Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

F-1

Appendix F 

Storm Water and Watershed Modeling Methodology 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

F-2

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Storm Water Runoff Modeling 

To estimate baseline storm water runoff and peak flow volumes and the potential impacts of each of the 

proposed development scenarios on Fort Belvoir, affected streams were modeled using Technical Release 

55 (TR-55), Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (NRCS, 1986). TR-55 includes simplified 

procedures for estimating storm-event runoff and peak discharges in small watersheds. 

An assessment of land cover and hydrologic factors that characterize the current flow conditions of 

streams located within proposed development areas was made to determine the potential environmental 

consequences that would result from the adoption of each of the BRAC proposed alternatives. The 

assessment included analysis of the existing distribution of land uses and soil types, characterization of 

surface elevations, subwatersheds, and stream networks. TR-55 model input data were developed based 

on the proposed development footprint coverage for each of the alternatives and current GIS data layers 

for land cover, streams, soils, topography, and other watershed attributes. 

Hydrologic conditions on Fort Belvoir are characterized based on storm water management units. The 

delineation of these subwatersheds was provided by the Fort Belvoir GIS Center (US Army Garrison Fort 

Belvoir DPW GIS Center, 2005). Hydrologic soil types and areas were characterized using the State Soil 

Geographic (STATSGO) coverage for Virginia, developed by the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS). Land cover, surface elevations, and stream networks were derived from the 2001 

National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), 30-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM), and National 

Hydrography Dataset (NHD), developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The 

assessment of current conditions was used as a baseline from which potential impacts on storm water 

runoff volumes and stream flow velocity were estimated for each of the proposed alternatives. Note that 

BMPs required by state and federal regulations have various percent efficiencies depending on their 

design and site characteristics; therefore, BMP implementation was not considered in the storm water 

modeling scenarios. 

Model Background

TR-55 model scenarios for each subwatershed were run using local precipitation data for the 1, 2, 5, 10, 

25, 50, and 100-year design storm events over a 24-hour period. 24-hour rainfall distributions for the 

Washington, DC, metropolitan region were packaged with the TR-55 model and were used to simulate 

precipitation and runoff conditions for each of the subwatersheds modeled. These data were derived from 

NOAA isoline precipitation maps for the eastern United States. Precipitation data were used to estimate 

runoff volumes by assigning a weighted curve number to the land area of each modeled subwatershed 

based on the distribution of land cover and hydrologic soil types. Peak stream flow was then estimated 

based on flow routing procedures that calculate runoff travel time, also known as time of concentration, 

through the subwatershed. Runoff travel time between two locations was used as a measure of flow 

velocity. For each TR-55 model scenario, travel time was assumed to be implicitly dependent on stream 

flow length. Other important model parameters are discussed below. 

The runoff curve number determines the fraction of total precipitation that either infiltrates into ground 

water storage or enters surface water as over-land runoff. Curve numbers are calculated based on the 

distribution of land use/cover and hydrologic soil types within each subwatershed. Area weighted curve 

numbers for Fort Belvoir subwatersheds were calculated using available land cover (2001 NLCD) and 

soils (STATSGO) GIS data layers. 

To estimate stream flow velocity, TR-55 divides surface flow into three distinct types—sheet flow, 

shallow concentrated flow, and open channel flow—that together form a continuous flow route from the 

most hydrologically distant point to the farthest downstream point within a watershed. The algorithm to 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 F-3
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 F-4

calculate flow velocity varies for each type, but all consider slope and surface roughness. Calculated 

velocities for sheet flow and concentrated shallow flow are impacted primarily by land use and slope, 

while channel flow also considers channel geometry. 

Sheet flow usually occurs at the headwaters of a stream and is characterized by the volume of water that 

flows over land surfaces. Sheet flow is restricted in the model to a maximum length of 300 feet. This 

maximum was assumed for all subwatersheds due to the lack of site-specific information. The flow 

velocity associated with sheet flow is a function of Manning’s roughness coefficient for overland flow 

and slope of the hydrologic grade line. Manning’s roughness coefficients were derived from land cover 

data (NLCD), and hydraulic grade lines (land slope) were calculated using 30-meter DEM data. 

Sheet flow is usually conveyed into shallow concentrated flow once the maximum length of 300 feet is 

reached. The velocity of shallow concentrated flow is a function of slope and land cover. Land cover 

types were simplified and classified as either pervious or impervious surfaces. Shallow concentrated flow 

was assumed to occur at the end of sheet flow and beginning of stream channel flow, based on the 

location of streams depicted in the NHD streams coverage (USGS). 

Average channel flow velocity was calculated using Manning’s roughness coefficient for open channel 

flow, channel slope, and channel geometry. It was assumed that no natural channels would be converted 

to artificial materials (concrete, metal, or polyethylene). Stream channel geometries were estimated using 

regional curves that depict the relationship between bankfull and drainage area for the Eastern United 

States hydro-physiographic province (Dunn and Leopold, 1978). 

 

For each of the BRAC proposed alternatives (Preferred, Town Center, City Center, and Satellite 

Campuses), the current land use grid (2001 NLCD) was edited to reflect the locations of the proposed 

development projects. Estimated footprints for planned facilities and associated developed areas within 

each subwatershed were added to the land cover grid as either high or medium intensity development 

areas. These changes in land cover were used to update the weighted curve number and time of 

concentration values for each subwatershed and estimate potential changes in peak flow discharge that 

may result from each of the proposed alternatives. 

Table F-1 presents the peak flow modeling results for all subwatersheds under each of the proposed 

alternatives. The percent change in peak flow discharge for the 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year storm 

event scenarios are shown in this table. The results for the 1-year and 10-year storm events are 

summarized in Section 4.7. 
Table F-1 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

F-5 

TR-55 Runoff modeling results (percent change from baseline to future condition) 

Preferred Alternative Town Center Alternative City Center Alternative Satellite 

Peak discharge % change Peak discharge % change Peak discharge % change Peak 

Storm Frequency (years) Storm Frequency (years) Storm Frequency (years) Stor

Subwatershed 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 1 2 

1 100 83 70 63 61 56 51 131 106 86 75 71 65 59 10 6 5 4 4 4 3 54 41 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 7 6 5 5 4 4 22 15 12 10 9 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

22 9 7 6 5 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

25 36 23 19 16 14 12 10 36 23 19 16 14 12 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 19 15 13 12 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 19 

30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 16 12 10 9 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 16 

31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

F-6 

Table F-1 

TR-55 Runoff modeling results (percent change from baseline to future condition) (contin

Preferred Alternative Town Center Alternative City Center Alternative Satellite 

Peak discharge % change Peak discharge % change Peak discharge % change Peak 

Storm Frequency (years) Storm Frequency (years) Storm Frequency (years) Stor

Subwatershed 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 1 2 

32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 11 7 6 5 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 11 

33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 29 

39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 14 

43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 72 

44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

53 77 46 27 22 20 18 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 46 27 22 20 18 16 0 0 

54 29 20 13 10 10 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 13 6 4 5 4 4 0 0 

55 56 35 21 17 15 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 33 20 17 15 13 12 0 0 

56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

57 93 58 40 33 29 26 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 58 40 32 29 25 22 0 0 

58 70 51 38 31 28 25 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 51 38 31 28 25 21 0 0 

59 82 59 42 34 31 27 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 60 42 34 31 27 22 0 0 

60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Watershed Modeling (Nutrient Analysis and Cumulative Impacts Analysis) 

The Generalized Watershed Loading Functions (GWLF) model was used to estimate current (baseline) 

conditions and potential changes in flow volume and pollutant loads. Separate watershed models were 

developed for Accotink Creek, Pohick Creek, and Dogue Creek. A fourth watershed model was 

developed to incorporate direct drainage areas (watershed areas that flow directly into Gunston Cove, 

Accotink Bay, Pohick Bay, and the Potomac River). Average annual flow volume and nutrient loads 

(total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP)) were calculated in order to assess potential cumulative 

impacts on water quality that may result from the Preferred Alternative and anticipated future 

development within each watershed. In addition, loading coefficients were calculated for TN and TP 

based on the Accotink Creek watershed model results in order to estimate the percent change in nutrient 

loads for the modeled subwatersheds under each BRAC development alternative. Table F-2 presents the 

subwatershed nutrient loading results. Subwatersheds with greater than a ten percent change in nitrogen 

and phosphorus loads are summarized in Section 4.7. Watershed results for the cumulative impacts 

analysis are presented in Section 5.7. 

The 2001 NLCD GIS coverage was modified to account for future development in each watershed as a 

result of the BRAC Preferred Alternative and planned development within these watersheds based on 

information provided by the Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning (2006). The NLCD grid 

was modified as discussed in the storm water modeling section above. Future development locations 

within the vicinity of Fort Belvoir were represented in a GIS point coverage provided by the Fairfax 

County Planning Department. The planned development area associated with each location was 

reclassified as high intensity development. BRAC and other future on- and off-post development projects 

located within each watershed that drains part of Fort Belvoir are shown in Table F-3. Fairfax County 

development projects located in other watersheds are shown in Table F-4. Note that BMPs required by 

state and federal regulations have various percent efficiencies depending on their design and site 

characteristics; therefore, BMP implementation was not considered in the watershed modeling scenarios. 

Model Background

The watershed models for Accotink Creek, Pohick Creek, Dogue Creek, and Direct Drainage watersheds 

were developed using GWLF and the BasinSim 1.0 interface. The GWLF model, which was originally 

developed by Cornell University (Haith et al., 1992), provides the ability to simulate runoff and pollutant 

loadings from watersheds given variable-size source areas (e.g., agricultural, forested, and developed 

land). GWLF is a continuous simulation model that uses daily time steps for weather data and water 

balance calculations. Monthly calculations are made for pollutant loads based on daily water balance 

totals that are summed to give monthly values. The BasinSim 1.0 watershed simulation program is a 

Windows based modeling system that facilitates the development of model input data and provides 

additional functionality for simulating daily flows and flow and pollutant routing (Dai et al., 2000) 

GWLF is an aggregate distributed/lumped parameter watershed model. For surface loading, it is 

distributed in the sense that it allows multiple land use/cover scenarios. Each area is assumed to be 

homogeneous with respect to various attributes considered by the model. In addition, the model does not 

spatially distribute the source areas, but aggregates the loads from each area into a watershed total. In 

other words, there is no spatial routing. For subsurface loading, the model acts as a lumped parameter 

model using a water balance approach. No distinctly separate areas are considered for subsurface flow 

contributions. Daily water balances are computed for an unsaturated zone as well as for a saturated 

subsurface zone, where infiltration is computed as the difference between precipitation and snowmelt 

minus surface runoff plus evapotranspiration. 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 F-7
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

GWLF models surface runoff using the Natural Resources Conservation Service Curve Number (NRCSCN) approach with daily weather inputs of temperature and precipitation. Erosion and sediment yield are 

estimated using monthly erosion calculations based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) 

algorithm (with monthly rainfall-runoff coefficients) and a monthly composite of KLSCP values for each 

source area (e.g., land cover/soil type combination). The KLSCP factors are variables used in the 

calculations to depict changes in soil loss/erosion (K), the length/slope factor (LS), the vegetation cover 

factor (C), and the conservation practices factor (P). A sediment delivery ratio, based on watershed size, 

and a transport capacity, based on average daily runoff, are applied to the calculated erosion to determine 

pollutant yield for each source area. 

Surface nutrient losses are determined by applying dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus coefficients to 

surface runoff and applying a sediment coefficient to the yield portion for each agricultural source area. 

Urban nutrient inputs are all assumed to be solid phase, and the model uses an exponential accumulation 

and washoff function for these loadings. Subsurface losses are calculated using dissolved nitrogen and 

phosphorus coefficients for shallow groundwater contributions to stream nutrient loads, and the 

subsurface submodel considers only a single, lumped-parameter contributing area. Evapotranspiration is 

determined using daily weather data and a cover factor dependent on land use/cover type. Finally, a 

water balance is performed daily using supplied or computed precipitation, snowmelt, initial unsaturated 

zone storage, maximum available zone storage, and evapotranspiration values. All the equations used by 

the model can be found in the original GWLF paper (Haith and Shoemaker, 1987) and GWLF User’s 

Manual (Haith et al., 1992). 

Nonpoint source pollution is driven by rainfall, and therefore precipitation data are necessary to drive the 

watershed model. Local rainfall and temperature data were used to simulate flow conditions in modeled 

watersheds. Daily precipitation and temperature data were obtained from local National Climatic Data 

Center (NCDC) weather stations. There was one station in close proximity to the modeled watersheds—

Reagan National Airport. Temperature and precipitation data recorded at this station from April 1995 

through December 2004 were used in the simulations. 

Table F-2 

GWLF nutrient loading results (percent change from baseline to future condition) 

Preferred Town Center City Center 

Satellite 

Sub- Campuses 

watershed TP TN TP TN TP TN TP TN 

1 -3 -4 9 15 4 6 -9 -10 

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 -1 -4 -1 -4 2 3 0 -1 

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

11 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 F-8
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table F-2 

GWLF nutrient loading results (percent change from 

baseline to future condition) (continued)

Preferred Town Center City Center 

Satellite 

Sub- Campuses 

watershed TP TN TP TN TP TN TP TN 

14 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 

15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

25 -2 -6 5 3 0 0 0 0 

26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

29 2 3 5 6 2 3 12 13 

30 3 4 -3 -3 3 4 2 2 

31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

32 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 

33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 

39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

43 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 2 

44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 

45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

53 51 68 0 0 61 83 0 0 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 F-9
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table F-2 

GWLF nutrient loading results (percent change from 

baseline to future condition) (continued)

Preferred Town Center City Center 

Satellite 

Sub- Campuses 

watershed TP TN TP TN TP TN TP TN 

54 8 17 0 0 7 14 0 0 

55 26 39 0 0 26 39 0 0 

56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

57 19 31 1 1 11 19 1 1 

58 22 33 0 0 13 19 0 0 

59 2 -3 0 0 5 0 0 0 

60 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 

Table F-3 

Projects located in modeled watersheds (Fort Belvoir drainage area) 

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

Accotink Creek BRAC PROJECTS 

8 

67959/ 67487/ 

64097 INFRASTRUCTURE 

4 64238 HOSPITAL 

5 64241 DENTAL CLINIC 

16 66228 PURCHASE AMC RELOCATABLES 

15 63571 ACCESS ROAD/CONTROL POINT 

2 64234 WHS 

1 65416 NGA 

12 55661 CHILD DEV CENTER – 244 (NGA) 

13 55662 CHILD DEV CENTER – 303 (EPG) 

7 N/A CORPS OF ENGINEERS INTERGRATION OFFICE 

6 65871 NARMC HEADQUARTERS BLDG 

19 62892 MODERNIZE BARRACKS 

9 64076 EMERGENCY SVCS CENTER (EPG) 

OTHER ON-POST PROJECTS 

26a 58466 

MUSEUM OF THE US ARMY ALTERNATIVE LOCATION AT 

NORTH POST 

17 65317 GOLF CLUBHOUSE/CART STORAGE 

31 n/a INFO DOMINANCE CENTER 

 2 61458 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION CENTER 

20 57495 SOLDIER SUPPORT CENTER 

 3 64231 PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER (TROOP CANTONMENT AREA) 

18 63206 ADDITION TO MP STATION 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 F-10
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table F-3 

Projects located in modeled watersheds (Fort Belvoir drainage area) (continued) 

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

15 n/a DCNG RESOURCES TRAINING CENTER 

14 65139 EXPAND ARTS/CRAFT/AUTO 

19 55523/ 52694 POTOMAC HERITAGE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL 

29 n/a 

OPERATIONS SECURITY EVALUATION GROUP TRAINING 

FACILITY 

16 62134 DLA RECEIVING AND SCREENING FACILITY 

30 n/a FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY EXTENSION 

28 n/a FLIGHT CONTROL TOWER

25 64230 PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER (EPG) 

24 64742 CONSTRUCT SHOPPETTE 

30 64531 PX EXPANSION 

OFF-POST PROJECTS

84 002463-Sp -002-2 OLD KEENE MILL PROFESSIONAL OFFICES 

 1 002981-SP-004-2 

WEST SPRINGFIELD BUSINESS CENTRE SITE 5 PARKING 

ADDN 

30 003330-SP -007-2 TELEGRAPH ROAD WAREHOUSE 

31 006839-SP-006-2 THE FAIRFAX BUILDING ADDITION 

25 006384-SD-001-3 MAZZELLO COVE 

55 000187-SP-002-1 UPS IN NEWINGTON 

128 000503-SP-001-3 U-HAUL RETAIL CENTER 8207 TERMINAL ROAD 

130 004198-SP-009-2 M AND S HOLDINGS LLC (FORM MILLERS OFFICE PRODUCTS) 

129 009730-SP-001-2 CROWN CENTER 

125 000497-SP-002-2 HUNTER PLAZA PHASE 2 

124 000497-SP-001-2 HUNTER PLAZA, PHASE ONE 

16 008082-SP-001-3 HOOES ROAD PARK 

106 005833-SP-002-2 ECHO INC 

 3 005219-PI-001-2 ACCOTINK STREAM VALLEY TRAIL (REVIT AREA) (BR/SP) 

 4 006945-SP-001-2 ACCOTINK PARK 

131 003189-SP -004-2 8501 BACKLICK ROAD (FORMERLY 8521) 

126 000230-SP-001-2 TAVARES/ALLEN PROPERTY 

127 001130-SP-001-2 ISLAND CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

15 004998-PI-001-2 MOHTARAM MOZAFARI RESIDENCE 

107 007207-SP-002-2 VW SPRINGFIELD 

14 005694-SP-001-2 VA TIRE AND AUTO REPAIR 

87 006754-SD-005-3 TALBERT SUBDIVISION 

70 009990-SP -003-2 SPRINGFIELD METRO CENTER II ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 F-11
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table F-3 

Projects located in modeled watersheds (Fort Belvoir drainage area) (continued) 

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

99 006561-SP-001-2 6715 COMMERCE STREET 

64 004072-SP-003-1 BOB EVANS RESTAURANT (SP) OLD KEENE MILL ROAD 

40 001988-SP-002-1 RESIDENCE INN SPRINGFIELD 

60 024588-SP-001-1 HOA NGHIEM PAGODA 

44 013408-SD-001-1 KENDRICK 

 17 006836-SP-009-2 METRO PARK PHASE SEVEN 

112 009639-SP-008-2 SILVER LAKE IHOP RESTAURANT 

110 006836-SP-010-2 METRO PARK PHASE SIX 

108 001414-SP-001-2 

2ND PARK STRUCTURE AT FRANC-SPRINGFIELD METRO 

STATION 

 73 000438-SP-002-3 LOYAL ORDER OF THE MOOSE FRANCONIA LODGE 646 INC 

109 000677-SP-003-2 CALVARY ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH EXPANSION 

118 004099-SD-001-2 CHAPEL BRIDGE ESTATES 

 2 002981-SP-005-2 WEST SPRINGFIELD BUSINESS CENTRE SITE 6 

178 009754-SP-005-2 GUNSTON COMMERCE CENTER LAND BAY B 

 24 001343-SP-003-2 CIFUENTES PROPERTY PCLS 15 AND 15A 

181 RZ-2005-LE-025 Mid-Town Springfield Development (mixed use) 

182 PA-506-IV-SI Springfield Mall Expansion 

183 05-IV-2MV Mixed Use (Office, Hotel, Retail)

184 05-IV-4MV Mixed Use (Residential, Office, Retail, Hotel)

185 05-IV-10S Mixed Use (Residential, Office, Recreation/Open Space, Retail)

186 05-IV-6S Mixed Use (Office, Industrial)

187 05-IV-1LP Mixed Use (Office, Retail)

Direct Drainage BRAC PROJECTS 

4 64238 HOSPITAL 

5 64241 DENTAL CLINIC 

16 66228 PURCHASE AMC RELOCATABLES 

17 65592/ 67321 PEO EIS ADMIN FACILITY 

8 

64097/ 67487/ 

67959 INFRASTRUCTURE 

6 66877 NARMC HQ BLDG 

15 63571 ACCESS ROAD/ CONTROL POINT 

18 54347 STRUCTURED PARKING FACILITY, 200 AREA 

14 65450 ADMINISTRATIVE BLDG (211, 214, 215, 220) 

3 MDA 580 MDA 

11 65447 USANCA REPLACEMENT 

10 65448 NETWORK OPS – PEO EIS 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 F-12
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table F-3 

Projects located in modeled watersheds (Fort Belvoir drainage area) (continued) 

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

OTHER ON-POST PROJECTS 

10 58697 MUSEUM SUPPORT CENTER 

26c 58466 

MUSEUM OF THE US ARMY ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS AT 

PENCE GATE 

 4 54897 MARINA MODERNIZATION AND DOGUE CREEK DREDGING 

23 61453 REPLACE SOUTH POST FIRE STATION 

 5 65218 EXPAND MAIN POST LIBRARY 

12 59554 BATTALION HEADQUARTERS FOR 249 ENGINEER BATTALION 

13 63035 

SHOPETTE WITH GAS, BURGER KING, CAR WASH (SOUTH 

POST) 

21 65141 EXPAND BOWLING CENTER 

22 57837/ 51326 SOUTH POST FITNESS FACILITY & MULTIPURPOSE FIELDS 

 6 65314 EXPAND RECREATION CENTER 

11 50356 INSTALLATION INDUSTRIAL SUPPORT CENTER 

 9 62539 VET CLINIC ADDITION 

 8 56184 JPRA RENOVATION/ADDITION (BLDG) 358 

 7 63815 ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING PEO SOLDIER 

OFF POST PROJECTS 

161 003642-SD-007-2 LORTON TOWN CENTER LANDBAY G

34 008461-SP-001-2 ST JAMES EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Dogue Creek OTHER ON-POST PROJECTS 

27 n/a DCEETA Remote Delivery Facility 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 F-13
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table F-3 

Projects located in modeled watersheds (Fort Belvoir drainage area) (continued)

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

OFF- POST PROJECTS

133 001881-SD-001-2 ASHBY HEIGHTS 

132 001497-SD-001-2 PINEY GLEN 

74 003365-SP-006-1 

HILLTOP RECLAMATION PROJECT (3365-LF-01, FOR BOND 

ONLY) 

111 007818-SD-002-2 GAYFIELDS ROAD 

90 006105-SP-002-1 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF KINGSTOWNE 

19 004388-SD-001-2 WINDSOR KNOLL 

88 005318-SP-007-2 BB+T BANK DRIVE THRU ADDN- MANCHESTER LAKES SC 

 6 006790-SP-001-2 SAINT JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH 

 8 000623-SP-002-4 NORTHAMPTON (FORMERLY OVERBROOK) 

43 006105-SP-023-1 APPLE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 

89 009405-SP-001-2 WALMART STORE #2194 KINGSTOWNE CENTRE 

18 006105-SP-082-2 KINGSTOWNE SECTION 36A 

91 004838-SP-001-2 HAYFIELD ANIMAL HOSPITAL 

136 004124-SP-001-3 EVERGREEN FARM 

32 001938-SP-001-2 JETT MECHANICAL 8753 RICHMOND HIGHWAY 

161 003642-SD-007-2 LORTON TOWN CENTER LANDBAY G 

33 009465-SP-002-2 

MOUNT VERNON COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE 

IMPROVEMENTS 

34 008461-SP-001-2 ST JAMES EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

96 001900-SP-001-2 EPIPHANY LUTHERAN CHURCH 

81 024570-SD-001-2 HALLEY FARM SUBDIVISION 

27 006090-SP-001-2 HOPKINS HOUSE 

137 004989-SD-001-2 CECIL CASE ESTATES 

57 005223-SP-002-2 MASTER ROOFING AND SIDING INC (MV) 8463 RICHMOND HY 

67 008375-SD-001-2 ROSE HILL RESERVE 

10 000542-SP-001-2 COX COMMUNICATIONS SOUTHEAST HUB SITE 

76 002697-SD-001-2 LOFTY OAKS PLACE LOTS 41A 41B 41C 

45 022564-SP-001-1 GROVETON HEIGHTS 

134 005127-SP-003-2 FEDERAL REALTY INVESTMENT/SOUTH VALLEY SHOP CTR 

173 

004687-SP-004-2 

MT VERNON ORIENTATION CNTR EDUCATION CENTER AND 

MUSEUM 

Pohick Creek OFF-POST PROJECTS 

72 006454-SD-023-2 SILVERBROOK FARMS LOT 7 

12 005466-SD-002-2 LAKEWOOD HILLS SECTION 10 PHASE 2 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 F-14
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table F-3 

Projects located in modeled watersheds (Fort Belvoir drainage area) (continued)

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

104 005466-SD-001-2 LAKEWOOD HILLS SECT 10 PHASE I 

97 001687-SP-001-2 THEMEADOWBROOK DRIVE PROPERTY 

122 001697-SD-001-2 MONACAN ESTATES 

54 004698-PI-003-1 8404 HELLER ROAD SANITARY SEWER SERVICE 

51 008043-SD-003-2 COVINGTON WOODS ADDITION 

50 000258-SD-002-1 7706 GAMBRILL ROAD (MV) 

119 001225-SP-001-2 ST RAYMOND PENAFORT CHURCH 

105 003303-SP-002-2 FAIRFAX PARK 

175 002144-SD-001-2 EVANS PROPERTY 

61 005787-SD-001-1 FERRY LANDING PRESERVE 

169 003642-SP-008-2 LORTON STATION SCHOOL 

79 006441-SP-006-1 AAA VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY 

176 005395-SP-007-3 GUNSTON SQUARE SECTION 2 PARCEL D 

167 004865-SP-010-2 LORTON STATION SOUTH SECTION 6 

168 006909-SD-001-2 BARNES PROPERTY 

80 005430-SP-003-2 COMMONWEALTH CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC 

158 003642-SP-010-2 LORTON TOWN CENTER LANDBAY D/F 

159 003864-SD-002-2 MEEKER PROPERTY 

160 001276-SP-001-2 

LAUREL RIDGE CROSSING (FORMERLY PULTE PLASKETT 

LANE) 

162 003642-SD-008-2 GRACE BIBLE CHURCH 

157 001565-SP-001-2 POHICK ROAD SELF STORAGE FACILITY 

123 001859-SD-001-2 ROLLING OAKS 

52 000122-SP-006-2 GIANT #149 SARATOGA SHOPPING CENTER 

121 008043-SD-002-2 COVINGTON WOODS 

53 005638-SD-001-1 SABINA ESTATES 

120 005638-SP-002-2 HARVESTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 

172 006839-SP-004-2 COOK INLET RESIDENTIAL SECTION THREE 

13 007732-SD-001-2 STREAM VALLEY ESTATES 

83 015444-SD-001-2 CARDINAL ESTATES 

94 006441-SP-005-2 BEST FOODS INC 9525 GUNSTON COVE ROAD 

95 004478-SD-001-2 ADKINS PROPERTY 

154 001183-SP-009-2 LAUREL HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

164 003642-SP-009-2 LORTON TOWN CENTER LANDBAY "B-2" 

163 003642-SP-011-2 LORTON TOWN CENTER LANDBAY C 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 F-15
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table F-4 

Off-post projects located outside modeled watersheds 

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

Occoquan 

78 001183-SP-014-1 LORTON WORK HOUSE 

145 001657-SD-001-2 OCCOQUAN PARK 

153 001183-SP-006-2 SOUTH COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 

144 001811-SD-001-2 OCCOQUAN OVERLOOK 

142 001222-SD-001-2 DAVISON WOODS 

46 001653-SP-002-1 GROVETON PHASE II 

156 001183-SP-010-2 LAUREL HILL RECREATION CENTER 

147 001183-SD-002-2 LAUREL HILL SOUTH SEC 1 LANDBAY C 

148 001183-SD-003-2 LAUREL HILL NORTH 

149 001183-SD-005-2 LAUREL HILL SOUTH LANDBAY D SECTION 1 

151 001183-SP-004-2 LAUREL HILL SOUTH LANDBAYS E AND F, SECTION 1 

152 001183-SP-005-2 LAUREL HILL SOUTH LANDBAY E AND F SECTION 2 

Mill Branch 

143 001100-SD-001-2 NIRVANA PALACE 

29 001183-SP-011-2 LAUREL HILL GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE FACILITY 

28 001733-SD-001-2 MALCOLM AT OX ROAD 

93 008036-SP-002-2 NEW HOPE CHURCH 

150 001183-SD-007-2 LAUREL HILL SOUTH LANDBAY D SECTION 2 

58 004204-SD-001-1 LAUREL OVERLOOK (FORMERLY HOOES ROADBLACKSTONE) 

141 000848-SD-001-2 COOKE PROPERTY 

140 008733-SD-001-2 REMINGTON PLACE FORMERLY COOKE PROPERTY 

69 006510-SP-002-1 SOUTH RUN RECREATIONAL CENTER FITNESS CENTER 

ADDN 

37 009754-SP-004-2 GUNSTON COMMERCE CENTER BUILDING 1 

180 001001-SP-001-2 GUNSTON CENTER 

35 003800-SP-001-3 FURNACE ROAD RECYCLING FACILITY 

82 001883-SP-001-1 LORTON DEBRIS LAND FILL 

166 009101-SP-002-2 GUNSTON COMMONS TOWNHOUSES 

165 001126-SP-004-2 LORTON VALLEY RECREATION CENTER 

155 001183-SP-009-2 SPRING HILL SENIOR CAMPUS SENIOR HOUSING 

BUILDING 

170 007713-SP-015-1 GUNSTON CORNER RESTAURANT 

174 007334-SP-002-4 GUNSTON COVE BUSINESS CENTER 

62 001664-SD-001-1 CRANFORD AT GUNSTON COVE 

36 006103-SP-003-5 ROCK STONE AND SAND YARD INC 

171 004865-SP-011-2 LORTON STATION SOUTH SECTION 7 

63 009754-SP-009-2 GUNSTON COMMERCE CENTER LAND BAY D 

155 001183-SP-012-2 SPRING HILL SENIOR CAMPUS 

177 009754-SP-006-2 GUNSTON COMMERCE CENTER LAND BAY C 

Little Hunting 

Creek 

113 001653-SP-001-2 GROVETON WOODS 

114 002174-SP-001-2 HOLLY ACRES 

146 001183-SD-001-2 LAUREL HILL LAND BAY A SECTION 1 

20 000871-SP-002-2 PROVIDENT BANK 

47 001860-SP-001-2 K AND M SHOPPING CENTER 

116 000871-SP-001-2 MOUNT VERNON SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 F-16
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table F-4 

Off-post projects located outside modeled watersheds (continued) 

Watershed 

name 

Map 

number Project number Project description 

115 009644-SP-002-2 SHURGARD MOUNT VERNON 

135 000106-SD-001-2 THE WOODLANDS 

138 015459-SD-001-2 GALLAHAN PROPERTY 

56 008972-SP-002-1 MOUNT VERNON GATEWAY 

139 004097-SP-001-2 VERNON HEIGHTS 

75 001850-SP-001-3 8214 AND 8218 RICHMOND HIGHWAY 

179 009754-SP-002-2 GUNSTON COMMERCE CENTER BUILDING 2 LB A 

92 007175-PI -001-1 SHERWOOD HALL LIBRARY 

77 009083-SP-004-1 INOVA MOUNT VERNON 

71 007473-SP-011-1 BEACON MALL FAMOUS DAVES 

48 007473-SP-010-1 BEACON MALL SILVER DINNER 

23 003484-SP-002-2 COMMERCE BANK BEACON HILL GROVETON 

21 007473-SP-008-2 BEACON MALL PROP DRIVE-THRU BANK AND FAST FOOD 

26 006468-SP-005-2 ROXBURY MEWS 

Cameron Run 

38 001381-SP-023-1 LOT 16 SHELL OIL PARK 

39 006367-SP-005-3 BREN MAR IV 

98 003195-SP-002-2 BACKLICK PLAZA 

42 006989-SP-002-2 VERIZON ADDITION TO FRANCONIA CENTRAL OFFICE 

102 009163-SD-009-2 DEVERS PROPERTY 

41 005307-SD-001-1 WOODLAND CREST 

86 002725-SP-002-3 RICKS CARPET AND FLOORS 

100 009163-SD-006-2 HIGHGROVE ESTATES SECTION 5 

101 004178-SP-001-2 JEFFERSON AT SULLIVAN PLACE 

5 017901-SP-001-2 PBS 

103 000623-SP-001-2 LDS CHURCH FRANCONIA WARD 

7 000220-SD-002-2 ANNE LY ESTATE 2 

9 001656-SD-001-2 CROWN ROYAL GATE 

65 000220-SD-003-1 WHEELER PROPERTY 

67 008375-SD-001-2 ROSE HILL RESERVE 

11 001260-SD-001-3 HIGHLANDS ESTATES 

66 000542-SP-002-1 SPICER CENTER 

85 007364-SP-004-1 PARCEL 8A SHELL OIL PARK 

Belle Haven 

49 016842-SP-001-1 MOUNT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH 

22 000180-SP-003-2 DEL RAY GLASS 

117 007950-SP-001-2 CHILIS BEACON HILL, 6601 RICHMOND HIGHWAY 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 F-17
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

This page is intentionally left blank. 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 F-18
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

G-1

Appendix G 

Economic Impact Forecast System (EIFS) 

Analysis and Population Estimations 

G.1 – EIFS Model Analysis for Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

G.2 – Population Estimate Calculations
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

G-2

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 G.1-1 

APPENDIX G.1 

ECONOMIC IMPACT FORECAST SYSTEM (EIFS) MODEL ANALYSIS FOR 

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 

Socioeconomic Impact Assessment 

Socioeconomic impacts are linked through cause-and-effect relationships. Military payrolls and 

local procurement contribute to the economic base for the ROI. In this regard, base realignment at 

Fort Belvoir would have a multiplier effect on the local and regional economy. With the proposed 

action, local expenditures would increase, generating new business sales, employment, and 

income. This spending generally creates secondary jobs, increases business volume, and increases 

revenues for schools and other social services. 

The EIFS Model 

The U.S. Army, with the assistance of academic and professional economists and regional 

scientists, developed EIFS to address the economic impacts of NEPA-requiring actions and to 

measure their significance. As a result of its designed applicability, and in the interest of 

uniformity, EIFS should be used in NEPA assessments for BRAC. The entire system is designed 

for the scrutiny of a populace affected by the actions being studied. The algorithms in EIFS are 

simple and easy to understand but still have firm, defensible bases in regional economic theory. 

EIFS was developed under a joint project of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Army 

Environmental Policy Institute, and the Computer and Information Science Department of Clark 

Atlanta University. EIFS is implemented as an online system supported by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Mobile District. The system is available to anyone with an approved user-ID and 

password. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staff are available to assist with the use of EIFS. 

The databases in EIFS are national in scope and cover the approximately 3,700 counties, parishes, 

and independent cities that are recognized as reporting units by federal agencies. EIFS allows the 

user to define an economic ROI by identifying the counties, parishes, or cities to be analyzed. 

Once the ROI is defined, the system aggregates the data, calculates multipliers and other variables 

used in the various models in EIFS, and prompts the user for forecast input data. 

The basis of the EIFS analytical capabilities is the calculation of multipliers that are used to 

estimate the impacts resulting from Army-related changes in local expenditures or employment. 

In calculating the multipliers, EIFS uses the economic base model approach, which relies on the 

ratio of total economic activity to basic economic activity. Basic, in this context, is defined as the 

production or employment engaged to supply goods and services outside the ROI or by federal 

activities (such as military installations and their employees). According to economic base theory, 

the ratio of total income to basic income is measurable (as the multiplier) and sufficiently stable 

so that future changes in economic activity can be forecast. This technique is especially 

appropriate for estimating aggregate impacts and makes the economic base model ideal for the 

EA and EIS process. 

The multiplier is interpreted as the total impact on the economy of the region resulting from a unit 

change in its base sector; for example, a dollar increase in local expenditures due to an expansion 

of its military installation. EIFS estimates its multipliers using a location quotient approach on the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 G.1-2 

basis of the concentration of industries within the region relative to the industrial concentrations 

for the nation. 

The user inputs into the EIFS model the data elements that describe the Army action: definition of 

the ROI; the change in local expenditures; number of affected (moving) civilian personnel and 

their salaries; number of affected (moving) military employees and their salaries; and the percent 

of affected military living on-post. 

Although there would be a net gain of about 22,000 jobs (military and civilian) to Fort Belvoir, 

the installation would also lose some jobs due the proposed realignment. Per the 2005 Defense 

BRAC Commission Report to the President, Volumes I and 2, almost 1,800 jobs would be 

realigned from Fort Belvoir to several other DoD installations in the continental U.S. (Defense 

Base Closure and Realignment Commission 2005). It is assumed these jobs would be transferred 

in 2011, the year when BRAC actions must be completed. Because the jobs would be transferred 

outside the ROI, they were entered in to the EIFS model as the change in military and civilian 

employment. Average annual income for the military personnel was estimated at $30,000, and 

average annual income for civilian personnel was about $45,000 (Webster 2005). It was assumed 

that 100 percent of the military personnel would relocate to their new assignment, and it was 

estimated that 50 percent of the civilian personnel would relocate. 

Implementation of the proposed realignment action also would require renovation of existing 

facilities and construction of new facilities to accommodate the increase in personnel and 

functions assigned to Fort Belvoir. The installation would construct about 6.2 million square feet 

of new built space and renovate about 320,000 square feet of existing space (see Table 2-3). 

These facilities would be new work space for the incoming personnel and general support 

facilities to meet the needs of the larger working population. Construction would begin about 

2007 and be completed by 2011 (5 years). The EIFS model output assumes that changes occur at 

one time, when in fact the effects of the preferred alternative’s changes in construction 

expenditures and employment would be spread out over the 5-year development period. 

Therefore, the multiyear activity was modeled using EIFS by determining the changes in amount 

of construction spending and employment in each year of the project cycle (2007 through 2011), 

and a separate EIFS model run was completed for each year. Fort Belvoir’s expected construction 

expenditures for the BRAC action and associated other facility projects were input into the model 

as the change in local expenditures. The net loss of about 1,770 jobs from Fort Belvoir in 2011 

due to Fort Belvoir BRAC actions was entered as the change in employment (net loss of about 

1,560 civilian jobs and about 210 military jobs). Table G.1-1 lists the EIFS model input 

parameters for each year. 

Once the input variables are entered into the EIFS model, the model is run and it projects changes 

to the local economy’s business sales volume, income, employment, and population. These four 

indicator variables are used to measure and evaluate socioeconomic impacts. Sales volume is the 

direct and indirect change in local business activity and sales (total retail and wholesale trade 

sales, total selected service receipts, and value-added by manufacturing). Employment is the total 

change in local employment due to the proposed action, including the direct and secondary 

changes in local employment. Income is the total change in local wages and salaries due to the 

proposed action, which includes the sum of the direct and indirect wages and salaries, plus the 

income of the civilian and military personnel affected by the proposed action. Population is the 

increase or decrease in the local population as a result of the proposed action. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 G.1-3 

Table G.1-1 

EIFS Model Input Parameters for the Proposed BRAC Action at Fort Belvoir 

Input Parameter 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Construction Expendituresa $161,337,500 $2,134,221,000 $655,818,800 $578,870,800 $254,050,000 

Change in Civilian Employmentb 0 0 0 0 -1,560 

Average Income of Affected 

Civilianc

$45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000

Percent Civilian Expected to 

Relocate 

0 0 0 0 50% 

Change in Military Employmentb 0 0 0 0 -210 

Average Income of Affected 

Militaryc $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 

Percent of Military Living OnPost 

0 0 0 0 0 

Sources: 

a

Fort Belvoir Detailed Facilities Project List, November 6, 2006 (updated February 15, 2007) b

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 2005 

c

Webster 2005 

The Significance of Socioeconomic Impacts 

Once model projections are obtained, the RTV profile allows the user to evaluate the significance 

of the impacts. This analytical tool reviews the historical trends for the defined region and 

develops measures of local historical fluctuations in sales volume, income, employment, and 

population. These evaluations identify the positive and negative changes within which a project 

can affect the local economy without creating a significant impact. The greatest historical changes 

define the boundaries that provide a basis for comparing an action’s impact on the historical 

fluctuation in an area. Specifically, EIFS sets the boundaries by multiplying the maximum 

historical deviation of the following variables: 

 

Increase Decrease 

Sales volume X 100% 75% 

Income X 100% 67% 

Employment X 100% 67% 

Population X 100% 50% 

These boundaries determine the amount of change that will affect an area. The percentage 

allowances are arbitrary, but sensible. The maximum positive historical fluctuation is allowed 

with expansion because economic growth is beneficial. While cases of damaging economic 

growth have been cited, and although the zero-growth concept is being accepted by many local 

planning groups, military base reductions and closures generally are more injurious to local 

economics than are expansion. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 G.1-4 

The major strengths of the RTV are its specificity to the region under analysis and its basis on 

actual historical data for the region. The EIFS impact model, in combination with the RTV, has 

proven successful in addressing perceived socioeconomic impacts. The EIFS model and the RTV 

technique for measuring the intensity of impacts have been reviewed by economic experts and 

have been deemed theoretically sound. 

The following are the EIFS inputs and output data and the RTV values for the ROI. These data 

form the basis for the socioeconomic impact analysis presented in Section 4.10.2.1.2. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 G.1-5 

EIFS REPORT 

PROJECT NAME: Fort Belvoir BRAC EIS 

STUDY AREA 

11001 District of Columbia 

24009 Calvert County, MD 

24017 Charles County, MD 

24021 Frederick County, MD 

24031 Montgomery County, MD 

24033 Prince George’s County, MD 

51013 Arlington County, VA 

51059 Fairfax County, VA 

51107 Loudoun County, VA 

51153 Prince William County, VA 

51179 Stafford County, VA 

51510 Alexandria City, VA 

51600 Fairfax City, VA 

51610 Falls Church City, VA 

51683 Manassas City, VA 

51685 Manassas Park City, VA 

2007 FORECAST INPUT 

Change In Local Expenditures $161,337,500 

Change In Civilian Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Civilian $0 

Percent Expected to Relocate 0 

Change In Military Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Military $0 

Percent of Military Living On-post 0 

2007 FORECAST OUTPUT 

Employment Multiplier 2.76 

Income Multiplier 2.76 

Sales Volume – Direct $161,337,500 

Sales Volume – Induced $283,954,000 

Sales Volume – Total $445,291,500 0.21% 

Income – Direct $34,259,020 

Income - Induced $60,295,860 

Income – Total (place of work) $94,554,870 0.06% 

Employment – Direct 702 

Employment – Induced 1,235 

Employment – Total 1,937 0.06% 

Local Population 0 

Local Off-base Population 0 0.00% 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 G.1-6 

2008 FORECAST INPUT 

Change In Local Expenditures $2,134,221,000 

Change In Civilian Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Civilian $0 

Percent Expected to Relocate 0 

Change In Military Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Military $0 

Percent of Military Living On-post 0 

2008 FORECAST OUTPUT 

Employment Multiplier 2.76 

Income Multiplier 2.76 

Sales Volume – Direct $2,134,221,000 

Sales Volume – Induced $3,756,228,000 

Sales Volume – Total $5,890,449,000 2.82% 

Income – Direct $453,188,500 

Income - Induced $797,611,700 

Income – Total (place of work) $1,250,800,000 0.84% 

Employment – Direct 9,286 

Employment – Induced 16,343 

Employment – Total 25,628 0.85% 

Local Population 0 

Local Off-base Population 0 0.00% 

2009 FORECAST INPUT 

Change In Local Expenditures $655,818,800 

Change In Civilian Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Civilian $0 

Percent Expected to Relocate 0 

Change In Military Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Military $0 

Percent of Military Living On-post 0 

2009 FORECAST OUTPUT 

Employment Multiplier 2.76 

Income Multiplier 2.76 

Sales Volume – Direct $655,818,800 

Sales Volume – Induced $1,154,241,000 

Sales Volume – Total $1,810,060,000 0.87% 

Income – Direct $139,259,000 

Income - Induced $245,095,900 

Income – Total (place of work) $384,354,900 0.26% 

Employment – Direct 2,853 

Employment – Induced 5,022 

Employment – Total 7,875 0.26% 

Local Population 0 

Local Off-base Population 0 0.00% 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 G.1-7 

2010 FORECAST INPUT 

Change In Local Expenditures $578,870,800 

Change In Civilian Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Civilian $0 

Percent Expected to Relocate 0 

Change In Military Employment 0 

Average Income of Affected Military $0 

Percent of Military Living On-post 0 

2010 FORECAST OUTPUT 

Employment Multiplier 2.76 

Income Multiplier 2.76 

Sales Volume – Direct $578,870,800 

Sales Volume – Induced $1,018,813,000 

Sales Volume – Total $1,597,683,000 0.77% 

Income – Direct $122,919,600 

Income - Induced $216,338,500 

Income – Total (place of work) $339,258,100 0.23% 

Employment – Direct 2,519 

Employment – Induced 4,433 

Employment – Total 6,951 0.23% 

Local Population 0 

Local Off-base Population 0 0.00% 

2011 FORECAST INPUT 

Change In Local Expenditures $254,050,000 

Change In Civilian Employment -1,560 

Average Income of Affected Civilian $45,000 

Percent Expected to Relocate 50 

Change In Military Employment -210 

Average Income of Affected Military $30,000 

Percent of Military Living On-post 0 

2011 FORECAST OUTPUT 

Employment Multiplier 2.76 

Income Multiplier 2.76 

Sales Volume – Direct $194,528,500 

Sales Volume – Induced $342,370,200 

Sales Volume – Total $536,898,700 0.26% 

Income – Direct $-22,554,060 

Income - Induced $72,700,180 

Income – Total (place of work) $50,146,120 0.03% 

Employment – Direct -924 

Employment – Induced 1,490 

Employment – Total 566 0.02% 

Local Population -2,465 

Local Off-base Population -2,465 -0.06% 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 G.1-8 

RTV SUMMARY 

 Sales Volume Income Employment Population 

Positive RTV 12.03% 11.56% 3.44% 1.15% 

Negative RTV -4.46% -3.85% -2.92% -0.75% 

RTV DETAILED 

SALES VOLUME 

 Year Value Adj_Value Change Deviation %Deviation 

 1969 12487987 54572502 0 0 0 

 1970 13822532 57087059 2514557 -464206 -0.81 

 1971 15319874 60666702 3579643 600880 0.99 

 1972 16879944 64650184 3983483 1004720 1.55 

 1973 18540008 66929427 2279243 -699520 -1.05 

 1974 20302148 65981981 -947446 -3926209 -5.95 

 1975 22302194 66460539 478558 -2500205 -3.76 

 1976 24627620 69449887 2989348 10585 0.02 

 1977 27185027 71768474 2318587 -660176 -0.92 

 1978 30016402 73840350 2071876 -906887 -1.23 

 1979 33336113 73672811 -167539 -3146302 -4.27 

 1980 37300698 72363356 -1309455 -4288218 -5.93 

 1981 41309891 72705408 342052 -2636711 -3.63 

 1982 44564161 73976506 1271098 -1707665 -2.31 

 1983 48491783 78071771 4095266 1116503 1.43 

 1984 54481740 83901878 5830106 2851343 3.4 

 1985 60194608 89689966 5788089 2809326 3.13 

 1986 65885847 96193339 6503373 3524610 3.66 

 1987 72734574 112738586 16545247 13566484 12.03 

 1988 80522543 109510660 -3227927 -6206690 -5.67 

 1989 86932341 112142717 2632057 -346706 -0.31 

 1990 91886260 113020102 877385 -2101378 -1.86 

 1991 94796472 111859832 -1160270 -4139033 -3.7 

 1992 100451351 114514539 2654707 -324056 -0.28 

 1993 105432219 117029765 2515226 -463537 -0.4 

 1994 109805076 118589487 1559722 -1419041 -1.2 

 1995 113723153 119409305 819818 -2158945 -1.81 

 1996 118472471 120841918 1432613 -1546150 -1.28 

 1997 125654346 125654346 4812428 1833665 1.46 

 1998 135111444 132409218 6754872 3776109 2.85 

 1999 146647589 140781682 8372465 5393702 3.83 

 2000 161175166 149892906 9111223 6132460 4.09 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 G.1-9 

INCOME 

 Year Value Adj_Value Change Deviation %Deviation 

 1969 14319990 62578355 0 0 0 

 1970 16042780 66256683 3678329 195972 0.3 

 1971 17719588 70169569 3912886 430529 0.61 

 1972 19433040 74428542 4258973 776616 1.04 

 1973 21318070 76958230 2529689 -952668 -1.24 

 1974 23463564 76256583 -701647 -4184004 -5.49 

 1975 25725858 76663057 406474 -3075883 -4.01 

 1976 28261512 79697462 3034405 -447952 -0.56 

 1977 31032678 81926273 2228811 -1253546 -1.53 

 1978 34216866 84173492 2247218 -1235139 -1.47 

 1979 38043291 84075675 -97817 -3580174 -4.26 

 1980 42908340 83242182 -833493 -4315850 -5.18 

 1981 48269158 84953718 1711536 -1770821 -2.08 

 1982 52670305 87432705 2478987 -1003370 -1.15 

 1983 57174793 92051418 4618713 1136356 1.23 

 1984 64363606 99119951 7068533 3586176 3.62 

 1985 70729098 105386357 6266406 2784049 2.64 

 1986 76800017 112128028 6741671 3259314 2.91 

 1987 84333410 130716781 18588754 15106397 11.56 

 1988 93310155 126901812 -3814969 -7297326 -5.75 

 1989 101616400 131085152 4183340 700983 0.53 

 1990 107884900 132698429 1613277 -1869080 -1.41 

 1991 112366744 132592752 -105677 -3588034 -2.71 

 1992 118331091 134897442 2304690 -1177667 -0.87 

 1993 124570964 138273772 3376330 -106027 -0.08 

 1994 130517765 140959192 2685420 -796937 -0.57 

 1995 135260856 142023892 1064701 -2417656 -1.7 

 1996 141360695 144187906 2164014 -1318343 -0.91 

 1997 149327565 149327565 5139659 1657302 1.11 

 1998 161042530 157821682 8494117 5011760 3.18 

 1999 172078384 165195245 7373562 3891205 2.36 

 2000 187111593 174013783 8818538 5336181 3.07 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 G.1-10 

EMPLOYMENT 

 Year Value Change Deviation %Deviation 

 1969 1546829 0 0 0 

 1970 1579734 32905 -22196 -1.41 

 1971 1618189 38455 -16646 -1.03 

 1972 1667964 49775 -5326 -0.32 

 1973 1722489 54525 -576 -0.03 

 1974 1755495 33006 -22095 -1.26 

 1975 1775487 19992 -35109 -1.98 

 1976 1803567 28080 -27021 -1.5 

 1977 1852213 48646 -6455 -0.35 

 1978 1927282 75069 19968 1.04 

 1979 1989586 62304 7203 0.36 

 1980 2027170 37584 -17517 -0.86 

 1981 2052751 25581 -29520 -1.44 

 1982 2056252 3501 -51600 -2.51 

 1983 2120560 64308 9207 0.43 

 1984 2253186 132626 77525 3.44 

 1985 2382829 129643 74542 3.13 

 1986 2509977 127148 72047 2.87 

 1987 2642149 132172 77071 2.92 

 1988 2749641 107492 52391 1.91 

 1989 2824890 75249 20148 0.71 

 1990 2858498 33608 -21493 -0.75 

 1991 2791759 -66739 -121840 -4.36 

 1992 2781002 -10757 -65858 -2.37 

 1993 2827096 46094 -9007 -0.32 

 1994 2860240 33144 -21957 -0.77 

 1995 2913551 53311 -1790 -0.06 

 1996 2952105 38554 -16547 -0.56 

 1997 3015129 63024 7923 0.26 

 1998 3078562 63433 8332 0.27 

 1999 3175123 96561 41460 1.31 

 2000 3310059 134936 79835 2.41 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 G.1-11 

POPULATION 

 Year Value Change Deviation %Deviation 

 1969 2983912 0 0 0 

 1970 3048875 64963 15489 0.51 

 1971 3098045 49170 -304 -0.01 

 1972 3163102 65057 15583 0.49 

 1973 3178494 15392 -34082 -1.07 

 1974 3183067 4573 -44901 -1.41 

 1975 3204590 21523 -27951 -0.87 

 1976 3219203 14613 -34861 -1.08 

 1977 3220039 836 -48638 -1.51 

 1978 3242642 22603 -26871 -0.83 

 1979 3245124 2482 -46992 -1.45 

 1980 3266262 21138 -28336 -0.87 

 1981 3321358 55096 5622 0.17 

 1982 3361545 40187 -9287 -0.28 

 1983 3411617 50072 598 0.02 

 1984 3484327 72710 23236 0.67 

 1985 3559580 75253 25779 0.72 

 1986 3646331 86751 37277 1.02 

 1987 3738922 92591 43117 1.15 

 1988 3828498 89576 40102 1.05 

 1989 3895185 66687 17213 0.44 

 1990 3936904 41719 -7755 -0.2 

 1991 3994176 57272 7798 0.2 

 1992 4053539 59363 9889 0.24 

 1993 4109779 56240 6766 0.16 

 1994 4164663 54884 5410 0.13 

 1995 4212186 47523 -1951 -0.05 

 1996 4267192 55006 5532 0.13 

 1997 4326258 59066 9592 0.22 

 1998 4392813 66555 17081 0.39 

 1999 4477130 84317 34843 0.78 

 2000 4567091 89961 40487 0.89 

****** End of Report ****** 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

 G.1-12 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

G.2-1

Appendix G.2 

Population Estimate Calculations 

The following tables list the data and calculations for the population estimates presented in Section 

4.10.2.1.2. The number and percentage of Fort Belvoir employees by location, as well as the number 

of Arlington (WHS and DoD) and NGA employees by location, was derived by VHB (2006). The 

transportation model assumed that 50 percent of the current Arlington employees and 50 percent of 

the current NGA employees would be redistributed as the current Fort Belvoir employees are 

distributed. It was assumed that one employee represents one household. The percentage of 

households that are family households (65 percent) and nonfamily households (35 percent) is from 

the U.S. Census Bureau Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Demographic 

Characteristics for 2005 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006c). The average family size (3.27 persons) also is 

from the U.S. Census Bureau Washington MSA Demographic Characteristics for 2005 (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2006c). The number of children per family (1.8) is from the 2000 Census, Average Number 

of Children Per Family for Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). 

Table G.2-1 

Home zip code of existing Fort Belvoir employees

District Location 

Derived number of 

employees 

Fort Belvoir % of 

employees by location

A Arlington/Alexandria 986 4% 

B Northern Fairfax Co./Loudoun Co. 1,601 7% 

C Southern Fairfax Co. 8,607 38% 

D Prince William Co. 5,116 23% 

E Near South (Fredericksburg/Stafford Co) 2,069 9% 

F Remainder of Virginia 1,613 7% 

G District of Columbia 266 1% 

H Prince Georges Co. 1,045 5% 

I Montgomery Co. 240 1% 

J Remainder of Maryland 949 4% 

Total 22,492 100% 

Source: VHB, 2006. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

G.2-2

Table G.2-2 

Calculations for WHS and other DoD employees 

District Location 

Home zip code of existing WHS & DOD employees Assume 50% would move by 2011 Percent distribution of current Fort Belvoir employees by location WHS and DoD redistribution based on current Fort Belvoir distribution Percentage that would be family households Number that would be family households Percentage that would be nonfamily households Number that would be nonfamily households 

A 

Arlington/ 

Alexandria 1,302 651 4% 203 0.65 132 0.35 71 

B 

Northern Fairfax 

Co./Loudoun Co. 1,349 675 7% 329 0.65 214 0.35 115 

C 

Southern Fairfax 

Co. 1,638 819 38% 1,769 0.65 1,150 0.35 619 

D 

Prince William 

Co. 1,230 615 23% 1,051 0.65 683 0.35 368 

E 

Near South 

(Fredericksburg/ 

Stafford Co) 557 279 9% 425 0.65 276 0.35 149 

F 

Remainder of 

Virginia 358 179 7% 331 0.65 215 0.35 116 

G 

District of 

Columbia 437 219 1% 55 0.65 36 0.35 19 

H 

Prince Georges 

Co. 1,149 575 5% 215 0.65 140 0.35 75 

I Montgomery Co. 336 168 1% 49 0.65 32 0.35 17 

J 

Remainder of 

Maryland 889 445 4% 195 0.65 127 0.35 68 

Total 9,245 4,623 100% 4,623 3,005 1,618
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

G.2-3

Table G.2-3 

Calculations for NGA Employees 

District Location 

Derived number of employees Assume 50% would move by 2011 Percent distribution of current Fort Belvoir employees by location NGA redistribution based on current Fort Belvoir distribution Percentage that would be family households Number that would be family households Percentage that would be nonfamily households Number that would be nonfamily households 

A 

Arlington/ 

Alexandria 574 287 4% 167 0.65 109 0.35 59

B 

Northern Fairfax 

Co./Loudoun Co. 2,313 1,157 7% 293 0.65 191 0.35 103

C 

Southern Fairfax 

Co. 649 325 38% 1,591 0.65 1,034 0.35 557

D 

Prince William 

Co. 645 323 23% 963 0.65 626 0.35 337 

E 

Near South 

(Fredericksburg/ 

Stafford Co) 95 48 9% 377 0.65 245 0.35 132 

F 

Remainder of 

Virginia 306 153 7% 293 0.65 191 0.35 103 

G 

District of 

Columbia 399 200 1% 42 0.65 27 0.35 15 

H 

Prince Georges 

Co. 791 396 5% 209 0.65 136 0.35 73 

I Montgomery Co. 1,218 609 1% 42 0.65 27 0.35 15 

J 

Remainder of 

Maryland 1,384 692 4% 167 0.65 109 0.35 59 

Total 4,187 99% 4,145 2,694 1,451
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

G.2-4

Table G.2-4 

Estimated redistribution of population due to Fort Belvoir BRAC action

District Location 

Number of employees (i.e., households) that would be redistributed (WHS + DoD + NGA) Number redistributed that would be family households Average Family Size Family Pop Average number of children per family Total number of children (18 and under) in family households Total number of adults in family households Number redistributed that would be non-family households Total number of adults in non-family households Total population that would be redistributed 

A 

Arlington/ 

Alexandria 370 229 3.27 749 1.80 411 338 123 461 872 

B 

Northern Fairfax 

Co./Loudoun Co. 622 401 3.27 1,311 1.80 720 591 216 806 1,527 

C 

Southern Fairfax 

Co. 3,360 2176 3.27 7,115 1.80 3,909 3,206 1,172 4,378 8,287 

D 

Prince William 

Co. 2,014 1317 3.27 4,307 1.80 2,366 1,941 709 2,650 5,016 

E 

Near South 

(Fredericksburg/ 

Stafford Co) 805 515 3.27 1,685 1.80 926 759 277 1,037 1,963 

F 

Remainder of 

Virginia 625 401 3.27 1,311 1.80 720 591 216 806 1,527 

G 

District of 

Columbia 97 57 3.27 187 1.80 103 84 31 115 218 

H 

Prince Georges 

Co. 424 286 3.27 936 1.80 514 422 154 576 1,090 

I Montgomery Co. 91 57 3.27 187 1.80 103 84 31 115 218 

J 

Remainder of 

Maryland 363 229 3.27 749 1.80 411 338 123 461 872 

Total 8,768 5,669 18,537 1.80 10,184 8,353 3,052 11,406 21,590 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

H-1

Appendix H 

Off-Post Cumulative Projects List 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

H-2

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

H-3

Table H-1 

Proposed off-post development projects 

Map ID Project name Total acres 

1 West Springfield Business Centre Site 5 Parking Addn. 5.1 

2 West Springfield Business Centre Site 5 Parking Addn. 6.3 

3 Accotinck Stream Valley Trail (Revitalization Area) 9.1 

4 Accotink Park 4.8 

5 PBS 4.3 

6 Saint John's Lutheran Church 3.8 

7 Anne Ly Estate 2 2.6 

8 Northampton (formerly Overbrook) 18.3 

9 Crown Royal Gate 1.3 

10 Cox Communications Southeast Hub Site 0.9 

11 Highlands Estates 3.9 

12 Lakewood Hills Section 10 Phase 2 17.0 

13 Stream Valley Estates 7.3 

14 VA Tire and Auto Repair 0.4 

15 Mohtaram Mozafari Residence 1.6 

16 Hooes Road Park 21.4 

17 Metro Park Phase Seven 3.5 

18 Kingstowne Section 36A 4.5 

19 Windsor Knoll 9.0 

20 Provident Bank 1.1 

21 Beacon Mall Prop Drive-Thru Bank and Fast Food 2.0 

22 Del Ray Glass 2.0 

23 Commerce Bank Beacon Hill Groveton 1.6 

24 Cifuentes Property PCLS 15 and 15A 8.6 

25 Mazzello Cove 3.1 

26 Roxbury Mews 1.8 

27 Hopkins House 1.8 

28 Malcolm at Ox Road 20.2 

29 Laurel Hill Golf Course Expansion 42.0 

30 Telegraph Road Warehouse 5.7 

31 The Fairfax Building Addition 5.2 

32 Jett Mechanical 8753 Richmond Highway 2.9 

33 Mount Vernon Country Club Golf Course Improvements 127.7 

34 St. James Episcopal Church 5.1 

35 Furnace Road Recycling Facility 9.7 

36 Rock Stone and Sand Yard Inc. 1.6 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

H-4

Table H-1 

Proposed off-post development projects (continued)

Map ID Project name Total acres 

37 Gunston Commerce Center Building 1 1.9 

38 Lot 16 Shell Oil Park 2.8 

39 Bren Mar IV 5.7 

40 Residence Inn Springfield 1.3 

41 Woodland Crest 2.8 

42 Verizon addition to Franconia Central Office 2.0 

43 Apple Federal Credit Union 1.0 

44 Kendrick 3.0 

45 Groveton Heights 4.6 

46 Groveton Phase II 11.6 

47 K and M Shopping Center 0.7 

48 Beacon Mall Silver Dinner 1.1 

49 Mount Calvary Baptist Church 1.5 

50 7706 Gambrill Road 1.2 

51 Covington Woods addition 1.9 

52 Giant #149 Saratoga Shopping Center 11.3 

53 Sabina Estates 3.6 

54 8404 Heller Road Sanitary Sewer Service 0.0 

55 UPS in Newington 21.2 

56 Mount Vernon Gateway 17.0 

57 Master Roofing and Siding Inc. 8463 Richmond HY 1.2 

58 Laurel Overlook (Formerly Hooes Road-Blackstone) 10.1 

59 Spring Hill Senior Campus Senior Housing Building 46.8 

60 Hoa Nghiem Pagoda 1.3 

61 Ferry Landing Preserve 5.4 

62 Cranford at Gunston Cove 8.0 

63 Gunston Commerce Center Land Bay D 23.7 

64 Bob Evans Restaurant Old Keene Mill Road 1.6 

65 Wheeler Property 0.8 

66 Spicer Center 0.9 

67 Rose Hill Reserve 1 23.7 

68 Rose Hill Reserve 2 23.7 

69 South Run Recreational Center Fitness Center Addn. 182.3 

70 Springfield Metro Center II Road Improvements 4.9 

71 Beacon Mall Famous Daves 1.1 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

H-5

Table H-1 

Proposed off-post development projects (continued)

Map ID Project name Total acres 

72 Silverbrook Farms Lot 7 1.0 

73 Loyal Order of The Moose Franconia Lodge 646 Inc. 6.2 

74 Hilltop Reclamation Project (3365-LF-01, for bond only) 1.0 

75 8214 and 8218 Richmond Highway 1.2 

76 Lofty Oaks Place Lots 41A 41B 41C 1.6 

77 Inova Mount Vernon 1.7 

78 Lorton Work House 52.1 

79 AAA Vehicle Maintenance Facility 5.3 

80 Commonwealth Construction Management Inc. 2.7 

81 Halley Farm Subdivision 3.7 

82 Lorton Debris Land Fill (1883-LF-002-2, for bond only) 1.0 

83 Cardinal Estates 1.8 

84 Old Keene Mill Professional Offices 2.3 

85 Parcel 8A Shell Oil Park 6.0 

86 Ricks Carpet and Floors 1.2 

87 Talbert Subdivision 1.2 

88 BB+T Bank Drive Thru Addn- Manchester Lakes SC 1.3 

89 Wal-Mart Store #2194 Kingstowne Centre 14.8 

90 First Baptist Church of Kingstowne 2.0 

91 Hayfield Animal Hospital 1.5 

92 Sherwood Hall Library 4.4 

93 New Hope Church 8.9 

94 Best Foods Inc 9525 Gunston Cove Road 5.6 

95 Adkins Property 25.7 

96 Epiphany Lutheran Church 3.0 

97 Meadowbrook Drive Property 2.2 

98 Backlick Plaza 7.8 

99 6715 Commerce Street 4.4 

100 Highgrove Estates Section 5 26.9 

101 Jefferson at Sullivan Place 17.2 

102 Devers Property 2.1 

103 LDS Church Franconia Ward 7.6 

104 Lakewood Hills Sect. 10 Phase I 35.1 

105 Fairfax Park 5.3 

106 Echo Inc. 0.9 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

H-6

Table H-1 

Proposed off-post development projects (continued)

Map ID Project name Total acres 

107 VW Springfield 6.8 

108 2nd Park Structure at Frank-Springfield Metro Station 0.0 

109 Calvary Road Baptist Church Expansion 8.1 

110 Metro Park Phase Six 11.2 

111 Gayfields Road 13.9 

112 Silver Lake IHOP Restaurant 1.1 

113 Groveton Woods 11.6 

114 Holly Acres 8.9 

115 Shurgard Mount Vernon 5.3 

116 Mount Vernon Square Shopping Center 8.7 

117 Chilis Beacon Hill 6601 Richmond Highway 1.9 

118 Chapel Bridge Estates 6.6 

119 St. Raymond Penafort Church 9.9 

120 Harvester Presbyterian Church 3.9 

121 Covington Woods 4.7 

122 Monacan Estates 3.6 

123 Rolling Oaks 8.0 

124 Hunter Plaza, Phase One 0.8 

125 Hunter Plaza Phase 2 1.3 

126 Tavares/Allen Property 11.4 

127 Island Creek Elementary School 18.1 

128 U-Haul Retail Center 8297 Terminal Road 2.5 

129 Crown Center 13.2 

130 M and S Holdings LLC (formerly Millers Office Prod.) 11.4 

131 8501 Backlick Road (formerly 8521) 4.6 

132 Piney Glen 9.3 

133 Ashby Heights 6.1 

134 Federal Reality Investment/South Valley Shop Ctr. 24.1 

135 Woodlands, The 4.0 

136 Evergreen Farm 2.5 

137 Cecil Case Estates 8.1 

138 Gallahan Property 3.4 

139 Vernon Heights 7.7 

140 Remington Place (formerly Cooke Property) 14.4 

141 Cooke Property 10.3 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

H-7

Table H-1 

Proposed off-post development projects (continued)

Map ID Project name Total acres 

142 Davison Woods 5.1 

143 Nirvana Palace 30.3 

144 Occoquan Overlook 100.6 

145 Occoquan Park 15.8 

146 Laurel Hill Land Bay A Section 1 24.5 

147 Laurel Hill South Sec 1 Landbay C 24.7 

148 Laurel Hill North 23.2 

149 Laurel Hill South Landbay D Section 1 22.7 

150 Laurel Hill South Landbay D Section 2 33.2 

151 Laurel Hill South Landbays E and F, Section 1 48.0 

152 Laurel Hill South Landbay E and F Section 2 33.1 

153 South County High School 69.4 

154 Laurel Hill Elementary School 18.5 

155 Spring Hill Senior Campus (combined with Map ID 59) - 

156 Laurel Hill Recreation Center 2.5 

157 Pohick Road Self Storage Facility 3.9 

158 Lorton Town Center Landbay D/F 18.9 

159 Meeker Property 5.6 

160 Laurel Ridge Crossing (formerly Pulte Plaskett Lane) 4.9 

161 Lorton Town Center Landbay G 13.1 

162 Grace Bible Church 3.5 

163 Lorton Town Center Landbay C 3.0 

164 Lorton Town Center Landbay "B-2" 1.7 

165 Lorton Valley Recreation Center 0.5 

166 Gunston Commons Townhouses 3.1 

167 Lorton Station South Section 6 4.7 

168 Barnes Property 8.7 

169 Lorton Station School 12.8 

170 Gunston Corner Restaurant 1.1 

171 Lorton Station South Section 7 20.2 

172 Cook Inlet Residential Section Three 60.6 

173 Mt. Vernon Orientation Cntr. Education Center and Museum 8.4 

174 Gunston Cove Business Center 8.8 

175 Evans Property 6.2 

176 Gunston Square Section 2 Parcel D 0.9 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

H-8

Table H-1 

Proposed off-post development projects (continued)

Map ID Project name Total acres 

177 Gunston Commerce Center Land Bay C 39.9 

178 Gunston Commerce Center Land Bay B 11.7 

179 Gunston Commerce Center Building 2 LB A 10.2 

180 Gunston Center 14.1 

181 Mid-Town Springfield Development (mixed use) 9.5 

182 Springfield Mall Expansion 82.0 

183 Mixed Use (Office, Hotel, Retail) 5.0 

184 Mixed Use (Residential, Office, Retail, Hotel) 8.5 

185 Mixed Use (Residential, Office, Recreation/Open Space, Retail) 160.5 

186 Mixed Use (Office, Industrial) 117.8 

187 Mixed Use (Office, Retail) 6.0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

I-1

Appendix I 

GSA Parcel Feasibility Study 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia June 2007 

I-2

This page is intentionally left blank. 
REPORT TO CONGRESS 

ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY 

FOR 

GSA WAREHOUSE AREA 

SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 

15 APRIL 2007 

Section 2868 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 directed that “not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary of the Army shall submit to Congress a report evaluating the costs, 

benefits, feasibility and suitability of locating support functions for Fort Belvoir and the 

Engineering Proving Ground, Virginia, on property currently occupied by General 

Services Administration warehouses in Springfield, Virginia.” This report was 

coordinated with the Administrator, General Services Administration, in accordance 

with the language of the Act. 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

i 

Table of Contents 

1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 

2. Existing Site Conditions and Uses............................................................................3 

 Adjacent Development ........................................................................................6 

 Traffic ..................................................................................................................6 

 Physical Features................................................................................................8 

 Environmental and Hazardous Waste...............................................................10 

 Public and Private Utilities.................................................................................10 

3. Development Strategies 

Strategy 1 — Limited Development..................................................................11 

Strategy 2 — Moderate Development ..............................................................16 

Strategy 3 — Maximum Development ..............................................................19 

4. Conclusion .............................................................................................................23 

5. Supplemental Information ......................................................................................24 

Note on Building Cost Data ..............................................................................24 

Cost-Benefit Matrix ..........................................................................................26 

Project Schedules.............................................................................................27 

List of Figures 

Figure 1 Location Map ............................................................................................................2 

Figure 2 Existing Uses Map....................................................................................................4 

Figure 3 Building A, largest on GSA .......................................................................................5 

Figure 4 GSA has multiple tenants .........................................................................................5 

Figure 5 Extended Stay Hotel North of Site............................................................................6 

Figure 6 High-Rise Residential North of Site..........................................................................6 

Figure 7 Springfield Center Apartments .................................................................................6 

Figure 8 Study Area and Intersections ...................................................................................7 

Figure 9 Franconia Metro........................................................................................................8 

Figure 10 Development Map.....................................................................................................9

Figure 11 Typical Parcel Development...................................................................................13 

Figure 12 Land Area Required for Limited Development .......................................................15 

Figure 13 Widening of Loisdale Road ....................................................................................16 

Figure 14 Land Area Required for Moderate Development....................................................18 

Figure 15 Illustrations depicting Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection standards..........................20 

Figure 16 Transit-oriented development concepts .................................................................21 

Figure 17 Land Area Required for Maximum Development ...................................................22 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

1

1. Introduction 

This document responds to Section 2868 of the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 which states, “Not later than 180 days after the 

date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to Congress a 

report evaluating the costs, benefits, feasibility and suitability of locating support 

functions for Fort Belvoir and the Engineering Proving Ground, Virginia, on property 

currently occupied by General Services Administration warehouses in Springfield, 

Virginia. The Secretary of the Army shall carry out this section in consultation with the 

Administrator of General Services.” 

BRAC 2005 recommendations have greatly impacted Fort Belvoir. Many of its support 

functions, including engineering and information technology, will remain located on the 

Main Post. Its most pressing need, however, is administrative and headquarters 

support facilities for new tenants. Therefore, this report looks at the capacity of the GSA 

site for administrative office space. 

The GSA property can be redeveloped to provide new administrative office space and 

related support functions, but will require demolition of existing warehouses. (For 

purposes of this report, support functions are defined as general office space for DoDrelated use.) How many employees can be supported at the GSA site largely depends 

on the extent of site improvements, especially in transportation. 

Specifically, this report evaluates present site conditions, infrastructure, and master 

planning strategies for redevelopment. Existing site conditions, primarily the 

transportation network, limit the amount of development that can be sustained on the 

property. To assess the cost and benefit of developing the property, three development 

strategies were evaluated: 

 Strategy #1: Limited Development (up to 3,000 employees) 

 Strategy #2: Moderate Development (5,000 employees) 

 Strategy #3: Maximum Development (9,000 employees) 

Each development strategy presented depicts an urban grid pattern of street blocks that 

can be implemented in phases. This is to allow current GSA tenants time to relocate 

and to meet future demands for support space. 

A planning level review and assessment of transportation facilities serving the GSA site 

was undertaken. Key access routes were identified, and service levels at key 

intersections were determined. Each strategy addresses the necessary roadway 

improvements, and maximizes the existing Franconia Metro Station and its future 

vehicular/pedestrian linkages. This analysis identified the “break points” – those 

development levels that trigger the need for additional transportation improvements. 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

2

Figure 1: Location Map
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

3

Each strategy includes the development costs for warehouse demolition, site cleanup, 

and, based on the age of the buildings, asbestos removal. It also includes moving 

expenses and new warehouse replacement for 1.5 million gross square feet (gsf). 

Building construction cost data used for this report are described in more detail in the 

Summary. In addition to general administrative facilities, building estimates include 

costs for such features as Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, Emergency 

Operations Center, Access Control Points (ACP), Cafeterias, Physical Fitness Center, 

Training and Conference Center, and other anticipated elements. 

Given the preferences of individual existing tenants to be in different geographic target 

areas, a determination of where these replacement warehouse facilities may go is not 

included in this report; however, replacement costs for warehouses are included in the 

cost matrix. 

All three strategies address time for site preparation, including relocation of GSA 

tenants, environmental cleanup, demolition, and land transfer to the Army. Construction 

schedules to redevelop the GSA site directly relate to employment population, with 

“Strategy 3 - Maximum Development” being the longest to implement due to additional 

improvements and transportation requirements. 

2. Existing Site Conditions and Uses 

The GSA property, which is approximately 69.5 acres, is located at 6999 Loisdale Court 

in Springfield, Virginia. Fairfax County land records list the property as Tax Map 90-

2((1)) Parcel 57. Records show that it includes a Virginia Department of Transportation 

(VDOT) right-of-way for the Franconia-Springfield Parkway and over 3,000 linear feet of 

rail line. This existing rail spur provides direct access from the Richmond 

Fredericksburg Potomac Railway to Building A. (Figure 2) 

The current GSA site is almost fully developed with three warehouse structures. 

Building A is the largest at approximately 1,800 feet by 450 feet. Most of the property is 

impervious surface. Its Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 0.4 FAR. This ratio measures the 

intensity of development, determined by dividing the gross floor area of all buildings on 

a parcel by the area of the parcel. For this report, the FAR calculation for new 

development includes both office buildings and above ground parking structures within 

the development parcel or street block. 

The existing GSA buildings were built in 1953. Building A has the “largest wooden roof 

truss system east of the Mississippi”. Although these buildings are at least 50 years old, 

they are not on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). No historical studies 

have been done on the buildings. Prior to any changes to the buildings (i.e., demolition 

or renovation), a historic building survey will be required in consultation with the State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine if any are eligible for the NRHP. If 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

4

eligible, consultation with the SHPO would determine if proposed actions would 

adversely affect potentially historic properties. This review process considers both 

physical (such as demolition) and setting effects (for example, how demolition of one 

building impacts the setting of remaining structures). This SHPO process cannot stop 

the project from going forward; however, costs and time to complete the process must 

be budgeted prior to building demolition. 

Figure 2: Existing Uses Map 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

5

Due to Building A’s large size (Figure 3) 

and numerous tenants (Figure 4), it may 

be possible to construct temporary walls 

that allow for their phased relocation, 

according to preliminary discussions with 

GSA. Further consideration of this option 

will be based on the timing of incoming 

Fort Belvoir support facilities and 

relocating GSA tenants to other sites. 

Given that not all the existing tenants can 

vacate the GSA facility at the same time, 

a potential timing conflict with 

construction of new administrative office 

space exists. Therefore, Development 

Strategy 1 (Limited) and Strategy 2 

(Moderate) consider a phase-out of the 

warehouses. Both of these strategies 

only utilize a portion of the site, leaving 

the remainder for warehouse use (or 

future development as space is needed). 

Currently, the property is listed as I-4 – 

Medium-Intensity Industrial zoning 

district. Based on Fairfax County Zoning 

Ordinance, development of 3,031,619 gsf 

of office/industrial uses at 1.0 FAR is 

permitted. Although federal government 

property is not subject to these local land 

development regulations, approval from 

the County and VDOT would be 

necessary if any redevelopment requires 

off-site road improvements. 

Figure 4: GSA has multiple tenants 

Figure 3: Building A is the largest building on 

GSA property. 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

6

Adjacent Development 

In the vicinity of Interstate 95, there is a 

diverse mix of land uses – the Springfield 

Mall, offices, warehouses, and singlefamily residential communities. 

Immediately north and adjacent to the GSA 

site is a hotel (Figure 5), a high-rise 

residential project (Figure 6), and a fourstory apartment project (Figure 7). Vacant 

industrial land and existing warehouses 

are to the east and south. Immediately 

west, the property has approximately 1,000 

feet of road frontage on Loisdale Road. 

Traffic 

Entrance Access and Roads: Access to 

the GSA site is currently limited to two 

commercial entrances from Loisdale Road. 

Along this frontage is a two-lane road with 

a center turn lane into the site. At 

Newington Road, Loisdale transitions to a 

full four-lane undivided road section, 

although portions of Loisdale Road 

between GSA and Newington Road are 

presently four-lane. An eight-foot wide 

pedestrian trail runs along the property and 

connects to a pedestrian/ bikeway that 

extends across Interstate 95. 

The Loisdale Road entrances are 

accessed via Old Keene Mill 

Road/Franconia Road and the FranconiaSpringfield Parkway to Frontier Drive. An 

analysis of current road network 

performance was completed for the 

following intersections listed A through K 

on Figure 8. 

Figure 5: Extended Stay Hotel to the North of 

the Site 

Figure 6: High-Rise Residential to the North of 

the Site 

Figure 7: Springfield Center Apartments to the 

North of the Site 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

7

To quantify the impacts of proposed development at the GSA site on the surrounding 

roadway network, a baseline scenario was evaluated within the study area and 

intersections (Figure 8) for the horizon year of 2011. This was done to clearly identify 

traffic conditions prior to project (BRAC) implementation. If compared to these baseline 

conditions, development at the GSA site negatively impacts the surrounding 

transportation network, then it must include transportation improvements. Under the 

baseline conditions, the intersections of “Franconia-Springfield Parkway WB Ramp and 

Frontier Drive” and “Franconia-Springfield Parkway and I-95 HOV Ramp” fail. These 

intersections (identified as “H” and “J” on Figure 8) become inadequate due to an 

insufficient number of turn lanes to handle the peak hour demand. Improvements at 

these intersections, even if the GSA site were never developed, would still be 

necessary. In the baseline conditions, other intersections would operate at an 

acceptable level. Additional information on roads is provided under the description of 

each strategy. 

Figure 8: Study Area and Intersections 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

8

Accessibility to Franconia Metro Station: The site is within one-half mile of the 

existing Franconia Metro and VRE stations (Figure 9). Currently, no direct pedestrian or 

vehicular access connects the GSA property to the Franconia Metro Station. This lack 

of a direct connection would discourage Metro use to the site. Fairfax County has 

obtained a commitment from a private developer (in the form of a “proffer”) to construct 

a pedestrian walkway and provide shuttle bus service to serve future office development 

on the northern edge of the GSA site. Based on surveys of incoming employees 

(completed for the Fort Belvoir BRAC 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement), 

approximately 60% will live south and west of the site, and the remaining 40% to the 

north and east. With a 20% transit mode share for workers to the south and west, and a 

5% transit mode share for those north and east, these traffic splits translate to a 

weighted average of 15% of the employees using Metro. 

Physical Features 

In general, the property is level. The site lies within the Accotink Creek watershed, but 

not within the 100-year floodplain. It drains southeast to the Long Branch perennial 

stream. Wetland Inventory maps do not indicate the presence of wetlands, and there 

are no Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Areas. Overall, the site is largely 

buildable, except for a small corner where a public right-of-way for Franconia-Springfield 

Parkway and a railroad spur exist. Of the total 69.5 +/- acres at the GSA site, 

approximately 65 +/- acres are considered usable for redevelopment. 

Figure 9: Franconia Metro is within 1⁄2 mile to GSA, but no direct pedestrian or vehicular connection 

exists to Metro platform. 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

9

The Development Map (Figure 10) depicts “DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for 

Buildings” in accordance with the United Facilities Criteria (UFC4-010-01). The UFC 

provides planning criteria for standoff distances along the controlled perimeter (i.e., 

boundary) and the parking or roadways. These setbacks apply to primary gathering 

buildings that would be routinely occupied by 50 or more DoD personnel. Types of 

development that can occur in these standoff areas include: car park facilities, 

uninhabited structures, and small shopping facilities. 

Figure 10: Development Map 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

10

Environmental / Hazardous Waste 

Based on discussions with GSA (regarding current uses on the property and past 

environmental cleanup efforts that have been conducted on the site), it is likely that 

some type of environmental remediation is anticipated. Although the site might not 

have significant contamination that would affect development, a Phase I Environmental 

study is required to determine its extent. For scheduling purposes, an extra three 

months was added to the timeline for site cleanup and remediation. 

Public / Private Utilities 

Water: Fairfax County Water Authority (FCWA) maintains a 36-inch main on the west 

side of I-95 that can supply the site from both the north and south. Offsite, FCWA lines 

provide ample system capacity. The Authority believes the only limitation to providing 

additional water service is the existing system on-site. Although these GSA lines might 

be adequate, they would at least require relocation to accommodate new development 

patterns. This would likely result in a looped system, instead of dead ends. In all 

cases, anticipate FCWA fees for metering, tapping, etc. 

Sanitary Sewer: Fairfax County engineers prepared a study of sewer capacity for this 

report. They evaluated existing system capacity, as well as improvements required 

downstream of the GSA site to support an additional 9,000 employee population. 

The study concluded there are no capacity constraints to development in the main 

sewer trunk (east of the railroad track) or treatment plant under the "Limited 

Development Strategy.” For the “Moderate” or “Maximum” development intensity, 

sewer line upgrades would be required. 

Electric: According to Dominion Virginia Power (DVP) representatives, service for 

basic infrastructure is provided at no extra cost, as long as this cost does not 

significantly exceed anticipated customer revenue. However, if redundant service or 

significant offsite construction is required, a customer must pay an upfront fee or 

negotiate a special rate for power. The cost and scheduling of any added service 

extension depends on the type of site service required. 

DVP’s electric network consists of high voltage transmission lines (over 150KV) and a 

lower voltage local distribution network. Extension of the low voltage distribution lines 

usually does not require State approval or permitting. Extension or modification to the 

high voltage transmission lines requires State Corporation Commission approval which 

can take three to five years. 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

11

Under Strategy 1 (limited development), the increase in power demand would be less 

than 10 mVA (megavolt amperes), which is roughly equivalent to 10 megawatts. At this 

rate, power could be supplied at minimal cost in 12 to 15 months with little, if any, 

regulatory requirements. For Strategy 2 (moderate development), power demand would 

likely require redundant service and 20 to 30 mVA of power, requiring the expansion of 

the existing Franconia substation. 

Demand of more than 30 mVA is needed for Strategy 3 (maximum development). This 

would likely require modifications to transmission facilities, along with approval from the 

State Corporation Commission. 

Gas: The site is serviced by Washington Gas. The gas lines are located along the 

eastern edge of Loisdale Road. Gas service is typically provided and extended to new 

customers as required. 

Storm Water Management and Drainage: Under separate agreements between the 

Commonwealth of Virginia with the GSA and the DoD, all new construction must meet 

state storm water management criteria to control runoff quality and quantity. 

Development must also comply with runoff criteria under the Chesapeake Bay Act. 

Given that the current consists of largely impervious surfaces, redevelopment with any 

amount of landscaping or green space would produce a runoff rate less than the current 

rate. This would likely meet State criteria, eliminating the need for storm water 

detention facilities. 

3. Development Strategies 

Strategy #1 

Limited Development Requirements: This section defines the extent of transportation 

and other site improvements required to support approximately 3,000 employees for 

general administrative support functions. These employees are coming from support 

organizations at or planned to be at Fort Belvoir, so there is no net increase of 

employees beyond those accounted for in Fort Belvoir BRAC 2005. 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

12

Site Access and Roads: Existing GSA site entrances can support an employee 

population of approximately 3,000 people, and will operate at an acceptable level of 

service. Level of Service (or LOS) is defined as a qualitative measure describing 

operational conditions within a traffic stream and motorists’ perceptions of those 

conditions (Institute of Transportation Engineers). Levels of Service range from “A” 

(very low delay at intersections) to “F” (over-saturated conditions at intersections with 

excessive congestion and delay). “D” or moderate delay is the point motorists notice 

but tolerate congestion. Ideally, the development should strive for LOS “D” or better, 

and implement roadway improvements wherever proposed development impacts the 

operational performance of intersections. In the “Limited Development Strategy,” the 

LOS is “D” or better. 

Metro Access: A direct vehicular and/or pedestrian connection from the GSA site to 

Franconia Metro station is desired with limited development, but not required to support 

3,000 or less employees. 

Sewer and Water Upgrades: The existing sewer system has adequate capacity to 

serve up to 6,000 new employees. 

Water: Redevelopment requires a looped system, rather than dead ends, in order to 

address the water service issue. 

Electric: Existing electric service is adequate to support limited development. 

Achievable Gross Square Foot, Floor Area Ratio, and Parking: Present site 

conditions allow construction of approximately 650,000 gsf of administrative support 

functions. The building FAR - including support functions and structured parking 

garages - is approximately 2.5 for the land area within street blocks. The typical street 

block measures 600 feet by 600 feet. This parcel size is utilized in each of the 

development strategies. (See Figure 11.) 

Parking required to support 3,000 employees is based on a 60% demand, and assumes 

the balance will use car pools and/or public transportation. This equals approximately 

2,000 spaces including spaces for visitor and special uses.1

 

1

 Note: The actual number of parking spaces required may be more than 2,000 spaces based on the 

transit mode share achieved 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

13

Figure 11: Typical Parcel Development 

Establish appropriate parcel size to 

accommodate Anti-Terrorist Force Protection 

setback requirements and optimal area for 

development of DoD administrative facilities 

Provide flexibility in development of parcels to 

support multiple development strategies and land 

uses based on further defined needs and 

requirements. 

Typical DoD Office Building 

±8-10 floors 

±200,000 GSF 

±750 – 1,000 employees 

Typical DoD Office Building 

±8-10 floors 

±200,000 GSF 

±750 – 1,000 employees 

Mid block courtyards 

and open spaces 

Parking Structure 

±5-6 floors 

±400,000 GSF 

± 1,200 parking spaces 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

14

Estimated Costs – Limited Development (up to 3,000 Employees) 

Item Costs in Millions 

Environmental Site Cleanup, Asbestos Removal, and Demolition $ 10 

Site Access Improvements $5 

Infrastructure Improvements (on-site & off-site) $5 

Building, Parking, Design/Construction $278 

Total $298 

*Grand Total (includes $117 million for warehouse replacement) $415 

* This assumes approximately 50% of the existing warehouses will remain. 

Note: Costs assume regional traffic improvements addressing existing and no-action failures that were 

identified in the Fort Belvoir BRAC 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement report are funded by 

others. Shared use of site will require appropriate real property agreement. 

Timeline - Limited Development 

Construction of new support uses would begin only after site demolition and cleanup. 

Therefore, development at the limited level would take approximately 4 1/2 years to 

implement, and assumes that suitable warehouse space is available at another location. 

Development Approach for Strategy 1 (up to 3,000 Employees) 

 

 Allows roughly one-half of the existing GSA warehouse buildings to remain, allowing 

some of the tenants to remain on-site longer. Remaining warehouses would include 

a portion of Building A and all of Building B. 

 Connections to Metro to improve access and circulation are recommended but not 

required. 

 Land area, shown as required for development (Figure 12), allows for future 

expansion. Actual development area requires coordination with existing GSA 

tenants. 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

15

Development Strategy #1 – Up to 3,000 employees 

Figure 12: Land Area Required for Limited Development 

Summary of Strategy #1: Redevelopment of the GSA site requires the demolition of 

existing warehouse buildings. However, a portion of Building A and all of Building B can 

remain in use until full build-out is required or additional site improvements are in place. 

Re-use of the warehouse buildings may be possible in the event full build-out is not 

implemented. 

The typical development block or street pattern represented measures 600 feet by 600 

feet (See Figure 11), and allows for a 25 meter (82 feet) standoff from a roadway or 

parking facility with a controlled access to the building. The standoff distance at the 

boundary perimeter is 148 feet per Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC 4-010-01). (See 

Figures 19 and 20.) Each block would support roughly 2,000 employees with structured 

parking. An Access Control Point (ACP) would be required; however, the location is not 

identified at this time. One ACP is included in development estimates for each strategy. 

The GSA site can accommodate 3,000 people in 675,000 sf of office space with 

minimum additional infrastructure. This can be accomplished in approximately 4 1/2 

years and will cost $298 million. With warehouse replacement costs, this total is $423 

million. 

Building B to remain 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

16

Strategy #2 

Moderate Development Requirements: This section defines the extent of 

transportation and other site improvements required to support approximately 5,000 

employees for general administrative support functions. These employees are coming 

from support organizations at or planned to be at Fort Belvoir, so there is no net 

increase of employees beyond those accounted for in Fort Belvoir BRAC 2005. 

 

Site Access and Roads: Under the “Moderate Development Strategy,” improvements 

along the roads providing access to the site would be required. 

 Intersection improvements to Loisdale Road and Spring Mall Drive 

 Intersection improvements to Loisdale Road and Metropolitan Center Drive 

 Improvements to the Franconia-Springfield Parkway 

 Widening of Loisdale Road (Figure 13) 

 Improvements at the Fairfax County Parkway and I-95 Interchange 

 Connection under Franconia-Springfield Parkway to Spring Mall Drive 

 Expansion of shuttle bus service 

 

Figure 13: Widening of Loisdale Road to four through-lanes and the entrance turn lanes would impact the 

existing I-95 pedestrian overpass. 

Metro Access: A direct vehicular and/or pedestrian connection from the GSA site to 

Franconia Metro station is desired with moderate development, but not required to 

support up to 5,000 employees. 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

17

Sewer Upgrades: At 5,000 employees, approximately 250 linear feet of existing 

sanitary sewer (the main under the railroad, east of the site) would need to be replaced 

with one of larger size. 

Water Upgrades: Redevelopment would require looped systems, rather than dead 

ends, in order to address the water service issue. 

Electric Upgrades: Existing electric upgrades are required, including adding a second 

distribution line (for service over10 mVA). This can be accomplished either by placing a 

second pole line on Loisdale Road or placing a second distribution line on existing pole 

lines. Such a system, however, would result in a single point of site service failure at 

any pole along Loisdale Road. Providing between 20 and 30 mVA of service, or 

providing redundant service, would require expansion of the existing Franconia 

substation. Timing required to upgrade the Franconia substation is estimated between 

18 to 36 months. 

Achievable Gross Square Feet, Floor Area Ratio, and Parking: On-site and off-site 

infrastructure improvements identified for this strategy will support up to 1.125 million 

gsf of administrative space. The building FAR – defined as administrative space and 

structured parking – will be approximately 2.5 within the designated blocks (as shown in 

Figure 11). Parking required to support 5,000 employees is based on a 60% demand, 

and assumes the balance will use car pools and/or public transportation. This equals 

approximately 3,000 spaces (See Footnote #1 regarding parking based on transit mode 

share). 

Estimated Costs - Moderate Development (5,000 employees) 

Item Costs in Millions 

Environmental Site Cleanup, Asbestos Removal, and Demolition $ 15 

Site Access Improvements $40 

Infrastructure Improvements (on-site & off-site) $20 

Building, Parking, Design/Construction $565 

Total $640 

*Grand Total (includes $178 million for warehouse replacement) $818 

*This assumes approximately 25% of the existing warehouses will remain in the moderate 

strategy. Note: Costs assume regional traffic improvements addressing existing and no-action failures 

that were identified in the Fort Belvoir BRAC 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement report are 

funded by others. Shared use of site will require appropriate real property agreement. 

 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

18

Timeline - Moderate Development 

Construction of off-site access, cleanup & demolition, warehouse relocation would be 

concurrent. Therefore, development at the moderate level would take approximately 5 

1/2 years to fully implement 

Development Approach for Strategy 2 (at 5,000 employees) 

 Building B can remain for warehousing or other uses. 

 Connections to Metro to improve access and circulation are recommended but not 

required. 

 Land area, shown as required for development (Figure 14), allows for future 

expansion. Actual development area requires additional coordination with existing 

GSA tenants. 

Development Strategy #2 – 5,000 employees 

Figure 14: Land Area Required for Moderate Development 

Building B to remain 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

19

Summary of Strategy #2 – Adding up to 5,000 employees and 1.125 million gsf 

requires on-site and off-site improvements estimated at over $60 million. This option 

would displace the majority of the existing GSA tenants, and would take approximately 

5 1/2 years to implement. The development pattern recommended is consistent with 

Strategy #1. This option will cost $640 million. With new warehouse replacement 

costs, this total is $818 million. 

Strategy #3 

Maximum Development Requirements: This section defines the extent of 

transportation and other site improvements required to support approximately 9,000 

employees for general administrative support functions. These employees are coming 

from support organizations at or planned to be at Fort Belvoir, so there is no net 

increase of employees beyond those accounted for in Fort Belvoir BRAC 2005. 

 

Site Access and Roads: Under the “Maximum Development Strategy,” improvements 

along the roads providing access to the site would be required. 

 Intersection improvements to Loisdale Road and Spring Mall Drive 

 Intersection improvements to Loisdale Road and Metropolitan Center Drive 

 Improvements to the Franconia-Springfield Parkway 

 Widening of Loisdale Road (Figure 13) 

 Improvements at the Fairfax County Parkway and I-95 Interchange 

 Direct ramp connection over Franconia-Springfield Parkway to Frontier Drive 

 Expansion of shuttle bus service 

A workforce population of 9,000 employees requires additional access points and major 

road improvements to the intersections including the Franconia-Springfield and Frontier 

Drive interchange. In addition, Frontier Drive should be extended to accommodate 

additional trips from the south. However, capacity from the south is limited by the 

capacity of the Fairfax County Parkway and the I-95 interchange. 

In addition to intersection improvements, a direct vehicular and pedestrian connection to 

Franconia Metro station would be required to support maximum development. 

Sewer and Water Upgrades: Sanitary sewer improvements required for maximum 

development would include off-site line improvements. For 9,000 employees, 

approximately 650 linear feet of existing sanitary sewer would need to be replaced at a 

larger size. 

Electric Upgrade: A requirement of more than 30 mVA of service is needed. This will 

require modifications to transmission lines (anything over 150KV) and State Corporation 

Commission approval, which can take three to five years to obtain. 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

20

Achievable Gross Square Feet, Floor Area Ratio, and Parking: On-site and off-site 

infrastructure improvements identified for this strategy will support up to 2.0 million gsf 

of administrative space. The building FAR – defined as administrative space and 

structured parking - is approximately 2.5 within the designated street blocks (as shown 

in each strategy). New development would be clustered along an internal “Main Street” 

with access to Franconia Metro Station. (See Figures 15 and 16.) 

Figure 15: To meet UFC guidelines for Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection standards, office buildings 

would be set back 82 feet from an internal main street with structured parking and retail uses along a 

controlled perimeter. Standoff distances along the perimeter would be 148 feet. Access Control 

Points required for development are not shown. 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

21

Figure 16: Proposed planning concepts for developing GSA creates a transit-oriented development that 

is pedestrian friendly. The urban pattern depicted integrates approaches to security, access and parking. 

The internal Main Street with clustered building and open space pattern serves as a central focus for the 

project. 

Parking required to support 9,000 employees is based on a 60% demand, and assumes 

the balance will use car pools and/or public transportation. This equals approximately 

5,400 spaces (See Footnote #1 regarding parking based on transit mode share). 

Estimated Costs - Maximum Development (9,000 Employees) 

Item Costs in Millions 

Environmental Site Cleanup, Asbestos Removal, and Demolition $ 20 

Site Access Improvements $100 

Infrastructure Improvements (on-site & off-site) $45 

Building, Parking, Design/Construction $784 

Total $949 

*Grand Total (includes $237.5 million for warehouse replacement) $1.190 

*This assumes all warehouse buildings will be replaced. Note: Costs assume regional traffic 

improvements addressing existing and no-action failures that were identified in the Fort Belvoir BRAC 

2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement report are funded by others. 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

22

Timeline - Maximum Development 

Construction of off-site access, cleanup & demolition, warehouse relocation would be 

concurrent. Therefore, development at the maximum level would take approximately 

6 1/2 years to fully implement. 

Development Approach for Strategy 3 (9,000 employees) 

 Requires direct pedestrian and vehicular connections to Metro to improve access 

and circulation between multiple building parcels. 

 The land area shown as required for development (Figure 17) may change with 

determination of the building program and site development requirements. 

 Additional employees beyond 9,000 may be possible, but would require further 

analysis to determine the extent of additional traffic improvements required. 

Development Strategy #3 – 9,000 employees 

Figure 17: Land Area Required for Maximum Development 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

23

Summary of Strategy #3 – Adding over 9,000 employees requires significant off-site 

improvements for traffic and utilities, estimated at approximately $145 million. This 

option requires relocation of all GSA tenants, would take approximately 6 1/2 years to 

fully implement, and will cost $949 million. With new warehouse replacement costs, this 

total is $1.19 billion.2

 

4. Conclusion 

It is feasible to construct administrative support functions for DoD use on the GSA site. 

The Limited Development Strategy accommodates up to 3,000 employees based on the 

capacity of the existing roads and utilities. The Moderate Development Strategy can 

support 5,000 employees. This scenario is more complex than the first due to land 

acquisition and construction needed for a new access road that connects to Spring Mall 

Drive. The Maximum Development Scenario, at 9,000 employees, is the most complex 

to develop due to a major new interchange required at Franconia-Springfield Parkway 

and necessary off-site upgrades needed for utility and electric service. This scenario 

requires that all current GSA tenants be relocated and that the entire site be developed. 

This results in the longest timeframe for completion. Allowing some of the warehouse 

uses to remain on site as demonstrated in the Limited and Moderate Development 

Strategies offers the quickest path to new development. 

The final design and selection of improvements to the surrounding regional road 

network will vary to match the final siting of employees. However, the total construction 

cost is expected to be similar for improvements to the regional road network for the 

same total employee population. If the BRAC employees are split between EPG and 

the GSA a modest increase in total transportation cost is likely due to the need to serve 

two sites. 

The cost analysis for developing GSA provided in the summary matrix section does not 

reflect area wide regional road improvements. These are previously identified in the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Implementation of the 2005 BRAC 

Report, dated March 2007. These regional road improvements are described in the 

DEIS under the “City Center Alternative” (in table 4.3-4.1 pages 4-137and 4-138), are 

still required to support the transportation network. 

 

2

 Moderate and Maximum construction/occupancy exceeds BRAC deadline. 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

24

5. Supplemental Information 

Note on Building Cost Estimate Data: All costs are considered in order of magnitude, 

for comparative purposes only. Costs may increase if additional support facilities – 

such as fire stations, military police, remote inspection, etc. – are required. Costs for 

Access Control Points are included in each development strategy. 

For this report, DoD cost data guidelines were used to determine building costs. 

Estimates for Strategies 1, 2 and 3 are largely based on the “DoD Price Guide” and 

“Size Adjustment Factor” criteria. The “Price Guide” is a unit cost for specific facilities – 

administration, cafeterias, conference spaces, etc. – based on historical construction 

data collected and updated annually. The building “Size Adjustment Factor” is a ratio –

optimum size for use divided by the proposed size of use. A larger admin/office size 

building would be less cost per square-foot than a smaller (25,000 or less) square-foot 

building. 

Costs for constructing facilities at the GSA site were generated using several software 

programs: PC-Cost, PACES, and Success Estimator. The Department of Defense 

2006 Price Guide was the primary cost source for this document. Whenever these 

sources did not provide information for specific construction tasks, RS Means 2005 and 

2006 cost data were used. These are cost engineer/estimating books – created by 

Robert Snow Means and published by Reed Construction Data, Inc. Costs were 

adjusted to the midpoint of construction, and adjusted for local labor, materials and size 

criteria per DoD guidelines. Where applicable, assemblies were used in the cost 

estimate. (Assemblies, found in most pricing sources, are a collection of detailed cost 

items that combine to form a distinctive functional unit. Each cost item is quantified, so 

each quantity correctly corresponds to its functional unit. Although an assembly is a 

summary of costs, it still provides accurate costs that are supported by logical 

relationships.) 

Cost estimates do not include: 

 Permits 

 Testing fees 

 Furnishings 

 Moving costs 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

25

Costs reflect the anticipated conditions during actual construction, regarding: 

 Limited labor resources 

 Other major BRAC projects in the National Capital Region 

 Other local major government construction projects during the same time 

period (i.e., U.S. Coast Guard new headquarters facilities at Saint Elizabeth’s, 

Department of State Training Center addition in Arlington, Hoover Building 

Renovation) 

 Availability of affordable housing for laborers 

 Availability of Materials 

 Cost of Materials based on global and other significant demands within the 

Mid-Atlantic Region 

Provided for comparative purposes only, other benchmark costs per square-foot for 

administrative space include: 

- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, VA $265/sf (built 2005) 

- U.S. Census Office in Suitland, MD $205/sf (built 2006) 

- Washington Headquarters Services at U.S. Army EPG $185/sf (in planning) 

- GSA Strategy 3 $199/sf (in planning) 

In summary, proposed facility costs at the GSA site (based on a 9,000+ population) 

exceed those for the Washington Headquarters Services. This is due to adjustments 

previously listed and construction of GSA replacement facilities. Differences in “per 

square-foot” costs – between Strategies 1,2 and 3 – mainly reflect Price Guide and 

Scale Factor data. 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007 

GSA SITE RE-DEVELOPMENT MATRIX EVALUATION CRITERIA 

DEVELOPMENT 

LEVELS 

LIMITED MODERATE MAXIMUM

Employee Population 3,000 Max. 5,000 Max. 9,000 Plus 

t

Administrative Office Space (in gross 

square footage) 675,000 gsf 1,500,000 gsf 2,000,000 gsf 

Parking @ 60% 2,000 spaces 3,000 spaces 5,400 spaces 

Timing to construct/occupy (1) approx. 4.5 years approx. 5.5 years approx. 6.5 years 

Site Cleanup, Asbestos Removal, 

Demolition $10 million $15 million $20 million 

Traffic Costs $5 million $40 million $100 million 

Infrastructure Costs 

( sewer, water, electric, gas) $5 million $20 million $45 million 

Building/Parking Costs $278 million $565 million $784 million 

TOTAL COSTS (2) $298 million $640 million $949 million 

footnotes:(1) Assumes GSA site is available within 18 months (2) Costs above do not include new warehouse replacement costs. 
GSA WAREHOUSE AREA ADAPTIVE RE-USE STUDY April 2, 2007