.