Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

B.2-1

APPENDIX B.2 

SCOPE OF STATEMENT (JULY 2006) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

B.2-2

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Prepared for: 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

and 

US Army Corps of Engineers, 

Mobile District 

Prepared by: 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 

10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 

Fairfax, VA 22030

Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement for Base Realignment 

and Closure (BRAC) 2005 Implementation & Master Plan 

Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

August 2006 
Scope of Statement for the Environmental Impact Statement 

for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 Implementation 

 & 

 Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

prepared for 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

& 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District 

by 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 

10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

August 2006 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

 

 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acronym List................................................................................................................................ iii 

1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1 

1.1 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................1 

1.2 PURPOSE OF SCOPING..................................................................................................................3 

1.3 INITIAL SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS................................................................................................3 

2 SCOPING PROCESS SUMMARY ..........................................................................................4 

2.1 PUBLIC NOTICE ...........................................................................................................................4 

2.2 NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS...................................................................................................4 

2.3 PUBLIC AND AGENCY SCOPING LETTERS ....................................................................................5 

2.4 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING .........................................................................................................5 

2.5 PUBLIC COMMENTS.....................................................................................................................7 

3 COMMENT ANALYSIS............................................................................................................7

4 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................13 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A – BRAC RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX B – NOTICE OF INTENT

APPENDIX C – SCOPING NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS

APPENDIX D – PUBLIC AND AGENCY SCOPING LETTERS

APPENDIX E – PUBLIC AND AGENCY MAILING LISTS

APPENDIX F – PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING DISPLAYS

APPENDIX G – PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)

 POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

APPENDIX H – PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING HANDOUTS

APPENDIX I – AGENCY AND PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING ROSTERS

APPENDIX J – AGENCY SCOPING MEETING DISCUSSION POINTS

APPENDIX K – DEBRIEFING MEETING SUMMARY

APPENDIX L – SUBMITTED COMMENTS
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006

iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AMC Army Materiel Command 

BNVP Belvoir New Vision Planners 

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DIA Defense Intelligence Agency 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EQC Environmental Quality Corridor 

MDA Missile Defense Agency 

MSF Million Square Feet 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NGA National Geospatial Agency 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NST NEPA Support Team 

NV/RSTA Project Manager Night Vision/Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target 

Acquisition 

PEO EIS Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems 

WHS Washington Headquarters Services 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

1

SECTION 1.0 

INTRODUCTION 

The Department of the Army and Fort Belvoir conducted public scoping to solicit input to help 

identify all relevant issues that should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

being prepared for the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) action at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

This report contains the details of the public scoping and communications effort, which included 

letters, media announcements, and an open house public meeting held in Springfield, Virginia, 

on June 7, 2006. This report presents an analysis of the comments received during the open 

comment period and presents conclusions relating to the scope of the EIS. 

1.1 BACKGROUND 

The Army is realigning functions and closing installations as mandated by Title XXX of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Public Law 107-107. The 2002 BRAC 

law amended the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, by 

authorizing another round of realignments and closures in 2005. The Army is implementing 

discretionary realignments and disposing of the excess property made available by the closing 

actions to support the national force structure objectives. The BRAC law exempts consideration 

of the need for the action or alternative installations in preparing environmental documentation 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). However, an appropriate 

level of NEPA documentation is required to analyze how the BRAC actions will be implemented 

for concurrent actions, both BRAC-directed and discretionary, at each installation that is 

receiving realigned missions. 

The overview below outlines the BRAC Commission’s 2005 recommendations for Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia, under provisions of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. A detailed 

description of the Commission’s recommendations is at www.brac.gov/finalreport.asp and is 

provided in Appendix A. 

The Commission recommended the realignment of the following agencies/activities with 

relocation to Fort Belvoir, Virginia: 

• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) 

• Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) 

• Army Leased Space 

• Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems (PEO EIS) 

• Missile Defense Agency Headquarters Command Center (MDA) 

• DeWitt Army Community Hospital 

• National Museum of the United States Army 

• Selected Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) activities from leased space to Rivanna 

Station, Charlottesville, Virginia (to be analyzed under a separate NEPA document from 

this EIS) 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

2

The Commission also recommended the realignment of the following agencies/activities to move 

from Fort Belvoir: 

• The Army Materiel Command (AMC) Headquarters and the U.S. Army Security 

Assistance Command to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 

• The Army Prime Power School to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 

• The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command Headquarters to Quantico, Virginia 

• The Soldiers Magazine to Fort Meade, Maryland 

• The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Chemical Biological Defense Research to 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 

• The Defense Threat Reduction Agency conventional armaments research functions to 

Eglin Air Force Base, Florida 

• The Army Research Office to the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland 

• The Sensors, Electronics, and Electronic Warfare Research, Development and 

Acquisition activities to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, except the Night Vision 

and Electronic Sensors Directorate (the Night Vision Lab) and the Project Manager Night 

Vision/Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (PMNV/RSTA) 

• The Information Systems Research and Development and Acquisition (except for the 

Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems) to Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, Maryland 

The BRAC Commission recommendations for relocating administrative, medical, and 

special/intelligence missions to Fort Belvoir will result in the relocation of approximately 22,000 

personnel to the installation, which could require the construction of approximately 6- to 7–

million square feet of new facilities, plus parking; new roads or road improvements (on- and offsite) and possibly the creation of a new multimodal transportation infrastructure; new utilities; 

other base support; and use or renovation of existing space. The BRAC realignment activities at 

Fort Belvoir consist of administrative, research, and other special missions to be placed in newly 

constructed, renovated, or existing buildings. No new field training facilities will be required. 

The Army’s overall goal for this BRAC action is to complete realignment by September 14, 

2011. The Army procured the services of an urban planner, Belvoir New Vision Planners 

(BNVP) to develop siting alternatives for the BRAC action and future development at Fort 

Belvoir. BNVP is tasked with transforming Fort Belvoir into a world-class facility that supports 

a community of military and national security organizations as well as updating the installation’s 

master plan. The master plan effort will gather tenant requirements and desires and develop 

courses of action for siting the BRAC and non-BRAC missions at Fort Belvoir. The Army will 

concurrently conduct the master plan process and prepare the BRAC realignment EIS. The EIS 

will analyze the long-range component of the master plan and address potential impacts, 

including impacts from changes in land use designations from the 1993 master plan as well as 

potential land use compatibility issues. Therefore, the information developed by the urban 

planner is required for analysis in the BRAC realignment EIS. 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

3

1.2 PURPOSE OF SCOPING 

Under regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)1

, 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 

decision making. 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 and 

Army regulations.2 These regulations provide for five major aspects of public participation 

available in conjunction with preparation of this EIS: (1) Notice of Intent, (2) scoping, (3) 45-day 

public review of the draft EIS, (4) public hearing on the draft EIS, and (5) 30-day public review 

of the final EIS. 

Throughout this process, the public can obtain information on the status and progress of the 

proposed action and the EIS through the Fort Belvoir Public Affairs Office by calling the 

Directorate of Public Affairs at 703-805-5001 or visiting the BNVP Web site 

(www.belvoirnewvision.com) and clicking “Links and Resources.” 

1.3 INITIAL SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS 

The Notice of Intent (NOI), informing the public that an EIS will be prepared is the first formal 

step in the NEPA public involvement process. The notice is published in the Federal Register 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 (Appendix B). 

Numerous issues and concerns will affect selection of alternatives and identification of issues to 

be addressed in the EIS. A representative listing of such issues includes land use, aesthetics and 

visual resources, air quality, noise, geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, 

cultural resources, socioeconomics, transportation, utilities, and hazardous and toxic substances. 

The EIS will consider a range of alternatives to accommodate BRAC recommendations for the 

realignment of Fort Belvoir including a No Action Alternative. The EIS will also evaluate 

alternative siting locations at the installation for agencies and activities relocating to Fort 

Belvoir, the associated master plan update, and cumulative effects. 

The following sections describe the process of scoping and efforts to solicit public and agency 

input to refine the scope of the EIS (Section 2.0), summarize the comments received during the 

scoping process (Section 3.0), and describe the issues that will be addressed in the EIS, as well as 

those that will not be addressed (Section 4.0). Appendix C and Appendix H contain press 

 

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. 2

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

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

4

releases, letters, brochures, and other information provided at the scoping meetings and 

throughout the scoping process, as well as the public comments received during the open 

comment period. 

SECTION 2.0 

SCOPING PROCESS SUMMARY 

The scoping meeting was an integral part of a broader scoping effort the Army conducted to help 

clarify issues of major concern, identify any information sources available to analyze and 

evaluate impacts, and obtain public input on the range and acceptability of alternatives. The 

alternatives will include options for construction, siting and design of facilities, and the types and 

extent of transportation improvements needed to accommodate the new facilities. 

The overall scoping process consisted of the following elements: 

• Publishing the NOI in the Federal Register 

• Distributing a public notice to newspapers 

• Mailing of public and agency scoping letters 

• Conducting a public scoping meeting to inform the public about the BRAC Commission’s 

recommendations for Fort Belvoir and solicit oral and written comments on the issues that 

should be addressed in the EIS 

• Reviewing, analyzing, and evaluating oral and written comments received within the open 

comment period 

2.1 NOTICE OF INTENT 

As described above, the NOI (see Appendix B) was published in the Federal Register on 

November 23, 2005, informing the public that an EIS will be prepared. This is the first formal 

step in the NEPA public involvement process. The NOI encouraged public participation to 

promote open communication on the issues surrounding the proposal. All federal, state, tribal, 

and local agencies and other persons and organizations were urged to participate in the scoping 

process. The following contact was listed as a source for additional information: 

Public Affairs Office 

Fort Belvoir, VA 

703-805-2583 

2.2 PUBLIC NOTICE FOR NEWSPAPERS 

Advertisements were published in several newspapers in the region (Table 2-1 and Appendix C). 

The advertisements included information on the proposed action, as well as the date and location 

of the public scoping meeting. The following contact information was provided for readers with 

questions or comments: 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

5

Directorate of Public Works 

ATTN: BRAC EIS Comments 

9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5116 

703-805-5001 

environmental@belvoir.army.mil. 

www.belvoirnewvision.com (click on “Links and Resources”) 

Table 2-1 

 Advertised public notices 

Date of publication Publication Location 

May 25 and June 1, 2006 Mount Vernon Gazette Mount Vernon, VA 

May 28, 2006 Washington Post Washington, DC 

June 1, 2006 Fort Belvoir News Fort Belvoir, VA 

June 1, 2006 Springfield Times Springfield, VA 

2.3 PUBLIC AND AGENCY SCOPING LETTERS 

Agency and public scoping letters (Appendix D) were mailed on May 17, 2006, to 188 

individuals, organizations, tribes, and state and federal agencies (Appendix E) to inform them 

about the proposed action at Fort Belvoir, solicit their input concerning issues that should be 

addressed in the EIS, and invite them to attend the public scoping meeting. 

The letters included information about the BRAC action at Fort Belvoir, the scope of the EIS, 

directions to the meeting, and instructions for submitting comments concerning the proposed 

action. 

Fort Belvoir provided the mailing. The letters instructed recipients to send written comments to 

the Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works no later than July 2, 2006, or to submit written or 

oral comments at the scoping meeting. The Directorate of Public Works and the Web site 

(www.belvoirnewvision.com) were identified as resources for obtaining further information on 

the EIS. 

2.4 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING 

The public scoping meeting was held on June 7, 2006, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Hilton 

Springfield Hotel in Springfield, Virginia. The venue was chosen because of facility availability 

and accessibility to the public throughout the Fort Belvoir region. More than 100 members of 

the public (including representatives from federal, state, and local agencies and the press) 

attended the public scoping meeting. 

COL Brian Lauritzen, Fort Belvoir Garrision Commander, kicked off the public scoping meeting 

by welcoming attendees and explaining the meeting’s format and layout. COL Lauritzen then 

introduced the Honorable Dana Kaufman, Fairfax County Supervisor, Lee District, who also 

welcomed attendees to the meeting. 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

6

An open house format was used at the meeting. Nine stations with displays (Appendix F), 

PowerPoint presentations (Appendix G), and handouts (Appendix H) were available for viewing. 

Each booth was staffed by personnel from the Army, Fort Belvoir, the BRAC NEPA Support 

Team (NST), and representatives from the BNVP, Master Planning Team. 

The interactive stations presented information on NEPA; population, economics, and the 

proposed action; traffic and air quality; natural, historic, and archeological resources; and other 

EIS elements. Additionally, welcome, court reporter, and comment tables were available to 

provide information and accept oral and written comments. 

Attendees were welcomed at the entrance and provided a handout of all the display materials, a 

color brochure, and a comment form. Attendees were asked to sign in (Appendix I) and were 

provided instructions for viewing the displays, which they were encouraged to visit in any 

sequence they desired. A Scoping Meeting Participants’ Guide display at the welcome station 

provided further guidance on how to proceed through the exhibit hall and provide comments. 

Throughout the room, pens and forms were available for attendees to submit their comments in 

the comment box. A computer was also available for submitting online comments. Across the 

hall, a private room for submitting oral comments to a court reporter was available with a display 

detailing how comments would be used. Army and other master planning and environmental 

experts were available to answer questions. 

In addition to the public scoping meeting, the Army reserved a time to meet with federal, state 

and local agency officials to discuss the scope of the EIS. This meeting was conducted at 1:30 

p.m. on June 7, 2006, before the public scoping meeting, at the Hilton Springfield Hotel. About 

30 people representing approximately 15 agencies attended the meeting (a roster of the attendees 

is provided in Appendix J). Ms. Susan Holtham, BRAC NST, opened the meeting with a brief 

background of the BRAC EIS process and the proposed action at Fort Belvoir. Colonel Brian 

Lauritzen, Fort Belvoir Garrison Commander, stated that the public scoping process is an 

opportunity to identify issues and draw out agency concerns. The meeting was then opened for 

questions. Members of the audience representing federal, state, and local agencies asked 

questions or offered comments, and the BRAC NST provided input for discussion. Questions on 

planning, transportation, socioeconomics, environmental resources, cultural resources, and the 

scoping process were all raised during this meeting. The following issues were discussed at 

length: 

• Siting of new development (particularly the DeWitt Hospital) 

• The locations from which new personnel will be coming 

o Potential for shift in residence for these personnel 

o Potential for influx of new school-aged children into Fairfax County 

• Impacts to transportation and potential mitigation measures 

• Funding for transportation improvements 

• Preservation and public access for the Environmental Quality Corridor (EQC) on the 

Engineering Proving Ground (EPG) and the wildlife refuges on the Main Post 

o Maintenance of the forest and wildlife corridor through the installation 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

7

• The ability of agency representatives and the public to make substantive comments at this 

stage in the planning process 

• The need to have the master plan completed before conducting the EIS 

A summary of the discussion points is provided in Appendix J. 

Following the public scoping meeting, the BRAC NST conducted a debriefing meeting. Overall 

impressions of the public’s response to each booth were noted as were frequently asked 

questions, comments or concerns. A summary of this meeting is included in Appendix K. 

2.5 PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Written comments were accepted by mail, e-mail, online, or in person at the public scoping 

meeting. Additionally, a court reporter was available at the public scoping meeting to accept oral 

comments. No comments were submitted to the court reporter. The Army requested that all 

comments concerning the EIS be submitted by July 2, 2006, addressed to the Fort Belvoir 

Directorate of Public Works, ATTN: EIS Comments, 9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100, Fort 

Belvoir, VA 22060-5116; by e-mail to: environmental@belvoir.army.mil; or on the BNVP Web 

site: www.belvoirnewvision.com (click on “Links and Resources”). 

The following section contains a review, analysis, and evaluation of the comments received 

during the scoping process. Appendix L contains the scoping comments received as of July 2, 

2006, and a copy of each of the original public comment forms that were submitted. 

SECTION 3.0 

COMMENT ANALYSIS 

Each comment received during the scoping process for the EIS for Fort Belvoir was carefully 

reviewed and grouped into one of the following six categories of common issues: 

socioeconomics, cultural resources, traffic and transportation, land use, natural resources, and 

other. After the initial review, the issues were studied further to determine the issues of specific 

concern. As a result, 72 specific concerns were identified. 

Table 3-1 lists the six categories of issues identified and the specific concerns for each category. 

The manner in which the issues can be addressed in the EIS is noted in the right-hand column. 

Any new issues identified following the close of the scoping comment period or during the 45-

day public comment period following publication of the Draft EIS (to be published in winter 

2006–2007) will be incorporated into the Scope of Statement appendix in the Final EIS. The EIS 

section addressing each issue will be included in a third column that will be added to Table 3.1 in 

the Scope of Statement appendix in the Draft EIS. 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

8

Table 3-1 

Issues identified during scoping 

Issues raised in the scoping process for consideration in the EIS Response to comments 

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. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 

• 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. 

• The number of school-aged 

children will be included in this EIS 

as such information becomes 

available 

• Potential for the need to construct new schools/expand existing schools to 

accommodate the expected influx of school-aged students, particularly in Fairfax 

County. 

• Beyond the scope of this EIS 

• Need for federal funding to support the hiring of teaching and support staff and 

the full range of other professionals necessary to ensure an appropriate 

education; the purchase of desks, chairs, tables, computers, and other 

classroom resources. 

• Beyond the scope of this EIS 

• Need for increased support for extracurricular activities (particularly club sports) 

as the percentage of students from military families increases. 

• Beyond the scope of this EIS 

• Request for federal resources to conduct a study of the socioeconomic and 

environmental effects of the changes at Fort Belvoir on the Fairfax County 

Public School system. 

• Beyond the scope of this EIS 

• Request for designation of the Fairfax County Public Schools as a “cooperating 

agency. 

• Comment noted 

• Local communities will not have a sufficient tax base for hiring teachers and 

creating additional space to accommodate the influx of students. 

• Comment noted 

• 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. 

• Transportation and air quality 

effects will be addressed in the 

EIS; contractor estimates will be 

included as they become available 

• Include precise lease language for commercial, for-profit, opportunities on 

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

commercial activities if they had been located in adjacent Fairfax County 

commercial space. 

• Beyond the scope of this EIS 

• Include precise numbers of bedrooms in the proposed housing to plan the 

precise number of children who will attend Fairfax County Public Schools. 

• The RCI program will address this 

issue 

Cultural resources 

• Request that the Army continue to consult with the Department of Historic 

Preservation (DHP) on the impact that the BRAC actions will have on historic 

properties and archaeological sites at Fort Belvoir. 

• The Army will consult with the 

SHPO on this issue 

• Request that construction within sight of the Friends Meetinghouse at Woodlawn 

be screened from view. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 

• Request that Woodlawn Gate be closed and access to the Meetinghouse at 

Woodlawn from Route 1 be restored. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

9

Table 3-1 

Issues identified during scoping 

Issues raised in the scoping process for consideration in the EIS Response to comments 

Traffic and transportation 

• Need to know the potential impact on local transportation, especially the 

increased congestion on I-495 and I-95. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 

• Need to expand and improve public transportation regionally to accommodate 

the increase in population in the area. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 

• Consider the numerous additional private contractors that will be required to 

relocate to the immediate vicinity of Fort Belvoir. 

• Contractor estimates will be 

included in the EIS as they 

become available 

• The Army should consider both direct and indirect transportation effects of the 

proposed BRAC action at Fort Belvoir, along with mitigation measures. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 

• 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. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 

• 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. 

• Comment noted 

• Need for better data on the number of current and future commuters coming 

from each ZIP Code area. 

• Comment noted 

• The hospital should be located at the Engineering Proving Ground (EPG) to 

avoid the traffic problems if it is on the Main Post. 

• Comment noted 

• 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. 

• Comment noted 

• Incorporating “demand management” of traffic. • Comment noted 

• Conduct annual audits and publication of mandatory mass transit for all 

employees, and contractors, and residents. 

• Beyond the scope of this EIS 

• Build links to mass transit at Springfield and Huntington Metro. • Comment noted 

• Need to evaluate the density of the project and the adequacy of infrastructure to 

support development; rail extension, more road construction, etc. 

• Will be analyzed in the EIS 

• Need to study the BRAC impacts on the GW Parkway and the GW Memorial 

Highway. 

• Impacts to traffic in the vicinity of 

Fort Belvoir will be analyzed in this 

EIS 

• Do not include the replacement of the Woodlawn Road project in the BRAC EIS. • It is being addressed in the EA 

being prepared for the Federal 

Highway Administration 

• 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 Army will coordinate with VRE 

• The alternatives should identify approaches and mitigation that promote 

transportation mobility, accessibility and mulit-modal transportation choices, 

minimizes single-occupant vehicle use and encourages transit use. 

• Will be analyzed in this EIS 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

10

Table 3-1 

Issues identified during scoping 

Issues raised in the scoping process for consideration in the EIS Response to comments 

• The Council on Government's (COG) Traffic model is not appropriately scaled 

for use in this analysis 

• The traffic analysis will use both 

the regional COG model and a 

scaled sub-area model to assess 

the changes in travel patterns and 

volumes; using these two models 

will provide the appropriate scale 

Land use 

• The hospital should not be located at EPG because it is too difficult to find. • Comment noted 

• Need to design development projects to minimize impacts on natural resources. 

 

• Comment noted 

• 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. 

• Comment noted 

• Recommend conducting any in-stream activities during low- or no-flow 

conditions, using nonerodible 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. 

• Comment noted 

• 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. 

• Comment noted 

• Request for the continued accommodation of the Mount Vernon High School 

Crew Team on-base. 

• Comment noted 

• 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. 

• Comment noted 

• Suggest use of parking garages instead of parking lots to minimize footprint. • Comment noted 

• Eliminate free employee parking. • Comment noted 

Natural resources

• Need to consider relocating stream channels rather than filling or channelizing. • Comment noted 

• Need to maintain undisturbed wooded buffers of at least 100 feet in width 

around all on-site wetlands and on both sides of all perennial streams. 

• Comment noted 

• Consider not using storm water management ponds or in-stream storm water 

management ponds for mitigation of wetland impacts. 

• Comment noted 

• Suggest designing storm water controls to replicate and maintain the 

hydrographic condition of the site prior to construction. 

• Comment noted 

• Consider the use of Low Impact Development practices such as bioretention 

areas and grass swales. 

• Comment noted 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

11

Table 3-1 

Issues identified during scoping 

Issues raised in the scoping process for consideration in the EIS Response to comments 

• 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. 

• Comment noted 

• Include a wildlife corridor at all costs to conserve what wildlife there is on and 

near the installation. 

• Comment noted 

• Preserve wetlands to prevent damage to the river system and to preserve 

endangered and threatened species. 

• Comment noted 

• 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. 

• Comment noted 

• EIS should identify all 100-year floodplains and Resource Protection Areas • Will be evaluated in the EIS 

• Fort Belvoir should participate in ongoing watershed planning efforts • Comment noted 

• Concern with potential intensification of development in the southwest area • Comment noted 

• Consider installing floodplain culverts to carry bankfull discharges. • Comment noted 

• EIS should analyze the use of LEEDS certifications for all buildings and site 

development. 

• Will be evaluated in the EIS 

• Use of green roofs. • Comment noted 

• 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." 

• Will be addressed under the 

master plan analysis 

• It is essential to commit to avoidance of impacts to tidal and nontidal wetlands. • Will be analyzed in the EIS 

Other

• Include the Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Association (MVCCA) as a formal 

entity among your cooperating agencies. 

• Comment noted 

• Please create a forum to better involve conservation organizations. • Comment noted 

• Information presented at the scoping meeting was insufficient. • Comment noted 

• A more holistic appraisal of the impacts of the BRAC action was expected. • Direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects from the preferred 

alternative for the BRAC action will 

be in the Draft EIS in the winter of 

2006–2007 

• Design all BRAC EIS public scoping components and outreach programs to 

follow precisely the procedures used in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project. 

• Comment noted 

• All project mitigation must be unequivocally included in the projects and the 

project funding. 

• Mitigation requiring funding will be 

included in the Record of Decision 

(ROD) 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

12

Table 3-1 

Issues identified during scoping 

Issues raised in the scoping process for consideration in the EIS Response to comments 

• The public has never been presented the alternatives or the BRAC project in a 

meaningful way. 

• The alternatives are being 

developed with the public feedback 

throughout the scoping process. 

The alternatives will be presented 

in the Draft EIS in winter 2006–

2007 

• The public comments are due the same week that the alternatives are being 

narrowed. This violates the principles of NEPA, and the community is opposed 

to this process. 

• The public comments collected 

during the initial phase of the 

scoping process will be used to aid 

in the process of selecting a range 

of alternatives. The alternatives 

will be presented in the Draft EIS 

in winter 2006–2007. A 45-day 

public comment period begins after 

releasing the Draft EIS. During 

this comment period the public will 

have additional opportunities to 

provide feedback before the Final 

EIS is published. 

 

• Conduct new baseline studies that reflect the cumulative effects of the nonBRAC projects that have occurred since the 1994 master plan, including DTRA, 

RCI, DLA, etc. for air quality, water quality, open space, traffic counts, child 

attendance in local schools. 

• Will be analyzed in the cumulative 

impacts section of the EIS, which 

covers effects of past, present and 

future reasonable and foreseeable 

actions 

• Conduct multiple scoping meetings using the public hearing forum of audience 

and podium with microphone. 

• A public hearing will occur 

following release the Draft EIS in 

winter 2006–2007. 

• Address the statutory requirements for threat reduction measures and define 

how the projects meet or exceed the standards and where in the National 

Capital Region the standards are not followed. 

• The EIS will address security 

issues on Fort Belvoir, however, 

security issues outside of the 

installation are beyond the scope 

of this EIS. 

• The EIS should include information on risk and threat assessments sufficient to 

identify and evaluate appropriate security measures. 

• Security measures will be 

addressed in the master plan 

analysis 

• EIS should address potential need for additional utilities • Will be addressed in the EIS 

• Due to inadequate public notifications and public information, extend the 

deadline for receipt Scoping Comments to September 15, 2006. 

• The scoping process continues 

beyond the deadline for 

submission of comments to be 

included in the Scope of 

Statement. The Army will continue 

to accept comments beyond 

July 2, 2006, for use in defining the 

scope of the EIS. In addition, a 

45-day public comment period 

begins after releasing the Draft EIS 

in the winter of 2006–2007. 
Scope of Statement 

for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia August 2006 

13

SECTION 4.0 

CONCLUSIONS 

Comments submitted by members of the public and representatives of federal, state, and local 

agencies generally fall into one of four categories: impacts on Fairfax County Public Schools 

(33 percent); traffic and transportation (27 percent); potential impacts to the environment 

(20 percent); and preservation of cultural resources/historic properties (13 percent). The 

consistency of comments received has provided the Army with an understanding of the issues 

that the public would like the EIS to address. 
Appendix A 

BRAC Recommendations 
2005 BRAC Recommendations for Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

The BRAC Commission made 35 recommendations concerning Fort Belvoir. The essence of each 

recommendation is outlined below. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA by relocating and consolidating Sensors, Electronics, and Electronic Warfare 

Research, Development and Acquisition activities to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD except the Night 

Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate (the Night Vision Lab) and the Project Manager Night 

Vision/Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (PM NV/RSTA), and by relocating and 

consolidating Information Systems Research and Development and Acquisition (except for the Program 

Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems) to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

Realign the PM Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Enterprise Systems and Services (ALTESS) 

facility at 2511 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA, a leased installation, by relocating and consolidating 

into the Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems at Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating Army Prime Power School training to Fort Leonard Wood, MO. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating the Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) to Marine 

Corp Base Quantico, VA. 

Realign Ballston Metro Center, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the U.S. Army Legal 

Agency to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Close 1500 Wilson Boulevard and Presidential Towers, leased installations in Arlington, VA, by 

relocating offices accommodating Pentagon Renovation temporary space to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Close Metro Park III and IV (6350 and 6359 Walker Lane), a leased installation in Alexandria, VA, by 

relocating the Defense Contract Management Agency Headquarters to Fort Lee, VA. 

Realign 400 Army Navy Drive, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, and the DoD Inspector General to Fort Belvoir, 

VA. 

Realign the Webb Building, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Department of 

Defense Education Activity and the Defense Human Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Rosslyn Plaza North, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating offices accommodating 

Pentagon Renovation temporary space, Washington Headquarters Services and the Defense Human 

Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Gateway North, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, and the DoD Inspector General to Fort Belvoir, 

VA. 

Realign 2001 North Beauregard Street, 621 North Payne Street, Ballston Metro Center, Crystal Square 4, 

Crystal Square 5, Crystal Plaza 6, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Skyline 5, and Skyline 6, leased installations 

in Northern VA, by relocating the Office of the Secretary of Defense to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Mall 3, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service at Fort Belvoir, VA. 
Realign Hoffman 1, Crystal Gateway 1, Crystal Gateway 2, Crystal Gateway 3, and the James K. Polk 

Building, leased installations in Northern VA, by relocating the Office of the Secretary of Defense and 

Washington Headquarters Services to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign the Nash Street Building, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Defense 

Human Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Alexandria Tech Center IV, a leased installation in Alexandria, VA, by relocating the Defense 

Technology Security Administration to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign 1400-1450 South Eads Street, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the DoD 

Inspector General to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign 1401 Wilson Boulevard, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, and Defense Human Resources Activity to Fort 

Belvoir, VA. 

Realign 1555 Wilson Boulevard, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating offices of the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense and Defense Human Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Mall 2-3-4 and Skyline 4, leased installations in Northern VA, by relocating Washington 

Headquarters Services to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Close the Suffolk Building, a leased installation in Falls Church, VA. Relocate all Missile Defense 

Agency (MDA) functions, except the Ballistic Missile Defense System Sensors Directorate, to Redstone 

Arsenal, AL. 

Realign176 the Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) Building, a leased installation in 

Huntsville, AL. Relocate all functions of the Missile Defense Agency to Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Realign Federal Office Building 2, Arlington, VA, by relocating a Headquarters Command Center for the 

Missile Defense Agency to Fort Belvoir, VA, and by relocating all other functions of the Missile Defense 

Agency, except the Command and Control Battle Management and Communications Directorate, to 

Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating Soldier Magazine to Fort Meade, MD. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA by relocating Army Materiel Command (AMC) and the Security Assistance 

Command (USASAC, an AMC major subordinate command) to Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Close National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) Dalecarlia and Sumner sites, Bethesda, MD; 

Reston 1, 2 and 3, leased installations in Reston, VA; Newington buildings 8510, 8520, and 8530, 

Newington, VA; and Building 213 a leased installation at the South East Federal Center, Washington, 

DC. Relocate all functions to a new facility at Fort Belvoir, VA. Realign the National Reconnaissance 

Office facility, Westfields, VA, by relocating all NGA functions to a new facility at the Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Consolidate all NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence College functions on Fort Belvoir into the new 

facility at Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC, as follows: relocate all tertiary (subspecialty and complex care) medical services to National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, 
establishing it as the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Bethesda, MD; relocate Legal 

Medicine to the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Bethesda, MD; relocate sufficient 

personnel to the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Bethesda, MD, to establish a 

Program Management Office that will coordinate pathology results, contract administration, and quality 

assurance and control of DoD second opinion consults worldwide; relocate all non-tertiary (primary and 

specialty) patient care functions to a new community hospital at Ft Belvoir, VA; relocate the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense supporting unit to Fort Belvoir, VA; disestablish all elements of the Armed Forces 

Institute of Pathology except the National Medical Museum and the Tissue Repository; relocate the 

Armed Forces Medical Examiner, DNA Registry, and Accident Investigation to Dover Air Force Base, 

DE; AFIP capabilities not specified in this recommendation will be absorbed into other DoD, Federal, or 

civilian facilities, as necessary; relocate enlisted histology technician training223 to Fort Sam Houston, 

TX; relocate the Combat Casualty Care Research sub-function (with the exception of those organizational 

elements performing neuroprotection research) of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (Forest 

Glen Annex) and the Combat Casualty Care Research sub-function of the Naval Medical Research Center 

(Forest Glen Annex) to the Army Institute of Surgical Research, Fort Sam Houston, TX; relocate Medical 

Biological Defense Research of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (Forest Glen Annex) and 

Naval Medical Research Center (Forest Glen Annex) to Fort Detrick, MD, and consolidate it with US 

Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases; relocate Medical Chemical Defense Research of 

the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (Forest Glen Annex) to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and 

consolidate it with the US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense; and close the main 

post. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating the Chemical Biological Defense Research component of the 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency to Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

MD. 

Realign Naval Support Activity Mechanicsburg, PA, as follows: relocate the Budget/Funding, 

Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, 

Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management 

Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items, except those Navy items 

associated with Nuclear Propulsion Support, Level 1/Subsafe and Deep Submergence System Program 

(DSSP) Management, Strategic Weapon Systems Management, Design Unstable/Preproduction Test, 

Special Waivers, Major End Items and Fabricated or Reclaimed items to Defense Supply Center 

Columbus, OH, and reestablish them as Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control Point functions; 

disestablish the procurement management and related support functions for Depot Level Reparables and 

designate them as Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, Inventory Control Point functions; and relocate 

the oversight of Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, 

Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements 

Determination, Integrated Materiel Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for 

Consumable Items and the oversight of procurement management and related support functions for Depot 

Level Reparables to the Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Marine Corps Base, Albany, GA, as follows: relocate the Budget/Funding, Contracting, 

Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon 

System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management 

Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for any residual Consumable Items to Defense 

Supply Center Columbus, OH, and reestablish them as Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control Point 

functions; disestablish the procurement management and related support functions for Depot Level 

Reparables and designate them as Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, Inventory Control Point 

functions; and relocate the oversight of Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, 

Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon System Secondary Item Support, 
Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management Technical Support Inventory Control 

Point functions for Consumable Items and the oversight of procurement management and related support 

functions for Depot Level Reparables to the Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, by relocating the oversight of Budget/Funding, 

Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, 

Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management 

Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items and the oversight of 

procurement management and related support functions for Depot Level Reparables to the Defense 

Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by assigning the oversight of Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, 

Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon System 

Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management Technical 

Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items and the oversight of procurement 

management and related support functions for Depot Level Reparables to the Defense Logistics Agency, 

Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating Defense Threat Reduction Agency National Command Region 

conventional armament Research to Eglin Air Force Base, FL. 
Appendix B 

Notice of Intent 
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 70793 

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE

SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND

THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: 

In addition to those disclosures 

generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 

552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records 

or information contained therein may 

specifically be disclosed outside the 

DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: The 

‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the 

beginning of the Air Force’s compilation 

of record system notices apply to this 

system. 

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, 

RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND

DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

STORAGE: 

Maintained in file folders, note books/ 

binders, in computers and on computer 

output products. 

RETRIEVABILITY: 

Retrieved by name, Social Security 

Number and detachment number. 

SAFEGUARDS: 

Records are accessed by person(s) 

responsible for servicing the record 

system in performance of their official 

duties and by authorized personnel who 

are properly screened and cleared for 

need-to-know. records are stored in 

locked rooms and cabinets. Those in 

computer storage devices are protected 

by computer system software. 

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: 

Records at unit of assignment are 

destroyed one year after acceptance of 

commission or one year after 

disenrollment. Records at HQ AFROTC 

for disenrolled cadets are destroyed 

after three years. Computer records are 

destroyed when no longer needed. 

Records are destroyed by tearing into 

pieces, shredding, pulping, macerating 

or burning. Computer records are 

destroyed by erasing, deleting or 

overwriting. 

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: 

Director of Senior Program, Air Force 

Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East 

Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force 

Base, AL 36112–6110, and Commander 

of appropriate AFROTC detachment. 

Official mailing addresses are 

published as an appendix to the Air 

Force’s compilation of systems of 

records notices. 

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: 

Individuals seeking to determine 

whether this system of records contains 

information on them should address 

inquiries to the AFROTC Detachment 

Commander at location of assignment. 

Official mailing addresses are published 

as an appendix to the Air Force’s 

compilation of system of records 

notices. 

Request for information involving an 

investigation for disenrollment should 

be addressed to Commander, Air Force 

Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East 

Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force 

Base, AL 36112–6110. Requests should 

include full name and SSN. 

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: 

Individuals seeking to access records 

about themselves contained in this 

system should address requests to the 

AFROTC Detachment Commander at 

location of assignment. Official mailing 

addresses are published as an appendix 

to the Air Force’s compilation of 

systems of records notices. 

Request for information involving an 

investigation for disenrollment should 

be addressed to Commander, Air Force 

Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East 

Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force 

Base, AL 36112–6110. Requests should 

include full name and SSN. 

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: 

The Air Force rules for accessing 

records, and for contesting contents and 

appealing initial agency determinations 

are published in Air Force Instruction 

33–332; 32 CFR part 806b; or may be 

obtained from the system manager. 

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: 

Sources of records in the system are 

educational institutions, secondary and 

higher learning; government agencies; 

civilian authorities; financial 

institutions; previous employer; 

individual recommendations, 

interviewing officers; and civilian 

medical authorities. 

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: 

Portions of this system may be exempt 

under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(5), as applicable, but only to the 

extent that disclosure would reveal the 

identity of a confidential source. 

Parts of this system may be exempt 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only 

to the extent that disclosure would 

reveal the identity of a confidential 

source. 

[FR Doc. 05–23131 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Intent To Prepare Environmental 

Impact Statements for Realignment 

Actions Resulting From the 2005 Base 

Closure and Realignment 

Commission’s Recommendations 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Base Closure and 

Realignment (BRAC) Commissions were 

established by Public Law 101–510, the 

Defense Base Closure and Realignment 

Act of 1990 (BRAC Law), to recommend 

military installations for realignment 

and closure. The 2005 Commission’s 

recommendations were included in a 

report which was presented to the 

President on September 8, 2005. The 

President approved and forwarded this 

report to Congress on September 16, 

2005. Since a joint resolution to 

disapprove these recommendations did 

not occur within the statutorily 

provided time period, these 

recommendations have become law and 

must be implemented in accordance 

with the requirements of the BRAC Law. 

The BRAC Law exempts the decisionmaking process of the Commission from 

the provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). The Law also relieves the 

Department of Defense from the NEPA 

requirement to consider the need for 

closing, realigning, or transferring 

functions and from looking at 

alternative installations to close or 

realign. Nonetheless, the Department of 

the Army must still prepare 

environmental impact analyses during 

the process of property disposal, and 

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. These 

analyses will include consideration of 

the direct and indirect environmental 

and socioeconomic effects of these 

actions and the cumulative impacts of 

other reasonably foreseeable actions 

affecting the installations. 

The Department of the Army intends 

to prepare individual Environmental 

Impact Statements (EIS) pursuant to 

section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, regulations 

of the Council on Environmental 

Quality (40 CFR 1500–1508), and the 

Army NEPA regulation (32 CFR 651 et 

seq.) for each of the actions listed below. 

Opportunities for public participation 

will be announced in the respective 

local newspapers. The public will be 

70794 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 

invited to participate in scoping 

activities for each EIS and comments 

from the public will be considered 

before any action is taken to implement 

these actions. 

Environmental Impact Statements are 

planned for each of the following 

realignment actions: 

a. Fort Meade, Maryland. The BRAC 

realignment action will co-locate and 

consolidate Department of Defense 

information and information technology 

missions at Fort Meade. 

(1) EIS alternatives could include 

evaluating siting locations for structures 

and related projects within Fort Meade 

that involve new building construction 

only or new building construction 

combined with renovation of existing 

facilities. The alternatives would 

evaluate areas to provide for 

construction of, but not be limited to, 

six to eight 4-story administration 

buidlings, a full day care child 

development center, a standard-design 

Whole Barracks Complex, and a 

physical fitness center. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the infrastructure and facilities 

construction that will be required to 

accommodate an estimated increase of 

over 5,500 personnel. Significant issues 

to be analyzed in the EIS may include 

potential impacts to air quality from 

increased vehicle emissions, installation 

and regional traffic increases, land use 

changes, natural resources, water use, 

solid waste, cultural resources, and 

cumulative impacts from increased 

burdens to the facility based on 

projected growth. 

b. Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), 

Maryland. APG will be receiving 

numerous Army, Navy and Air Force 

activities to transform it into a full 

spectrum research, development, 

acquisition center for Command, 

Control, Communications, Computers, 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Defense 

Chemical and Biological Systems. The 

Army Test and Evaluation Command 

Headquarters and Civilian Personnel 

Offices will also be consolidated at 

APG. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined in the 

EIS could include alternative 

distribution of new activities between 

APG and the Edgewood Area for 

military field training exercises; 

alternative siting schemes for placement 

of buildings and related infrastructure to 

accommodate an increase of about 

15,000 Army personnel within the APG 

and Edgewood Area. These may include 

siting schemes for new building 

construction only, or new building 

construction combined with renovation 

of existing facilities. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the large amount of infrastructure 

and facilities construction that will be 

required to accommodate an increase of 

personnel and military training 

operations. Significant issues to be 

analyzed in the EIS will include on-post 

and local air quality conditions, on-post 

and regional traffic conditions, housing, 

socioeconomics, noise due to increased 

vehicle use, threatened and endangered 

species to include bald eagle habitat, 

historic buildings and archeological 

resources, wetlands, biological 

resources, land use, and community 

facilities and services. 

c. Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Fort Belvoir 

will be receiving numerous Department 

of Defense activities from leased space 

within the National Capital Region 

(NCR); National Geospatial Intelligence 

Agency units from various NCR leased 

locations and Bethesda, Maryland; 

primary and secondary medical care 

functions from Walter Reed Medical 

Center to a new, expanded DeWitt Army 

Hospital; and inventory control point 

functions for consumable items to the 

Defense Logistics Agency from the 

Naval Support Activist, Mechanisburg 

and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 

Ohio. 

(1) EIS alternatives may consist of 

moving all activities to the Fort Belvoir 

Main Post, moving all activities to the 

Engineer Proving Ground (EPG), or 

moving a portion of the activities to the 

Main Point and a portion to the EPG. 

Other alternatives could include 

alternative land locations for specific 

projects within Fort Belvoir, within the 

EPG, or a combination of both; new 

construction only; new construction 

combined with renovation of existing 

facilities; alternative facility siting 

schemes, or other modifications of 

specific projects. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the large amount of infrastructure 

and facilities construction that will be 

required to accommodate an estimated 

increase of over 18,000 personnel. 

Significant issues to be analyzed in the 

EIS will include potential impacts to air 

quality condition in the Northern 

Virginia region, transportation systems 

in the Northern Virginia region, traffic 

conditions with Fort Belvoir, threatened 

and endangered species, historic 

buildings and archeological resources, 

wetlands, biological resources, land use, 

and community facilities and services. 

d. Fort Lee, Virginia. Fort Lee will 

receive the Transportation Center and 

School from Fort Eustis, Virginia, and 

the Ordnance Center and School from 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 

These functions will be consolidated 

with the Quartermaster Center and 

School, the Army Logistics Management 

College, and Combined Arms Support 

Command to establish a Combat Service 

Support Center at Fort Lee. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined in the 

EIS may include the usage of only Fort 

Lee for field training exercises, the 

usage of other military installations 

(Fort A.P. Hill) for field training 

exercises, or a combination of both; 

alternative land locations for specific 

projects with Fort Lee and Fort A.P. 

Hill; new construction only; new 

construction combined with renovation 

of existing facilities; alternative facility 

siting schemes, or other modifications of 

specific projects. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the large amount of infrastructure 

and facilities construction that will be 

required to accommodate an estimated 

increase of over 7,000 personnel. 

Significant issues to be analyzed in the 

EIS will include air quality conditions, 

traffic conditions, noise due to 

increased training activities, threatened 

and endangered species, historic 

buildings and archeological resources, 

wetlands, biological resources, land use, 

and community facilities and services. 

e. Fort Benning, Georgia. Fort Benning 

will receive the Armor Center and 

School from Fort Knox, Kentucky; 81st 

Regional Readiness Center from Fort 

Gillem, Georgia; and the U.S. Army 

Reserve Center from Columbus, Georgia. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined by the 

EIS may consist of alternative siting 

locations with Fort Benning for facility 

construction projects, new construction 

only, renovation and use of existing 

facilities, or a combination of both new 

construction and use of existing 

facilities, and usage of alternatives land 

locations within Fort Benning for 

training activities. 

(2) As a result of new construction 

and training activities associated with 

moving nearly 10,000 personnel to Fort 

Benning, the BRAC action has the 

potential to cause significant 

environmental impacts to threatened 

and endangered species such as the redcockaded woodpecker, archeological 

sites, wetlands, soil erosion, and 

increased noise impacts to the 

surrounding public. 

f. Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Navy and 

Air Force medical training activities 

from various locations within the U.S. 

and the 59th Medical Wing from 

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, will 

move to Fort Sam Houston to form a 

Department of Defense medical training 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 70795 

center. The Army Installation 

Management Agency (IMA) 

Headquarters from Virginia, the 

Northwest IMA Regional office from 

Illinois, and the Army Environmental 

Center from Maryland will also move to 

Fort Sam Houston. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined in the 

EIS could consist of alternative 

locations within Fort Sam Houston for 

siting facility construction, new 

construction only, renovation and use of 

existing facilities (to include historic 

buildings), or a combination of both 

new construction and use of existing 

facilities, and usage of alternative 

locations within Camp Bullis, a sub-post 

of Fort Sam Houston, for training 

activities. 

(2) As a result of moving 

approximately 9,000 new personnel to 

Fort Sam Houston and associated new 

construction, renovation and training 

activities, implementing the proposed 

BRAC action could have potential 

significant impacts to traffic on and off 

post, air quality and historic properties, 

to include contributing elements of the 

Fort Sam Houston National Historic 

Landmark District. 

g. Fort Carson, Colorado. Fort Carson 

will receive a Heavy Brigade Combat 

team and a Unit of Employment 

Headquarters from Fort Hood, Texas, 

and the inpatient care services from the 

U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado. 

Another Infantry Brigade Combat Team 

from overseas could also be transferred 

to Fort Carson as a result of the BRAC 

recommendation. 

(1) Alternatives that may be 

considered in the Fort Carson EIS could 

include phasing movement of units to 

the fort, alternative siting locations 

within the post of placement of new 

facilities, construction of only new 

facilities, utilization and renovation of 

existing facilities, a combination of new 

construction and utilization of existing 

facilities, and utilization of alternative 

locations within Fort Carson for training 

activities. 

(2) Fort Carson will gain 

approximately 10,000 Army personnel 

as a result of the BRAC action. 

Construction of new facilities, 

renovation of existing infrastructure and 

additional training activities could have 

significant environmental impacts on 

Fort Carson and its environs. Impacts 

could concur to local air and water 

quality, archaeological resources, noise 

and traffic. 

h. Pinion Canyon Maneuver Site, 

Colorado. Pinion Canyon Maneuver Site 

(PCMS) is a subpost of Fort Carson and 

a primary training area for units 

stationed at Fort Carson and other Army 

posts. The new combat units stationed 

at Fort Carson will increase the training 

tempo at the PCMS. 

(1) The EIS to be prepared for the 

PCMS will examine a number of 

implementation alternatives that could 

include alternative placement of new 

construction projects, alternative 

locations within the PCMS for training 

activities, and alternative timing for 

units to conduct training activities at the 

PCMS. 

(2) The Fort Carson BRAC action has 

the potential to significantly impact 

natural resources at the PCMS since the 

approximately 10,000 new personnel to 

be stationed there will now be training 

at the PCMS on a regular basis. New 

construction and increased training 

activities at the PCMS could have an 

impact on archaeological resources, 

natural resources, air and water quality, 

and soil erosion. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Public Affairs Office of the affected 

installations or the appropriate higher 

headquarters as indicated: (1) Fort 

Meade, MD—(301) 677–1301; (2) 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD—(410) 

278–1147; (3) Fort Belvoir, VA—(703) 

805–2583; (4) Fort Lee, VA—(804) 734–

6862; (5) Fort Benning, GA—(706) 545–

3438; (6) Fort Sam Houston, TX—(210) 

221–1099; (7) Fort Carson and Pinion 

Canyon Maneuver Site, CO—(910) 396–

2122/5600. 

Dated: November 18, 2005. 

Addison D. Davis IV, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Environment, Safety and Occupational 

Health), OASA(I&E). 

[FR Doc. 05–23162 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Logistics Agency 

Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of 

Records 

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency. 

ACTION: Notice to add a system of 

records. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency 

proposes to add a system of records 

notice to its inventory of record systems 

subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 

U.S.C. 552a), as amended. 

DATES: This action will be effective 

without further notice on December 23, 

2005 unless comments are received that 

would result in a contrary 

determination. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the 

Privacy Act Officer, Headquarters, 

Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DP, 

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533, 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–6221. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Susan Salus at (703) 767–6183. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Defense Logistics Agency notices for 

systems of records subject to the Privacy 

Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, 

have been published in the Federal 

Register and are available from the 

address above. 

The proposed system report, as 

required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was 

submitted on October 5, 2005, to the 

House Committee on Government 

Reform, the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) pursuant to 

paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB 

Circular No. A–130, ‘Federal Agency 

Responsibilities for Maintaining 

Records About Individuals,’ dated 

February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 

FR 6427). 

Dated: November 17, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Information Technology Access and 

Control Records. 

SYSTEM LOCATION: 

Director, Information Operations, 

Headquarters Defense Logistics Agency, 

ATTN: J–6, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, 

Stop 6226, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–

6221, and the Defense Logistics Agency 

field activities. Official mailing 

addresses are published as an appendix 

to DLA’s compilation of systems of 

records notices. 

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE

SYSTEM: 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

civilian and military personnel, 

contractor employees, and individuals 

requiring access to DLA-controlled 

networks, computer systems, and 

databases. 

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

System contains documents relating 

to requests for and grants of access to 

DLA computer networks, systems, or 

databases. The records contain the 

individual’s name; social security 

number; citizenship; physical and 

electronic addresses; work telephone 

numbers; office symbol; contractor/ 

employee status; computer logon 

addresses, passwords, and user 

identification codes; type of access/ 

permissions required; verification of 

need to know; dates of mandatory 

Appendix C 

Scoping Newspaper Advertisements 
Department of the Army, Fort Belvoir 

Public Notice of Scoping Meeting For 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Action 

June 7, 2006 

Hilton Springfield Hotel 

6550 Loisdale Road, Springfield, VA

 7:00 p.m.—9:30 p.m. 

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Department of the Army will conduct a 

Public Scoping Meeting on Wednesday, June 7, 2006, at the location and time listed above to solicit input 

on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

action for Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The purpose of the Scoping Meeting is to seek public input on the issues 

that should be addressed in the EIS. Federal, state, and local agencies, federally recognized tribes, 

individuals, and organizations that have an interest are urged to participate. The meeting is open to the 

public and will be held open-house style. Members of the public may attend at their convenience during 

the above time period. 

The Department of the Army invites open comment on the activities proposed to implement the BRAC 

Commission’s recommendation pertaining to Fort Belvoir. The EIS will evaluate the potential 

environmental, socioeconomic, and transportation effects associated with the proposed BRAC action. The 

EIS will consider a range of alternatives to accommodate the BRAC Commission’s recommendations. The 

EIS will also evaluate updating the Fort Belvoir Master Plan to accommodate the proposed action. 

Written and oral comments concerning issues to be addressed in the EIS will be taken at the Scoping 

Meeting. A court reporter will be available to record oral comment and a translator for the hearing 

impaired will also be available. In addition, written questions or comments may be submitted to 

Directorate of Public Works, ATTN: BRAC EIS Comments, 9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100, Fort Belvoir, 

VA 22060-5116 or by e-mail to environmental@belvoir.army.mil. Information is also available online by 

going to the www.belvoirnewvision.net website and clicking on EIS. Please call the Fort Belvoir Public 

Affairs Office at 703-805-5001 with any questions about the Scoping Meeting. The deadline for 

submitting written comments on the scope of the EIS is July 2, 2006. 
Appendix D 

Public and Agency Scoping Letters 





Appendix E 

Public and Agency Scoping 

Mailing Lists 
Fort Belvoir EIS 

Public Scoping Mailing List 

The Virginia Conservation Network Mr. Tim Aiken Honorable David Albo

1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL 35-C Congressman Moran's Office, 8th District, Virginia State Senate

Richmond, VA 23219 House of Rep. 6350 Rolling Mill Pl, Ste. 102

5115 Franconia Rd, Ste B Springfield, VA 22150

Washington, DC 20510-4603

Honorable George Allen Honorable Kristen Amundson Mr. Frank Anderson

United States Senate 44th District Defense Acquisition University

204 Russell Senate Office Bldg. P.O. Box 143 9820 Belvoir Road

Washington, DC 20510-4603 Mt. Vernon, VA 22121 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5565

Honorable Hilda Barg Ms. Glynn Bates Ms. Lucy Beauchamp

Prince William County Board of Supervisors Hayfield Secondary School Prince William County School Board

15941 Donald Curtis Drive 7630 Telegraph Road P. O. Box 389

Woodbridge, VA 22191 Alexandria, VA 22310 Manassas, VA 20108

Mr. Sylvester Berdux Mr. Errol Bergsagel Reverend Donald Binder

Mount Vernon Chamber of Commerce Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Associations Pohick Church

4201 Pickering Place 4402 Grenada Street 9301 Richmond Highway

Alexandria, VA 22309-2820 Alexandria, VA 22309 Lorton, VA 22079

Ms. Stephanie Bisson Mr. Al Bornman Mr. Eric Brent

Woodlawn Elementary School Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Associations Mt Vernon High School

8505 Highland Lane 1903 Sword Lane 8515 Old Mt. Vernon Rd.

Alexandria, VA 22309 Alexandria, VA 22308 Alexandria, VA 22309

Ms. Courtney Bulger Dr. Douthard Butler Mr. John Byers

Fairfax County Public Schools Rotary Club Mount Vernon Planning Commission

10700 Page Avenue 6909 Lamp Post Lane 8218 Chancery Court

Fairfax, VA 22309 Alexandria, VA 22306 Alexandria, VA 22308

Honorable Maureen Caddigan Mr. Mike Campbell Ms. Isis Castro

Prince William County Board of Supervisors Prince William County Schools Mt. Vernon School Board

15941 Cardinal Drive PO Box 389 2404 Culpepper Road

Woodbridge, VA 22191 Manassas, VA 20108 Alexandria, VA 22308

Mr. Joseph Chudzik Mr. John Cogbill, IIII Mr. Frank Cohn

Mason Neck Citizen Association National Capital Planning Commission Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Association

Post Office Box 612 401 9th St., NW, North Lobby, Ste.500 PO Box 7041

Lorton, VA 22079 Washington, DC 20576 Alexandria, VA 22307-7041

Ms. Heather Colistra Honorable Sean Connaughton Doctor Jack Dale

Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce Prince William County Board of Supervisors Fairfax County Public Schools

8230 Old Courthouse Road, Ste.350 1 County Complex Court 10700 Page Avenue

Vienna, VA 22182-3853 Woodbridge, VA 22192 Fairfax, VA 22030

Ms. Karen Darner Honorable Thomas Davis Mr. Otha Davis

Arlington Committee of 100 11th District, Virginia Walt Whitman Intermediate School

969 S. Buchanan Streeet 224 Cannon House Office Bldg 2500 Parkers Lane

Arlington, VA 22204 Washington, DC 20515-4611 Alexandria, VA 22306
Fort Belvoir EIS 

Public Scoping Mailing List 

Mr. Jim Davis Delegate Nicole Denike Honorable Jeannemarie Devolites Davis

Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Association Virginia House of Delegates Virginia's 34th District

8810 Old Mount Vernon Rd. P.O. Box 8 PO Box 936

Alexandria, VA 22309 Occoquan, VA 22125 Vienna, VA 22183-0966

Mr. Dave Dickson Ms. Holly Dougherty Ms. Jackie Edwards

Virginia Commission for Military Bases Mount Vernon-Lee Chamber of Commerce Fort Belvoir Federal Credit Union

PO Box 798 8804-D Pear Tree Village Center 8725 John J. Kingsman, Ste.1842

Richmond, VA 23218 Alexandria, VA 22309 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6220

Mr. Mark Emery Honorable William Euille Mr. John Fedorshik

Fairfax Cty Public Schools School Board Mayor's Office City of Alexandria Federation of Lorton Communities

10700 Page Avenue 301 King St. 2nd Fl, Ste. 2300 PO Box 442

Fairfax, VA 22030 Alexandria, VA 22314 Lorton, VA 22199

Ms. Betsy Fenske Ms. Katy Fike Mr. William Files

Fairfax County Schools Mount Vernon-Lee Chamber of Commerce Quander Road School

6520 Diana Lane 8804-D Pear Tree Village Center 6400 Quander Road

Alexandria, VA 22310 Alexandria, VA 22309 Alexandria, VA 22307

Honorable Jay Fisette Ms. Merni Fitzgerald Mr. Earl Flanagan

Arlington Boardof Supervisors Fairfax County Office of Public Affairs Transportation Committee, Fairfax County

2100 Clarendon Blvd Ste 300 12000 Government Center Pkwy, Ste.551 3117 Waterside Land

Arlington, VA 22201 Fairfax, VA 22035-0065 Alexandria, VA 22309

Mr. Dave Foreman Ms. Laura Fritts Mr. Lou Genuario

Office of Congressman Tom Davis Southeast Fairfax Development Corp. Mount Vernon/Lee Chamber of Commerce

4115 Annandale Rd Ste 103 8800-A Pear Tree Village Center 8400 Radford Avenue

Annandale, VA 22003 Alexandria, VA 22309 Alexandria, VA 22309

Mr. Craig Gerhart Mr. Harry Glasgow Mr. Todd Hafner

Prince William County Friends of Huntley Meadows Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority

1 County Complex Court C/O Huntley Meadows Park 5400 Ox Road

Prince William, VA 22192 3701 Lockheed Blvd. Fairfax, VA 22039 

 Alexandria, VA 22306

Ms. Sara Elizabeth Hall Mr. David Harned Ms. Marilyn Hildelbeidel

4020 University Drive Suite 300 10715 Harley Road Mason Neck Civic Association

Fairfax, VA 22030 Mason Neck, VA 22079 10900 Harley Road 

 Lorton, VA 22079-3904

Dr. Sam Hill Mr. Michael Hines Ms. Nancy James

Northern Virginia Community College Office of Comprehensive Planning Alexandria Meeting House

15200 Neabsco Mils Road 12055 Government Center Pkwy, Ste. 700 2405 Nemeth Court

Woodbridge, VA 22191 Fairfax, VA 22035 Alexandria, VA 22306

 

Mr. Short James, Park Manager Honorable John Jenkins Mr. Bruce Jennings

Pohick Bay Regional Park Prince William County Board of Supervisors Central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce

6501 Pohick Bay Drive 4361 Ridgewood Center Drive 3975 University Drive, Ste. 350

Lorton, VA 22079 Woodbridge, VA 22192 Fairfax, VA 22030

 
Fort Belvoir EIS 

Public Scoping Mailing List 

 Mr. Robert Keller Mrs. Sharon Kelso Mr. Brett Kenney

Washington Mills Elementary School United Community Ministries, Inc. Mount Vernon District Supervisor's Office

9100 Cherry Tree Drive 7511 Fordson Road 2511 Parkers Lane

Alexandria, VA 22309 Alexandria, VA 22306 Alexandria, VA 22306

Mr. Bobbie Green Kilberg Ms. Kathleen Kilpatrick Ms. Patty Kimmel

Northern Virginia Technology Council Department of Historic Resources FT. Belvoir Federal Credit Union

2214 Rock Hill Rd Ste 300 2801 Kensington Avenue 14040 Central Loop

Herndon, VA 22201 Richmond, VA 23221 Woodbridge, VA 22193

Ms. Nordis King CAPT Michael Klein Mr. Louis Kobus

Mt Vernon High School Fairfax County Police Mount Vernon Community Coalition

8515 Old Mt. Vernon Rd. 2511 Parkers Lane PO Box 289

Alexandria, VA 22309 Alexandria, VA 22306 Mount Vernon, VA 22121

Ms. Stella Koch Mr. William Lecos Ms. Barbara Leibbrandt

Northern Virginia Environment Network Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce Fairfax County Schools, Cluster IV

1056 Manning Street 8230 Old Courthouse Road, Ste. 350 Virginia Hills Center, 6420 Diana Lane

Great Falls, VA 22066 Vienna, VA 22182 Alexandria, VA 22310

Mr. Michael Lewis Ms. Bonnie Lilley Honorable L. Scott Lingamfelter

Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce Mount Vernon Community Coalition Virginia's 31st District

8230 Old Courthouse Road, Ste. 350 3011 Cunningham Drive 5420 Lomax Way

Vienna, VA 22182 Alexandria, VA 22309 Woodbridge, VA 22193

President Robert Lundy Ms. Molly Lynch Pat Malone

Federation of Lorton Communities Lorton Community Action Center PO Box 9807/Friendship Station

P.O. Box 442 P.O. Box 154 Washington, DC 20016-9807

Lorton,, VA 22199-0442 Lorton, VA 22199 

Mrs. Nancy-Jo Manney Mr. Neil McBride Mr. Jeff McKay

Springfield Chamber of Commerce Lorton Community Federal Group Lee District Supervisor's Office

6434 Brandon Avenue, Ste. 3A 8105 Winter Blue Court 6121 Franconia Road

 Springfield, VA 22150 Springfield, VA 22153 Alexandria, VA 22310

Mr. Patrick McLaughlin MG(Ret) Carl McNair Ms. Pamela Michell

Directorate of Public Works and Logistics Mount Vernon Community Coalition New Hope Housing, Inc.

9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 107 7871 Rolling Woods Ct, Apt. #407 Eleanor U. Kennedy Shelter

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5130 Springfield, VA 22152 8407-E Richmond Highway 

 Alexandria, VA 22309

Mr. Jason Money Honorable James Moran LTC(Ret) Gerald Musarra

Office of Senator George Allen 8th District, Virginia House of Rep. Chairman, Fort Belvoir Retiree Council

708 Hart Building 2239 Rayburn House Office Building 6601 Cherry Valley Lane

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20515-4610 Alexandria, VA 22309

Honorable Marty Nohe Hon. Jay O'Brien Commanding Officer

Prince William County Board of Supervisors State Senate US Coast Guard Marine Safety Office

4360 Ridgewood Center Dr. 7903 Clifton Hunt Court Hampton Roads

Prince William, VA 22192 Clifton, VA 20124 200 Granby Street, Room 700 

 Norfolk, VA 23510
Fort Belvoir EIS 

Public Scoping Mailing List 

Ms. Anda Ostergard LTC James Overbye Mr. Larry Padberg

Lorton Community Action Center George Mason University Color Guard New Hope Housing, Inc.

PO Box 154 4400 University Drive MSN 2F9 Eleanor U. Kennedy Shelter

Lorton, VA 22199 Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 8407-E Richmond Highway 

 Alexandria, VA 22309 

Ms. Lois Passman Mr. J. Thomas Payne Honorable Linda Puller

Mt. Vernon Council Transportation Committee Fred Lynn Middle School Virginia State Senate

8354 Orange Court 2451 Longview Drive PO Box 146 

Alexandria, VA 22309 Woodbridge, VA 22191 Mount Vernon, VA 22121

Ms. Jeannie Purdy Mr. David Randall Mr. Ross Randall

Lorton Community Action Center Newington Community Association Woodlawn Plantation

PO Box 154 PO Box 351 PO Box 37

Lorton, VA 22199 Springfield, VA 22150 Mount Vernon, VA 22121

Mr. James Rees, Director Mr. Harold Reniere Ms. Judy Riggins

Mount Vernon Ladies Association Central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce Alexandria Society of Friends

P.O Box 110 3975 University Drive, Ste. 350 8990 Woodlawn Road

Mount Vernon, VA 22121 Fairfax, VA 22030 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060

Mr. Edward Risley Colonel David Rohrer Mr. Gary Roisum

7212 Beechwood Road Fairfax County Police Huntley Meadows Park

Alexandria, VA 22307 2511 Parkers Lane 3701 Lockheed Boulevard

Alexandria, VA 22306 Alexandria, VA 22306

Delegate Jack Rollison President Chase Ronald Ms. Kay Rutledge

Virginia House of Delegates Gum Springs Historical Society Fairfax County Park Authority

13512 Minnieville Road 8100 Fordson Road 12055 Government Center Pkwy, Ste. 421

Woodbridge, VA 22192 Alexandria,, VA 22306 Fairfax, VA 22035

Honorable Richard Saslaw Mr. Howard Savage Mr. Daniel Schmidt

Virginia State Senate Mason Neck Civic Assn. Fairfax County Fire & Rescue Dept.

PO Box 10628 10658 Gunston Road 4100 Chain Bridge Road

Alexandria, VA 22310 Lorton, VA 22079-3915 Fairfax, VA 22030

 

 Mr. Greg Schuckman LTC Peter Schultheiss Mr. Paul Seelman

South County Federation National Capital District Veterinary Command Raceway Farms C.A.

P.O. Box 442 10002 Caples Road 8315 Frosty Court

Lorton, VA 22199 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 Lorton, VA 22079

Honorable Mark Sickles Ms. Patricia Simmons LTC Janet Simmons

House of Delegates Sun Trust Bank Headquarters Battalion

PO Box 10628 PO Box 179, ALX6008 6089 Abbot Road Suite 1

Alexandria, VA 22310 Alexandria, VA 22313 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5205

Ms. Patricia Soriano Mr. Cord Sterling Ms. Laura Stevens

Mt Vernon Group Chair/Mount Vernon Group, Office of Senator John Warner Operator of Administrations/The Audubon 

Sierra Club 225 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Society of Northern Virginia

5405 Barrister Place Washington, DC 20510-4601 P.O. Box 128

Alexandria, VA 22304 Annandale, VA 22003-0128
Fort Belvoir EIS 

Public Scoping Mailing List 

Honorable Corey Stewart Mr. Phil Sunderland Mr. Richard Taube

Prince William County Board of Supervisors 8th District, Virginia House of Rep. Northern Virginia Transportation Commission

13083 Chinn Park Dr. 2239 Rayburn House Office Building 4350 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 720

Prince William, VA 22192 Washington, DC 20515-4610 Arlington, VA 22203

Mr. Hansel Taylor Dr. Robert Templin Mr. David Thomas

American Legion Post 1775 Northern Virginia Community College Cong. Tom DavisUS House of 

5823 Russell Leaf Ct. 4001 Wakefield Chapel Rd Rm 305C Representatives (Davis, 11th District)

Woodbridge, VA 22193 Annandale, VA 22003-3723 224 Cannon House Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20515-4611

Mr. Lainhoff Thomas, Director Mr. E. Tommy Thompson Mr. and Mrs. Jack Thorson

Gunston Hall Plantation Hybla Valley Elementary School 8601 Accotink Road

10709 Gunston Road 3415 Lockheed Blvd. Lorton, VA 22079

Mason Neck, VA 22079-3901 Alexandria, VA 22306

Honorable Patsy Ticer Ms. Tyson Tish Dr. Calanthia Tucker

Virginia State Senate 8641 Mount Vernon Highway Mount Vernon Cluster, Fairfax County 

301 King Street Rm 2007 Alexandria,, VA 22309 6520 Diana Lane

Alexandria, VA 22314 Alexandria, VA 22310

Mrs. Rima Vesilind Mr. Dick Wadhams Honorable John Warner

Woodley Hills Elementary School United States Senate United States Senate

8718 Old Mt. Vernon Road 204 Russell Senate Office Building 225 Russell Senate Office Bldg.

Alexandria, VA 22309 Washington, DC 20510-4603 Washington, DC 20510-4601

Ms. Susan Warner Honorable Mark Warner Dr. Steven Watts

Congressman Moran's Office Office of the Governor Prince William County Schools

5115 Franconia Road, Suite B State Capital, P.O. Box 1475 PO Box 389

Alexandria, VA 22310 Richmond, VA 23218 Manassas, VA 20108

Mrs. Virginia Weber Mrs. Paige Weber Ms. Laurie Weider

Mount Vernon Community Coalition Mount Vernon Community Coalition Prince William Regional Chamber of 

 3120 Waterside Lane 3120 Waterside Lane Commerce 

Alexandria, VA 22309-2132 Alexandria, VA 22309-2132 4320 Ridgewood Center Drive

 Woodbridge, VA 22191

 Mr. Greg Weiler Dr. Belle Wheelan Honorable Mary Margaret Whipple

Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge Office of the Governor Virginia's 31st District

Complex P.O. Box 1475 3556 North Valley Street

14344 Jefferson Davis Highway Richmond, VA 23218 Arlington, VA 22207-4445

Woodbridge, VA 22191

Mrs. Jane Wilson Mr. Bill Womack Mr. Richard Wood

Fort Belvoir Elementary School Office of Congressman Tom Davis Defense Commissary Agency

5970 Meers Road 2348 Rayburn Bldg. 6020 Gorgas Road, Suite 101

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 Washington, DC 20515 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6209

Mr. Harry Zimmerman, Jr.

Office of the Lee District Supervisor

6121 Franconia Road

Alexandria, VA 22310
Fort Belvoir 

Agency Scoping Mailing List 

NEPA Coordinator NEPA Coordinator NEPA Coordinator

U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of the Treasury U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development

14th Street & Independence Ave., SW, Treasury Annex, Rm 6140, 1500 Office of Env. And Energy 

Washington, DC 20250 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 451 Seventh St, SW, Rm 7154 HUD Bldg.

Washington, DC 20220-0001 Washington, DC 20410-0001

NEPA Coordinator William Arguto Mark Canale,

U.S. Department of the Interior Environmental Assessment & Innovation Div. Fairfax County Department of Transportation

Office of Env. Policy and Compliance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reg. 3 12055 Government Center Parkway, 

 1849 C Street, NW, Rm 2340 1650 Arch Street, Suite 1034

Washington, DC 20240 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Fairfax, VA 22035-5511

 

Mary Colligan, Assistant Regional Honorable Gerald Connolly, Linda Cornish, Historic Preservation Planner

National Marine Fisheries Services Protected Fairfax County Government Center Fairfax County Department of Planning and 

Resources 12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 530 Zoning

One Blackburn Dr., Fairfax, VA 22035-0071 12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 730

Gloucester, MA 01930-2298 Fairfax, VA 22035

Eric Davis, NEPA Coordinator Frank de la Fe, Chairman Kathy Graham,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fairfax County Planning Commission Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Virginia Office 12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 330 Fisheries

6669 Short Lane, Fairfax, VA 22035-0042 4010 West Broad Street,

Gloucester, VA 23061 Richmond, VA 23230

Anthony Griffin, Marcia Hanson, Mount Vernon District Marc Holma, Architechtural Historial

Fairfax County Government Center Supervisor's Staff Department of Historic Resources

12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 552 2511 Parkers Lane, 2801 Kensington Avenue,

Fairfax, VA 22035-0071 Alexandria, VA 22306 Richmond, VA 23221

Honorary Pierce Homer, Honorable Gerald Hyland, Rene Hypes, Division of Natural Heritage

Virginia Department of Transportation Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation

P.O. Box 1475, 2511 Parkers Lane, 217 Governor Street,

Richmond, VA 23218 Alexandria, VA 22306 Richmond, VA 23219

Kathy Ichter, Ellie Irons Noel Kaplan,

Fairfax County Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Impact Review Fairfax County Department of Planning and 

12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 1034 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Zoning

Fairfax, VA 22035-5511 629 East Main Street, Suite 600 12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 730

Richmond, VA 23219 Fairfax, VA 22035

Honorable Dana Kauffman, Eugene Keller, Planner Kathleen Kilpatrick 

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors National Capitol Planning Commission State Historic Preservation Officer

6121 Franconia Road, 401 Ninth Street NW, Suite 500 North Lobby Virginia Department of Historic Resources

Franconia, VA 22310 Washington, DC 20576 2801 Kensington Avenue,

Richmond, VA 23221

Don Klima, Council on Historic Preservation Honorable Elaine McConnell, Robert McDonald, Chief, Planning Section

Old Post Office Building Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Virginia Department of Transportation

Office of Federal Agency Programs 8825 Beulah Street, Suite 115 14685 Avion Parkway,

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 809 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5246 Chantilly, VA 20151-1104

Washington, DC 20004

Peter Murphy, John Nichols Robert Nieweg, Director 

Fairfax County Planning Commission Oxford Habitat Conservation Office National Trust for Hstoric Preservation

12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 330 National Marine Fisheries Service Southern Field Office

Fairfax, VA 22035-0042 904 South Morris Street, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW,

Oxford, MD 21654 Washington, DC 20036-2117
Fort Belvoir 

Agency Scoping Mailing List 

Richard Pepino, Water Protection Division Doug Pickford Dave Robertson, Executive Director

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reg. 3 Environmental and Heritage Resources Metropolitan Washington Council of 

1650 Arch Street, Northern Virginia Regional Commission Governments

Philadelphia, PA 19103 7535 Little River Turnpike, Suite 100 777 N. Capitol Street, NE, Suite 300

Annandale, VA 22003 Washington, DC 20002

Ralph Spagnolo Wendy Stills, Project Development Specialist Ed Sundra, Environmental Specialist

Environmental Services Division U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reg. 3 400 Seventh Street, SW, Virginia Division

1650 Arch Street, Washington, DC 20590-0001 400 North 8th Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103 Richmond, VA 23240

Lynn Tadlock Mary Ann Welton John Wolflin, Supervisor, Annapolis Field

Planning and Development Division Fairfax County Wetlands Board U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Fairfax County Park Authority Fairfax County Department of Planning and 117 Admiral Cochrane Drive,

12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 421 Zoning Annapolis, MD 21401-7307

Fairfax, VA 22035-1118 12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 730

Fairfax, VA 22035

James Zook,

Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive 

Planning

12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 700

Fairfax, VA 22035-5505
Appendix F 

Public Scoping Meeting Displays 
Welcome

Welcome to the Public Scoping 

meeting for the Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) of BRAC 

2005 Implementation and Master 

Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

The purpose of this meeting is to 

solicit input on the scope of the 

EIS and to identify issues and 

alternatives to be addressed in 

the study.

June 7, 2006

7:00 p.m.–9:30 p.m.

Information Stations

Welcome (sign-in)

NEPA

BRAC Action 

Transportation

1.

2.

3.

4.

Natural & Cultural Resources

Written Comments

Oral Comments

Media

5.

6.

7.

8.
EIS Scoping Meeting 

Participant’s Guide

1)	 Please sign in at the Welcome Station and take a brochure.

2)	 View the displays in any order you choose.

3)	 To submit written comments on the scope of the EIS:

At the Written Comments station, please complete a hard copy

Comment Form and place it in the basket provided.

OR

To submit comments later, see below and visit the Written

Comments station for further instructions.

4)	 To submit oral comments on the scope of the EIS:

Oral comments may be submitted to the court reporter at the

Oral Comments station.







If you wish to submit comments at a later time, 

you may use the following methods:

Online Comment Form:

www.belvoirnewvision.com

(click on EIS)

E-mail:

environmental@belvoir.army.mil

Mail:

Attn: EIS Comments

Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works

9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5116

ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED OR POSTMARKED BY JULY 2, 2006
Master Plan Update

Fort Belvoir’s Master Plan Update will produce a new standard of excellence for 

federal urban design and development at Fort Belvoir; develop and implement a 

new vision for Fort Belvoir that is creative, achievable, and lasting; and create a 

program for integration and development that is structured and proactive.

The Master Plan Update will occur concurrently with the implementation of the Base 

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) action at Fort Belvoir. This Master Plan Update 

will involve a comprehensive look at how Fort Belvoir has evolved since its 1993 

Master Plan and how best to accommodate for its anticipated growth and expanded 

missions due to BRAC and other actions in the future. A team of experienced 

planners, engineers, architects, and environmental and transportation experts have 

been selected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to lead the realignment of Fort 

Belvoir. The team is going by the name of Belvoir New Vision Planners (BNVP).

Growth

Fort Belvoir anticipates a twofold increase in its workforce by 2011 with the addition 

of approximately 22,000 people. Its expanding role as a Community Support Center 

for its approximately 150,000 regional clients is a key component of this growth.

Key tenant agencies contributing to this substantial increase include the National 

Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense (DoD) Washington 

Headquarters Services, and the Army Lease Service. Other development includes 

expansion of DeWitt Army Hospital and construction of the National Museum of the 

U.S. Army.

Vision

Fort Belvoir will be the mission support center for the U.S. Army and the DoD in the 

National Capital Region. Regionally, the BRAC Program will relocate Army and DoD 

activities from around the Capital region (some from unsecured locations) to Fort 

Belvoir. Fort Belvoir is preparing to accept these missions and, concurrently, grow as 

the Community Support Center for this expanded client base.

Fort Belvoir is transforming into a world-class installation with diversity, 

sustainability, and connectivity, while conserving and protecting sensitive natural 

habitats and respecting its history. Community support facilities and services would 

also be expanded as part of this growth.

Fort Belvoir Master Plan Update

Planning Principles

Fort Belvoir is using smart growth principles and mixed-use development in its 

planning. Goals and guiding principles for planning include:

Transform Fort Belvoir 

Create a world-class installation 

Achieve a diversity of use and 

activities 

Build an urban place of high quality 

Achieve high-sustainability 

standards 











Conserve and protect sensitive 

natural habitats 

Emphasize connectivity 

Establish walkable neighborhoods 

Emphasize the public realm 

Respect Fort Belvoir’s history










Approximately 4,500 acres 

of land on Fort Belvoir are 

suitable for development. 

Of this land, approximately 

one-half has already been 

developed. A significant 

portion of Fort Belvoir 

land that was deemed 

less than ideal for 

development, however, 

could be developed with 

proper mitigation and/or 

specialized engineering.

A few areas that were 

identified as developable 

are in areas identified 

as having constraints. 

These exceptions lie in 

areas where buffers and 

environmentally sensitive 

lands were designated 

after existing structures 

were built (e.g., the Officer’s Club, eastern portions of 

Dogue Creek Village, and northeastern portions of George 

Washington Village).

BRAC

Development Scenarios Being Considered

Using its guiding principles, BNVP is evaluating six potential development 

areas. Each development scenario involves new development, 

redevelopment, and infill. Some combination of the development areas 

below would be used to support the BRAC program.

North Post

South Post

Engineer Proving Ground (EPG)







Davison Army Airfield

North Post Golf Course

Southwest Area







Development Scenarios
Land Use

Aesthetics and 

Visual Resources

Air Quality

Noise

Geology and Soils

Water Resources













Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Socioeconomics

Transportation

Utilities

Hazardous and 

Toxic Substances













The EIS will consider impacts to the 

following resource areas in the vicinity 

of Fort Belvoir:

Agency Coordination

To achieve smart growth and make on-post transportation 

and development decisions that are strategic within a regional 

perspective, the Army continues to coordinate closely with federal, 

state, and local agencies, and with state and local leaders including 

but not limited to:

National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

Viriginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ)

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)

Virginia State Historic Preservation Office (VA SHPO)

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VGIF)

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR)

Fairfax County

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)






















Transportation

Background

Fairfax County has more than 1 million 

residents and is expected to grow to 1.2 

million residents by 2025

Many regional transportation facilities already 

provide insufficient levels of service

Previous planning efforts have identified many 

improvement options

BRAC Impacts

Approximately 22,000 employees will relocate 

to Fort Belvoir

Consistent with previous and current land use 

plans (but on an accelerated schedule)

Proposed action is within employment and 

population forecasts for the area

The vast majority of expected additional 

employees already live and work in the region















Transportation Goals

Support and enhance an integrated, multimodal 

transportation system that includes:

Improved transit service

Increased road and transit capacity

Connections between potential activity centers

Recognize the linkage between transportation and 

land use

Develop proactive transportation management 

programs

Promote a “park once” strategy

Promote ridesharing

Respect historical and environmental factors



















The above map highlights major roads in the transportation network 

in the vicinity of Fort Belvoir. Arrows show the origins and estimated 

numbers of workers commuting to Fort Belvoir following BRAC 2005 

Implementation.

Fort Belvoir Traffic Network

Potential Improvements

The EIS will identify transportation improvements 

required to mitigate the impacts of the proposed 

action. Improvement concepts and designs are 

likely to come from either approved planning 

documents or ongoing studies in the area 

including:

Improvements proposed in regional, state, and 

local, long-range plans

TransAction 2030 (regional)

Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP)

Six-Year Improvement Program

Fairfax County Transportation Plan (local)

Improvements developed as part of ongoing 

studies

Fort Belvoir Master Plan

Springfield Connectivity Study

I-95 HOT Lanes Study



















Commitment of Approach

Regional

Cumulative impacts

Sub-regional

Secondary impacts

Local

Access and facility design

On-post 

Internal circulation

















Southbound–13,000

Westbound–8,000

Eastbound–6,000

Northbound–19,000
Natural and Cultural 

Resources

Wetlands

Floodplains 

Regulated wildlife habitats

Regulated historic and 

archaeological features

Riparian and foraging buffer along 

the installation’s waterways (Dogue 

Creek, Potomac River, Gunston 

Cove, Accotink Bay, and Pohick Bay)











The forest and wildlife corridor that 

diagonally traverses the North Post 

from the installation’s boundary 

at Huntley Meadow’s Park to the 

Davison Army Airfield

Steep slopes (>15 percent)





A detailed analysis of Fort Belvoir’s 

environmental and cultural resources 

is being performed utilizing data from 

Fort Belvoir’s Directorate of Public Works 

and Geographic Information Systems 

Department.

Natural and cultural features will be 

analyzed to identify potential development 

conflicts and areas potentially suitable for 

development.

Current Conditions

Fort Belvoir supports rich flora and fauna. 

Fort Belvoir has a rich history and is home to a 

variety of historic and cultural resources.

Analysis 

Studies of wetlands, flora, fauna, endangered 

species, and historic and archaeological 

resources are being undertaken.

The EIS will use the results of these studies to determine impacts of 

the BRAC action to natural, historic, and archaeological resources.

Areas that are considered generally not suitable for development 

include land within:















Small-whorled pogonia (state 

endangered, federally threatened) 

Wood turtle (state threatened) 

Bald eagle (federally threatened) 







263 species of birds including 61 

Partners in Flight priority species, 

one of which is only known to occur 

at Fort Belvoir.

Wetlands (1,700 acres) 




!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!! !

!! !! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!! !

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

! ! !

! !

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !!

!

!!!!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!!

!

!

!

!! !

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

! !

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!! !

!

!!

!!

! !

! !

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

! ! !!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

! !!!

!!!!

!

!!

! ! !

!

!!

!!

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! !

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!!

!

!

! ! !

!

! !

!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! !!!

!

! ! !! ! ! !

! !!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! ! ! !

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

! !!

!

! !

! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !! !

!!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

! !!

!! ! ! ! ! !

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!! !!! !

!!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!!!!! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Southwest

Area

South

Post

North

Post

Davison

Army Airfield

Engineer

Proving

Ground

Airf

ei dl B

ui dl ni g

H

eig

ht

Restriction

Zone

Natural, Cultural, and

Operational Features

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

LEGEND

- Airfield Approach Zone

- Building Height Restriction Zone

- Easements

- Former Training Ranges

- Solid Waste Management Units

- Former Landfills

- Threatened and Endangered Species

- Forest and Wildlife Corridor

- EPG Environmental Quality Corridor

- Steep Slopes

- Wildlife Refuges and Conservation Areas

- Resource Protection Areas

- 100-Year Flood Zones

- Riparian Areas

- Wetlands

- Fort Belvoir Main Post Historic District

- Historic Buildings

- Other Historic District Overlays

- Cemeteries

- Archaeological Sites

Natural Features

Cultural and Historic Features

Operational Features
Written Comments

All comments received will be used to assist in identifying alternatives and determining the scope of the EIS. A summary 

of the comments and responses will be included in the Draft EIS. Following publication of the Draft EIS, a 45-day public 

comment period will allow input from the public on the proposed action and alternatives and the adequacy of the 

evaluation. The Army will make the Final EIS available for public review no less than 30 days prior to issuing the Record of 

Decision (ROD). The BNVP website (www.belvoirnewvision.com) will be updated regularly as a means to keep the public 

informed of the most current information regarding the BRAC action at Fort Belvoir.

If you would like to submit written comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement, please complete a hard copy 

Comment Form and place it in the basket. 

If you wish to submit comments at a later time, you may use the following methods:

Online Comment Form:

Go to the www.belvoirnewvision.com Web site and click on EIS

E-mail: environmental@belvoir.army.mil

Mail:

Attn: BRAC EIS Comments

Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works

9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5116

ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED OR POSTMARKED BY JULY 2, 2006






Oral Comments

All comments received will be used to assist in identifying alternatives and 

determining the scope of the EIS. A summary of the comments and responses 

will be included in the Draft EIS. Following publication of the Draft EIS, a 45-day 

public comment period will allow input from the public on the proposed action and 

alternatives and the adequacy of the evaluation. The Army will make the Final EIS 

available for public review no less than 30 days prior to issuing the Record of Decision 

(ROD). The BNVP website (www.belvoirnewvision.com) will be updated regularly as 

a means to keep the public informed of the most current information regarding the 

BRAC action at Fort Belvoir.

Oral comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement may be recorded 

for the public record. Oral comments may be submitted to the court reporter at this 

station.
Appendix G 

Public Scoping Meeting 

National Environmental Policy Act 

PowerPoint Presentation 
Slide 1/26

Scoping Meeting for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIfor BRAC 2005 Implementation and MUpdate of Fort Belvoir, Virginia
Slide 2/26

What is the National Environmental Policy Act (NE

 A federal law that requires the iden

analysis of potential environmentacertain proposed federal actions aalternatives before those actions t

 A "full disclosure" law with provis

public access to and public particfederal decision-making process
Slide 3/26

What is NEPA? (continued)

 A statutory requirement triggere

federal actions that could signifthe quality of the human environ

 A mechanism for

• Evaluating potential environmenta• Incorporating public involvement i

decision-making process
Slide 4/26

An EIS...

 Is prepared in accordance with 

presents the results of analyses environmental effects of a propoand its alternatives.

 Includes opportunities for publi

involvement in agency planning

 Is prepared when a proposed ac

cause significant environmenta
Slide 5/26

An EIS...(continued)

 Includes analyses of land use, 

socioeconomics, cultural resoutransportation, air, noise, utilitieand toxic materials and wastes, soils, water resources, and bioloresources.

 Includes a description of the ba

environmental and socioeconomconditions against which effects proposed action are evaluated.
Slide 6/26

An EIS...(continued)

 Identifies potential consequenc

appropriate mitigation (methods adverse impacts). 
Slide 7/26

What is Scoping?

 Scoping is a part of the EIS prep

process through which a federadescribes a proposed action and alternatives and seeks input from agencies, organizations, and the on potentially affected resourceenvironmental issues to be consand the agency’s planned approanalysis to be conducted.
Slide 8/26

Elements of the Scoping Proc

 Identifying issues to be address

EIS

 Identifying major issues of conc Eliminating nonrelevant issues Delineating the study area(s) Identifying potential alternatives
Slide 9/26

Purposes of this Scoping Mee

 To inform the public of what is c

being considered for inclusion i

 To collect public input that will 

Army prepare the EIS

 To use public input to develop t

the EIS, modify or update the dethe proposed action and alternaidentify the resource areas likelaffected
Slide 10/26

Legislative, Regulatory & Interagency Framework

 The National Environmental Pol

of 1969 (NEPA): PL 91-190

 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

1500-1508: Council on EnvironmQuality Regulations for Implemethe Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy A

 32 CFR Part 651: Environmental 

Analysis of Army Actions
Slide 11/26

Legislative, Regulatory & Interagency Framework(continued)

 National Historic Preservation A Clean Water Act Endangered Species Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination A Clean Air Act Coastal Zone Management Act
Slide 12/26

Steps in Preparing an EIS

 Define the proposed action, alte

decisions to be made.

 Identify what needs to be analyz

(scoping); refine the proposed aalternatives.

 Gather data, conduct analyses, 

environmental effects of the proand alternatives.

 Publish a Draft EIS for public an

review.
Slide 13/26

Steps in Preparing an EIS(continued)

 Conduct a public meeting on th

solicit comments.

 Publish a Final EIS for public an

review.

 Publish a Record of Decision.
Slide 14/26

What are the Decisions to be 

 How best to implement the BRA

recommendation for Fort Belvoi

 How best to accommodate Fort 

anticipated long-term growth
Slide 15/26

What is the Proposed Action?

 The proposed action is to realig

Belvoir according to BRAC law update the Fort Belvoir Master PCommission recommended the of approximately 22,000 people of 59 agencies or activities to reFort Belvoir. These include, but limited to:

• Primary and secondary medical ca

from Walter Reed Medical Center texpanded DeWitt Hospital
Slide 16/26

What is the Proposed Action?(continued)

• Army and DoD organizations from 

Capital Region (NCR) leased space

• National Geospatial-Intelligence A

units from various NCR leased locBethesda, Maryland

• Selected Defense Intelligence Age

activities from leased space to RivCharlottesville, Virginia (to be anaseparate NEPA document).
Slide 17/26

What this EIS WILL evaluat

 BRAC 2005 Implementation Update of the Fort Belvoir Master Pla Impacts that the BRAC 2005 Impleme

Belvoir will have on the transportatio

 Cumulative effects: 

• National Museum of the U.S. Army• Potential off-post transportation impr• Proposed connector road between Ro

Telegraph Road

• Information Dominance Center (DoD A• Full analysis for each of these project

under separate NEPA documents
Slide 18/26

What this EIS will NOT eval

 Effects to Crystal City resulting from 

Army and Department of Defense (Doorganizations to Fort Belvoir. The decwhether to realign Fort Belvoir was mBRAC Commission and Congress, beNovember 9, 2005, and is not subject 

 Effects of the potential off-post trans

improvements identified in the EIS

 Ongoing installation construction pro
Slide 19/26

Alternatives

 A “no action” alternative: A “ba

alternative required by NEPA. Balternative is the set of conditioNovember 2005.

 Development center locations (i

Post, South Post, Engineer Prov(EPG), Davidson Army Airfield, Golf Course, Southwest Area, ocombinations of locations).

 New construction, renovation, o

combination of the two.
Slide 20/26

Alternatives(continued)

 Evaluation of a single land use 

iterations of alternative land use they are developed
Slide 21/26

Resource Areas to be Considein the EIS

 Land Use Aesthetics and 

Visual Resources

 Air Quality Noise Geology and Soils Water Resources

 Biologic Cultural  Socioec Transpo Utilities Hazardo

Substan
Slide 22/26

Impacts to be Identified and Discussed in the EIS

 Direct and indirect impacts Short-term and long-term impa Cumulative impacts Mitigation of impacts Irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources

 Adverse impacts that cannot b Short-term uses of the environ

maintenance and enhancementerm productivity
Slide 23/26

Public Involvement Opportun Scoping meeting (oral or written  Public review of Draft EIS (45 day Public meeting on Draft EIS (oral 

comments)

 Final EIS (written comments)Public notices will be issued when and Final EISs are released for revi
Slide 24/26

Projected EIS Schedule

 Public Scoping Meeting

• June 7, 2006, Hilton Springfield Ho

Springfield, Virginia

• Deadline to Submit Scoping Comm

July 2, 2006

 Draft EIS Available for Review

• December 2006 (45 days)

 Draft EIS Public Meeting

• January 2007
Slide 25/26

Projected EIS Schedule (continued)

 Draft EIS Comments Due

• 45 days from publication of Notice 

Federal Register; February 2007

 Final EIS Available for Review

• May 2007 (30 days)

 Final EIS Comments Deadline

• 30 days from Final EIS publication
Slide 26/26

 Record of Decision Available

• Minimum of 30 days after release o

Draft and Final EISs will be availibraries and on the Web.

Projected EIS Schedule (continued)
Appendix H 

Public Scoping Meeting Handouts 
EIS Timeline

Public Scoping Meeting

Springfield, VA ...........................................................................June 7, 2006

Scoping Comments Deadline.....................................................July 2, 2006

Draft EIS Available for Review..................................................Winter 2007

Draft EIS Public Hearing............................................................Winter2007

Draft EIS Comments Due................... 45 days from publication of the Notice of 

Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register

Final EIS Available for Review ............................................... Summer 2007

Record of Decision................................................................. Summer 2007

How do I submit comments on the scope of the EIS?

The Department of the Army and Fort Belvoir welcome your input on the issues and concerns that 

should be addressed in the EIS. Comments may be submitted in the following ways:

Scoping Meeting

Oral comments and written comments may be submitted at the 

June 7, 2006, scoping meeting.

Web Site

Comments may be submitted online at: www.belvoirnewvision.com (click on EIS)

E-mail

Comments may be e-mailed to: environmental@belvoir.army.mil

Mail

Comments may be mailed to:

Attn.: EIS Comments

Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works

9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5116

All comments must be received or postmarked by July 2, 2006, 

to be considered in preparation of the Draft EIS.
What is BRAC?

Congress passed a law authorizing Base Realignment

and Closure (BRAC) recommendations at Department

of Defense (DoD) installations in November 2005, the

fifth BRAC round since 1988. The purpose of the BRAC 

recommendations was to authorize another round of

realignments and closures to keep up with evolving

global security requirements. The BRAC action at Fort 

Belvoir includes relocating 59 DoD agencies and activities, primarily from the DC metropolitan area, onto

Fort Belvoir.

What is the National Environmental 

Policy Act?

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 

requires the analysis of potential environmental effects associated with major federal actions. NEPA 

ensures that federal agencies consider social and

environmental factors along with the technical and

economic components of a decision. The agency must 

identify potential impacts on resources such as water,

air, wildlife, cultural resources, land use, recreation,

and aesthetics, and consider alternatives to the proposed action. NEPA also requires that the responsible 

federal official consult with relevant federal and state 

agencies, federally recognized tribes, and the public to

determine these impacts.

NEPA is a “full disclosure” law with provisions for 

public access to, and full participation in, the federal

decision-making process. The Act’s intent is to protect, restore, and enhance the environment through

well-informed federal decisions. Two NEPA documents 

will be created in the course of this action:

• An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

that analyzes any potential significant environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with

implementing the BRAC recommendations and the

updated Master Plan.

• A Record of Decision (ROD) that documents the

final decision on the proposed action, on the basis 

of the information presented in the EIS. It may 

specify mitigation measures (methods to lessen

negative impacts) and monitoring programs to be

undertaken.

What is the U.S. Army’s Enhanced Use Lease 

(EUL) Program?

The National Defense Authorization Act authorizes 

Department of Defense installations to obtain leasing opportunities. The program is intended to improve 

federal property utilization, provide revenue to the

installation, reduce installation operating costs, enhance mission performance by fostering cooperation

between military services and the private sector, and

introduce valuable federal property into the local job

market. A lease may be entered into only if the Secretary of the Army considers it advantageous to the

United States in terms that promote national defense 

or are in the public interest. EULs may be considered 

for the Master Plan and EIS efforts at Fort Belvoir.

What is the purpose of this scoping meeting?

The purpose of this scoping meeting is to seek input 

from individuals, community organizations, federally

recognized Indian tribes, and federal, state, and local 

agencies on issues and concerns relating to the scope

of an EIS that is being prepared for implementation of 

the BRAC Commission’s recommendation for realignment of Fort Belvoir and update of the Fort Belvoir 

Master Plan. Specifically, the Army is seeking public 

input on the action alternatives to be analyzed and

the environmental and socioeconomic impacts to be

addressed in the EIS. This meeting also serves as an 

opportunity, consistent with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, for interested parties to submit their views

on any potential historic preservation issues raised by

the proposed action.

What is the meeting format and what topics 

will be addressed?

This meeting is open-house style, with information 

booths available to help attendees identify potential

issues and concerns to be addressed in the EIS. The 

booths provide information on such topics as the development plans under consideration for Fort Belvoir, 

the timeline for preparing the EIS, and other public 

involvement opportunities that will occur throughout

the EIS process. Army and Fort Belvoir representatives are available to answer questions.

You can submit written comments concerning the EIS 

at the Written Comments station or by sending them

via regular mail or via e-mail (see How do I submit 
What is BRAC?

Congress passed a law authorizing Base Realignment

and Closure (BRAC) recommendations at Department

of Defense (DoD) installations in November 2005, the

fifth BRAC round since 1988. The purpose of the BRAC 

recommendations was to authorize another round of

realignments and closures to keep up with evolving

global security requirements. The BRAC action at Fort 

Belvoir includes relocating 59 DoD agencies and activities, primarily from the DC metropolitan area, onto

Fort Belvoir.

What is the National Environmental 

Policy Act?

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 

requires the analysis of potential environmental effects associated with major federal actions. NEPA 

ensures that federal agencies consider social and

environmental factors along with the technical and

economic components of a decision. The agency must 

identify potential impacts on resources such as water,

air, wildlife, cultural resources, land use, recreation,

and aesthetics, and consider alternatives to the proposed action. NEPA also requires that the responsible 

federal official consult with relevant federal and state 

agencies, federally recognized tribes, and the public to

determine these impacts.

NEPA is a “full disclosure” law with provisions for 

public access to, and full participation in, the federal

decision-making process. The Act’s intent is to protect, restore, and enhance the environment through

well-informed federal decisions. Two NEPA documents 

will be created in the course of this action:

• An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

that analyzes any potential significant environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with

implementing the BRAC recommendations and the

updated Master Plan.

• A Record of Decision (ROD) that documents the

final decision on the proposed action, on the basis 

of the information presented in the EIS. It may 

specify mitigation measures (methods to lessen

negative impacts) and monitoring programs to be

undertaken.

What is the U.S. Army’s Enhanced Use Lease 

(EUL) Program?

The National Defense Authorization Act authorizes 

Department of Defense installations to obtain leasing opportunities. The program is intended to improve 

federal property utilization, provide revenue to the

installation, reduce installation operating costs, enhance mission performance by fostering cooperation

between military services and the private sector, and

introduce valuable federal property into the local job

market. A lease may be entered into only if the Secretary of the Army considers it advantageous to the

United States in terms that promote national defense 

or are in the public interest. EULs may be considered 

for the Master Plan and EIS efforts at Fort Belvoir.

What is the purpose of this scoping meeting?

The purpose of this scoping meeting is to seek input 

from individuals, community organizations, federally

recognized Indian tribes, and federal, state, and local 

agencies on issues and concerns relating to the scope

of an EIS that is being prepared for implementation of 

the BRAC Commission’s recommendation for realignment of Fort Belvoir and update of the Fort Belvoir 

Master Plan. Specifically, the Army is seeking public 

input on the action alternatives to be analyzed and

the environmental and socioeconomic impacts to be

addressed in the EIS. This meeting also serves as an 

opportunity, consistent with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, for interested parties to submit their views

on any potential historic preservation issues raised by

the proposed action.

What is the meeting format and what topics 

will be addressed?

This meeting is open-house style, with information 

booths available to help attendees identify potential

issues and concerns to be addressed in the EIS. The 

booths provide information on such topics as the development plans under consideration for Fort Belvoir, 

the timeline for preparing the EIS, and other public 

involvement opportunities that will occur throughout

the EIS process. Army and Fort Belvoir representatives are available to answer questions.

You can submit written comments concerning the EIS 

at the Written Comments station or by sending them

via regular mail or via e-mail (see How do I submit 
EIS Timeline

Public Scoping Meeting

Springfield, VA ...........................................................................June 7, 2006

Scoping Comments Deadline.....................................................July 2, 2006

Draft EIS Available for Review..................................................Winter 2007

Draft EIS Public Hearing...........................................................Winter 2007

Draft EIS Comments Due................... 45 days from publication of the Notice of 

Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register

Final EIS Available for Review ............................................... Summer 2007

Record of Decision................................................................. Summer 2007

How do I submit comments on the scope of the EIS?

The Department of the Army and Fort Belvoir welcome your input on the issues and concerns that 

should be addressed in the EIS. Comments may be submitted in the following ways:

Scoping Meeting

Oral comments and written comments may be submitted at the 

June 7, 2006, scoping meeting.

Web Site

Comments may be submitted online at: www.belvoirnewvision.com (click on EIS)

E-mail

Comments may be e-mailed to: environmental@belvoir.army.mil

Mail

Comments may be mailed to:

Attn.: EIS Comments

Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works

9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5116

All comments must be received or postmarked by July 2, 2006, 

to be considered in preparation of the Draft EIS.
(More comment sheets are available if you need additional space.) 

Comment Form 

Environmental Impact Statement for BRAC 2005 Implementation 

and Master Plan Update at Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

NOTE: All information submitted will become public record. 

1. Your information: 

Name: _____________________________________________________________ 

Title: ______________________________________________________________ 

Agency/Organization: _________________________________________________ 

Address: ____________________________________________________________ 

City, State, Zip: ______________________________________________________ 

Phone: _____________________________________________________________ 

E-mail: _____________________________________________________________ 

□ Please send a CD copy of the EIS to me. 

2. Please check the one affiliation that best represents your role or interest in the EIS: 

□ Fort Belvoir Resident □ Recreational Organization 

□ State Government □ Private Citizen 

□ School/University □ Federal Government 

□ Civic Organization □ Business/Commercial Organization 

□ Federally Recognized Tribe □ Environmental Organization 

□ County □ Other: ____________________ 

3. EIS Areas of Concern. Please check the appropriate boxes and write your specific 

comments about the area of concern in # 4 below. More Comment Forms are 

provided at the Comment station if you need additional space. 

□ Construction □ Noise 

□ Traffic and Transportation □ Native American Resources 

□ Cultural Resources/Historic Properties □ Air Quality 

□ Socioeconomics □ Water Quality 

□ Wetlands, Wildlife, Endangered Species □ Other: _____________________ 
(More comment sheets are available if you need additional space.) 

4. Please write your comments in the space provided below. 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

Web Site

Comments may be submitted online at: www.belvoirnewvision.com (click on EIS)

E-mail Comments may be e-mailed to: environmental@belvoir.army.mil

Mail

Comments may be mailed to:

Attn.: EIS Comments

Fort Belvoir Directorate of Public Works

9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 100

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5116

All comments must be received or postmarked by July 2, 2006 

to be considered in preparation of the Draft EIS.