THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 

Environmental Assessment 

May 2018 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 

Prepared by: 

Metropolitan Architects & Planners, Inc. 

Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

For Further Information, Contact: 

Susan Cantilli, AIA, Master Plan Project Manager 

Telephone: (301) 975-8833 

Email: susan.cantilli@nist.gov 

Abstract: 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed a 20-year Master Plan for the NIST Gaithersburg Campus located in 

Gaithersburg, Maryland. The need for the Master Plan, and the campus improvements prescribed therein, is driven by both institutional policy and the 

inability of existing facilities and infrastructure to support current and projected mission requirements at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus. 

Two alternatives were considered in detail in the Environmental Assessment. The Proposed Action would implement the NIST Gaithersburg Campus 

Master Plan to guide the physical development of the campus to advance the agency’s mission-related goals over the next 20 years. The Master Plan 

emphasizes quality and collaborative research in addition to sustainable and efficient operations. The Master Plan addresses current campus needs and 

delineates future development through broad phases delineated by priorities and logical implementation sequencing. When and if funding becomes 

available, NIST would execute new construction, additions, renovation, demolition, landscape improvements, utility improvements, and circulation 

improvements under the Master Plan. Implementation of the Master Plan would result in permanent minor to moderate impacts to a variety of resource 

areas including social and economic resources; open space; biological resources; topography, geology, and soils; water resources; utilities and 

infrastructure; solid and hazardous waste; circulation and transportation; air quality; climate change; cultural and historic resources; aesthetics and light 

pollution; and noise. Many of these impacts would be offset by related benefits and mitigation measures. The No-Action Alternative would continue 

current NIST operations and would not implement the Master Plan. The No-Action Alternative would ultimately result in a site that would no longer 

support the advanced research requirements of NIST and would render much of the campus obsolete. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan i Final Environmental Assessment 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan ii Final Environmental Assessment 
Table of Contents 

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

2 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 2-1 

2.1 Campus Background ............................................................ 2-1 

2.2 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................... 2-2 

2.3 Public Scoping ..................................................................... 2-6 

2.4 Public Review of the Draft Master Plan and Draft EA ........ 2-7 

3 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 3-1 

3.1 Proposed Action................................................................... 3-1 

3.1.1 Components of the Proposed Action ..................... 3-1 

3.1.2 Phasing of the Master Plan .................................... 3-5 

3.2 No-Action Alternative.......................................................... 3-6 

4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................ 4-1 

4.1 Land Use and Socioeconomics............................................. 4-1 

4.1.1 Land Use and Regional Planning........................... 4-1 

4.1.2 Social and Economic Resources ............................ 4-2 

4.1.3 Open Space and Recreation ................................... 4-3 

4.2 Biological Resources............................................................ 4-4 

4.2.1 Vegetation.............................................................. 4-4 

4.2.2 Wildlife .................................................................. 4-6 

4.3 Topography, Geology, and Soils.......................................... 4-7 

4.3.1 Topography............................................................ 4-7 

4.3.2 Geology and Soils.................................................. 4-7 

4.4 Water Resources................................................................... 4-9 

4.4.1 Surface Waters....................................................... 4-9 

4.4.2 Wetlands .............................................................. 4-12 

4.4.3 Floodplains .......................................................... 4-14 

4.4.4 Groundwater ........................................................ 4-14 

4.5 Utilities and Infrastructure ................................................. 4-15 

4.5.1 Potable Water Supply .......................................... 4-15 

4.5.2 Wastewater........................................................... 4-16 

4.5.3 Stormwater Management ..................................... 4-17 

4.5.4 Energy Systems.................................................... 4-20 

4.5.4.1 Electricity ............................................. 4-20 

4.5.4.2 Heating and Cooling............................. 4-21 

4.6 Sustainable Development ................................................... 4-22 

4.7 Solid and Hazardous Waste................................................ 4-23 

4.8 Circulation and Transportation........................................... 4-25 

4.8.1 Vehicle Circulation and Parking .......................... 4-25 

4.8.2 Public and Alternative Transportation ................. 4-26 

4.8.3 Pedestrian Circulation .......................................... 4-27 

4.9 Air Quality ......................................................................... 4-28 

4.10 Climate Change .................................................................. 4-31 

4.11 Cultural and Historic Resources......................................... 4-32 

4.11.1 Architectural Resources ....................................... 4-32 

4.11.2 Archeological Resources...................................... 4-34 

4.12 Visual Impacts.................................................................... 4-34 

4.12.1 Aesthetics............................................................. 4-34 

4.12.2 Light Pollution ..................................................... 4-36 

4.13 Noise Levels....................................................................... 4-37 

5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................ 5-1 

5.1 Evaluated Actions ................................................................ 5-1 

5.1.1 Projects Within the Campus................................... 5-1 

5.1.2 Development Projects External to the Campus...... 5-3 

5.1.3 Transportation Projects External to the Campus.... 5-6 

5.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis ................................................ 5-6 

6 LITERATURE CITED....................................................................... 6-1 

7 LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................... 7-1 

8 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED .................... 8-1 

9 DISTRIBUTION LIST....................................................................... 9-1 

Appendix A: Phasing of the Master Plan 

Appendix B: Correspondence 

Appendix C: General Conformity Rule Applicability Analysis 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan iii Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Tables 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................................................................... 1-3 

Table 2-1. Summary of Campus Buildings...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-5 

Table 4-1. Perception of Noise ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-37 

Table 4-2. Montgomery County Maximum Allowable Noise ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-37 

Table 5-1. Potential Future Development Actions within the City of Gaithersburg........................................................................................................................................ 5-5 

List of Figures 

Figure 2-1. Location of NIST Gaithersburg Campus within Montgomery County, Maryland........................................................................................................................ 2-3 

Figure 2-2. Overview of NIST Gaithersburg Campus ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-4 

Figure 3-1. Scope of Proposed Action (Master Plan Concept) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3-2 

Figure 3-2. Reforestation Plan for the NIST Gaithersburg Campus ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-4 

Figure 4-1. Topographic Contours at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus ........................................................................................................................................................... 4-8 

Figure 4-2. Hydrologic Features at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus............................................................................................................................................................. 4-11 

Figure 4-3. Wetlands Within and Surrounding the NIST Gaithersburg Campus........................................................................................................................................... 4-13 

Figure 4-4. Stormwater Management Features at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus ...................................................................................................................................... 4-18 

Figure 4-5. View of Building 101 from the Southeast................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-35 

Figure 5-1. Past, Ongoing, and Potential Future Actions within the NIST Gaithersburg Campus.................................................................................................................. 5-2 

Figure 5-2. Potential Future Development Actions within the City of Gaithersburg ...................................................................................................................................... 5-4 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan iv Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ACSL Advanced Chemical Sciences Laboratory 

AML Advanced Measurement Laboratory Complex 

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

BRT Bus Rapid Transit 

BWI Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood 

Marshall Airport 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBPA Community-Based Planning Areas 

CCT Corridor Cities Transitway 

CDR Construction, demolition, and renovation 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CHP Combined Heat and Power System 

CO Carbon monoxide 

COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dBA A-weighted decibel 

DEP Montgomery County Department of Environmental 

Protection 

DoC United States Department of Commerce 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EAB Emerald ash borer 

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

EO Executive Order 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESC Erosion and sediment control 

ESD Environmental Site Design 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FY Fiscal year 

GCR General Conformity Rule 

GHG Greenhouse gas 

GPL 

GSF 

HVAC 

IDA 

IES 

LEED 

LID 

LOS 

MARC 

MBTA 

MCDOT 

MDE 

MDNR 

MIHP 

M-NCPPC 

MOU 

MTA 

MVA 

MW 

NAAQS 

NCNR 

NCPC 

NEPA 

NESHAP 

NHPA 

NIST 

NO2 

NOA 

NOx 

NPDES 

General Purpose Laboratories 

Gross square feet 

Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

International Dark Sky Association 

Illuminating Engineering Society 

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

Low impact development 

Level of Service 

Maryland Area Regional Commuter 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

Montgomery County Department of Transportation 

Maryland Department of the Environment 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties 

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning 

Commission 

Memorandum of Understanding 

Maryland Transit Administration 

Megavolt-amperes 

Megawatt 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NIST Center for Neutron Research 

National Capital Planning Commission 

National Environmental Policy Act 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants 

National Historic Preservation Act 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

Notice of Availability 

Nitrogen oxides 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan v Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory SIP State Implementation Plan 

OFPM Office of Facilities and Property Management SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 

OSHE Office of Safety, Health and Environment SRM Standard Reference Material 

OU Organizational Unit SSPP Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan 

Ppb Parts per billion SWM Stormwater management 

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl SWMP Stormwater Management Plan 

PEPCO Potomac Electric Power Company SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

PM Particulate matter TDM Transportation Demand Management 

PPH Pounds of steam per hour TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

PTC Permit to construct USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

RHA Rivers and Harbors Act VOC Volatile Organic Compounds 

SF Square feet WLA Wasteload allocation 

SHA State Highway Administration WSSC Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan vi Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Executive Summary 

Background 

The 579-acre National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) Gaithersburg Campus, located in Gaithersburg, Maryland, 

is home to research programs of NIST, a non-regulatory federal 

agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC). A total of 

4,007 researchers, affiliates, administrators, and support personnel 

work in 62 buildings and structures at the campus, of which 38 are 

occupied buildings. Approximately half of the permanent buildings 

are now more than 50 years old, although two substantial research 

facilities were built in the last 20 years: The Advanced Chemical 

Sciences Laboratory (ACSL) and the Advanced Measurement 

Laboratory Complex (AML). The roughly diamond-shaped, fenced 

campus is surrounded on three sides by major roadways with 

commercial and residential development opposite, and on the 

fourth side by a residential neighborhood and park. The main 

entrance gate is located on the north side along West Diamond 

Avenue, with three other active gates used by employees and for 

deliveries. The property is relatively flat, with some slightly rolling 

terrain towards the south. The central campus is characterized by 

separate buildings, some linked by enclosed concourses, 

surrounded by lawn and parking lots. To the east and west, there is 

open space, forested area, two ponds, and scattered buildings. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The Master Plan analyzed in this Environmental Assessment (EA) 

reflects NIST’s vision for the physical development of the campus 

and for a flexible strategy for implementation. The overall purpose 

of the Master Plan analyzed in this EA is to guide fulfillment of the 

following objectives: 

• Establish a framework for future development (20-year

horizon);

• Meet near and long-term needs of the campus in support

of NIST’s research mission;

• Maintain an attractive campus environment;

• Respect and embrace the campus status as an eligible

historic district; and

• Advance NIST and DoC sustainable design goals.

The need for the Master Plan, and the campus improvements 

prescribed therein, is driven by both institutional policy and the 

inability of existing facilities and infrastructure (much of which 

dates to the initial campus construction in the 1960s) to support 

current and projected mission requirements. NIST is ever evolving 

and needs flexible, integrative, and collaborative support spaces to 

effectively promote scientific research. DoC recommends that its 

agencies have a physical master plan for their sites, reflecting both 

the anticipated special needs of the user groups and the impact of 

its activities on the surrounding community. The master plans are 

used to both define needed physical facilities and to advance the 

agency’s mission-related goals. 

Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action is the implementation of a Master Plan to 

guide the physical development of the campus to advance the 

agency’s mission-related goals over the next 20 years. The Master 

Plan emphasizes quality and collaborative research in addition to 

sustainable and efficient operations. The Master Plan addresses 

current campus needs and delineates future development through 

broad phases delineated by priorities and logical implementation 

sequencing. The Master Plan provides for the modernization of 

aging, inefficient buildings and accommodates the anticipated 

growth in research programs over the next 20 years. Full execution 

of the Master Plan would increase the employee population by 

approximately 27% from its current population of 4,007 to 5,106 

and would result in a net increase in facility space (gross square 

footage) by approximately 40%. 

NIST would execute new construction, additions, renovation, 

demolition, landscape improvements, utility improvements, and 

circulation improvements under the Master Plan. The Master Plan 

would focus on a core center of the campus and associated green 

space used to connect existing, renovated, and new laboratories. It 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 1-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

offers a framework for accomplishing NIST’s goals of enhancing the campus, 

providing appropriate facilities, improving security, encouraging professional 

collaboration, and advancing sustainable practices. The emphasis is on research 

buildings—upgrading existing laboratory buildings and infrastructure to support 

current and future research, and adding new facilities needed for planned programs. 

No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not implement the Master Plan and would 

maintain the present course of action at the campus by continuing ongoing 

research, management, and maintenance activities. The No-Action Alternative 

would ultimately result in a site that would no longer support the advanced 

research requirements of NIST and would render much of the campus obsolete. 

The No-Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need criteria for the 

campus. As a result, NIST considers the No-Action Alternative to be less desirable 

than the Proposed Action. 

Decision to be Made 

Based on environmental analysis, public comments on the Draft EA, and other 

considerations, NIST will decide whether to proceed with the Proposed Action or 

the No-Action Alternative. The EA scope is confined to issues and potential 

environmental consequences relevant to this decision. 

Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act require consideration of environmental effects 

and prescribe mitigation where practical to limit those effects. 

The Proposed Action would result in temporary impacts from construction, 

renovation, and demolition activities, as well as some minor continuing impacts 

because of operation of the new facilities and the increase in NIST personnel over 

the course of 20 years. The No-Action Alternative would not result in temporary 

impacts, demolition activities, or other improvements under the Master Plan. The 

environmental effects and mitigation measures associated with the Proposed 

Action and No-Action Alternative are described in Table 1-1 (Summary of 

Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures) below. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 1-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Resource Proposed Action (Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Land Use and Socioeconomics 

Land Use and Effects: Effects: 

Regional • Improved connectivity, stronger campus identity, and encouraged collaboration amongst employees. • No impact on land use or regional

Planning • No impact on land use designations on the campus. Continued preservation of open space and natural

features.

• No impact on zoning or regional planning outside the campus.

Mitigation:

• No mitigation necessary.

planning.

Social and Effects: Effects: 

Economic • Minor long-term impact on population, housing, and education trends because of the projected increase • No impact on social and economic

Resources of approximately 1,099 staff over the course of 20 years.

• Minor long-term economic benefits associated with improved productivity and available resources as well

as a marginal improvement to employment levels associated with increased staff on the campus. Staff

increases would likely benefit the local economy and job market.

• Temporary minor impact on the population and availability of housing during construction (because of

potential influx of construction workers).

• Temporary economic benefits to the local community during construction activities (e.g., meals and

incidentals for construction workers).

• No significant disproportionate impact on children, minorities, or low-income populations, but potential

minor effect on sensitive populations southeast of campus because of relocation of commercial vehicle

entrance to Gate F.

Mitigation: 

• Incorporation of design features at Gate F to separate commercial vehicle and visitor traffic and to limit

queueing of commercial vehicles as they enter the campus.

resources.

• No economic benefits to the

region. Adverse economic impact

because of obsolete facilities and

infrastructure, compromising

NIST’s mission to promote

industrial competitiveness on a

national level.

Open Space Effects: Effects: 

and Recreation • Expansion of active recreational areas and the network of walking paths through both open and wooded

landscape.

• Minor reduction in open areas because of new construction.

Mitigation:

• No mitigation necessary.

• No impact on open spaces.

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 1-3 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Resource Proposed Action (Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Biological Resources 

Vegetation Effects: 

• Removal of vegetation because of construction in previously undeveloped areas.

• No impact on rare, threatened, or endangered plant species or on vegetation in stream buffers or

wetlands.

• Improvement to urban landscape because of replacement of manicured lawns with no-mow meadows of

native or adapted species (requiring less maintenance).

• Expanded tree canopy cover because of reforestation efforts.

Mitigation:

• Reseeding native grasses and vegetative species in disturbed areas following completion of construction

activities to the extent feasible.

• Replacement of trees removed.

• Implementation of trenchless methods where feasible to minimize vegetation removal associated with

installation or relocation of underground utilities.

• Management of hardwood trees to prevent the spread of the emerald ash borer.

Effects: 

• No impact on vegetation.

• No improvement to urban

landscape.

Wildlife Effects: 

• Minor reduction in potential wildlife and pollinator habitat because of reduction in vegetated areas.

• Temporary minor impact on wildlife, migratory birds, and pollinators during construction activities.

• No expected impact on rare, threatened, and endangered species or forest interior dweller species.

• Potential minor impact on aquatic life because of runoff of sediment or other contaminants.

• Minor improvement to wildlife and pollinator habitat due tree canopy expansion and increased native

vegetation.

Mitigation: 

• Avoidance of tree clearing until it is verified that no migratory bird eggs and/or young are present.

• Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and implementation of appropriate mitigation

measures if threatened or endangered species are discovered on campus.

• Implementation of stormwater management and pollution prevention measures to reduce impact on

aquatic life.

Effects: 

• No impact on wildlife or habitat.

• No enhancement to habitats for

native wildlife and pollinators.

Topography, Geology, and Soils 

Topography Effects: 

• Minor impact on topography because of construction activities, which would require grading, excavation,

and fill in previously disturbed areas.

Mitigation: 

• No mitigation necessary.

Effects: 

• No grading or associated impact

on topography.

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 1-4 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Resource Proposed Action (Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Geology and Effects: Effects: 

Soils • Moderate soil disturbance because of construction, demolition, and renovation projects.

• Potential for surface and subsurface compaction during construction and demolition activities.

Mitigation:

• Performance of geotechnical surveys to confirm soil constructability prior to new construction.

• Implementation of erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures during earth disturbance.

• Preparation and adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize risk of soil

contamination during construction activities.

• Reuse of excavated soils within the campus whenever feasible.

• Minimization of fugitive dust emissions and wind-thrown hazards during construction activities.

• No impact on geology or soils.

Water Resources 

Surface Waters Effects: 

• Potential impact on surface waters because of runoff from construction activities and changes in the

quality and quantity of post-construction stormwater runoff.

• Potential long-term improvement to surface water quality via implementation of the mitigation measures

summarized below.

Mitigation: 

• Implementation of approved ESC and stormwater management (SWM) plans during construction

activities.

• Installation of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) for both existing and new impervious

surfaces, in accordance with the campus stormwater permit and state and federal requirements.

Effects: 

• No impact on surface waters.

• No implementation of an SWM

strategy that would improve

surface water quality and meet

the intent of local, state, and

federal rules and regulations.

Wetlands Effects: 

• No construction, demolition, or renovation within designated wetlands or wetland buffers.

• Potential wetland impacts because of construction and renovation activities proposed near wetlands or

areas demonstrating wetland characteristics.

• During peak storm events, potential increase in the quantity of stormwater runoff discharged to wetlands

on campus following construction of the Visitor Center and Vehicle Inspection Facility at Gate A, NCNR,

High Bay Facility, Strong Facility, Wind/Fire Facility, and the Gate F Visitor Center.

Mitigation: 

• Installation of approved ESC and SWM plans during construction activities.

• Implementation of surveys in areas with wetland characteristics to evaluate if construction activities

would occur within wetlands or their buffers. If construction in a buffer area is determined, NIST would

evaluate opportunities to reduce or avoid these impacts.

Effects: 

• No impact on wetlands.

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 1-5 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Resource Proposed Action (Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Floodplains Effects: 

• No construction, demolition, or renovation within the 100-year floodplain or floodway.

• During peak storm events, potential increase in the quantity of stormwater runoff from the campus

because of overflow of stormwater management features.

Mitigation: 

• Incorporation of various post-construction stormwater BMPs to reduce flooding potential.

Effects: 

• No impacts or changes within the

100-year floodplain or floodway.

Groundwater Effects: 

• No impact on groundwater consumption.

• Potential impact on groundwater quality during construction and demolition activities.

• Potential for enhanced stormwater infiltration and groundwater recharge.

Mitigation:

• Implementation of appropriate pollution prevention measures during construction and demolition

activities to avoid spills and exposure of groundwater to contamination.

Effects: 

• No impact on groundwater

consumption.

• No construction-related impact on

groundwater.

• No potential for enhanced

groundwater recharge.

Utilities and Infrastructure 

Potable Water Effects: Effects: 

Supply • Moderate increase in potable water demand.

• Installation of new potable water lines to connect new facilities with the existing potable water

infrastructure.

• Potential relocation of existing water piping.

Mitigation:

• Installation of water-efficient fixtures and water conserving equipment in new and renovated buildings.

• No increase in potable water

demand.

• No water efficiency

improvements.

Wastewater Effects: 

• Moderate increase in wastewater generation.

• Installation of new sanitary sewer lines to connect new facilities with the existing sanitary sewer

infrastructure.

Mitigation: 

• Installation of water-efficient fixtures in new and renovated buildings.

Effects: 

• No increase in wastewater

discharge.

• No impact on existing wastewater

infrastructure. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 1-6 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Resource Proposed Action (Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Stormwater Effects: Effects: 

Management • Temporary impact on stormwater from sediment associated with renovation, demolition, and 

construction activities. 

• Increase in impervious areas within the campus by 16% with full implementation of the Master Plan. 

• Potential long-term improvement to stormwater quality and reduction in stormwater quantity via 

implementation of the mitigation measures summarized below. 

Mitigation: 

• Use of reforestation and approved SWM strategies to treat 20% of runoff from existing impervious 

surfaces. 

• Implementation of approved ESC and SWM plans during construction activities, including the use of 

Environmental Site Design BMPs in accordance with the campus stormwater permit and state and federal 

requirements. 

• Potential establishment of a Compensatory Stormwater Management program and Water Quality Bank 

through a Memorandum of Agreement with MDE. 

• No impact on stormwater. 

• No improvement to SWM 

practices on the campus to meet 

the intent of state and federal 

rules and regulations. 

Energy Systems Effects: Effects: 

- Electricity • Moderate increase in electrical demand because of operation of lighting systems, laboratory equipment, 

and HVAC systems associated with new buildings. Construction of a new electrical switching station to 

support this increase in demand. 

• Assessment and replacement of existing ductbanks and feeders in the existing electrical distribution 

network. 

Mitigation: 

• Improved energy efficiency for new and renovated buildings, including potential net-zero facilities. 

• Installation of photovoltaic energy systems to reduce electrical demand from the grid. 

• No impact on electrical 

infrastructure or demand. 

• No improvement to energy 

efficiency. 

Energy Systems Effects: Effects: 

- Heating and • Moderate increase in cooling and heating demand. • No change in heating and cooling 

Cooling • Installation of additional chillers, a cooling tower, and a new chilled water and steam supply main to 

support campus growth and increase utility system reliability. 

Mitigation: 

• Improvement to insulation and efficiency of heating and cooling for new and renovated facilities. 

• Potential for stand-alone buildings to achieve net-zero energy consumption via geothermal systems. 

demand. 

• No improvement to energy 

efficiency. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 1-7 Final Environmental Assessment 
Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Resource Proposed Action (Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Sustainable Development 

-- Effects: 

• Moderate overall improvement to campus sustainability through renovation of existing facilities and

replacement of inefficient facilities, improved energy efficiency, improved stormwater management, and

sustainable landscaping.

• Short-term and continuing generation of waste and commitment of resources (e.g., raw construction

materials, fossil fuels) to support facility construction and operation.

Mitigation: 

• Achievement of LEED Gold certification (or higher) for each new or renovated building.

• Recycling of construction and demolition debris to the extent practicable.

• Continued purchase of renewable energy credits (electrical power from renewable sources) to meet EO

13693 targets.

Effects: 

• No change in energy demand or

infrastructure on the campus.

• No improvement to energy

efficiency, stormwater

management, landscapes, or

overall campus sustainability in

accordance with EO 13693.

Solid and Hazardous Waste 

-- Effects: 

• Temporary generation of construction and demolition waste, potentially including materials containing

polychlorinated biphenyls, lead, asbestos, or ozone-depleting substances.

• Minor long-term increase in operational waste because of increase in staff and operational space.

Mitigation:

• Recycling of construction and demolition debris to the extent practicable.

• Handling and disposal of wastes in accordance with state regulations.

Effects: 

• No change in the generation,

storage, or disposal of solid or

hazardous waste.

• No removal of hazardous building

materials.

Circulation and Transportation 

Vehicle Effects: Effects: 

Circulation and • Moderate increase in vehicles entering and exiting the campus because of personnel increase. • No impact on the local

Parking • Minor increase in commercial vehicle traffic along Muddy Branch Road because of relocation of

commercial vehicle entrance to Gate F, with corresponding decrease in traffic congestion along Quince

Orchard Road.

• Improved vehicle circulation and maneuvering on the campus and at points of entry.

• Minor reduction in vehicle use within the campus because of improved pedestrian connectivity.

• Gradual reduction in parking availability across campus.

• Temporary increase in traffic and decrease in parking availability during construction activities.

Mitigation:

• Implementation of additional Transportation Demand Management policies to further encourage use of

public transportation and bicycles.

• Creation of separate entrance driveways at Gate F to mitigate congestion along Muddy Branch Road.

transportation network or traffic

levels.

• No improvement to traffic

congestion along Quince Orchard

Road.

• No change in vehicle use or

parking availability within the

campus.

• No improvement to campus

ingress or vehicle circulation

within the campus.

• Creation of temporary parking and staging areas to avoid parking overflow during construction and

demolition activities.

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 1-8 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Resource Proposed Action (Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Public and Effects: Effects: 

Alternative • Moderate increase in public transit ridership because of increase in employees. • No impact on public and

Transportation • Improved access to the campus from bus stops because of improved pedestrian walkways.

• Improved accessibility for bicycle commuters.

Mitigation:

• No mitigation necessary.

alternative transportation.

Pedestrian Effects: Effects: 

Circulation • Improved pedestrian circulation on campus because of construction of new sidewalks, walkways, and a

recreational walking path.

• Increased emphasis on connectivity by focusing new laboratory and administrative space within the

campus core.

Mitigation: 

• No mitigation necessary.

• No improvement to pedestrian

circulation.

Air Quality 

-- Effects: 

• Minor long-term increase in air emissions from boilers, emergency generators, and laboratory activities.

• Moderate long-term increase in air emissions from mobile sources because of increase in campus

population, which may be fully offset by continued improvements in vehicle emission standards.

• Temporary increase in air emissions because of demolition, construction, and renovation activities.

• Air emissions would be below the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule de minimis thresholds.

Mitigation:

• Renovation and construction of more energy efficient facilities to reduce the amount of purchased

electricity and the associated generation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

• Continued use of low-NOx burners in new boilers.

• Installation of pollution control devices at the proposed Wind/Fire Facility.

• Configuration of Gate A and Gate F to reduce queuing and idling by commercial vehicles and other

vehicles.

• Minimization of fugitive dust emissions and wind-thrown hazards during construction activities.

• Removal and disposal of lead-containing materials, asbestos-containing materials, and ozone-depleting

substances in accordance with applicable regulations.

Effects: 

• No impact on air emissions from

onsite stationary sources, mobile

sources, or temporary activities.

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 1-9 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Resource Proposed Action (Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Climate Change 

-- Effects: 

• Minor long-term increase in direct and indirect GHG emissions from boilers, emergency generators, and 

operation of new facilities (including purchasing of electricity). 

• Temporary increase in GHG emissions because of construction, renovation, and demolition activities. 

• Potential contribution to effects of climate change through potential minor increase in cooling demand. 

• Improved resilience to intensified rainfall and drought events through reforestation and revegetation. 

Mitigation: 

• Renovation and construction of more energy efficient facilities and installation of photovoltaic systems to 

Effects: 

• No impact on direct or indirect 

GHG emissions. 

• No change in contribution to 

climate change effects. 

• Potential susceptibility of 

landscape vegetation to climate 

change-induced drought. 

reduce the amount of purchased electricity and the associated generation of GHGs. 

• Continued purchase of renewable energy credits (electrical power from renewable sources) to meet EO 

13693 targets. 

Cultural and Historic Resources 

Architectural Effects: Effects: 

Resources • Direct impact, but no adverse effect, to historic district and contributing resources because of 

construction and renovation. 

• New buildings would be architecturally compatible in scale, massing, and design approach with the 

original campus buildings to minimize adverse effects to the historic district. 

• No anticipated impacts on historic properties outside the campus. 

Mitigation: 

• Submittal of individual undertakings to the Maryland Historical Trust during the planning stage for Section 

106 review. 

• Adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation for future expansions and 

alterations. 

• No impact on potentially historic 

properties. 

Archeological Effects: Effects: 

Resources • No adverse effects on known archeologically sensitive areas or previously identified archeological sites. 

• Potential to encounter archeological resources via earthwork in previously undisturbed areas. 

Mitigation: 

• Performance of a Phase I archeological survey. 

• No adverse effects on 

archeologically sensitive areas or 

previously identified archeological 

sites. 

Visual Impacts 

Aesthetics Effects: 

• Improved aesthetics via reforestation and revegetation efforts. 

• New buildings are architecturally compatible with other buildings in the historic district. 

• Temporary impact on the viewscape from surrounding areas because of construction activities. 

Mitigation: 

• No mitigation necessary. 

Effects: 

• No impact on aesthetics. 

• No enhancement of viewscapes 

on the campus. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 1-10 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Resource Proposed Action (Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Light Pollution Effects: 

• Installation of additional lighting systems for new and renovated facilities and pedestrian areas.

• Potential increase in light trespass because of increased use of large windows for natural lighting.

• Potential minor temporary light trespass from supplemental lighting during construction activities.

• Potential increase in glare in the vicinity of the campus because of sunlight reflected from solar panels.

Mitigation:

• Compliance with current design guidance and city requirements for all new exterior lighting systems.

• Screening with tree plantings on the campus to intercept light trespass outside the campus boundary.

• Use of lighting control systems and tinted windows to mitigate light trespass from interior lighting.

• Conducting construction work during daylight hours.

• Incorporation of proper siting and glare reduction measures for solar panels.

Effects: 

• No impact on lighting at the

campus.

• No improvement to existing

interior or exterior campus

lighting.

Noise Levels 

-- Effects: 

• Minor impact on overall operational noise levels because of new laboratory activities, air handling units

(including at the proposed Wind/Fire Facility), exhaust fans, emergency generators, and chillers.

• Potential increase in off-campus noise near Gate F because of the added presence of commercial

vehicles.

• Temporary increase in noise during construction activities.

Mitigation:

• Continued evaluation of whether additional design and landscaping measures would be necessary to

mitigate noise from the proposed Wind/Fire Facility, new chillers, and screening facilities at Gate F.

• Expansion of the forest buffer around the campus perimeter and installation of vegetative screening at

Gate F.

• Configuration of Gate F to reduce queuing and idling by commercial vehicles and other vehicles.

• Limitation of construction activities to normal daytime working hours.

Effects: 

• No impact on ambient or interior

noise levels.

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 1-11 Final Environmental Assessment 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Introduction 

2.1 Campus Background 

The 579-acre National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) Gaithersburg Campus, located in Gaithersburg, Maryland, 

is home to research programs of NIST. A total of 4,007 

researchers, affiliates, administrators, and support personnel work 

in 62 buildings and structures at the campus, of which 38 are 

occupied buildings. Approximately half of the permanent buildings 

are now more than 50 years old, although two substantial research 

facilities were built in the last 20 years: The Advanced Chemical 

Sciences Laboratory (ACSL) and the Advanced Measurement 

Laboratory Complex (AML). 

NIST was founded in 1901 as the National Bureau of Standards, 

and is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Department 

of Commerce (DoC). It promotes U.S. innovation and industrial 

competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, 

and technology in ways that enhance economic security and 

improve our quality of life. The NIST Laboratories conduct worldclass research, often in close collaboration with industry, to 

advance the nation’s technology infrastructure and help U.S. 

companies continually improve products and services. Today, 

NIST provides services and standard reference materials to 

industry, academia and government organizations, in addition to its 

diverse research programs. Its research areas include fields in 

biological sciences, chemistry, computer science, engineering, 

material sciences, mathematics, and physics. 

The NIST Gaithersburg Campus was developed in the 1960s to 

relocate the facilities from Washington, DC. The original buildings 

in the District, constructed in the early part of the century, were 

antiquated, crowded, and far short of the laboratory standards of 

the 1960s. The Gaithersburg site was selected because it met the 

desired criteria—a large site allowing future buildings; a location 

near Washington, DC but not in the Baltimore-Washington 

corridor because of cold war security concerns; isolation from 

population centers and their associated mechanical, electrical, and 

atmospheric disturbance potential; and a location that would be 

convenient for personnel. 

The roughly diamond-shaped, fenced campus is surrounded on 

three sides by major roadways with commercial and residential 

development opposite, and on the fourth side by a residential 

neighborhood and park. The main entrance gate is located on the 

north side along West Diamond Avenue, with three other active 

gates used by employees and for deliveries. The property is 

relatively flat, with some slightly rolling terrain towards the south. 

The central campus is characterized by separate buildings, some 

linked by enclosed concourses, surrounded by lawn and parking 

lots. To the east and west, there is open space, forested area, two 

ponds, and scattered buildings. 

Organization of the Gaithersburg campus remains much as it was 

designed and built in the 1960s, with more recent development 

generally following the original patterns of use and location. A 

Laboratory Planning Committee of NIST representatives worked 

closely with the original architecture team to develop concepts and 

specific requirements. Their collaboration was influential in the 

development, and continues to shape the campus today. The 

following were among the recommendations: 

• Multiple buildings in a campus, rather than a consolidated

structure;

• Modular flexible General Purpose Laboratories (GPLs),

and separate, special purpose laboratories;

• Central location for administration and shared/public

services;

• Landscaped grounds, creating a contemplative

environment; and

• Parking lots located to allow for additional buildings.

NIST is structured into twenty Organizational Units (OUs). These 

functional groupings are the building blocks for the Master Plan. 

Offices, laboratories, and support spaces are assigned to OUs, and 

this Master Plan continues to use that designation. The OUs are not 

necessarily consolidated in location, but specialized facilities and 

laboratory types may be grouped together for shared infrastructure. 

One goal of future development is to conveniently locate those 

specialized spaces that may be shared by several groups. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 2-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 illustrate the location and general features, within the past fifteen years, there continue to be many challenges with the 

respectively, of the NIST Gaithersburg Campus. Table 2-1 provides basic existing facilities and infrastructure, including the following: 

information regarding each of the buildings at the campus. Refer to the Master 

Plan for more background about the campus facilities, history, and evolution. 

2.2 Purpose and Need for Action 

The NIST Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan analyzed in this Environmental 

Assessment (EA)—hereafter referred to simply as the Master Plan—reflects 

NIST’s vision for the physical development of the campus and for a flexible 

strategy for implementation. 

The overall purpose of the Master Plan analyzed in this EA is to guide 

fulfillment of the following objectives: 

• Establish a framework for future development (20-year horizon);

• Meet near and long-term needs of the campus in support of NIST’s

research mission;

• Maintain an attractive campus environment;

• Respect and embrace the campus status as an eligible historic district;

and

• Advance NIST and DoC sustainable design goals.

The need for the Master Plan, and the campus improvements prescribed therein, 

is driven by both institutional policy and the inability of existing aging facilities 

and infrastructure to support current and projected mission requirements. NIST 

is ever evolving and needs flexible, integrative, and collaborative support spaces 

to effectively promote scientific research. DoC recommends that its agencies 

have a physical master plan for their sites, reflecting both the anticipated special 

needs of the user groups and the impact of its activities on the surrounding 

community. The master plans are used to both define needed physical facilities 

and to advance the agency’s mission-related goals. The Master Plan for NIST in 

Gaithersburg was commissioned in response to institutional policy, to evaluate 

the space needs and facilities, to support the research functions, and to develop a 

more efficient and flexible campus. Additional factors driving the need for the 

Master Plan include the evolving mission of the labs, the greater demand for 

highly controllable research environments, and specific facility needs. 

Significant development has occurred on the campus over the past decade and 

new facility requirements are frequently identified to support ongoing and new 

research objectives. Although the campus includes several buildings constructed 

• Aging buildings and infrastructure. There are 25 buildings that

remain from the initial campus construction in the 1960s. Although

well maintained, these buildings and their engineering systems are well

past their service life. Repairs are frequent and replacement parts are

often unavailable.

• Lack of laboratory environmental control. Much of the advanced

research taking place on the campus is based on precise performance

and measurements, which demand very controlled environments—

rigorous temperature and humidity control, vibration stability, air

cleanliness, and quality electric power. These conditions are difficult to

achieve in the older laboratory buildings.

• Disparity in office utilization. Overall campus office utilization is

within the DoC’s goal of 170 assignable square feet per person.

However, there are disparities among OUs; some are well below and

some are above the utilization goal. In many cases, these utilization

rates are impacted by building configurations and traditional office

layouts.

• Outdated public facilities. Conferences and professional visits bring

many people to the campus and Building 101 facilities. The public

facilities need to be expanded and updated to support larger

conferences, modern research methods, collaboration, and campus

security. A completed study proposes improvements to food service on

campus, and a separate study has made recommendations for changes

to the conference center, library, and visitor-use services.

• Unconsolidated approach to stormwater management. Regulations

require NIST to control stormwater runoff. Future planning must

reduce runoff from existing impervious surfaces and offset any

addition, using structural or bioretention approaches. To date, the

campus has utilized a variety of bioretention strategies. Moving

forward, a more consolidated approach is desired.

• Inefficient campus circulation. Generally, congestion on the campus

roads is not an issue. However, the entrance gates around the campus

perimeter do experience frequent congestion at peak times with limited

queuing and turnaround space. Visitors who are dropped off at the Gate

A Visitor Center have very long walks to most points on campus.

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 2-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
Figure 2-1. Location of NIST Gaithersburg Campus within Montgomery County, Maryland 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 2-3 Final Environmental Assessment 
Figure 2-2. Overview of NIST Gaithersburg Campus 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 2-4 Final Environmental Assessment 
f Campus Buildings 

Building Number and Name 

302 Steam and Chilled Water Generation Plant 

303 Service Building 

304 Shops Building 

305 Cooling Tower Building 

306 Electrical Sub-Station 

307 Materials Processing Storage 

309 Grounds Maintenance Building 

310 Plant Storage Building 

311 Grounds Storage Shed 

312 Materials Processing Building 

313 Site Effluent Neutralization Building 

314 Backflow Preventer Building - East 

315 Backflow Preventer Building - North 

316 Electrical Service Building 

317 Cooling Tower West 

318 Emergency Services Facility 

319 Emergency Services Storage Building 

320 Child Care Center 

321 NCNR Storage 

411 Temporary Relocatable Facility 

414 Janitorial Storage Building 

418 NCNR Storage Building 

420 OFPM Storage Building 

421 Radiation Physics Storage Building 

422 Concrete Materials Storage Building 

423 Research House 

425 NCNR Storage Building II 

426 NCNR Trailer 2 

427 NCNR Trailer 1 

428 Facilities Building 

N/A Concourse 

Total Gross Square Feet 

roperty Management). 

Size (GSF) Year Built 

60,053 1963 

14,572 1964 

75,589 1964 

16,162 1963 

4,532 1963 

374 1972 

11,701 1975 

505 1987 

2,511 1975 

3,877 1977 

245 1997 

663 1998 

663 1998 

487 2011 

3,441 2011 

22,123 2014 

312 2014 

23,687 2012 

1,900 2017 

17,362 1989 

803 1994 

3,000 1995 

2,615 1996 

1,499 1964 

1,200 2004 

2,261 2004 

303 2007 

663 2008 

663 2008 

2,823 2010 

13,908 — 

3,641,255 

 

Table 2-1. Summary o

Building Number and Name Size (GSF) Year Built 

101 Administration Building 345,818 1965 

103 Visitor Center 2,460 2009 

202 Engineering Mechanics 78,575 1963 

203 Standard Reference Materials Building 24,915 2012 

205 Large Fire Facility 48,746 1974 

205E Emissions Control Electrical 260 2001 

205M Emissions Control Mechanical 322 2001 

206 Concrete Materials Building 8,165 1968 

207 Robot Test Facility 9,898 2012 

208 Net-Zero Energy Residential Test Facility 7,374 2012 

215 Nanofabrication Facility 109,376 2004 

216 Center Nano Science & Technology 106,157 2004 

217 Instrument West Building 129,358 2004 

218 Metrology East Building 106,739 2004 

219 Metrology West Building 84,882 2004 

220 Metrology Building 216,040 1966 

221 Physics Building 219,658 1966 

222 Chemistry Building 166,089 1966 

223 Materials Building 164,659 1966 

224 Polymer Building 164,008 1966 

225 Technology Building 204,333 1966 

226 Building Research Building 142,800 1966 

227 Advanced Chemical Sciences Laboratory 231,912 1999 

230 Fluid Mechanics Building 38,366 1969 

231 Industrial Building 75,131 1968 

233 Sound Building 42,881 1968 

235 NIST Center for Neutron Research 229,868 1965 

236 Special Projects Building 13,221 1968 

237 Non-Magnetic Building 3,100 1968 

238 Non-Magnetic Building 3,961 1968 

245 Radiation Physics Building 207,921 1964 

301 Supply and Plant Building 163,765 1964 

Acronyms: NCNR (NIST Center for Neutron Research); OFPM (Office of Facilities and P

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 2-5 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Lack of security measures. Commercial vehicles entering at Gates A

and C are not screened at the campus entrance, but are brought into the

campus to Building 301 for screening. The trucks are escorted, but

travel campus roads before screening. None of the gates have adequate

turnaround lanes, and rejected commercial vehicles must be escorted to

another gate to exit. In addition, there are no facilities to screen

visitors’ or staff vehicles.

• Inadequate design of pedestrian connections. Pedestrian sidewalks

are discontinuous across campus, and inconsistent in materials and

crossings. There are few paths to provide access to the natural and

landscaped areas of the campus for the enjoyment of staff.

Another need for the Master Plan is driven by the recent determination of the 

campus as being eligible for listing as a historic district on the National Register 

of Historic Places (NRHP). Because of this, NIST needs to take special 

considerations when planning any physical modifications. Refer to the Master 

Plan for additional discussion of these facility, infrastructure, and organizational 

deficiencies that drive the need for the NIST Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan. 

2.3 Public Scoping 

Scoping is an early and open process for determining the range of significant 

issues to be analyzed in a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

document. During the scoping period, the public can provide comments on the 

proposed action, alternatives, issues, and potential environmental impacts to be 

analyzed in the NEPA document. Scoping may involve public meetings and 

other means to obtain public comments. 

While not required for a NEPA EA, an agency may choose to include public 

scoping as part of EA development to ensure that the analysis considers those 

issues that are of interest to the public. NIST held a public scoping meeting from 

6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the NIST National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, 

located in Gaithersburg, MD, on May 11, 2017 to kick-off the public scoping 

period. The public scoping meeting was followed by a 31-day comment period. 

In addition, NIST held informational meetings on campus with campus staff on 

May 11, 2017 and May 15, 2017. Presentations of the Master Plan were also 

made to the Maryland Historical Trust on August 22, 2017 and to the National 

Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the City of Gaithersburg on August 

23, 2017. 

Outreach 

For the public meeting, NIST published legal notices indicating the date, 

location, time, and a brief description of the scoping meeting in The Washington 

Post (April 28, 2017) and the Gaithersburg Town Courier (May 5, 2017). NIST 

also posted notices on the Gaithersburg Patch, the City of Gaithersburg website, 

and the NIST Gaithersburg Master Plan website. In addition, flyers were sent via 

email to the Izaak Walton League (which owns property immediately south of 

the campus) and any homeowner associations that abut NIST, as identified by 

City of Gaithersburg planning staff. For the staff informational meetings, emails 

were sent out to the staff and the date, location, time, and a brief description of 

each meeting were announced on the NIST intranet homepage. Follow-up 

announcements were posted on the NIST intranet homepage to provide links to 

the staff presentations and information on submitting comments. A news article 

was also posted in the NIST Connections online newsletter to supply staff with 

information about the Master Plan and how to provide comments. 

Public Meeting 

The public scoping meeting incorporated the following components: 

• Posters with information for attendees to peruse before the meeting was

underway – e.g., existing conditions, the preliminary development

concepts, an overview of the NEPA process, and tips for providing

effective public comments;

• A presentation that addressed the history of the campus and needs for

improvement, the master planning process and goals, the preliminary

development concepts being considered for incorporation in the

Master Plan, and the NEPA process;

• An opportunity for members of the public to provide spoken comments

for the record; and

• Handouts to send home with attendees.

Following the meeting, the presentation was made available to the public at 

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/05/11/17-05-

11_nist_master_plan_public_presentation.pdf. 

Public Comments Received 

Following the presentation, attendees were afforded the opportunity to provide 

oral comments and ask questions. Following the meeting, NIST accepted written 

comments until June 11, 2017. Thirty-three households and meeting attendees 

made comments (including NIST staff, local government, and members of the 

general public). Comments covered a range of topics related to traffic studies, 

transit linkages, solar panel installation, landscape vegetation, historic 

designation, campus circulation, and parking. NIST considered all public 

comments during development of the Draft Master Plan and Draft EA. 

Additional preliminary comments were received from NCPC staff regarding the 

development concepts and issues to consider. 

Selection of Master Plan Concept 

Prior to the public scoping period, NIST developed six preliminary Master Plan 

concepts, labelled Alternatives A through F, to meet the purpose and need for 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 2-6 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

action. These preliminary concepts are described in detail in Chapter 2 of the 

Master Plan, and were reduced to four concepts under consideration for the 

scoping period (B, C, D, and F). Based on input received during the scoping 

period from Organizational Unit (OU) representatives as well as NIST managers 

and planners, NIST selected Alternative F as the preferred concept for the 

Master Plan. Alternative F fully addressed the purpose and need for the action, 

while requiring less construction than the other concepts. The concepts were 

evaluated against facility, functional, and implementation factors, including the 

following: accommodation of research, support and staff activities; flexibility; 

energy and maintenance efficiency; campus character and image; and potential 

cost of implementation. Key elements selected for inclusion in the final concept 

include improved pedestrian connections, research-related construction, 

increases in GPL utilization through renovation, adherence to the original 

campus design intent, and improved screening of visitors and their vehicles. The 

final concept, described in Section 3.1 (Proposed Action), was selected as the 

preferred concept for the Master Plan and is evaluated as the Proposed Action in 

this EA. NIST determined that the potential environmental impacts associated 

with the other concepts would likely be similar to those associated with the final 

concept selected as the Master Plan. 

2.4 Public Review of Draft Master Plan and Draft EA 

The Draft Master Plan and Draft EA were made available for review by federal, 

state, and local agencies as well as the interested public. The subsections that 

follow summarize the procedures followed to conduct Government and public 

outreach while highlighting some examples of the types of comments received 

from each entity and how they were addressed. All comments received were 

taken into consideration during development of the Final Master Plan and Final 

EA. 

Governmental Outreach 

NIST distributed copies of the Draft Master Plan and Draft EA to the agencies 

and entities listed in Section 9 (Distribution List), including the NCPC, which in 

turn forwarded the documents to the Maryland State Clearinghouse for 

Intergovernmental Assistance. The Clearinghouse then forwarded the Draft 

Master Plan and Draft EA to the following Maryland agencies and entities for 

review and comment: 

• Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE);

• Maryland Department of Transportation;

• Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR);

• Maryland Military Department;

• Montgomery County;

• Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC) in Montgomery County;

• Maryland Department of Planning; and

• Maryland Historical Trust.

NIST also sent copies of the Draft Master Plan and Draft EA directly to the City 

of Gaithersburg and the Maryland Historical Trust. Both entities responded with 

letters supportive of the Draft Master Plan (see Appendix B). According to 

NCPC, no comments were received from any of the other Maryland agencies 

that received copies through the Clearinghouse. 

At the April 5, 2018 NCPC meeting, the Commissioners discussed the Draft 

Master Plan and provided comments that were supportive of the Draft Master 

Plan (see Appendix B). In these comments, NCPC requested that NIST adhere 

to the following during the implementation of the Master Plan: 

• Continue to incorporate landscaping, access road reconfiguration, and

light control measures to minimize impacts to the campus setting and

off-site neighborhoods;

• Prioritize development of a detailed Travel Demand Management

(TDM) plan to encourage more sustainable travel behavior by both

federal and non-federal employees; and

• Submit a transportation progress report to NCPC for review prior to

submitting the proposed parking garage and Building 411 parking lot

expansion projects to NCPC for review.

Public Outreach 

NIST initiated a public comment period on the Draft Master Plan and Draft EA 

on February 8, 2018 and accepted comments through March 31, 2018. The draft 

documents were available for public review on the NIST website. NIST’s public 

outreach efforts for the review of the draft documents included the following: 

• Publishing a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Master Plan and

Draft EA in local publications, which initiated the public comment

period. NOAs were published in the Washington Post (February 8,

2018) and the Gaithersburg Town Courier (February 16 – March 1,

2018);

• Publishing notices on the Gaithersburg Patch, the City of Gaithersburg

website, and the NIST Gaithersburg Master Plan website;

• Sending flyers via email to the Izaak Walton League and any

homeowner associations that abut NIST, as identified by City of

Gaithersburg planning staff; and

• Presenting the Draft Master Plan to the Gaithersburg City Council on

February 5, 2018.

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 2-7 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

In addition to the above, NIST conducted outreach to staff at the Gaithersburg 

Campus to encourage their feedback on the Draft Master Plan and EA. This 

outreach consisted of providing staff presentations on February 13 and 20, 2018; 

publishing notices on NIST internal websites; and publishing a news article in 

the “NIST Connections” online staff newsletter. 

Public Comments Received 

NIST received one set of public comments, which were supportive of the Draft 

Master Plan’s incorporation of reforestation and solar photovoltaic energy 

systems. NIST also received comments from approximately 25 NIST staff. The 

majority of these comments pertained to the locations and adequacy of the 

proposed parking garage and lots; characterization of the existing utility 

infrastructure; recommendations related to bicycle racks, bicyclist entrances, and 

paths; and editorial comments. NIST considered all public and staff comments 

during development of the Final Master Plan and the Final EA. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 2-8 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Alternatives 

3.1 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action is the implementation of a Master Plan to 

guide the physical development of the NIST Gaithersburg Campus 

in order to advance the agency’s mission-related goals over the 

next 20 years. The Master Plan emphasizes quality and 

collaborative research in addition to sustainable and efficient 

operations. The Master Plan addresses current campus needs and 

delineates future development through broad phases delineated by 

priorities and logical implementation sequencing. The Master Plan 

provides for the modernization of aging, inefficient buildings and 

accommodates the anticipated growth in research programs over 

the next 20 years. Full execution of the Master Plan would increase 

the employee population by approximately 25% from its current 

population of 4,007 to 5,106. 

Full implementation of the Master Plan would result in a net 

increase in facility space by approximately 40%, from 3,641,215 

gross square feet (GSF) to 5,050,000 GSF, as well as the 

renovation of 15 buildings. The Master Plan offers a framework 

for accomplishing NIST’s goals of enhancing the campus, 

providing appropriate facilities, improving security, encouraging 

professional collaboration, and advancing sustainable practices. 

The emphasis is on research buildings—upgrading existing 

laboratory buildings and infrastructure to support current and 

future research, and adding new facilities needed for planned 

programs. 

The Master Plan concentrates new research buildings in the central 

campus core, where most of the existing laboratories buildings are 

located, including the seven original GPLs and the main 

administrative building. The building configurations follow a 

regular pattern, linked by an interior pedestrian concourse. The 

new building configurations and locations build upon that pattern, 

and connect into the interior pedestrian concourse. Other specialty 

laboratory buildings, located outside the core, plan for renovations 

and additions as part of the 20-year plan. Other campus 

recommendations improve security, upgrade infrastructure, and 

encourage collaboration. 

Partial or entire realization of the Master Plan would depend on 

NIST priorities, government policy decisions, and budgetary 

considerations. The Master Plan represents neither the preapproval 

of any individual project nor the preapproval of the particular 

needs of specific programs to be accommodated on the campus. 

The financing of such projects and programs must be addressed 

within the annual NIST budget process and congressional budget 

approval. Furthermore, the Master Plan is not a commitment for 

the agency to build these facilities within a specific timeframe. 

3.1.1 Components of the Proposed Action 

Below is a summary of the new construction, demolition, and other 

improvements that NIST would execute under the Master Plan. 

Figure 3-1 presents the vision for the campus following completion 

of all components of the Master Plan. Refer to Chapter 4 of the 

Master Plan for additional details regarding the proposed scope of 

facility improvements. 

New Construction, Additions, Renovation, and Demolition 

• New Research Buildings. Research facilities are central to

NIST’s plan for growth. The Master Plan would add

approximately 780,000 GSF of lab and support space to

the central campus in four buildings, proximate to the

GPLs and linking into the interior pedestrian concourse

system. The new laboratories would provide the

flexibility, infrastructure, and controlled environments

needed to support advanced research and measurement

science.

• New Facility for the Standard Reference Material (SRM)

Program. This new 54,000-GSF facility would allow

NIST to respond to 21st century demand for ultra-high

purity materials. The facility would support the

preparation and storage of ultra-high purity materials,

with laboratories and refrigerated/frozen storage.

• New Special Purpose Facilities. The Master Plan would

include construction of three small facilities to support

specific programs. The 15,000-GSF Wind/Fire Facility

would support experiments conducted by the Engineering

Laboratory for wind and fire incidents. The 15,000-GSF

strong floor laboratory would provide the Engineering

Laboratory with a facility for structural research using full

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 3-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
Note: Elements marked with a red asterisk (*), while addressed in the Master Plan, are not considered part of the Proposed Action evaluated in this EA. These 

elements are addressed in separate NEPA analyses and/or are beyond the 20-year time horizon of the Master Plan. See Section 5 (Cumulative Effects). 

Figure 3-1. Scope of Proposed Action (Master Plan Concept) 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 3-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

scale models of beams, columns, shear walls, and other elements. The 

16,000-GSF high-bay laboratory addition and full renovation to 

Building 206 would augment the campus high-bay facilities and serve 

as swing space during renovation of the GPL buildings. 

• GPL Renovation. The Master Plan would include complete renovation

of these seven buildings. The buildings would be vacated and renovated

to support three functions: flexible laboratories with new infrastructure

systems and equipment galley spaces; advanced computer research

facilities; and offices. The proposed layouts include small additions to

three of the GPLs for offices and collaborative space, augmenting

research offices within the GPLs.

• Specialty Laboratory Renovation. The Master Plan would include

phased renovations of Buildings 202, 230, 231, 233, 237, and 238 to

include modernization and infrastructure upgrades. These buildings

would continue to support research programs in engineering mechanics,

fluid mechanics, metallurgy, acoustics, manufacturing process

metrology, and quantum measurements.

• Building 101 Renovation. Building 101 is the main administrative

building, and the center for conferences and other public events. The

Master Plan would include phased renovation, replacing major

infrastructure that has exceeded its useful life, and upgrading the

building envelope for energy conservation. The Master Plan would also

renovate the two lower levels to enhance the public use functions,

including construction of a small 50,000-GSF addition to augment the

conference center and library.

• Specialty Research Building Additions. The Master Plan would

construct additions to the following buildings to support specialty

research: Buildings 235 (NIST Center for Neutron Research) and 207

(Robot Test Facility). The Building 235 addition would provide

neutron measurement capabilities to the research community and it

would allow for the installation of additional equipment and better

maneuvering room. The Building 207 addition would accommodate

planned expansion in robotics testing and research by the Engineering

Laboratory. [Note: The Master Plan also includes the renovation and

expansion of additions onto Building 245 (Radiation Physics), which

would take place over a total of seven phases. The first of these phases

is underway, while a separate NEPA EA is being prepared for the

remaining phases. To avoid duplication of NEPA reviews, the Proposed

Action evaluated in this Master Plan EA does not include the

renovation and expansion of the additions onto Building 245. See

Section 5 (Cumulative Effects).]

• Additions to Campus Gates. The Master Plan would implement

security and safety requirements at the campus gates. Gate A, the main

entrance, would receive an expanded Visitor Center and new security

infrastructure to better screen visitors and their vehicles. Gate F would

become the main commercial vehicle entrance for the campus.

Supporting this, the Master Plan would construct new roads, screening

facilities, and a new building for Shipping and Receiving, limiting most

non-NIST commercial vehicle traffic on campus.

• Demolition. The Master Plan would include the demolition of Building

411 and Building 428, which were installed as temporary facilities,

resulting in a total of 20,185 GSF of demolition. Building 411 is

currently used as office space by the Office of Information Systems

Management and the Office of Acquisition and Agreements

Management, which the Master Plan would relocate to the renovated

GPLs and Building 101. Building 428 houses the Office of Facilities

and Property Management. The Master Plan would accommodate the

building’s occupants in the adjacent Building 301, where there would

be space available after Shipping/Receiving moves to its new location

at Gate F.

Landscape Framework Plan 

The goal of the Landscape Plan is to enhance and preserve the setting and 

landscape features, while improving stormwater management, pedestrian 

connectivity, and outdoor use. Major design features and themes under the 

Landscape Plan include the following: 

• Development of Outdoor Spaces – The plan establishes a hierarchy of

outdoor spaces including meeting and social areas, outdoor dining

opportunities, walking paths, and active recreation areas.

• Enhancement of Connectivity – New pedestrian links would connect

the core research building with the west campus and its future Corridor

Cities Transitway (CCT) transit stop, and with the main entry Gate A to

the north.

• Reforestation – The canopy cover would be expanded to create a noise

and visibility buffer from Interstate 270, slow wind speeds, and aid in

the absorption of stormwater runoff. Figure 3-2 depicts the

reforestation plan for the campus.

• Improvement to Stormwater Management – Meadow would replace

mowed lawns outside of the campus core. Rainfall would also be

managed with reforestation and the implementation of bioswales, and

rain gardens integrated with parking and roadways.

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 3-3 Final Environmental Assessment 
Note: Elements marked with a red asterisk ( *), while addressed in the Master Plan, are not considered part of the Proposed Action evaluated in this EA. These elements 

are addressed in separate NEPA analyses and/or are beyond the 20-year time horizon of the Master Plan. See Section 5 (Cumulative Effects). 

Figure 3-2. Reforestation Plan for the NIST Gaithersburg Campus 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 3-4 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Utility Infrastructure Plan 

The goal of the Utility Framework Plan is to improve overall energy efficiency 

and sustainability, and to accommodate the anticipated growth and evolving 

research needs by replacing aging infrastructure and utility systems. The Utility 

Framework Plan prescribes the following: 

• Extension of the existing Steam and Chilled Water Generation Plant

services to the new and renovated NIST laboratory buildings under the

Master Plan;

• Extension of normal domestic water, sanitary sewer, electrical power,

and data communications services from the campus distribution and

collection systems;

• Construction of a new electrical switchgear building to provide

sufficient capacity for the new facilities to be constructed in Phase

Three of the Master Plan;

• Assessment and replacement of existing ductbanks and feeders in the

campus electrical distribution system;

• Installation of new emergency generators as new laboratories are

renovated or constructed, with the goal of increasing the campus-wide

backup capacity from approximately 4 megavolt-amperes (MVA) to 15

MVA upon completion of the Master Plan;

• Expansion of Building 302 (Steam and Chilled Water Generation Plant)

to the northwest for the addition of two 3,500-ton chillers prior to

Phase Three of the Master Plan, along with a new cooling tower

adjacent to Building 317 and installation of an additional piping main

to increase the chilled water flow capacity from the plant to the

distribution system;

• Potential replacement of the existing dual-fuel Boiler 6 at Building 302,

which has a nameplate capacity of 80,000 pounds of steam per hour

(PPH), with a new dual-fuel boiler of similar capacity;

• Installation of a new chilled water and steam supply main to create a

loop for improved service reliability to the south campus buildings,

with the new main being routed along the east side of Building 245

complex and connected back to the existing main near Building 235;

• Installation of a new chilled water main in the northwest portion of the

campus to serve new Research Building I and to create a loop for

improved service reliability to the group of five northernmost GPLs;

• Investigation and correction of leaks in the compressed air distribution

system; and

• Relocation of existing underground utilities prior to construction of

new facilities.

The Utility Framework Plan also prescribes reduction of energy demand, 

selection of energy efficient equipment and systems, and provision of a clean 

renewable energy supply by promoting implementation of the following design 

strategies: 

• Improved Envelope – New and renovated buildings would feature

improved building envelopes to reduce air infiltration and enhance

thermal performance and stability.

• Net-Zero Energy Consumption – The goal for new non-lab buildings,

such as the new shipping/receiving facility and the Gate F screening

building, is net-zero energy consumption.

• Solar Collection – Solar collection is recommended on new non-lab

buildings, on GPLs renovated for office occupancy, on the new parking

structure, and over the surface parking lots. [Note: The Master Plan

also includes the construction of a 5-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic solar

array on 15 acres at the south end of the campus. A separate NEPA EA

is being prepared for this project. To avoid duplication of NEPA

reviews, the Proposed Action evaluated in this Master Plan EA does

not include construction of the solar array. See Section 5 (Cumulative

Effects)]

Circulation Framework Plan 

The goal of the Circulation Plan is to improve the circulation and parking on 

campus. The Master Plan would implement circulation modifications in phases, 

mimicking those of construction. Design proposals include the following: 

• Reconfiguration of Gates A and F for visitor and commerical vehicle

screening;

• Construction of new roadways, parking, and a roundabout at the Visitor

Center;

• Shift in location of Gate C if the planned CCT project moves forward;

• Construction of a four-story parking structure with approximately 720

spaces on the site of former Building 411 (with the capacity to be reevaluated when Research Buildings II, III, and IV are designed); and

• Expansion of the surface parking lot located north of Building 411 to

include an additional 84 spaces.

3.1.2 Phasing of the Master Plan 

Master Plan implementation is dependent on many factors, such as funding, 

direction of scientific research, and agency missions and priorities. Therefore, 

the Master Plan sets a framework that remains flexible and sensitive to the 

timing and composition of specific projects. Phasing for the implementation of 

the Master Plan involves an integrated approach that meets short-term needs and 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 3-5 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

provides steps for redevelopment and consolidation of the campus in the future. 3.2 No-Action Alternative 

A brief overview of each phase of the Master Plan is listed below. 

• Phase One projects are the immediate priorities. The first planned new

building is Research Building I. Upon its completion, the GPL

renovations can begin. Gate A modification also is considered a priority

project, required to meet federal security policies. Gate F security and

shipping/receiving improvements would follow the improvements to

Gate A. This phase also includes several of the required upgrades and

expansions of the campus utility networks. [Note: Phase One of the

Master Plan also includes the construction of additions onto Building

245 (Radiation Physics). As noted previously, this project is excluded

from the scope of the Proposed Action in this EA.]

• Phase Two is the anticipated next step. Building 101 addition and

renovation is the primary project, improving the public access areas,

office utilization, and building system performance. The addition

would provide much needed conference facilities, library

modernization, and security modifications to public-access areas. Its

second-floor office space would provide swing space for Building 101

infrastructure replacement and office modernization.

• Phase Three adds new Research Buildings II, III, and IV, which would

be constructed as growth and research projects dictate. The Steam and

Chilled Water Plant would be expanded at this phase to meet the needs

of the added research buildings. This expansion would include an

addition to the existing plant (Building 302) and a new cooling tower

installation adjacent to Building 317.

• The SRM Facility and specialty laboratory renovations, additions, and

new construction are independent of other projects, and can be

implemented in any desired order, as need and funding allow. Site and

landscape improvements such as pedestrian walkways, stormwater

management features, trails, meadow replacement, and reforestation

could be implemented immediately, separately, or simultaneously with

the phased construction projects.

Refer to Appendix A for a visual representation and detailed summary of each 

Master Plan phase. 

The No-Action Alternative would not implement the Master Plan. The NoAction Alternative would maintain the present course of action at the campus by 

continuing ongoing research, management, and maintenance activities. The NoAction Alternative would ultimately result in a site that would no longer support 

the advanced research requirements of NIST and would render much of the 

campus obsolete. The No-Action Alternative would not affect the number of 

employees at the campus. Section 4 (Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences) discusses the potential environmental impacts 

and consequences of the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. The 

No-Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need criteria defined in 

Section 2.2 (Purpose and Need for Action). As a result, NIST considers the NoAction Alternative to be less desirable than the Proposed Action. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 3-6 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences 

4.1 Land Use and Socioeconomics 

4.1.1 Land Use and Regional Planning 

Affected Environment 

Land use planning helps determine the best use for each parcel of 

land in a municipality with the goals of serving community needs, 

minimizing land use conflicts, and protecting natural resources. 

Proper land use planning can favorably impact development and 

sustainment costs, traffic congestion and commute times, air 

pollution, energy consumption, preservation of open space and 

habitat, equitable distribution of economic resources, and the sense 

of community. 

Local government and independent entities operating in the region 

provide planning and development guidance, promoting economic 

development, administering transportation and infrastructure 

development, and facilitating intergovernmental cooperation. 

These include the Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Governments, an independent, nonprofit association that helps 

address and solve regional issues through the development of 

policy and programs; the NCPC, which serves as the central 

planning agency for the federal government in the National Capital 

Region; and the M-NCPPC, which acquires, develops, maintains, 

and administers a regional system of parks within Montgomery 

and Prince George’s Counties and provides land use planning for 

the physical development of the two counties. Montgomery 

County is divided into 54 Community-Based Planning Areas 

(CBPA). The Campus is situated within the Great Seneca Science 

Corridor CBPA. Each planning area has developed a master plan 

that sets forth guidelines for development and growth in ways that 

protect existing features, including existing land uses, community 

facilities, the transportation network, and environmental and 

historic resources. 

The NIST property is assigned a “General Government” use on the 

City’s official housing and land use map, and is bordered by 

residential apartments and townhomes, commercial and office 

space, research and development uses, and public and private 

parklands. The NIST parcel does not have an assigned zoning 

designation in the City’s official zoning map. Refer to Chapter 12 

of the Master Plan for more details on local and regional planning 

entities and zoning. 

Development on the campus is focused in the laboratories and 

administration area, which dominates the northern portion of the 

campus; the support area, located immediately west of the 

laboratories and administration area; and the specialized labs area, 

located in the south central portion of the campus. These areas 

comprise the majority of developed surfaces on the campus. 

Undeveloped areas on campus include a large forested area on the 

west side of the campus, large mowed meadows between building 

clusters, and recreation areas to the northeast of the main 

administration building. The NIST campus maintains a healthy 

buffer along its boundaries, as the majority of developed areas are 

focused around the center of the campus. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan would continue to focus development on the 

campus in the laboratories and administration area, the support 

area, and the specialized labs area. The Master Plan would include 

a number of open space zones, each with distinctive features and 

functions that would characterize and define the areas. Proposed 

sidewalk and trail development under the Master Plan would 

provide connectivity between various areas on campus and would 

provide for a physical organization for new buildings. Through this 

improved land use, the Master Plan would allow for better 

connectivity, provide a stronger campus identity, and encourage 

collaboration amongst employees. 

The Master Plan would not impact land use designations on the 

campus and would be consistent with the current institutional land 

use on the campus. The activation of open space on campus would 

continue through expansion of recreational areas and an increase in 

outdoor furnishings. The buildings proposed by the Master Plan 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

would not simply define or enclose an open space but would also actively or health impacts from federal actions and policies on minority and 

engage them. low-income populations. 

NIST provided copies of the Draft Master Plan and Draft EA to NCPC, who 

provided them to other review agencies through the Maryland State 

Clearinghouse for review and comment to ensure consistency with local and 

regional planning objectives. The City of Gaithersburg concurred with the goals 

and conclusions outlined in the Draft Master Plan, which they deemed to be 

compatible with the adjoining Master Plan of the City of Gaithersburg. Refer to 

Appendix B for the comment letters from NCPC and the City of Gaithersburg. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not impact land use. 

4.1.2 Social and Economic Resources 

Affected Environment 

Social Resources 

Social resources consist of elements of the environment integral to personal and 

community dynamics, including population, housing, education, and open 

spaces. Access to these resources is essential to maintaining sustainable 

communities. 

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Montgomery County has a population of 

1,005,087. Overall population trends and demographic characteristics in 

Montgomery County show that the local population is increasing, but the rate of 

increase is slowing based on census data and Maryland Department of Planning 

projections. 

Montgomery County and the City of Gaithersburg are home to a highly educated 

population, with approximately twice the percentage of college graduates as 

compared to the national average. Montgomery County schools are currently at 

capacity, and are projected to remain at capacity through 2023 because of 

continued increases in enrollment (Montgomery County, 2016). Montgomery 

County and the City of Gaithersburg have a housing stock with a much lower 

vacancy rate compared to the national average, resulting in a high housing cost 

for the immediate region. Refer to Chapter 12 of the Master Plan for additional 

details on housing and educational demographics. 

A subset of social resources is environmental justice. Environmental justice 

considers sensitive populations, such as children, minorities, and low-income 

communities. Sensitive populations are identified in two Executive Orders 

(EOs): 

• EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority and Low-Income Populations, serves to avoid the

disproportionate placement of adverse environmental, economic, social,

• EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks

and Safety Risks, states that federal agencies will identify and address

environmental health and safety risks from their activities, policies, or

programs that may disproportionately affect children.

Sensitive populations, such as low-income families, minorities, and children are 

present within Montgomery County. Some of the areas bordering the campus 

have sensitive populations with higher minority and low-income populations 

than both the regional and state averages. Specifically, the area bordering 

Muddy Branch Road to the east of the campus has a significantly higher 

percentage of sensitive populations than both the state and regional averages. 

This neighborhood, located across Muddy Branch Road from the proposed Gate 

F development, is in the 92nd and 83rd percentiles of minority populations 

relative to the regional and state averages, respectively, according to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) EJScreen tool (USEPA, 2017a). 

The neighborhood also has a slightly higher prevalence of low-income residents 

than the regional and state averages. 

Economic Resources 

Several major economic drivers in Montgomery County support a viable 

economy. Because of the county’s proximity to Washington, DC, the federal 

government provides numerous employment and economic opportunities to the 

area through a variety of governmental agencies, such as the National Institutes 

of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and NIST. Other industry sectors 

include information technology, communications and satellites, cyber security, 

and clean energy (Montgomery County DED, 2014). Refer to Chapter 12 of the 

Master Plan for more details on regional economics. 

The leading industries in Montgomery County are professional, scientific, and 

management services and educational services, health care and social assistance. 

Refer to Chapter 12 of the Master Plan for more details on regional industries. 

Economic indicators suggest an overall healthy economy in Montgomery 

County and in the area surrounding the campus, with high median incomes and 

low poverty rates—though, as noted previously in this section, some 

neighborhoods around the campus have relatively high prevalence of lowincome residents. Overall, the area surrounding the campus is generally 

representative of the state in terms of the presence of sensitive populations. 

Gaithersburg is in the Baltimore–Columbia–Towson Metropolitan Statistical 

Area, which has the fourth-highest median household income in the United 

States. The estimated unemployment rate in Montgomery County was 3.3% in 

2015, which was lower than the state unemployment rate of 4.3%. With 

approximately 3,000 employees, NIST is the largest employer in the City of 

Gaithersburg. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action the national economy by promoting industrial competitiveness on a national 

level. Implementation of the Master Plan would allow for continued advancement of 

measurement standards and technology, thereby benefitting the national 4.1.3 Open Space and Recreation 

economy. Improvement of research facilities would facilitate achievement of 

NIST’s mission to promote industrial competitiveness on a national Affected Environment level. 

The Master Plan would have minor long-term economic benefits. The proposed 

campus reorganization and updated facilities would provide an economic benefit 

by improving productivity and available resources at the NIST Gaithersburg 

Campus. The increase in staff of approximately 1,099 over the projected 20-year 

period would improve employment levels and would not displace existing jobs 

in Montgomery County. 

Implementation of the Master Plan would result in temporary minor impacts on 

the population and the availability of housing, because of construction workers 

who might temporarily relocate to the area. During construction of the Master 

Plan elements, construction jobs and related incidentals would temporarily add 

to the local economy. 

The Master Plan would have minor impacts on population, housing, and 

education trends in the area. The projected increase of approximately 1,099 staff 

over the course of 20 years (equivalent to approximately 0.1% of the current 

population of Montgomery County) is not expected to negatively impact social 

or economic resources in the area. Any staff increases would likely benefit the 

local economy and job market. 

Overall, the areas immediately surrounding the campus are generally 

representative of the state in terms of the prevalence of sensitive populations 

such as children, minorities, and low-income residents. Therefore, the Master 

Plan would not result in significant disproportional impacts on sensitive 

populations. However, the relocation of the commercial vehicle entrance to Gate 

F may have a minor effect on the sensitive populations southeast of the campus 

because of the increase in commercial vehicles in this area (approximately 75 

deliveries per weekday) and the associated potential noise and traffic concerns. 

To mitigate this concern, the Master Plan would seek to limit overall congestion 

at Gate F by separating commercial vehicle and visitor traffic into separate 

entrances, thus reducing the potential for inspection and security activities to 

cause vehicle backups that would impact Muddy Branch Road. The design 

would also include noise mitigation measures as described in Section 4.13 

(Noise Levels). 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would have no effects on the population, including 

sensitive populations. Jobs and population growth would continue as projected 

in the region. The No-Action Alternative would result in no improvements to 

employment or income in the area and would allow the campus facilities and 

infrastructure to become obsolete, thus compromising NIST’s mission to benefit 

Buildings and paved surfaces cover less than 20% of the campus, leaving the 

rest as lawn, landscaped area, and natural vegetation. This aligns with the initial 

pastoral and natural design intent. There is an approximately 150-foot-wide 

buffer zone around the site perimeter to limit development in a zero lot line 

fashion in keeping with the suburban character and density of the campus. 

There are four prominent activated green spaces on campus: the internal 

courtyard behind the library; the plaza in front of the library; the Administration 

building; and the baseball fields and recreation area. The campus currently has 

several sports and recreation sites: baseball fields, a volleyball court, a 

playground, and a basketball court. One informal recreation area is the lawn area 

to the north of Building 227, where frisbee and soccer games occur. 

There are several parks and recreation areas in the campus vicinity, including 

Malcolm King Park, Diamond Farms Park, Christman Park, Walder Park, 

Robertson Park, Muddy Branch Park, Lake Varuna Park, International Latitude 

Observatory Park, Crown Woods, Bohrer Park, and Morris Park. There is a 

variety of outdoor facilities and parklands designed for both active and passive 

recreational activities. Public park services in the area are provided by the City 

of Gaithersburg, the City of Rockville, and Montgomery County. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Certain elements of the Master Plan (e.g., construction of Research Building I, 

the Building 207 addition, and the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Complex) 

would develop portions of existing open spaces within the campus. However, 

this minor reduction in open areas would be offset by improvements to 

recreational areas under the Master Plan. Campus open space would be 

maintained in a natural state. The Master Plan would avoid placement of new 

buildings within the buffer zone around the campus perimeter, although some 

new roads and pavement would be associated with the new vehicle screening 

facilities near Gate F. Implementation of the Master Plan would expand active 

recreation areas through a network of walking paths through both open and 

wooded landscape. 

Temporary construction-related noise levels would be minor and would not 

affect the recreational use of nearby parks and open spaces; refer to Section 4.13 

(Noise Levels) for more information. Air emissions from operations and 

construction activities would not be expected to affect ambient air quality within 

nearby parks and open spaces; refer to Section 4.9 (Air Quality) for more 

information. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-3 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not affect open spaces or recreational areas 

on, or in the vicinity of, the NIST Gaithersburg Campus. 

4.2 Biological Resources 

4.2.1 Vegetation 

Affected Environment 

Vegetation performs the following important functions: 

• Slows the flow of stormwater runoff, allowing water to soak into the 

ground to replenish aquifers; 

• Helps maintain the water quality of nearby waterways by filtering 

runoff and removing harmful sediment and pollutants; 

• Prevents erosion by reducing the impact of rain on soil and by holding 

soil in position with roots; 

• Shades paved surfaces, reducing heat island effect and stormwater 

runoff temperatures that affect aquatic habitats; and 

• Provides habitat for a variety of organisms. 

A diversity of plant species is necessary to maintain a functioning habitat or 

ecosystem. Plant species within a particular ecosystem may compete with one 

another for water, light, and overall sustenance. Therefore, the loss of a 

particular species may negatively affect an ecosystem. The Endangered Species 

Act was enacted in 1973 to protect species in danger of extinction. This act 

requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions will not jeopardize the 

continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat associated with these 

species. 

The federal government is charged with protecting and enhancing vegetation 

and habitat on its properties. The NCPC has issued the following guidelines in 

The Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital to aid in achieving these 

goals: 

• Incorporate trees and vegetation in all federal developments to 

moderate temperatures and minimize energy consumption; 

• Encourage the use of street trees to enhance visual and aesthetic 

features; 

• Avoid removal of woodland and vegetation from steep slopes and areas 

with high erosion potential; and 

• Preserve existing vegetation, especially large stands of trees to the 

extent possible. 

Non-native invasive plant species present an ecological concern because they 

may be capable of colonizing natural areas and outcompeting native species, 

threatening biological diversity in the process. EO 13751, signed in 2016 to 

amend EO 13112, directs agencies to coordinate federal prevention and control 

efforts to minimize the harm to the economy, the environment, and human 

health caused by invasive species. Among other actions, EO 13751 maintains 

the National Invasive Species Council and the Invasive Species Advisory 

Committee. At the state level, Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 

15.06.04 establishes a risk assessment protocol to determine the harm and 

impact caused by invasive plants and reduce their propagation. 

The Maryland Forest Conservation Act of 1991 and Montgomery County Forest 

Conservation Law (Chapter 22A) established a program for conserving forest 

and tree resources. Effective July 1, 1992, all applications for subdivision, 

grading permits, or sediment control permits on tracts of land 40,000 square feet 

(SF) or larger must be accompanied by a Natural Resources Inventory/Forest 

Stand Delineation (a detailed summary of existing man-made and natural 

conditions of a site) and a Forest Conservation Plan or a Tree Save Plan. 

Exemptions include governmental projects reviewed for forest conservation 

purposes by the MDNR. 

The City of Gaithersburg, in the Environment and Sustainability section of its 

Master Plan (draft, September 2014), lays out a plan to support and increase the 

urban forest and tree canopy in the city. Plans are to increase the tree canopy to 

the State’s recommended 40% by the year 2025. Measures include increasing 

diversity, supporting private efforts, controlling pests, and promoting crossagency coordination. 

The majority of the NIST Gaithersburg campus consists of gently rolling terrain, 

with grass lawns, landscaping, and open meadows. Recreation fields and picnic 

areas are interspersed. Tree cover across the campus consists of a wide variety 

of native and ornamental trees. A grove of “state trees” (as of the 1960s) is 

located on the east side of the campus. Approximately 120 large trees (24” 

diameter or greater) are scattered throughout the campus. Three trees from the 

campus are the largest of their species in the state, and were thus included in the 

2017-2018 Maryland register of State Champion Trees. The trees include the 

Ohio buckeye (Aesculus glabra) located between the two ponds; the weeping 

beech (Fagus sylvatica ‘Pendula’) located in the Building 101 courtyard; and 

the “Flower of Kent” apple tree (Malus pumila)—also known as the “Newton 

apple tree”—located between the Building 101 library and Building 225. 

The campus retains two stands of forest, summing to approximately 56 acres 

according to the 1995 Forest Conservation Plan. The largest area, consisting of 

approximately 52 acres, occupies the southwestern portion of the property, west 

and south of Building 202. The 1995 Forest Conservation Plan was prepared as 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-4 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

part of the planning for construction of the AML and Advanced Chemical 

Science Laboratory. The plan proposes preserving existing forest area and 

increasing the forest cover on the campus by planting an additional 29 acres of 

new forest. NIST has been working toward this goal by expanding the forest 

areas at the south end of the property between Building 235 and 202, west of 

Building 235, and around the two ponds on the east side of the campus. 

Additionally, NIST is coordinating with MDNR to develop a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) for the renovation and expansion of Building 245 

(Radiation Physics). This MOU designates a 2.22-acre Forest Area adjacent to 

Building 245 that NIST will reforest, afforest, or retain as mitigation for that 

project and potential future projects, in compliance with the Maryland Forest 

Conservation Act and project-specific Forest Conservation Plans. 

NIST has established a tree replacement program to replace trees that are 

removed during construction. Under this program, trees less than 18 inches in 

diameter have a 1:1 replacement ratio; trees between 18 and 24 inches have a 

2:1 replacement ratio; and trees greater than 24 inches have a 3:1 replacement 

ratio. Trees are typically planted in the eastern area of the campus to mitigate 

removal from construction. 

As part of this EA, NIST consulted with the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) and the MDNR to obtain records of rare, threatened, or 

endangered plant species on the campus. The Official Species List, provided by 

the USFWS Chesapeake Bay Ecological Services Field Office, indicates that no 

species of federally threatened or endangered plants are expected to occur on the 

campus. Likewise, the MDNR determined that there are no official state records 

of listed plant species within the NIST campus (Appendix B). 

The emerald ash borer (EAB), a federally quarantined, invasive tree pest 

responsible for the death or decline of more than 50 million ash trees in 25 

states, has recently been confirmed in ash trees just outside the Gaithersburg 

City Limits. The City is being proactive in treating its healthy ash trees now to 

prevent infestation (City of Gaithersburg, 2017b). 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

While construction activities under the Master Plan would directly impact 

vegetation within the campus, these impacts would be minimized by 

consolidating facilities within previously developed areas. The Master Plan 

concentrates new research buildings on sites that have already held paved areas, 

with the exception of Research Building I (at the north end of campus) and the 

GPL office additions. Planned additions to existing lab buildings would be kept 

compact to minimize impacts. The NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) 

Expansion and the new specialty laboratories near Gate E would impact 

vegetated areas and require limited tree removal. The proposed screening 

facilities and roadways at Gate F, the new SRM Facility, and the addition to 

Building 207 would not disturb forested land, but would be constructed on open 

vegetated land. Grasses and similar vegetative species, however, would be reseeded in the disturbed areas following completion of construction activities to 

the extent feasible. 

Installation or relocation of underground utilities, including the new chilled 

water and steam supply mains, would generally be performed via open trenching 

and require vegetation removal. NIST would consider trenchless methods where 

feasible and where necessary to avoid impacts to wetlands and forested areas, 

such as the MOU forested area adjacent to Building 245 (Radiation Physics). 

Implementation of the Master Plan would result in expanded tree canopy cover 

by promoting reforestation and increasing tree clusters throughout the campus. 

Reforestation would continue along existing efforts on the eastern side of the 

campus and extending the western forest to the south. The addition of a dense 

forest on the east side of the campus would create a barrier from the noise and 

visual impact from the adjacent Interstate 270. Separated clusters of trees would 

be planted surrounding existing Buildings 205, 235, and 236 to expand existing 

planting patterns. More tree clusters could also be planted to help stabilize the 

slope of the earth infill adjacent to Building 205. Adding new trees within the 

campus core would help to moderate temperatures, shade the buildings, enhance 

stormwater management, provide wildlife and pollinator habitat, and absorb 

pollutants. Refer to Exhibit 47 in the Master Plan for a map depicting the 

reforestation plan. 

Implementation of the Master Plan would promote transition from existing 

manicured lawns to establishment of no-mow meadows of native or adapted 

species on the more open site areas to reduce maintenance requirements, reduce 

fertilizer and pesticide use, and promote stormwater management. Waterdependent landscapes and water intensive plantings that require irrigation would 

be minimized. 

Implementation of the Master Plan is not expected to impact rare, threatened, or 

endangered plant species or vegetation in stream buffers or wetlands on the 

campus. NIST would manage any removed hardwood trees in accordance with 

Maryland Department of Agriculture guidance to prevent the spread of the EAB, 

and would replace any removed trees in accordance with the NIST tree 

replacement program. All areas where champion trees are located are protected 

under the landscape plan, so impacts on champion trees are not anticipated. 

Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not result in the disturbance of vegetated 

areas. However, the potential to improve the existing landscape and expand 

forested areas in accordance with state and local guidelines would not be 

realized under the No-Action Alternative. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-5 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.2.2 Wildlife 

Affected Environment 

According to the USFWS, all living things are part of a complex, often 

delicately balanced network, with a great diversity of species that rely upon one 

another for survival. Wildlife not only plays a significant role in maintaining the 

equilibrium of an ecosystem, but also provides an effective way to assess the 

quality of the environment, and provides benefits for medicine, agriculture, 

economics, and other resources. In recognition of the vital role wildlife plays in 

supporting functional ecosystems, U.S. Congress enacted the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 to protect wildlife from extinction and in turn, protect 

natural ecosystems as a whole. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (BGEPA) afford protection to birds. Any intentional or 

unintentional activity that results in the killing of migratory birds, including 

eagles, is unlawful unless permitted by the USFWS. As required by the Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Act (amended in 1998), USFWS published the 2008 

Birds of Conservation Concern report, which includes listings of bird species of 

conservation concern throughout the U.S., including some that are not otherwise 

protected under the MBTA (USFWS, 2015). Additionally, MDNR’s 2005 

Wildlife Diversity Conservation Plan identifies species of greatest conservation 

need, conservation priorities, threats, and conservation actions for wildlife 

species and their habitats. 

Because of recent and severe declines in pollinators (such as honeybees) and the 

potential for associated devastating effects on ecosystems and the economy, 

President Barack Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum on June 20, 2014 

requiring that executive departments and agencies (including NIST) take 

immediate measures to support pollinators (The White House, 2014). Prescribed 

measures include planting pollinator-friendly vegetation and increasing flower 

diversity in plantings, limiting mowing practices, and avoiding the use of 

pesticides in sensitive pollinator habitats. 

As part of this EA, to fulfill the requirement under section 7(c) of the ESA, 

NIST submitted a request to USFWS for an official list of federally protected 

rare, threatened, or endangered species likely to occur on the NIST Gaithersburg 

Campus. The Official Species List, provided by the USFWS Chesapeake Bay 

Ecological Services Field Office, indicates that no rare, threatened, or 

endangered wildlife species or critical habitats are expected to inhabit the 

campus. NIST also consulted with the MDNR Wildlife and Heritage Service to 

obtain a list of state-protected species. The MDNR determined that there are no 

official state or federal records for listed animal species within the campus 

(Appendix B). 

The trees, ponds, wetlands, and meadow areas on the campus create an inviting 

habitat for wildlife, including deer, birds, reptiles, and other small animals. 

White tailed deer are common on the campus and have been noted since its 

establishment in the 1960s. Canada geese are attracted to the two eastern ponds. 

The campus has been modified over time by human activity, and wildlife that 

resides on the campus have grown accustomed to the presence of humans. The 

52-acre forested area in the southwestern portion of the campus may have

sufficient interior space to support forest interior dwelling species, which are

bird species that require large tracts of relatively undisturbed forests to maintain

viable populations (MD iMAP, 2017).

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Master Plan could result in minor impacts on wildlife. 

The reduction in vegetated areas discussed in Section 4.2.1 (Vegetation) 

represents a minor reduction in potential wildlife and pollinator habitat. The 

Master Plan aims to minimize impacts on wildlife by consolidating facilities 

within previously developed areas. Much of the affected grassy areas to be 

disturbed under the Master Plan are routinely landscaped and currently offer less 

foraging and habitat value than other vegetated areas (e.g., large contiguous 

tracts and stream buffers) around the campus. Construction of the proposed 

additions to specialty labs in the southern portion of the campus could have a 

slightly higher potential for impacts on wildlife and habitat because of their 

proximity to forested areas. Since the proposed construction is located adjacent 

to existing development, impacts are expected to be minor. 

The removal of some trees may temporarily affect migratory bird populations 

and pollinators on the campus. Trees to be cleared may need to be surveyed to 

comply with the MBTA (16 U.S.C. §703). NIST would verify that no bird eggs 

and/or young protected under the MBTA are present. If NIST determines that 

eggs and/or young are present, tree clearing would proceed only after it is 

verified that the young have fledged. 

Installation of proposed bioswales and rain gardens along with conversion of 

existing tracts of mowed turf grass to native no-mow meadows would increase 

the amount of native vegetation and support wildlife and pollinators on the 

campus. Reforestation and tree canopy expansion would also increase wildlife 

and pollinator habitat on the campus. Refer to Section 4.2.1 (Vegetation) for 

additional information regarding revegetation. 

Noise emissions from the construction activities conducted under the Master 

Plan may disturb wildlife in and around the project sites, including nesting 

migratory birds; however, these impacts would be temporary. As explained in 

Section 4.13 (Noise Levels), after the completion of construction, only minor 

changes in operational noise levels on the campus would be expected because of 

minor upgrades and expansions to campus facilities. Construction and 

operational activities would comply with all applicable local, state, and federal 

noise regulations. 

Impacts on rare, threatened, or endangered species are unlikely. The Proposed 

Action would also not disturb forested areas of sufficient size to support forest 

interior dwelling species. If, during the course of planning or execution of any of 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-6 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the project elements in the Master Plan, threatened or endangered species are 

discovered on the campus, NIST would consult with USFWS and implement 

appropriate mitigation measures. 

As discussed in Section 4.4.1 (Surface Waters) and Section 4.4.2 (Wetlands), 

implementation of the Master Plan could result in minor impacts on campus 

streams and wetlands because of runoff from construction sites. Runoff to 

streams could include sediment or other contaminants, which have the potential 

to adversely impact aquatic organisms that dwell in the streams. As discussed in 

Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management), NIST would implement stormwater 

management and pollution prevention measures during construction to reduce 

impacts on aquatic species that inhabit the campus streams. 

Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not result in any impacts on wildlife or 

habitat. The potential to improve the campus by enhancing habitats for native 

wildlife and pollinators, however, would also not be realized under the NoAction Alternative. 

4.3 Topography, Geology, and Soils 

4.3.1 Topography 

Affected Environment 

Topography indicates the relative position and elevation of natural and manmade features within an area. Changes to the topography of an area can affect 

surface and subsurface water pathways and quantities, result in increased 

sedimentation, impact stormwater runoff, and ultimately affect water quality in 

nearby waterways and wetlands. Topography can also influence viewscape, 

landscape, noise trespass, and land use. 

The Gaithersburg campus is relatively flat in the northern section where most of 

the buildings are located, with an average elevation of 450 feet. The majority of 

the campus, including nearly all of the developed northern half, is gently sloped 

(less than 5% slope). Beyond South Drive, the terrain is more characteristic of 

the Piedmont region, with gentle rolling hills, an intermittent stream, and small 

areas of wetland. Refer to the Master Plan for more background about the 

Piedmont region. The southern half of the campus includes pockets of steeply 

sloped areas, including several areas exceeding 15-20% slope around the 

wetlands west of Building 235 and west of Building 205. Figure 4-1 illustrates 

the topographic contours of the campus. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Master Plan would result in localized changes to the site 

topography. These impacts would be minor, since construction would be 

concentrated in developed areas in the core of the campus. Grading, excavation, 

and fill may be required for construction of new facilities including the Strong 

Facility, NCNR Expansion, Research Building I, SRM Facility, Wind/Fire 

Facility, and the new screening facilities associated with Gate F. Construction of 

the Strong Facility would require leveling portions of an existing berm that 

surrounds Building 236. Refer to Section 4.3.2 (Geology and Soils) for 

discussion of potential impacts associated with soil disturbance. 

Overall, the Master Plan would preserve the existing campus topography. The 

site topography would continue to mitigate visual impacts outside of the campus 

(e.g., along portions of Muddy Branch Road). For additional discussion of 

Master Plan impacts on viewscapes, refer to Section 4.12.1 (Aesthetics). 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not involve grading, excavation, or fill 

activities, and therefore, would not impact topography at the campus. 

4.3.2 Geology and Soils 

Affected Environment 

The geology of an area encompasses characteristic rocks, sediments, and land 

features and the forces affecting them. These geologic features provide the 

parent material for overlying soils through weathering and supplying of minerals 

and nutrients. Assessing the soil resources in an area can provide insight on 

environmental impacts of potential actions on that area and its surroundings. 

Alterations to the physical makeup of an area can lead to soil contamination, soil 

erosion, and detrimental impacts on water bodies in or near the area. 

The physical characteristics of soil can affect the suitability of the site for 

development and can present various pollution and safety concerns upon 

disturbance, such as high water erosion rates, wind-thrown hazards, and 

emissions of particulate matter (PM). These concerns may require the 

establishment of mitigation and precautionary measures. 

The Gaithersburg campus is located in the Piedmont physiographic region of 

Maryland, which is made up of hard, crystalline igneous and metamorphic 

rocks. The underlying bedrock in the eastern part of the Piedmont consists of 

schist, gneiss, gabbro, and other highly metamorphosed sedimentary and 

igneous rocks of probable volcanic origin. The campus and the majority of the 

City of Gaithersburg is part of the Hampstead Upland District. The district has a 

mix of rolling and hilly uplands that are interrupted by steep walled gorges. It 

also has distinctive ridges, hills, barrens and valleys caused by differential 

weathering of adjacent, contrasting lithologies. 

The predominant soil type on the Gaithersburg campus is Glenelg silt loam, 

which covers over 75% of the site, including the majority of the central campus, 

from North Drive to South Drive. Gaila silt loam covers approximately 11% of 

the campus and is present along the southern and northern edges of the campus, 

including the areas around Building 205 and the Visitor Center. Glenelg and 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-7 Final Environmental Assessment 
Figure 4-1. Topographic Contours at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-8 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gaila soils are deep and well-drained soils and are generally conducive to 4.4 Water Resources 

development. On steeper slopes (greater than 8%), these soils could have a high 

potential for erosion given a certain combination of precipitation, management 4.4.1 Surface Waters 

practices, and slope length. Construction in these steeper areas may be 

somewhat limited because of slope (NRCS, 2016). Affected Environment 

On the southern campus, Baile and Glenville soils are present in the lowland 

area along the stream north of Building 235. Baile is also a deep soil, but poorly 

drained. Glenville, a moderately well-drained soil, is also present to the west and 

north of Building 205. The Baile and Glenville soils at the campus have a mild 

slope (0% to 8%) and a moderate potential for erosion (NRCS, 2016). Exhibits 

103 and 105 in the Master Plan present the campus soils and slopes, 

respectively. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan would result in moderate soil disturbance associated with 

construction, demolition, and renovation projects that would primarily impact 

previously disturbed soil. Soil surface and subsurface compaction may result 

from heavy machinery traffic around the campus as a result of Master Plan 

implementation. Geotechnical surveys would be performed to confirm soil 

constructability prior to construction of new buildings. 

Construction of the Master Plan project elements described in Section 4.3.1 

(Topography) may require soil relocation because of excavation and 

construction activities. The Master Plan would also construct underground 

laboratory space between Research Buildings II and III, which would require 

soil excavation. However, the Master Plan would not require extensive grading 

since construction would be concentrated in developed areas in the core of the 

campus. NIST would pursue the reuse of excavated soils within the campus 

whenever feasible. 

NIST would prepare and adhere to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP) to minimize risk of soil contamination during construction activities. 

NIST would also implement soil erosion and sediment control measures during 

earth disturbance to minimize impacts on soil and water resources. Refer to 

Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management) for additional information regarding 

stormwater management. 

NIST would implement control measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions 

and wind-thrown hazards during construction activities. Refer to Section 4.9 

(Air Quality) for additional information regarding emissions during construction 

activities. 

Natural conditions (e.g., interactions with soil, sediments, rocks, groundwater, 

and the atmosphere) and human activities can impact the quality of surface 

water by affecting its chemical, physical, and biological characteristics. Human 

actions that may affect surface water quality include agricultural, industrial, and 

urban activities. Stormwater runoff from surrounding watersheds directly 

impacts surface water quality. 

The NIST Gaithersburg Campus is situated within two watersheds. The southern 

portion of the campus, which drains to Muddy Branch, is located within the 

Potomac River Montgomery County watershed while the northern portion is 

within the Seneca Creek watershed. Both watersheds discharge into the Potomac 

River and eventually the Chesapeake Bay, making them part of the larger 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States and is home to 

more than 3,700 species of plants and animals. One of the major tributaries to 

the Bay is the Potomac River, a major river running through the metropolitan 

area of Washington, DC. The Potomac River is designated an American 

Heritage River and provides drinking water for more than 80% of the four 

million residents of the National Capital Region. Protecting the Potomac River 

and the Chesapeake Bay has become a federal, state, and regional effort with 

programs, such as the Chesapeake Bay Program, that set stringent goals to 

promote the Bay’s restoration and protection. Federal surface water regulations, 

including the Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and 

the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), also aid this effort with their focus on rights 

to water usage and the protection of water quality. 

The USEPA and MDE have identified the waters of the Potomac River 

Montgomery County watershed, Seneca Creek watershed, and Chesapeake Bay 

watershed as impaired by specific problem pollutants such as phosphorus, 

sediments, and PCBs. As a result, the USEPA and MDE have established Total 

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for waters within these watersheds. TMDLs 

define the maximum amounts of pollutants that a specific water body can 

receive while meeting water quality criteria. Some of the TMDLs for the 

Potomac River Montgomery County watershed and the Seneca Creek watershed 

are still in the process of being developed. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not result in construction or demolition 

activities and thus would not result in additional soil disturbance or potential soil 

contamination, erosion, or compaction. 

In December 2010, USEPA established the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, which 

guides actions to restore clean waters in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The 

Chesapeake Bay TMDL sets annual watershed limits for nitrogen, phosphorus, 

and sediment. Accordingly, USEPA has established 2017 and 2025 goals for 

reduction of these pollutants flowing into the Chesapeake Bay. These reductions 

have been established in an effort to improve water quality, prevent erosion and 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-9 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

disruption of natural ecosystems, and reinstate recreational uses (e.g., swimming 

and fishing) for the public. 

The Potomac River Montgomery County watershed, which includes the 

southern half of the campus, covers approximately 140 square miles with 

impervious surfaces totaling 7%. This watershed has seen a very rapid pace of 

development, with most of the development outside the City of Gaithersburg 

having occurred since 1972. The watershed hydrology is still adjusting to these 

relatively new land use changes, and areas of instability are common. The 

watershed has been cited by MDE as impaired by specific problem pollutants, 

including phosphorous (1996), sediments (1996), impacts to biological 

communities (2006), and PCBs in fish tissue (2008) (MDE, 2012). As a result, 

MDE established TMDLs for each of these constituents for waters within the 

Potomac River Montgomery County watershed. Additionally, MDE has 

classified the Potomac River as impaired for chlorides and sulfates (2012) and 

high pH (2014) but has not yet established TMDLs to address these impairments 

(MDE, 2014b). 

The Seneca Creek watershed, which includes the northern half of the campus, 

covers approximately 129 square miles with impervious surfaces totaling 7.5%. 

Long Draught Branch, which directly receives runoff from the campus, is a 

major tributary of the Seneca Creek watershed. Specifically, both branches of 

Long Draught Branch just outside the campus (north and west) flow into 

Clopper Lake, an impoundment constructed for flood control and recreation 

located approximately one mile west of the campus. Outflow from Clopper Lake 

joins with Seneca Creek and flows west, then south to the Potomac River. MDE 

identified the waters of the Seneca Creek watershed as impaired by sediments 

and phosphorus (1996), chlorides (2010), and temperature (2014). During 2002, 

a TMDL was approved and applied to Clopper Lake for sediments and 

phosphorus. Seneca Creek remains impaired for chlorides and temperature, 

likely attributed to urban stormwater runoff, and TMDLs still need to be 

developed to address these impairments (MDE, 2014a). 

The campus’ 2005 stormwater permit includes requirements for controlling 

stormwater pollution to meet the wasteload allocations (WLAs) specified in the 

impaired water body TMDLs. WLAs are the maximum load of pollutants each 

discharger may release into a particular waterway. For TMDLs that have not yet 

been developed, efforts should be made to reduce the pollutant load to the 

surrounding water bodies to the maximum extent possible. Additionally, as 

discussed in Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management), NIST’s stormwater 

permit renewal is expected to include a requirement to reduce nutrient and 

sediment loads by treating at least 20% of runoff from existing untreated 

impervious surfaces by 2025 (MDE, 2017). 

1.3 acres in size. This pond, which drains south to Muddy Branch through a 

marshy area known as Elysium Lake, receives flow from an intermittent stream 

that originates in the forested area of the campus. This stream receives 

groundwater that is recovered and discharged by sump pumps at Building 245 

(Radiation Physics Building), as well as stormwater that drains from portions of 

the campus core and the areas around Buildings 202 (Engineering Mechanics), 

235 (NIST Center for Neutron Research), and 245 (Radiation Physics Building). 

Figure 4-2 depicts surface water bodies and other hydrologic features at the 

campus. Refer to Exhibit 106 in the Master Plan for a figure depicting the local 

watersheds. 

The City of Gaithersburg is actively working to establish measures toward better 

stream and watershed conditions, with a Stormwater Management Program 

based on detailed studies of watershed conditions with recommended practices 

and the implementation of a stormwater program fee to fund projects and 

initiatives. In the 2014 Muddy Branch Watershed Study, the City of 

Gaithersburg suggests coordination and partnering between the city and NIST 

on projects that could improve water quality in both jurisdictions (City of 

Gaithersburg, 2014). 

Environmental Consequences -- Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Master Plan would have the potential to impact surface 

waters because of runoff from construction activities and changes in the quality 

and quantity of post-construction stormwater runoff. 

Under the Master Plan, the Wind/Fire Facility would be constructed in the 

southern area of the campus, north of Building 205. A drainage swale in this 

area flows west to an outfall in the southwestern area of the campus, ultimately 

leading to Muddy Branch. Additional general construction activities would 

occur in the northern areas of the campus, in the vicinity of outfalls leading to 

Long Draught Branch. NIST would implement erosion and sediment control 

(ESC) measures during all construction activities to prevent sediment transport 

to Muddy Branch and the Long Draught Branch (of the Lower Great Seneca 

Creek). 

To meet the requirements of the campus stormwater permit and state and federal 

regulations, the Master Plan would incorporate various best management 

practices (BMPs) to manage the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff from 

both existing and new impervious surfaces. These measures would aid in the 

capture of stormwater, infiltration, and groundwater recharge, ultimately 

reducing runoff and improving surface water quality. Refer to Section 4.5.3 

(Stormwater Management) for additional discussion. 

Ponds are the most notable water bodies on campus. There are two connected The increased campus population under the Master Plan (approximately 27% 

man-made ponds on the east side of the campus, which drain to the southeast over a 20-year period), along with the increased cooling demand for new and 

through an unnamed tributary to Muddy Branch. Several other stormwater expanded facilities, could result in an overall increase in the volume of sanitary 

management ponds are located at the southern side of the campus, the largest at and industrial wastewater discharged to the Washington Suburban Sanitary 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-10 Final Environmental Assessment 
Figure 4-2. Hydrologic Features at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-11 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commission (WSSC) sewer system, which ultimately discharges to the Potomac 

River following treatment. This potential increase should not affect water 

quality within receiving waters as WSSC would continue treating the sanitary 

wastewater in accordance with the applicable MDE permit. 

Refer to Sections 4.5.2 (Wastewater) and 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management) for 

additional discussion of discharges to surface waters. 

Environmental Consequences -- No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would have no impact on surface waters. However, 

the No-Action Alternative would not provide a strategy for managing the 

quantity and quality of stormwater runoff to improve surface water quality and 

meet the intent of local, state, and federal rules and regulations. 

4.4.2 Wetlands 

Affected Environment 

Wetlands provide important ecological services, including the following: 

• Filtering nutrients, sediment, and pollutants from surface and

groundwater;

• Absorbing excess floodwater and rainwater;

• Protecting shorelines from erosion; and

• Providing habitat for numerous plants and animals.

Wetlands are federally protected by Section 404 of the CWA, EO 11990 

(Wetland Protection), the RHA, and applicable state regulations and permit 

programs such as the Maryland Non-Tidal Protection Act, Maryland Tidal 

Wetlands Act, and the Waterway and 100-Year Floodplain Construction 

Regulations. Section 404 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill 

material into wetlands or other waters of the U.S. if a practicable alternative 

exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation’s water 

would be significantly degraded by such discharge. A permit review process 

administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers controls regulated 

activities. Developers must avoid direct impacts to wetlands to the maximum 

extent possible. EO 11990, implemented in 1977, protects wetlands and their 

associated ecosystem services. This EO directs each federal agency to avoid 

undertaking or providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands 

unless the head of the agency finds that 1) there is no practicable alternative to 

such construction, and 2) the agency will take all practicable measures to 

minimize impacts to the wetlands. 

To afford additional protection for jurisdictional wetlands (as defined under the 

CWA), MDE requires maintaining vegetated wetland buffers. COMAR 26.23 

establishes regulations for activities that may disturb or occur within a non-tidal 

wetland or surrounding buffer. COMAR 26.23.01.01 defines a buffer as “a 

regulated area, 25 feet in width, surrounding a nontidal wetland, measured from 

the outer edge of the nontidal wetland.” According to COMAR 26.23.01.04, 

there is an expanded, 100-foot buffer around wetlands of special state concern 

and wetlands with adjacent areas containing steep slopes or highly erodible 

soils. MDE requires the action proponent to obtain a Non-Tidal Wetlands and 

Waterways Permit for any activity that alters a non-tidal wetland or its buffer. 

Note that additional requirements and regulations may apply to tidal streams and 

wetlands. 

The USFWS developed the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), a wetland 

classification system used to identify wetlands throughout the U.S. The NWI is a 

very useful system for obtaining a large-scale understanding of approximate 

wetland locations. Since aerial photography forms the basis for the NWI, instead 

of field surveys, the data may include omission errors depending on seasonal 

and climatic variability. 

Between 2005 and 2007, M-NCPPC performed wetland inventories and 

functional wetland assessments in portions of the Middle Great Seneca, Little 

Seneca, and Lower Great Seneca watersheds using a combination of NWI data 

and field investigations. Figure 4-3 illustrates the wetlands identified in that 

effort within and surrounding the campus, along with their corresponding NWI 

classifications. Identified wetland features within the campus include the two 

ponds in the eastern portion of the campus, the flow pathway between the two 

ponds, and the small pond at the extreme southern tip of the campus. Several 

additional wetland areas were identified along Muddy Branch and Long Draught 

Branch outside the campus boundary. 

The campus may include additional areas with wetland characteristics (i.e., 

wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils) beyond those 

identified in the M-NCPPC effort. Examples include the network of streams, 

swales, and ponds that drain the southwest portion of the campus to Muddy 

Branch; the swale between Gates C and D that drains off campus to the west; 

and numerous stormwater bioretention features and swales throughout the 

campus. A formal wetland survey and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

jurisdictional determination would be necessary to assess whether these or any 

other areas within the campus should be considered wetlands and protected 

accordingly. 

Environmental Consequences -- Proposed Action 

Construction, demolition, and renovation activities under the Master Plan would 

not occur within wetlands or wetland buffers. However, several construction and 

renovation activities are proposed within approximately 500 feet of wetlands or 

areas demonstrating wetland characteristics. NIST would survey various areas of 

the campus that appear to have wetland characteristics to evaluate if 

construction activities would occur within the wetlands or their buffers. If 

construction in a buffer area is determined, NIST would evaluate opportunities 

to reduce or avoid these impacts (e.g., by shifting work locations to avoid 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-12 Final Environmental Assessment 
Figure 4-3. Wetlands Within and Surrounding the NIST Gaithersburg Campus 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-13 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

construction within the buffer) and would ensure adherence to permitting 

requirements and local, state, and federal regulations. Under the Master Plan, the 

following activities could have the potential to directly or indirectly affect 

wetland areas: 

• Construction of the expanded Visitor Center and Vehicle Inspection

Facility at Gate A, located across the street from wetlands within Long

Draught Branch;

• Construction of the NCNR expansion of Building 235, located uphill

from areas with potential wetland characteristics;

• Construction of the High Bay Facility, located uphill from the small

wetland in the extreme southern tip of the campus;

• Construction of the Strong Facility and the Wind/Fire Facility, located

near a drainage swale that may have wetland characteristics; and

• Construction of the Gate F Visitor Center, located near the swale that

conveys flow from the south pond to Muddy Branch.

These temporary construction activities and permanent campus modifications 

could potentially result in an increase in the quantity of stormwater runoff 

discharged to the wetlands on campus during peak storm events. As discussed in 

Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management), NIST would employ and maintain 

adequate erosion and sediment controls to mitigate the discharges of sedimentladen waters to the wetlands. Additionally, installation of post-construction 

stormwater BMPs would encourage infiltration and would improve the overall 

surface water quality and wetland health of the campus. NIST would install 

stormwater BMPs to comply with federal requirements and EOs for sustainable 

stormwater management, mitigating the potential impact of construction 

activities to wetlands. 

Environmental Consequences -- No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not impact wetlands. 

4.4.3 Floodplains 

Affected Environment 

Floodplains perform important natural functions, including moderating peak 

flows, maintaining water quality, recharging groundwater, and preventing 

erosion. In addition, floodplains provide wildlife habitat, recreational 

opportunities, and aesthetic benefits. The 100-year floodplain is defined as an 

area that is subject to a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year. 

would occur within a floodplain, 2) evaluate the potential effects of these 

actions, and 3) analyze alternatives to these actions. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the official source for 

Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which identify areas subject to flooding for flood 

management planning and insurance underwriting. These maps are developed by 

studying data for river and stream flow, storm tides, hydrology, topography and 

rainfall. The FEMA map for the NIST Gaithersburg Campus shows a very small 

area in the 100-year floodway, located on the western edge of the property 

behind Building 309. A floodway is defined as a channel or watercourse that 

collects floodwaters of a river or other channel. According to FEMA, floodways 

must be reserved in order to discharge base flood loads without increasing water 

surface elevation. It is critical for communities to regulate development in 

floodways to ensure there are no increases in upstream flood elevations. 

The FEMA maps also identify the 100-year floodplain and 500-year floodplain 

to the north and south of the campus, along Long Draught Branch and Muddy 

Branch, respectively. Existing commercial development has occurred within the 

Long Draught Branch floodplain north of the campus, while there is little to no 

development within the Muddy Branch floodplain south of the campus. 

Environmental Consequences -- Proposed Action 

No construction, renovation, or demolition proposed under the Master Plan 

would occur within the 100-year floodplain or floodway. As discussed in 

Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management), the Master Plan would result in an 

overall increase in impervious surfaces within the campus. This could lead to a 

potential increase in the quantity of stormwater runoff from the campus to 

Muddy Branch or Long Draught Branch during peak storm events because of 

overflow of stormwater management features, thereby contributing to 

downstream flooding concerns. 

The Master Plan would mitigate this concern by incorporating various 

stormwater management features and encouraging groundwater infiltration to 

reduce the potential for flooding during peak precipitation events. NIST would 

continue to assess its stormwater management practices to meet the intent of 

local, state, and federal rules and regulations regarding sustainable management 

of stormwater. 

Environmental Consequences -- No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not involve any impacts or changes in 

activities within the 100-year floodplain or floodway. 

4.4.4 Groundwater 

To protect floodplains and minimize future flood damage, the federal Affected Environment 

regulations at 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 9 and EO 11988 (as 

amended by EO 12148) restrict development within the 100-year floodplain. 

Under EO 11988, all federal agencies must 1) determine if any of their actions 

In many areas, groundwater is the most prevalent source of available freshwater 

to support potable, agricultural, and industrial uses. Groundwater quality is 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-14 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

impacted by interactions with soil, sediments, rocks, surface waters, and the 

atmosphere. Groundwater quality may also be significantly affected by 

agricultural, industrial, urban, and other human actions. 

The campus does not receive its domestic water from onsite wells. The cooling 

tower, which uses groundwater that is recovered from Buildings 218 and 219 

(the underground portions of the Advanced Measurement Laboratory), is the 

campus’s only groundwater use. Sump pumps at Building 245 (Radiation 

Physics Building) also recover groundwater, which is then discharged to a 

nearby stream. The City of Gaithersburg’s potable water is provided by WSSC 

from the Potomac River. For more information regarding potable water at the 

campus, refer to Section 4.5.1 (Potable Water Supply). 

There are two aquifers in Montgomery County, the Ijamsville Formation (MO, 

Cc 14) and Loch Raven Formation (MO Eh 20). In September 2017, 

groundwater in the Ijamsville and Loch Raven Formations was measured at 

approximately 33 feet and 16 feet below ground surface, respectively, while 

capacities were measured at 76-90% and <10%, respectively (USGS, 2017). 

Depth to groundwater varies across the campus but has been observed between 

16 and 32 feet below ground surface. Surface topography is typically an 

indicator of groundwater flow, with groundwater flowing from higher to lower 

elevations. Based on the topography of the campus, groundwater is generally 

expected to flow southward. The campus is not located within 1,000 meters of a 

designated sole source aquifer (USEPA, 2017b). 

A consideration of concern to surface water and groundwater quality is the 

potential for releases of hazardous substances that might affect water resources. 

NIST facilities employ a variety of hazardous substances in research and other 

functions. To mitigate risks of a hazardous substance release, NIST employs a 

spill prevention, control, and countermeasure (SPCC) plan for petroleum 

products and has a comprehensive occupational safety and hazard safety 

program that oversees the safe handling, use, transportation, storage, and 

disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Master Plan would not impact groundwater consumption. 

Construction and demolition activities associated with implementation of the 

Master Plan have the potential to impact groundwater. NIST would implement 

appropriate pollution prevention measures during the execution of the Master 

Plan to avoid spills and exposure of groundwater to contamination. Certain 

elements of the Master Plan, such as emergency generators (with diesel fuel 

tanks) and the Strong Facility (with a hydraulic system that could potentially 

contain large amounts of oil), may require updates to and compliance with 

campus SPCC plan to ensure that the potential for impacts to groundwater is 

minimized. 

The Master Plan would incorporate various BMPs to manage the quantity and 

quality of stormwater runoff from both existing and new impervious surfaces. 

These measures would aid in the capture of stormwater and promote infiltration, 

which may contribute to enhanced groundwater recharge during storm events. 

Refer to Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management) for additional discussion. 

Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change in groundwater 

consumption and no potential for impacts during construction. Stormwater 

management improvements and subsequent enhanced groundwater recharge on 

the campus would also not be realized under the No-Action Alternative. 

4.5 Utilities and Infrastructure 

4.5.1 Potable Water Supply 

Affected Environment 

The NIST Gaithersburg Campus is supplied domestic water by the WSSC 

through two metered connections at the north and east sides of campus. In fiscal 

year (FY) 2017, average daily water consumption at the campus was estimated 

to be approximately 518,000 gallons. The primary drivers of potable water 

consumption at the campus include domestic water use by occupants, cooling 

tower make-up water, boiler feed water, and process/laboratory water. Domestic 

water consumption varies seasonally with the highest peak demands generally 

occurring in the summer months. Refer to Exhibit 149 in the Master Plan for a 

summary of historical domestic water usage and peak demands. 

EO 13693 mandates federal agencies to reduce potable water use intensity by 

2% annually through FY 2025 as compared to the FY 2007 baseline year. This 

translates to agency-wide reductions of 16%, 26%, and 36% by FY 2015, FY 

2020, and FY 2025, respectively. In FY 2015, DoC achieved a department-wide 

31.2% reduction in potable water use intensity compared to 2007, surpassing 

both the FY 2015 and 2020 targets (DoC, 2016). 

NIST operates an extensive distribution system consisting of approximately 8.3 

miles of ductile iron piping and 56 fire hydrants, a majority of which was 

originally installed in the 1960s. A leak detection and condition assessment 

report, published in 2013, indicated that the existing potable water piping system 

is likely to remain structurally sound for the duration of the Master Plan. The 

existing potable water system has available capacity to service more than two 

times the current load. While the system is reported to be in generally good 

condition, it is also recognized that, like the original buildings, the potable water 

system is more than fifty years old and approaching the end of its useful life. As 

a result, failures are occurring with increasing frequency throughout the campus. 

NIST intends to perform a detailed evaluation and subsequent phased 

replacement of the potable water system, to be addressed under a separate 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-15 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEPA review. A summary of the estimated peak domestic water demand for 

each building is presented in Exhibit 148 in the Master Plan. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan is expected to generate an overall increase in potable water 

demand. Increased potable water consumption associated with the construction 

of new facilities and corresponding increases in campus population, laboratory 

activities, steam load, and cooling load, would be partially offset by the 

installation of water-efficient fixtures and water conserving equipment in new 

and renovated buildings. These water-efficiency improvements would help DoC 

achieve its goal of reducing water use intensity department-wide. 

The existing potable water system is adequately sized for increased demand 

associated with the Master Plan. New potable water lines would need to be 

installed to connect new facilities with the existing potable water infrastructure. 

Existing direct-buried domestic water piping may need to be relocated out of 

proposed construction locations. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not increase potable water consumption but 

would not result in any water efficiency improvements within the campus. 

4.5.2 Wastewater 

Affected Environment 

Sanitary and industrial wastewater generated at the campus is discharged to the 

WSSC sanitary sewer system for treatment. NIST holds a permit (Industry 

Identification Number 05813) from the WSSC, allowing the discharge of 

wastewater from the campus to the WSSC sewer system. The permit limits the 

allowable discharge of pollutants from wastewater-generating activities, 

including process wastewater from research activities. The permit also covers 

discharges of non-contact cooling water, boiler blowdown, sanitary wastewater, 

and wastewater from the cafeteria and maintenance garage. 

Prior to discharge to the WSSC sewer, these wastewaters are collected within 

the campus and conveyed through an extensive wastewater collection system 

owned and maintained by NIST. This system consists of approximately 26,300 

linear feet of sewer pipe, the majority of which was installed in the 1960s. 

Generally, the existing sewer system is in good condition. The hydraulic 

capacity of the existing sewer system was assessed utilizing peak daily flows. 

This assessment concluded that the existing system has the capacity to handle 

approximately twice its existing load. However, as with the potable water 

system, the sewer system is more than fifty years old, approaching the end of its 

useful life, and experiencing failures at an increasing frequency. NIST intends to 

perform a detailed evaluation and subsequent phased replacement of the sewer 

system, to be addressed under a separate NEPA review. 

NIST operates building-specific wastewater neutralization systems at three 

laboratories (Buildings 215, 227, and 235) and a final monitoring and 

neutralization system at Building 313 (Site Effluent Neutralization Building) to 

perform a final pH adjustment, if necessary, prior to discharge to the WSSC 

sewer. Refer to Chapter 8 of the Master Plan for more information regarding the 

existing campus sanitary sewer system. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan is expected to generate an overall increase in wastewater 

generation related to expected increases in potable water demand discussed in 

Section 4.5.1 (Potable Water Supply). Increases in sanitary wastewater 

generation are expected because of the increased campus population, increases 

in process wastewater are expected from the renovated GPLs and support 

facilities, and increases in wastewater from heating and cooling processes are 

expected associated with new and expanded buildings. These increases would be 

partially offset by the installation of water-efficient fixtures and water 

conserving equipment in new and renovated buildings. Under the third phase of 

the Master Plan, additional chillers would be added to the campus, which could 

further increase the volume of wastewater discharged to WSSC. Installation of 

more efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and 

renovations to improve building envelopes, however, would improve overall 

cooling efficiencies, thus helping to offset the increase in discharge from the 

new chillers. 

Activities in the AML expansion and other laboratories could increase the 

generation of hazardous wastewaters, including acids and organic waste. 

Depending on the source and type of hazardous wastewater generated, NIST 

would either neutralize the wastewater prior to discharge to the WSSC sewer or 

would manage the waste in accordance with the hazardous waste procedures 

described in Section 4.7 (Solid and Hazardous Waste). 

The existing sewer collection system is adequately sized to support future 

implementation of the Master Plan. New sanitary sewer lines would need to be 

installed to connect new facilities with the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure. 

Existing direct-buried sanitary sewer lines may need to be relocated out of 

proposed construction locations. Installation of sewer lines associated with 

implementation of the Master Plan would not occur in wetlands or floodplains. 

Refer to Chapter 8 of the Master Plan for more information regarding proposed 

upgrades to the campus sanitary sewer system. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not increase wastewater generation, but would 

not replace existing features with more water-efficient equipment and fixtures. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-16 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.5.3 Stormwater Management activities, may also be authorized to discharge to the MS4 if such discharges are 

specifically authorized under an applicable NPDES discharge permit or are Affected Environment identified by and in compliance with the general permit. 

Stormwater runoff is generated when precipitation flows off land and 

impervious areas such as paved streets, parking lots, and building rooftops. 

Stormwater runoff can collect and transport pollutants such as oil and grease, 

chemicals, nutrients, metals, sediment, and bacteria as it travels across these 

surfaces. Soil erosion occurs when stormwater travels at velocities sufficient to 

transport sediment particles. Excessive stormwater runoff may also lead to 

flooding and infrastructure damage. Stormwater is typically managed on site by 

using conventional practices such as infiltration devices and sustainable 

practices such as low impact development (LID) techniques (USEPA, 2004). 

LID practices aim to maintain and restore the hydrologic and ecological 

functions of watersheds by managing stormwater as close to its source as 

possible. 

Impervious surfaces collect and accumulate pollutants and during high storm 

events, these pollutants are quickly washed off and rapidly delivered to aquatic 

systems. Monitoring and modeling studies have consistently indicated that urban 

pollutant loads are directly related to watershed imperviousness. Pervious 

surfaces allow for the absorption of stormwater and ultimately allow for 

recharging of the groundwater table. 

The campus has several existing stormwater management features to detain 

stormwater and promote its infiltration into the ground. Bioretention, microbioretention, swales, rain gardens, and ponds are used for stormwater 

management at the campus. Refer to Figure 4-4 for a map depicting the 

locations of these features. 

Stormwater is directed from impervious surfaces through seven drainage areas 

into the municipal system. There is an extensive underground storm drain 

system around the buildings and parking lots in the central area of the campus 

and the larger specialty laboratories in the southern area of the campus. In the 

less developed areas, stormwater flows overland or through grass channels. 

Several ponds within the campus receive stormwater and hold or slowly release 

water to the outfalls. As depicted in Figure 4-4, outfalls from drainage areas 1 

through 4 discharge to Long Draught Branch and outfalls from drainage areas 5-

7 discharge to Muddy Branch. 

For federal facilities located in Maryland, the USEPA delegates its authority 

under the CWA to MDE for the permitting and enforcement of the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Under this 

authority, MDE issued NIST a permit (General Discharge Permit No. 05-SF5501, MDR055501) authorizing discharges from all municipal separate storm 

sewer system (MS4) outfalls on the campus to receiving waters including 

Muddy Branch and Long Draught Branch. This permit also allows the discharge 

of air conditioning condensate and irrigation water to the MS4. Stormwater 

associated with industrial activity, or discharges associated with construction 

As a component of the campus’ permit coverage, NIST is required to develop 

and implement a SWPPP that details how stormwater will be managed and the 

efforts that will be taken to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the 

campus. Additionally, MDE’s proposed reissue of the MS4 General Discharge 

Permit includes a requirement to reduce nutrient and sediment loads by 

providing water quality treatment of runoff from at least 20% of existing 

untreated impervious surfaces that were constructed prior to 2006 (MDE, 2017). 

NIST is required to comply with the updated MS4 permit, the Chesapeake Bay 

TMDL, and the Final Maryland Watershed Implementation Plan. 

Per the February 2015 Maryland Stormwater Management and Erosion 

Sediment Control Guidelines for State and Federal Projects, no state or federal 

agency shall clear, grade, develop, or redevelop any land without implementing 

an approved plan that provides ESC measures. In most cases, ESC plans are 

reviewed and approved by MDE for state and federal construction projects, but 

county regulations may also apply. According to the Montgomery County Code, 

a permit is required for activities that would disturb greater than or equal to 

5,000 SF of land within the county. The application must include an approved 

ESC Plan and Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) prior to commencement 

of construction. 

Maryland’s 2007 Stormwater Act requires that Environmental Site Design 

(ESD) BMPs (e.g., LID technologies, rain gardens, bio-swales, and landscape 

infiltration) be employed for new development and redevelopment. If ESD 

BMPs are impractical, conventional stormwater management features (e.g., 

ponds, detention basins) may be installed in lieu of the ESD BMPs. 

Montgomery County requires that new development result in no net increase in 

stormwater runoff. 

NIST must comply with Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 (EISA). Under EISA, federal agencies must "use site planning, 

design, construction, and maintenance strategies for the property to maintain or 

restore, to the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment 

hydrology of the property with regard to the temperature, rate, volume, and 

duration of flow" for any project with a footprint greater than 5,000 SF. 

Guidance on how to meet EISA is provided in the Technical Guidance on 

Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under 

Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (USEPA, 2009). 

EO 13693 section 3(f) requires that, beginning in FY 2016, agencies shall 

improve water use efficiency and management (including stormwater 

management) where life-cycle cost-effective. Specifically, the EO prescribes the 

installation of appropriate green infrastructure features on federally owned 

property to help with stormwater management. DoC’s August 2013 Handbook 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-17 Final Environmental Assessment 
Figure 4-4. Stormwater Management Features at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-18 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan provides additional guidance for campus-wide deer population. NIST would consider various ESD strategies in 

complying with EO 13693. determining the SWM approach for each project, including the following: 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Temporary Construction Impacts 

Under the Master Plan, construction and demolition activities at the campus 

would disturb land, creating the potential for erosion and sediment-laden 

discharges to Long Draught Branch and Muddy Branch. NIST would comply 

with all state and federal laws, regulations, ordinances, and procedures relating 

to stormwater management for construction activities. Demolition and 

construction projects identified in the Master Plan would be subject to these 

requirements. NIST would develop all appropriate ESC plans and SWMPs, and 

obtain all necessary permits, to ensure that potential impacts are minimized 

during earth disturbance. 

Long-Term Stormwater Management 

Treatment of Existing Impervious Surfaces 

Under the Master Plan, NIST would employ various MDE-approved stormwater 

management strategies to meet MDE’s stormwater restoration requirements. 

Currently, MDE requires planning for the treatment of runoff from 20% of 

existing, untreated impervious surfaces that were constructed prior to 2006. As 

discussed in Chapter 6 of the Master Plan, NIST would accomplish this 

primarily through reforestation and the use of stormwater management (SWM) 

strategies specified in the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual (2009) and 

Accounting for Stormwater Wasteload Allocations and Impervious Acres 

Treated (2014). SWM strategies to be considered, in addition to reforestation, 

include bioswales, rain gardens, planter boxes, and other methods. These SWM 

strategies would promote stormwater infiltration throughout the campus, reduce 

nutrient and sediment loads to both Muddy Branch and Long Draught Branch, 

and contribute to improved water quality within the Potomac River Montgomery 

County watershed and the Seneca Creek watershed. Refer to Chapter 6 of the 

Master Plan for more information regarding the function and benefits of these 

proposed features. 

Treatment of New Impervious Surfaces 

For new construction, the Master Plan acknowledges NIST’s commitment to 

meet state and federal requirements regarding the use of green SWM 

infrastructure (e.g., ESD) while also attempting to minimize routine 

maintenance needs. The SWM approach would be unique to each project, 

responding to its location and immediate surroundings, while seeking to avoid 

high-maintenance landscape approaches that are susceptible to grazing by the 

• Reforestation through a combination of a) planting seedlings and

performing adaptive management to expand and increase the density of

existing forested areas, and b) planting smaller, separate tree clusters;

• Bioswales, which are grassy swales that promote infiltration and

convey non-infiltrated runoff to storm sewer inlets or surface waters;

• Rain gardens and planter boxes, which absorb runoff from adjacent

impervious surfaces and hold water during heavy storm events;

• Meadows (created by reducing mowing frequency in existing

maintained grasslands), which increase sheet flow infiltration;

• Permeable paving, which allows stormwater to infiltrate to a stone base

layer and into the ground;

• Dry wells, which are underground structural facilities that collect roof

top stormwater or surface runoff and allow it to percolate slowly into

the ground; and

• Building-based strategies, such as cisterns for collection and reuse of

rainwater and green roofs on non-laboratory buildings, including the

GPLs that will be renovated for office-type occupancy.

Each project would maximize ESD to control its runoff quantity and quality, in 

accordance with MDE requirements. However, if measures available for certain 

projects do not satisfy MDE requirements, NIST would employ a compensatory 

stormwater management approach. NIST may establish a Water Quality Bank 

(WQB) to serve as the basis for a Compensatory Stormwater Management 

program as described in the Maryland Stormwater Management and Erosion 

Sediment Control Guidelines for State and Federal Projects. NIST would add 

credits to the WQB through various SWM strategies (e.g., removing impervious 

surfaces, constructing a pond, implementing ESD measures). These credits 

would be available for application to later development in cases where typical 

ESD cannot be implemented because of space limitations or other impediments. 

For example, Exhibit 51 in the Master Plan identifies two potential locations for 

a consolidated SWM facility (i.e., a retention pond) that NIST is considering for 

the first development phase of the Master Plan, which would allow NIST to 

acquire WQB credits that could be debited for development in later phases. If 

NIST opts to establish a Compensatory Stormwater Management program and 

WQB, NIST would do so through an agreement with MDE. 

Regardless of the specific SWM approach taken, NIST would ensure the design, 

development, and installation of post-construction BMPs comply with state and 

federal laws, including state design manuals. NIST would also ensure that 

selected BMPs are properly designed and maintained to mitigate the potential 

health and nuisance concerns associated with the detention of standing water. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-19 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As described in Section 3.1 (Proposed Action), development under the Master 

Plan is conceptualized as four phases, and the possibility exists that only certain 

phases could be implemented. Depending on which phases are completed, the 

net change in impervious areas within the campus could range anywhere from 

an approximately 4% increase (if only Phase 1 packages are completed) to an 

approximately 16% increase (if the full scope of the Master Plan is completed). 

Refer to Exhibit 78 in the Master Plan for a table describing the changes in 

impervious area on the campus associated with each phase. Completion of the 

full Master Plan would increase the impervious surfaces on the campus by 

approximately 17 acres (from 108 acres to 125 acres). 

The increase in impervious surfaces on the campus would have the potential to 

reduce infiltration and groundwater recharge and potentially increase the 

velocity (thus increasing soil erosion) of stormwater discharged from the 

campus. However, by implementing post-construction BMPs as described above 

and treating 20% of runoff from existing, untreated impervious surfaces, the 

Master Plan would be expected to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of 

stormwater discharges to Long Draught Branch and Muddy Branch. Throughout 

implementation of the Master Plan, the efficacy of the new and existing SWM 

features and piping conveying stormwater to the MS4 and receiving waters may 

need to be assessed and upgraded to support campus modifications, as needed. 

Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative 

Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would not involve construction, 

renovation, or demolition; therefore, no additional stormwater impact would 

occur at the campus. The No-Action Alternative would not improve existing 

SWM practices to meet the intent of local and federal rules and regulations 

regarding sustainable management of stormwater. 

4.5.4 Energy Systems 

The electrical infrastructure at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus provides the 

energy needed to operate the facilities on campus, while heating and cooling 

systems consume energy sources in the form of electricity and fossil fuels. EO 

13693 establishes a target to reduce energy-use intensity by 25% by FY 2025 

from an FY 2015 baseline. DoC Departmental Administrative Order 217-16: 

Sustainability and Environmental Management establishes this target as DoC 

policy. 

4.5.4.1 Electricity 

Affected Environment 

The primary uses of electricity at the campus are to operate the cooling towers 

and chillers at Building 302 (Steam and Chilled Water Generation Plant); 

lighting systems; laboratory equipment; and ventilation and air conditioning 

systems. A new Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system addition was recently 

completed that should provide greater efficiency and lower emissions by 

simultaneously producing heat and power. The system includes an 8.0-MW gas 

turbine generator package that is anticipated to provide approximately 41% of 

the annual electricity consumed by the campus. NIST also generates renewable 

energy using three grid-connected solar arrays ranging in size from 73 kilowatts 

(kW) to 271 kW. Refer to Section 4.6 (Sustainable Development) for more 

information regarding the existing solar arrays. 

The electrical needs of the campus are served by a four-bus solidly grounded 15 

kilovolt (kV) substation, housed in Building 306. The substation is fed from 

three 69-kV utility feeders via three step down transformers owned by the local 

utility provider, the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO). Backup power 

is provided by 17 individual generators that provide limited life safety and 

standby power supply for specific programmatic needs. These generators are 

fueled by natural gas or diesel and range in size from 25 kW to 1,000 kW. 

Many of the older laboratory and support buildings on the campus are more than 

50 years old and need upgrades or replacement of their engineering systems to 

prolong their useful lives and improve their efficiency. These facilities, as well 

as newer temporary structures, lack energy efficiency in their infrastructure 

systems and building envelopes. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Under the Master Plan, the NIST Gaithersburg Campus electrical demand is 

expected to increase because of the operation of lighting systems, laboratory 

equipment, and HVAC systems associated with the new buildings and 

corresponding increased operation of cooling towers and chillers at the Steam 

and Chilled Water Generation Plant. The Master Plan includes upgrades to the 

campus electrical infrastructure (new switchgear building, assessment and 

replacement of ductbanks and feeders) to support this growth. As new 

laboratories are renovated or constructed, the Master Plan would install new 

emergency generators to increase the campus-wide backup capacity from 

approximately 4 MVA to 15 MVA upon completion of the Master Plan. Normal 

electrical power service would be extended from the campus distribution system 

to the new facilities. Electrical ductbanks would be relocated, as necessary, to 

accommodate new construction. The CHP addition is expected to help reduce 

the quantity of electricity consumed from the grid. See Section 5 (Cumulative 

Effects) for additional information regarding the CHP project. 

The Master Plan recommends that site-wide projects incorporate energy 

conserving and solar technologies that will continue to evolve over the life of 

the Master Plan. Increases in electrical demand would be offset somewhat by 

renovating aging, inefficient facilities. The Master Plan prioritizes the 

replacement of aging mechanical and electrical components with more energy 

efficient equipment and the upgrading of building envelopes to conserve energy. 

The renovation of existing buildings, removal of energy inefficient buildings, 

and construction of new energy efficient facilities would help DoC meet its 

agency-wide goal of reducing energy intensity at facilities. NIST would target 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-20 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the new buildings at Gate F (the Visitor Center and the Shipping & Receiving 

Building at the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Complex) to achieve net-zero 

energy consumption through reduced energy demand, efficient systems, and 

solar energy production. Furthermore, the Master Plan includes solar 

photovoltaic energy systems on selected building roofs, on the new parking 

structure, and over canopies shielding the parking areas. The Master Plan would 

also include relocation of the solar array currently next to Building 216 when the 

AML is expanded and if the conditions of the solar array warrant its relocation. 

The solar energy systems would further reduce the quantity of electricity 

consumed from the grid. Refer to Section 4.6 (Sustainable Development) for 

additional information regarding sustainable design strategies. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not impact electrical infrastructure or demand. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, NIST would continue to operate energy 

inefficient facilities and, therefore, would not improve energy efficiency 

throughout the campus. 

4.5.4.2 Heating and Cooling 

Affected Environment 

Building 302 (Steam and Chilled Water Generation Plant) provides chilled water 

and steam via a network of direct buried piping to the general and special 

purpose laboratories, the Administration Building, and many support buildings. 

Other buildings are supplied with these services locally, as needed. While the 

steam/condensate distribution piping throughout the campus has recently 

undergone complete replacement, most of the major equipment and piping 

systems in the Plant are in good condition with several years of useful life. The 

north buildings are serviced by a utility loop, which allows for isolation of 

sections of the piping system without significantly interrupting service to large 

groups of buildings. The south buildings, on the other hand, are served by a 

single main which does not provide the same level of utility availability. 

The chilled water generating system consists of seven 3,500-ton chillers with an 

installed capacity of 24,500 tons and a firm capacity of 21,000 tons. [Note: One 

ton of refrigeration is equivalent to the energy removal rate that will freeze one 

ton of water at 32 degrees Fahrenheit in one day, or approximately 12,000 

British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr).] The firm capacity represents the system 

output without the availability of the largest single generation unit (e.g., with six 

of the seven chillers in operation). The peak cooling load is estimated to be 

17,000 tons. This indicates an available additional capacity of 4,000 tons for 

future load additions. 

natural gas is curtailed. All boilers are dual fuel (natural gas and ultra-low sulfur 

diesel) fired, water-tube boilers with stack economizers. The peak steam load is 

estimated to be 160,000 PPH. This indicates an available additional capacity of 

96,000 PPH for future load additions. After implementation of the CHP project, 

the final output of the steam generation system will remain unchanged. 

Building 101 (Administration Building) and the seven original GPLs are in need 

of significant modernization and HVAC replacement in the near future. In 

addition, some of the specialty laboratories also require upgrades to the HVAC 

system and upgrades to the interior environment for improved efficiency and 

function. 

As discussed in Section 4.5.1 (Potable Water Supply), potable water is used for 

make-up water in the steam production and cooling tower systems. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Under the Master Plan, Building 302 (Steam and Chilled Water Generation 

Plant) would supply the new and renovated NIST laboratory facilities with 

chilled water and steam. Chilled water and steam piping systems would be 

extended to most of the new and renovated buildings in the Master Plan. 

Existing underground steam piping would be relocated, as necessary, to 

accommodate new construction. 

Increases in heating and cooling demand associated with new buildings would 

be offset somewhat by the removal of Buildings 411 and 428 and renovation of 

inefficient and under-insulated buildings. The renovated buildings would feature 

improved insulation and HVAC efficiency. NIST would use natural and passive 

ventilation, heat recovery systems, and decoupled ventilation/cooling, where 

feasible, to improve HVAC energy efficiency. This would help DoC meet its 

agency-wide goal of reducing energy intensity at facilities. The existing 

buildings to be retained in the rest of the campus would continue to have 

dedicated HVAC systems. 

The existing steam generation system capacity is expected to be adequate to 

support the Master Plan growth. However, enhancements to the chiller capacity 

would be required during the mid-to-late Master Plan construction to support the 

campus growth. Specifically, the Master Plan would include installation of two 

additional 3,500-ton chillers, a new cooling tower, and an additional piping main 

from Building 302 to the distribution system. The Master Plan also would 

establish a new chilled water and steam supply main for the south buildings to 

create a looped supply and increase the utility system reliability, and would 

install a new chilled water main to create a looped supply for Research Building 

I and the five northernmost GPLs. 

The existing steam generating system consists of six boilers with a total 

nameplate capacity of 336,000 PPH, provided by four 44,000-PPH boilers and 

two 80,000-PPH boilers. Firm capacity of the plant with the largest boiler out of 

For stand-alone buildings that are remote from the campus thermal utility grid, 

such as the new facilities at Gate F, the Master Plan proposes the use of ground 

source heat pumps for space cooling and heating. Deep well geothermal systems 

service is 251,000 PPH when natural gas is available and 160,000 PPH when 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-21 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

can provide required cooling and heating capacity for the anticipated building acquisition, water efficiency, pollution prevention and waste elimination, 

loads while supporting the net-zero energy goals of these buildings. electronics stewardship, and innovation (DoC, 2013). 

Impacts on potable water demands because of increased heating and cooling 

loads are discussed in Section 4.5.1 (Potable Water Supply). Impacts on air 

emissions and greenhouse gases (GHGs) are discussed in Sections 4.9 (Air 

Quality) and 4.10 (Climate Change). 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not implement the facility space expansion 

associated with the Proposed Action and therefore would not impact heating and 

cooling demand or systems. However, the NIST Gaithersburg Campus would 

continue to operate facilities with energy inefficient building envelopes and 

HVAC systems. 

4.6 Sustainable Development 

Affected Environment 

Sustainable development is the practice of modifying or creating structures and 

processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout 

their lifecycles. Environmental stewardship and sustainable development are 

crucial to DoC’s ability to fulfill its mission of creating conditions for economic 

growth and opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, 

competitiveness, and stewardship (DoC, 2013). 

EO 13693, issued March 19, 2015, requires that 15% of existing buildings 

greater than 5,000 SF meet the revised Guiding Principles for Federal 

Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings (Guiding Principles) 

by FY 2025 and that federal agencies continue towards 100% compliance for the 

complete building inventory. The Guiding Principles require buildings to 

implement or achieve a combination of sustainable requirements such as 

optimizing energy performance, protecting and conserving water, enhancing the 

indoor environmental quality, and reducing the environmental impacts of 

materials. NIST must also comply with the requirements of the NIST 

Sustainable Design Manual (July 31, 2014) and the DoC Real Property 

Management Manual (rev. March 2017), which include the NIST and DoC 

policies regarding sustainable design of federal facilities. 

DoC strives to achieve sustainable development by installing high-performance 

facilities and utilizing low-impact development principles (DoC, 2013). DoC 

annually updates its Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP) in 

accordance with EO 13693. The SSPP identifies how DoC incorporates 

sustainability into its goal of growing the national economy, furthering energy 

security, and protecting the health of the environment (DoC, 2013). Topics 

addressed in the SSPP include greenhouse gases, sustainable development and 

The City of Gaithersburg 2009 Master Plan: Environment and Sustainability 

outlines the City’s approach to sustainable growth and development. 

Recommended sustainable development efforts include expanding the City’s 

tree canopy to be consistent with the State’s canopy coverage goals by 2025, 

engaging in watershed planning to allow for local water resource protection, and 

addressing local effects of climate change, among other items (City of 

Gaithersburg, 2015a). Additionally, Montgomery County guidelines recommend 

forest cover on at least 15% of a site’s acreage. 

Montgomery County has developed a Climate Protection Plan which includes 

58 recommendations for addressing climate change. In April 2008, the County 

adopted Bill 32-07, codifying the goals to reduce county-wide greenhouse gas 

emissions to 80% below FY 2005 levels, stop increasing county-wide 

greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, and achieve a 10% reduction every five 

years through 2050. 

The NIST Gaithersburg Campus currently embraces many of the principles of 

sustainable design in both operations and research, including stormwater 

management, whole-house energy research, and utilizing open space as a 

significant campus resource. NIST also studies, utilizes, and assesses energy 

output for solar panels in various configurations. Currently, a canopy array (243 

kW) faces east-west over a parking lot. A surface array (271 kW) is mounted in 

an open area east of the AML, and a north-south facing roof array (73 kW) is 

located on a flat roof area of Building 101. In addition, as discussed in Section 5 

(Cumulative Effects), a project is underway to develop a 15-acre, 5-MW solar 

array near the south end of campus to provide approximately 5% of the campus 

electrical power requirements. NIST also purchases renewable energy 

certificates (RECs) for the campus to meet one of the sustainability goals of EO 

13693. In FY 2017, NIST exceeded the EO 13693 target by purchasing more 

than 64,000 megawatt-hours of RECs. 

The campus manages its stormwater runoff with several retention ponds, 

bioretention areas, and rain gardens. Construction of all recent buildings has 

included new micro-bioretention areas, and erosion and sedimentation plans are 

implemented during construction to improve water quality and enhance 

groundwater recharge. Refer to Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management) for 

additional information regarding sustainable stormwater management practices 

at the campus. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan would result in an overall improvement to campus 

sustainability. As a core component of the Master Plan, NIST would strive to 

increase the efficiency of the campus by retrofitting current inefficient buildings 

and upgrading outdated equipment. Construction and renovation under the 

Master Plan would be conducted in compliance with EOs, federal requirements, 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-22 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and NIST sustainability goals. A goal of the Master Plan is to achieve 

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification (or 

higher) for each new or renovated building. Furthermore, NIST would target the 

new buildings at Gate F (the Visitor Center and the Shipping & Receiving 

Building at the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Complex) to achieve net-zero 

energy consumption through reduced energy demand, efficient systems, and 

solar energy production. 

The Master Plan promotes sustainable development by proposing the renovation 

of existing buildings (e.g., the GPLs and Building 101) instead of pursuing new 

construction and redevelopment to provide all new laboratory and administrative 

space. Benefits of this approach can include reduced need for raw construction 

materials and reduced generation of construction-related waste via the reuse of 

structural elements and recycling of building materials. 

The Master Plan prioritizes the replacement of aging mechanical and electrical 

components with more energy efficient equipment and the upgrading of building 

envelopes to conserve energy. The Master Plan may also install geothermal 

systems at stand-alone buildings, which would provide sustainable sources of 

heating and cooling. For more information regarding updates to the campus 

energy systems, refer to Section 4.5.4 (Energy Systems). 

The Master Plan would design new and renovated buildings to include clustered 

building functions for efficient HVAC use, daylighting, high performance 

building envelopes, on-site photovoltaic systems, natural ventilation, and 

implementation of energy conservation approaches (i.e., demand controls, 

energy recovery, fume hood controls, air-side and water-side economizers) to 

achieve overall energy demand and use reductions. Implementation of the 

Master Plan would involve replacing existing water fixtures to aid in achieving 

NIST’s goal of reducing water consumption. Over the 20-year timeframe of the 

Master Plan, NIST would continue to assess and incorporate emerging 

technologies to promote improved sustainability, where feasible. NIST would 

also continue to purchase RECs in accordance with EO 13693. 

As previously mentioned, implementation of the Master Plan would include 

execution of the landscape plan, which proposes conducting reforestation efforts 

on the south and east sides of the campus. Execution of the landscape plan 

would provide enjoyable outdoor spaces while simultaneously absorbing 

atmospheric pollutants and providing shade for buildings, thus moderating 

temperatures. The landscape plan also involves replacing grasslands with native 

meadows, which would require less maintenance and would aid in stormwater 

management. Under the Master Plan, disturbance of landscape features would be 

minimized during construction and additional LID BMPs would be installed 

throughout the campus, which would reduce soil erosion and improve surface 

water quality. 

Construction activities at the campus would temporarily impact soil and 

vegetation, and would generate waste. However, NIST would recycle 

construction and demolition debris to the extent practicable and ensure the 

proper disposal of other non-recyclable materials. Construction would require 

the commitment of a wide range of raw materials, which will involve the 

fabrication and manufacture of construction materials requiring large quantities 

of energy and natural resources. In general, construction materials are readily 

available, and the construction of new facilities would not have an adverse effect 

on continued availability of these resources. 

Operation of the proposed facilities and transportation of additional employees 

to the campus would also require the commitment of fossil fuels to operate 

generators, vehicles, and other fuel-burning equipment. Overall, the long-term 

improvements in sustainability of the campus associated with implementation of 

the Master Plan, combined with the continued preservation of open spaces on 

the campus, are expected to greatly outweigh short-term and continuing 

commitments of readily available resources. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not result in any changes to campus 

infrastructure. The energy demand at the campus would not change. The 

potential to increase energy efficiency, improve stormwater management, 

landscapes, and improve the overall sustainability of the campus in accordance 

with EO 13693 (in addition to County and City goals) would not be realized 

under the No-Action Alternative. 

4.7 Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Affected Environment 

Solid waste is defined as any garbage, refuse, sludge, or other discarded material 

including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous materials resulting from 

industrial, commercial, agricultural, or community activities. USEPA defines 

hazardous waste as a solid waste that exhibits a characteristic of ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, or is specifically listed as a hazardous waste. 

Hazardous and nonhazardous solid wastes are regulated by federal, state, and 

Montgomery County laws. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) authorizes USEPA to control hazardous waste from “cradle to grave.” 

This lifecycle includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and 

disposal of waste. Subtitle D of RCRA encourages states to initiate and oversee 

the implementation of solid waste management plans in order to promote 

recycling practices. USEPA has delegated authority to MDE to implement 

hazardous waste regulations and oversight. As a result, MDE has developed 

solid waste regulations (COMAR 26.04.07) and hazardous waste regulations 

(COMAR 26.13). 

EO 13693 (Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade) and EO 

12873 (Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention) set goals for the 

federal government to conduct operations in a manner that is sound in terms of 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-23 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

energy efficiency, toxic chemical reduction, recycling, sustainability, and water 

conservation. In addition, USEPA’s Guidelines for Thermal Processing of Solid 

Wastes (40 CFR 240) and Guidelines for the Storage and Collection of 

Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Solid Waste (40 CFR 243) provide 

specifications for the treatment and disposal of municipal solid waste. 

NIST reviewed available databases for solid and hazardous waste sites in the 

general area around the NIST Gaithersburg Campus. Environmental databases 

used in this review include the National Priorities List database; Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System 

database; RCRA Information database; and USEPA’s NEPAssist mapping tool. 

This review revealed that there are no nearby solid or hazardous waste sites with 

potential to impact the campus. 

Facilities at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus generate various types of 

hazardous, non-hazardous, radioactive, medical, and universal wastes (which are 

hazardous wastes that are very commonly used and have less stringent disposal 

requirements). NIST’s policy concerning the management of these wastes is to 

protect human health, property, and the environment, while complying with all 

state, federal, and local laws regarding their use, transportation, storage, 

treatment, and ultimate disposal. As a component of this responsibility, the 

NIST Office of Safety, Health, and Environment (OSHE) oversees the storage 

of waste in Building 312 (Materials Processing Facility), which is a 90-day 

accumulation site for hazardous, medical, and universal waste. Radioactive 

waste is managed in Building 235 by a staff of radiation safety specialists in 

accordance with requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nonhazardous waste is accumulated in dumpsters to be collected by a local waste 

hauler. Each facility on campus is also required to collect their recyclable waste 

in separate containers specified for white paper, mixed paper, and bottles and 

cans. Other solid waste that is recycled by NIST includes construction and 

demolition debris, fluorescent tubes, batteries, electronic waste, and used oils. In 

2016, NIST recycled more than one million pounds of material collected within 

the campus (NIST, 2017). 

Because of the quantity of hazardous waste generated, the NIST Gaithersburg 

Campus has been registered with USEPA for over twenty years as a largequantity generator of hazardous wastes (USEPA ID No. MD 5 1215 31811), 

defined by 40 CFR 262 as a facility that generates 1,000 kilograms per month or 

more of hazardous waste, or more than 1 kilogram per month of acutely 

hazardous waste. To manage this hazardous waste, NIST has a comprehensive 

occupational safety and hazard safety program to oversee the safe handling, use, 

transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. 

Hazardous substances are handled, bulked, and made ready for shipment off-site 

in Building 312. The NIST Waste Disposal Procedures, which are maintained by 

the NIST OSHE, cover chemical waste, radioactive waste, and special medical 

waste, as well as procedures for recycling within the campus. Biennially, NIST 

submits a Hazardous Waste Report to USEPA that describes the type, quantity, 

and disposal sites for all hazardous wastes produced at the campus. 

In accordance with the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 

Act (EPCRA, 40 CFR Parts 350-372), a statute designed to improve community 

access to information about chemical hazards and to facilitate the development 

of chemical emergency response plans by state and local governments, NIST 

annually submits a Hazardous Chemical Inventory, Tier II Report, to the State of 

Maryland and USEPA. For the period January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, 

NIST reported 13 chemicals stored at the campus above EPCRA threshold 

quantities. Thousands of other hazardous chemicals/materials are utilized on the 

NIST campus, but these chemicals are primarily used in laboratory-scale 

research and in quantities that do not meet the threshold requirements for annual 

reporting. These chemicals are known by USEPA to exist on campus. If 

quantities of these chemicals increase in use beyond the EPCRA thresholds, they 

would be reported by NIST in the annual Tier II reports. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The implementation of the Master Plan would generate construction and 

demolition waste, which would require collection, staging, and removal from the 

campus. Wastes would be handled and disposed of in accordance with MDE 

regulations. Recycling of construction and demolition debris would be 

implemented to the extent practicable. Demolition of older facilities may 

involve the removal of materials or equipment containing polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs), lead, asbestos, or ozone-depleting substances. Demolition or 

renovation of older facilities could result in the removal of PCB-containing 

transformers. Disposal methods would be addressed under the construction 

permit, including the cost of sampling, transporting, and discharging of said 

wastes to an appropriate facility in compliance with MDE regulations. 

The Master Plan would retain Building 312 as the hazardous waste storage 

building. Operations in the various proposed administrative, support, and 

laboratory facilities would be expected to generate similar types of hazardous 

wastes as existing operations within the campus. Given the projected increase in 

staff and operational space, the quantity of these wastes would increase slightly. 

Specifically, the expansion of the AML and renovations to the GPLs would 

increase the generation of acids and organic waste. However, Building 312 

would have adequate capacity for these modifications as well as all other 

proposed laboratory expansions and renovations that would generate hazardous 

waste. The new SRM Facility would include storage of reference materials, 

including biologic (animal/human) materials and high purity chemicals. NIST 

would continue to manage any hazardous and medical waste resulting from 

activities at the campus in accordance with NIST Waste Disposal Procedures. 

As of now, the Master Plan is not expected to result in the introduction of any 

chemicals that have not been previously documented and used on the NIST 

Gaithersburg Campus. However, if new chemicals would be introduced, NIST 

has suitable practices in place to manage the resultant wastes appropriately. The 

Master Plan would not change the amount of radioactive waste generation, thus 

the existing management practices on campus for radioactive waste are 

adequate. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-24 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would result in no changes in the generation, 

storage, or disposal of solid or hazardous waste. The No-Action Alternative 

would not involve the removal of hazardous building materials including 

asbestos, lead, and PCBs. 

4.8 Circulation and Transportation 

4.8.1 Vehicle Circulation and Parking 

Affected Environment 

Gaithersburg is located northwest of Washington, DC and southwest of 

Baltimore, two heavily trafficked metropolitan areas. Various roadways 

surround the campus and bring vehicular traffic within a half mile of the 

campus. Located off Interstate 270, the campus is bounded by MD Route 124 

(Quince Orchard Road) to the west, MD Route 117 (West Diamond Avenue) to 

the north, Interstate 270 and Muddy Branch Road to the east, and residential 

areas to the south. 

The campus is served by six gates, four of which (Gates A, B, C, and F) are 

routinely used, while the other two (Gates D and E) are not. Gate A is located 

off West Diamond Avenue at Bureau Drive. This gate serves as the main 

entrance to the campus and is used by staff and all visitors, except attendees of 

major conferences. As such, the areas surrounding Gate A can become 

congested at peak ingress and egress times. Gates B, C, and D are located along 

Quince Orchard Road and Gates E and F are located along Muddy Branch Road. 

Commercial vehicles enter the campus at Gate C and are directed to the 

screening point at Building 301. Based on data from September and October 

2016, approximately 75 commercial vehicles enter the campus per weekday, 

with approximately 75% of deliveries taking place in the morning. The peak 

hour for deliveries is from 6 to 7 a.m., with an average of 15 deliveries during 

this hour on a typical weekday. This can result in traffic congestion on 

southbound Quince Orchard Road as commercial vehicles wait in the center lane 

to make a left turn into Gate C. Commercial vehicles have also been known to 

stage in this center lane prior to the daily opening of Gate C. 

Within the campus, a network of streets organized in a grid pattern, running 

north-south and east-west connects the facilities. North Drive and South Drive 

are the primary east-west connector roads within the campus, while East Drive, 

Center Drive, West Drive, and Service Drive are the main north-south connector 

roads. 

The campus contains 3,704 parking spaces, 229 of which are reserved for 

service vehicles and 3,475 of which are available for campus staff and visitors. 

Based on a current campus employee population of 4,007, the parking-toemployee ratio is approximately 1:1.2. NCPC guidelines suggest parking-toemployee ratios between 1:1.5 to 1:2 for federal facilities, such as NIST, that are 

located in suburban areas beyond 2,000 feet of Metrorails. The suggested 

parking ratio applies only to federal employees, exempting service vehicles, 

visitors, conference attendees, and non-federal employees, such as associates 

and guest researchers. According to a 2016 NIST employee survey, demand for 

parking increases during conferences, but on an average weekday demand is 

approximately one space per 1.67 employees. The survey revealed that most 

employees (84% of current staff) drive to work alone in a personal automobile. 

NIST facilitated a traffic study in 2015, which reviewed the campus 

transportation infrastructure for appropriate design and compliance with local 

and state transportation standards. Roadway widths, curbs, signage, controls, 

and sidewalks were reviewed, and most were deemed in compliance. Traffic 

counts were also collected on and around the campus revealing that the oncampus intersections operated within accepted standards, while capacity 

concerns were noted at several intersections feeding the campus. In particular, 

the following three intersections near the campus were found to provide a Level 

of Service (LOS) below acceptable levels, especially during morning rush hour: 

• West Diamond Avenue (MD Route 117) and Quince Orchard Road

(MD Route 124), immediately northwest of the campus;

• Great Seneca Highway (MD Route 119) and Quince Orchard Road

(MD Route 124), approximately 0.6 miles southwest of the campus;

and

• Great Seneca Highway (MD Route 119) and Muddy Branch Road,

approximately 0.8 miles south of the campus.

NIST staff also mention that the ramp from MD Route 117 to southbound 

Interstate 270 can become very congested during peak hours. The most notable 

recommendations resulting from the 2015 study were roadway modification 

around Gate A for safety and congestion and at Gate C for commercial vehicle 

screening (NIST, 2015). Refer to Exhibit 142 in the Master Plan for a list of 

other recommendations that resulted from the study. 

NIST currently utilizes TDM, which involves the application of policies and 

strategies to reduce travel demand or to redistribute demand to other times, 

spaces, or modes. Refer to Chapter 7 of the Master plan for additional 

information on campus parking, transportation, and TDM strategies. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Master Plan would result in improved traffic circulation 

on the campus and at points of entry. Circulation improvements at Gate A would 

include new roadways, parking, a roundabout, a drop-off lane, and an exit lane 

for staff or visitors who are rejected in the screening process. These 

improvements would help to reduce queueing during rush hour and conflicts 

between visitor and employee vehicles. The Master Plan would relocate the 

commercial vehicle entrance from Gate C to Gate F; construction of the 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-25 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial Vehicle Inspection Complex at this location would eliminate the 

need for most commercial vehicles to drive onto the campus, which would 

reduce unnecessary traffic within the campus. In addition, it would eliminate 

traffic congestion along the center lane of Quince Orchard Road where 

commercial vehicles tend to get backed up making a left turn into Gate C. 

Relocation of the commercial vehicle entrance to Gate F, if not designed 

properly, could result in congestion along Muddy Branch Road because of 

queueing and conflicts with conference attendees also entering for screening at 

Gate F. The Master Plan would mitigate this concern by providing separate 

entrance driveways at Gate F for commercial vehicle traffic and passenger 

vehicles and providing sufficient space for commercial vehicles to stage for 

screening just inside the campus, before the security checkpoint. 

However, because of an increase of approximately 1,099 NIST personnel over 

the course of the Master Plan, there would likely be an increase in privately 

owned vehicles (POVs) entering and exiting the campus during peak hours, 

which could affect the existing congested intersections surrounding the campus. 

The relocation of the commercial vehicle entrance to Gate F would also have the 

potential to increase traffic along Muddy Branch Road and Diamondback Drive 

(located southeast of the campus) as commercial vehicle drivers follow different 

routes to access the campus from Interstates 270 and 370. To mitigate this 

concern, the Master Plan proposes specific new TDM policies to further 

encourage use of public transportation and bicycles, and thereby reduce the use 

of single occupancy vehicles. See Chapter 7 of the Master Plan for details on the 

proposed TDM policies. Additionally, as discussed in Section 5 (Cumulative 

Effects), numerous residential construction and public transportation projects are 

planned in the immediate vicinity of the campus. These developments would be 

expected to allow a greater proportion of NIST employees to live near the 

campus and to use public or other alternative methods of transportation (e.g., 

biking or walking), thus helping to offset the potential increase in POV use. The 

rapidly changing technology of autonomous vehicles and ridesharing services 

could also influence, and potentially reduce, the use of POVs by campus 

employees over the course of the Master Plan. 

While the Master Plan anticipates an increase in personnel, there would be a 

potential reduction in intra-campus POV use because of improved pedestrian 

connectivity, as discussed in Section 4.8.3 (Pedestrian Circulation). 

Under the Master Plan, NIST would gradually reduce the available parking per 

employee. While the number of campus personnel is expected to increase by 

27% over the course of the Master Plan, parking spaces would increase by only 

approximately 7%. Following full implementation of the Master Plan, the 

parking-space-per-employee ratio would be reduced to 1:2, which falls within 

the NCPC guidelines. The reduced parking availability would serve to further 

encourage staff to use public and alternative methods of transportation and 

reduce traffic congestion outside the campus. 

The Master Plan would result in temporary increases in traffic during 

construction and demolition activities. Construction activities could also 

temporarily affect parking availability by closing off lots or occupying lots with 

construction vehicles and equipment. NIST would coordinate construction 

activities and create temporary parking and staging areas to ensure that vehicles 

are not forced to park off campus, park in grassy areas, or cause other impacts 

because of a temporary lack of parking capacity. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

Because the No-Action Alternative would not change the number of employees 

at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus, it would not impact the local transportation 

network or traffic levels and would not change vehicle use or parking 

availability within the campus. There would, however, be no improvement to 

campus ingress or vehicle circulation within the campus, and the No-Action 

Alternative would not alleviate traffic concerns along Quince Orchard Road that 

result from commercial vehicles turning into Gate C. The employee to parking 

ratio would remain out of compliance with NCPC guidelines as well. 

4.8.2 Public and Alternative Transportation 

Affected Environment 

The City of Gaithersburg has a strong public transportation network. The 

campus is currently served by four RideOn bus routes with stops along West 

Diamond Avenue, Quince Orchard Boulevard, Firstfield Road, and Quince 

Orchard Road. These four RideOn routes service the site with 40 buses during 

the morning peak hour and 42 buses during the afternoon peak hour. 

Additionally, Building 101 (Administration Building) is served directly by the 

54 route, which runs from Lakeforest Mall to the Rockville Metrorail Station. It 

services the campus with one bus in each direction during the morning and 

afternoon peak hours. 

The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) Commuter Bus provides service 

between the north end of campus and areas west and north of the campus, 

including the Shady Grove Metrorail station, the Dorsey MARC station, and the 

Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI). Hourly 

service is provided during weekdays. The closest MARC stations to the campus 

are the Metropolitan Grove and Gaithersburg stations, which are located 

approximately one mile northwest and 1.5 miles northeast, respectively, from 

the campus. The nearest Metrorail station is Shady Grove, located 

approximately four miles southeast of the campus. The CCT is a planned 15-

mile Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line in Montgomery County. Phase 1 of the 

project would link the Shady Grove Metrorail station to the Metropolitan Grove 

MARC station, and would include a stop at the campus (along Quince Orchard 

Road). See Section 5 (Cumulative Effects) for further discussion of the planned 

CCT project. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-26 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A summer 2016 NIST employee survey revealed that less than 4% of employees 

commute to the campus via public transportation. Out of respondents who 

commute to the campus using public transportation, 73% use the Metrorail, 16% 

use RideOn services, 11% use MARC, and none use the MTA Commuter Bus. 

Of the 815 employees who responded to the survey, 95% indicated that they do 

not expect to change their primary mode of commute to the campus following 

opening of the CCT. 

As discussed in Section 4.8.1 (Vehicle Circulation and Parking), NIST uses 

TDM to reduce travel demand or to redistribute demand to other times, spaces, 

or modes. Elements of the TDM program currently implemented by NIST 

include encouraging public transportation usage through operation of a shuttle to 

the Shady Grove Metrorail station, a shuttle to the Metropolitan Grove and 

Gaithersburg MARC stations, and providing transit subsidies. Refer to Chapter 7 

of the Master Plan for additional details on TDM. 

The campus is accessible to nearby on-street bicycle facilities. Shared-use paths 

are present along Clopper Road and West Diamond Avenue, which provide eastwest connectivity between the Metropolitan Grove MARC station and Gate A. 

A shared-use path to the south of the campus provides southern connectivity to 

the Great Seneca Highway, with bicycle access to areas northwest and southeast 

of the site. Also, as discussed in Section 5 (Cumulative Effects), a new shareduse path is planned along the west boundary of the campus. Bicyclists within the 

campus use a combination of on-campus roadways and sidewalks, because of a 

lack of bicycle lanes. There are few bike racks on campus, except for those near 

Building 235. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Because of an increase of approximately 1,099 NIST personnel over the course 

of the Master Plan, public transportation ridership to and from the campus is 

expected to increase. The Master Plan proposes developing a more robust TDM 

program to make the campus more accessible, multi-modal, and efficient. 

Specifically, the Master Plan proposes additional paved pedestrian corridors to 

provide better connectivity to bus stops; identifying a TDM Coordinator; 

providing a shuttle interior to the campus; improving bicycle storage (racks and 

lockers) and access opportunities; and identifying locations for potential Capitol 

Bikeshare stations. These improvements are expected to result in an increase in 

proportion of campus staff who use public and alternative transit options. 

Implementation of the CCT, discussed in Section 5 (Cumulative Effects), could 

also result in an increase in public transportation ridership to and from the 

campus. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not result in expansion of the TDM program 

and improvements to campus infrastructure to promote use of public and 

alternative transportation. 

4.8.3 Pedestrian Circulation 

Affected Environment 

Pedestrian circulation on the campus is a dual system. One is an interior 

concourse system that connects the laboratories in the center of campus, and the 

other is an outside sidewalk system along the roadways. The interior concourse 

has over three-quarters of a mile of corridor, and connects Building 101 

(Administration Building), Building 304 (Shops Building), and thirteen of the 

laboratory buildings. A covered walkway connects GPL Building 225 to 

Building 101. The concourse is convenient for staff, but disorienting for 

newcomers because of changes in orientation and levels and a lack in visual or 

signage cues. The outside sidewalk system is not continuous throughout campus 

and the 2015 traffic study identified issues with curbs and crosswalks. 

Some areas on campus lack pedestrian connectivity. Some of the feeder roads do 

not have sidewalks, causing pedestrians to walk in the street when using several 

of the parking lots. Walkways on campus are limited to sidewalks along the 

roads and a trail in the large forest conservation area. Most landscape features on 

the campus are not connected with walkways for easy staff access. Also, the 

pedestrian connection from the main Gate A to center campus is not direct, 

requiring pedestrians to walk far to the east or west along the roadways. This is 

an annoyance for visitors who come by public transportation, because the shuttle 

bus drops them at the gate, and to staff who enter Gate A as pedestrians. NIST 

has undertaken a phased sidewalk improvement program where the existing 

asphalt sidewalks are being replaced, and new walks are being installed to 

complete needed connections. 

Some of the sidewalks and curbs on the campus do not meet City of 

Gaithersburg, Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), 

and State Highway Administration (SHA) standards because of width, curbs, 

pavement materials, and distance from the street. Refer to Chapter 7 of the 

Master Plan for more information. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Master Plan would improve pedestrian circulation on the 

campus by establishing an east-west pedestrian promenade, adding new 

sidewalks, connecting discontinuous sidewalks, constructing a walkway from 

the core buildings to Building 301 (Supply and Plant Building) and the planned 

CCT transit stop, adding a walkway to connect Building 103 (Visitor Center) to 

the campus core, and developing a recreational walking path that would encircle 

the campus. Focusing new laboratory and administrative space within the 

existing campus core would also help to emphasize connectivity. New buildings 

constructed under the Master Plan would be connected by new pedestrian 

corridors, which may also serve to improve connectivity among existing 

facilities. The Master Plan also suggests dedicated walkways through the 

parking lots and parking garage. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-27 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Implementation of the Master Plan would allow NIST to ensure that pedestrian 

access complies with MCDOT and SHA standards. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not improve the existing pedestrian 

infrastructure or facilitate achievement of compliance with local standards. 

4.9 Air Quality 

Affected Environment 

Air quality refers to the degree of pollution in the air, often assessed by 

measuring concentrations of pollutants and comparing them to health-based 

limits set by the USEPA. Airborne pollutants originate from a variety of sources 

including anthropogenic (man-made) or natural (e.g., forest fires). Most 

anthropogenic emissions arise from fossil fuel combustion. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) designated USEPA the authority to set National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to limit the concentration of 

pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment (40 CFR 

Part 50). The NAAQS regulate six specific pollutants, commonly referred to as 

“criteria pollutants” that include ozone, particulate matter (PM), carbon 

monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. The 

NAAQS limit PM levels according to particle size, with separate standards for 

coarse (PM10) and fine (PM2.5) particulate matter. Refer to Appendix C, Table C1 for the current NAAQS as of November 2017 (USEPA, 2017c). 

If a region’s air pollutant concentrations are not in violation of the NAAQS, 

USEPA designates the area to be in attainment. For areas USEPA designates as 

nonattainment, there are several categories from marginal to severe that USEPA 

could assign depending on the severity of the exceedance. A nonattainment 

designation requires that a region submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

addresses how the NAAQS will be met in a future year. USEPA later determines 

whether the region has met the SIP goals, and if so, USEPA changes the 

designation from nonattainment area to maintenance area. 

The CAA requires that the USEPA regularly review the NAAQS in the context 

of the latest science and health studies to determine whether the NAAQS still 

adequately protect human health and the environment. As such, USEPA has 

lowered the NAAQS periodically since the program’s inception. Designations 

from previous NAAQS levels still apply until the nonattainment area 

successfully demonstrates attainment and USEPA agrees to re-designate the 

area. 

The USEPA has designated the Metropolitan Washington region, which 

includes Montgomery County, as a “marginal” nonattainment area for the 2008 

ozone standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) and a “moderate” nonattainment 

area for the previous 1997 ozone standard of 80 ppb. Montgomery County is an 

attainment area for PM, CO, SO2, NO2, and lead (40 CFR 81.321). Part of 

Montgomery County is a CO maintenance area, but the campus is not located 

within this area (USEPA, 2017d). 

The CAA General Conformity Rule (GCR) requires that federal actions taking 

place in nonattainment areas must conform to the region’s SIP for reducing 

airborne concentrations of the nonattainment pollutant(s). Because the campus is 

located in an ozone nonattainment area, this EA includes a review of the 

emissions that would be expected from the construction and operational 

activities under the Proposed Action to determine whether they would exceed de 

minimis levels and trigger a SIP conformity determination. The de minimis level 

for the precursors of ozone [nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs)] is 100 tons per year. 

Emission Sources 

Operations at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus generate air emissions from 

multiple sources, including the following: 

• Regulated stationary sources including boilers, large emergency

electric generators (>500 horsepower), a fire lab, and a gasoline tank;

• Insignificant emission sources including fume hoods, cooling towers,

and smaller emergency electric generators (< 500 horsepower); and

• Mobile sources including various maintenance vehicles and commuter

vehicles.

NIST holds a Part 70 permit (24-031-00323) from the MDE Air and Radiation 

Management Administration to operate its emission sources on campus, as 

required under COMAR 26.11.03. This permit consolidates all applicable state 

and federal air quality requirements, including emissions limits and monitoring, 

operational limits, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The permit 

includes specific requirements for 10 emission units: six boilers, two emergency 

generators, Building 205 (Large Fire Facility), and one underground storage 

tank. These are described in more detail below: 

• The largest stationary emission sources at the campus are the six boilers

at Building 302 (Steam and Chilled Water Generation Plant). Four

boilers have heat input ratings of 55 million Btu (MMBtu) per hour and

the other two boilers have heat input ratings of 99.8 MMBtu per hour.

The boilers produce emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, SO2, and PM during

regular operation. All the boilers are equipped with low-NOx burners

and use natural gas as their primary fuel with No. 2 fuel oil as a backup

fuel. The two larger and newer boilers are subject to opacity standards

and SO2 limitations under the New Source Performance Standards for

Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units (40

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-28 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CFR Part 60 Subpart Dc). In 2016, the six boilers consumed a total of 

727 million standard cubic feet (MM scf) of natural gas. 

• The two permitted emergency generators are rated at 500 kW

(supporting Building 227) and 1,000 kW (supporting Building 215).

The permit limits the annual operation of the generators to 100 hours

each. The emergency generators are to subject to operational

limitations and requirements under the National Emissions Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Stationary Reciprocating

Internal Combustion Engines (40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ). NIST

operates 15 other emergency generators (portable and stationary) not

subject to permitting requirements that are fueled by natural gas or

diesel that range in size from 25 kW to 880 kW.

• In Building 205, NIST conducts large-scale tests and experiments

involving fire occurrences in buildings, which require combustion of a

variety of materials using natural gas burners. Emissions from Building

205 are controlled using four preheaters, four air scrubbers, and four

baghouse filters. The permit requires no visible emissions from the

stack during combustion.

• The permitted 6,000-gallon gasoline underground storage tank at

Building 303 (Service Building) is subject to operational and

recordkeeping requirements under the NESHAP for Gasoline

Dispensing Facilities (40 CFR 63, Subpart CCCCCC). NIST also

operates eight 30,000-gallon underground storage tanks containing

heating oil and several other tanks throughout the campus that contain

diesel to support the emergency generator systems.

Other minor stationary emissions sources include fume hoods, which provide 

ventilation for laboratory spaces in multiple buildings. To avoid accidental 

releases of ozone-depleting substances, NIST maintains and disposes of 

refrigerant-containing equipment in accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR 82, Subpart F. 

In Maryland, a permit to construct (PTC) from MDE is required before 

construction or modification of an emission source (COMAR 26.11.02.09), 

including emergency generators and boilers, unless that source is listed under 

COMAR 26.11.02.10 as being exempt from PTC requirements. As part of the 

ongoing CHP addition at Building 302, NIST has obtained a PTC for an 88-

MMbtu natural gas-fired combustion turbine and a 51 MMbtu natural gas-fired 

heat recovery steam generator equipped with low-NOx duct burners. 

Mobile emission sources associated with the campus include personal vehicles 

for ongoing employee commuting to and from work as well as intra-campus 

travel, and grounds maintenance equipment and vehicles. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan would have the potential to directly and indirectly affect air 

quality at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus as a result of the following activities: 

• Onsite stationary sources: Changes in operation of boilers and

emergency generators, and new or relocated laboratory activities.

• Mobile sources: Changes in employee commuting.

• Temporary activities: Construction, demolition, and renovation

activities.

The following subsections describe these air quality impacts in more detail, 

followed by a summary of NIST’s review of the CAA GCR for this action. 

Onsite Stationary Sources 

Under the Master Plan, there is expected to be a minor increase in air emissions 

of NOx, CO, VOC, SO2, and PM from boilers at the Steam and Chilled Water 

Generation Plant associated with expanded service to new facilities. The 

existing boilers have adequate capacity to service a potential increase in steam 

load from the new facilities. The boiler output and fuel consumption are 

expected to increase proportionally with the steam load changes. Operation of 

the boilers would comply with the existing (or subsequent) operating permit. 

Increased air emissions from the boilers would be partially offset by the 

renovation and construction of more energy efficient facilities. The boilers 

would continue to use low-NOx burners. If Boiler 6 at the Steam and Chilled 

Water Generation Plant is found to require removal and replacement, NIST 

would obtain a PTC prior to installation and would update the operating permit 

accordingly. 

As new laboratories are renovated or constructed, the Master Plan would install 

new emergency generators to increase the campus-wide backup capacity from 

approximately 4 MVA to 15 MVA upon completion of the Master Plan. Diesel 

generators with an output of 373 kW or greater would be required to obtain a 

PTC prior to installation and would need to be added to the operating permit. 

Testing and operation of the new generators would increase criteria pollutant 

emissions. However, emissions from the emergency generators would only 

occur during testing once a week and during occasional power outages. 

The Master Plan would construct a new Wind/Fire Facility with emissions 

similar to those from Building 205. This new facility would require a PTC prior 

to construction and would include pollution control devices similar to those 

installed at Building 205. 

The new SRM Facility would include refrigeration equipment for the storage of 

reference materials. All new and existing refrigeration equipment would 

continue to be managed in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 82, 

Subpart F. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-29 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The emission units at the campus would continue to comply with all regulatory 

requirements and emission standards. The permitted emission units are not 

expected to exceed the operational or emission limits established in the Part 70 

operating permit. Air emission increases under the Master Plan are not expected 

to cause exceedances of the NAAQS within or outside of the campus. In 

addition to pollution control devices and operational limitations, the 

undeveloped vegetated buffer surrounding the campus (which would be 

expanded under the Master Plan) would also help absorb pollutants and mitigate 

expected emissions increases. 

Increased electricity consumption associated with new facilities and increased 

chilled water demand would result in increased fuel consumption by the sources 

that supply electricity to the regional network and lead to off-site increases in air 

emissions. However, this would be offset by improved building envelope and 

mechanical efficiencies. The electricity consumption impacts would be further 

offset by increased onsite electricity production from the CHP addition and the 

installation of solar arrays, as discussed in Section 5 (Cumulative Effects). 

It is expected that changes in VOC emissions because of the installation of 

additional fume hoods in various labs would be negligible. 

Mobile Sources 

The Master Plan would increase the number of personnel commuting to and 

working at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus by approximately 27% (from 4,007 

to 5,106) over the course of a 20-year period. POV use could increase by 

approximately this same percentage, resulting in a corresponding increase in 

criteria pollutant emissions relative to the No-Action Alternative. However, 

emissions from personnel commuting to the campus would be expected to 

decrease in the future because of USEPA’s Tier 3 emission standards and fuel 

program. The Tier 3 program mandates lower sulfur gasoline, evaporative 

emission standards, and exhaust emission standards that reduce NOx, VOC, 

PM2.5, CO, and air toxics. Compared to 2014 fleet-average emission standards, 

the new Tier 3 standards represent an 80% reduction in light-duty vehicle 

emissions of non-methane organic gas and NOx, and a 70% reduction in pervehicle PM standards. The vehicle emissions standards component of Tier 3 

phases in over years 2017-2025, and the transition to 10 parts per million (ppm) 

sulfur gasoline occurred in 2017. Additionally, as discussed in Sections 4.8.1 

(Vehicle Circulation and Parking) and 5 (Cumulative Effects), the POV use 

resulting from this personnel increase would likely be at least partially offset by 

improved housing availability near the campus (resulting in shorter commutes), 

increased availability of public and other alternative methods of transportation, 

and continued innovation in autonomous vehicles and ridesharing services. As a 

result, the net employee commuting emissions over the course of the Master 

Plan may actually decrease relative to current levels, despite the increase in 

campus population. Refer to Section 4.8 (Circulation and Transportation) for 

details regarding efforts to encourage the use of public and alternative transit to 

help offset projected increases in commuting-related emissions. 

The relocation of the commercial vehicle entrance to Gate F could have a minor 

effect on air quality near sensitive populations east of the campus. To mitigate 

this concern, the Master Plan would seek to limit commercial vehicle congestion 

in this area by separating commercial vehicle and visitor traffic into separate 

entrances at Gate F, limiting the build-up of commercial vehicles as they enter 

the campus. NIST would also reconfigure Gate A to reduce queuing and vehicle 

idling at this gate. By enhancing the central core of the campus, the need for 

intra-campus travel is expected to decrease. Refer to Section 4.8 (Circulation 

and Transportation) for details regarding the expected changes in vehicular use 

resulting from the Master Plan. 

Temporary Activities 

Construction, demolition, and renovation (CDR) activities required for the 

Master Plan would result in temporary minor emissions of NOx, VOC, CO, PM, 

and SO2 from the use of on-road vehicles, such as delivery vehicles, tractor 

trailers, and dump trucks, as well as nonroad construction vehicles, such as 

excavators, cranes, track loaders, backhoes, and bulldozers over the course of an 

approximately 20-year period. The maximum annual projected NOx, VOC, CO, 

PM, and SO2 emissions from construction activities and the methodology used 

to calculate these emissions can be found in Appendix C. 

CDR activities often cause fugitive dust (PM) emissions that could have a 

temporary impact on local air quality. Dust emissions during building 

construction are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, grading, and 

the construction of the building itself. Emissions may vary substantially from 

day to day, depending upon the level of activity, specific type of activity, and 

weather conditions. The quantity of dust emissions from construction operations 

is proportional to the area of land where the activity is taking place, as well as 

the level of construction activity. NIST would employ dust suppression control 

measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions in accordance with state 

requirements. 

If any lead-containing materials, asbestos-containing materials, or equipment 

that contains ozone-depleting substances are encountered during construction, 

NIST would remove and dispose of these materials and equipment in 

accordance with all applicable regulations to ensure air quality is not impacted. 

GCR Analysis and Emissions Summary 

NIST has prepared a GCR Applicability Analysis for the Master Plan (Appendix 

C). This analysis conservatively estimates the emissions of nonattainment 

criteria pollutants using a worst-case scenario construction schedule. Because of 

more stringent emission standards and improving vehicle efficiencies, emission 

rates are expected to decrease over the course of the Master Plan. Therefore, 

emissions from construction activities and operation of the affected facilities 

were modeled using 2019 as the construction year to provide a conservative 

estimate. This analysis demonstrates that the Master Plan would result in 

emissions well below the de minimis thresholds for nonattainment criteria 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-30 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pollutants and their precursors (NOx and VOC). The Master Plan is therefore 

not subject to GCR requirements and a conformity determination is not required. 

The air quality effects of criteria pollutants at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus 

and beyond the campus boundary would be minimal under the Master Plan and 

would not interfere with regional efforts to meet the NAAQS. 

Environmental Consequences - No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would result in no changes in campus air quality 

compared to the baseline. The existing emissions-producing operations would 

continue at their current locations in accordance with the installation’s operating 

permit and applicable standards. Emissions from personnel commuting to the 

campus would be expected to decrease in the future because of enhanced 

emission standards. 

4.10 Climate Change 

Affected Environment 

Climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate 

lasting for an extended period of time. In other words, climate change includes 

major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among others, that 

occur over several decades or longer. This occurs naturally over time, but 

evidence has shown that climate change is occurring at an accelerated rate 

because of the increase of the average global surface temperature, also known as 

global warming. The evidence for rapid climate change includes the rate of sea 

level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, 

declining Arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme weather events, ocean 

acidification, and decreased snow cover (NASA, 2017). 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

The recent and ongoing warming of Earth’s atmosphere is largely caused by 

human activities. The burning of fossil fuels and other industrial processes 

release significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs into the 

lower atmosphere. GHGs contribute to global warming by absorbing infrared 

radiation emitted from the earth’s surface and then radiating much of this energy 

back to the earth’s surface. 

USEPA classifies GHG emissions and reduction targets as Scope 1 (direct 

emissions), Scope 2 (indirect emissions from purchased energy), or Scope 3 

(other indirect emissions). Scope 1 emissions include emissions from direct 

fossil fuel combustion such as in the operation of boilers, generators, 

incinerators, and vehicles operated by the organization, as well as fugitive 

emissions of refrigerants and other GHGs (e.g., fire suppressants). Scope 2 

emissions include upstream emissions from purchased electricity, steam, 

heating, and cooling. Scope 3 emissions include all other indirect emissions not 

included in Scope 2, such as emissions from employee commuting, employee 

business travel, transmission and distribution losses associated with purchased 

electricity, methane emissions from contracted solid waste disposal, methane 

and nitrous oxide emissions from contracted wastewater treatment, and upstream 

emissions associated with purchased products and services. 

Operations at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus generate GHG emissions from 

multiple sources, including operation of boilers, emergency generators, and 

NIST fleet vehicles (Scope 1); purchase of electricity (Scope 2); and employee 

commuting and business travel, transmission and distribution losses from 

purchased electricity, and methane emissions from contracted solid waste 

disposal (Scope 3). NIST purchases electricity for the campus from the PEPCO, 

which has a power supply portfolio consisting of a mix of coal-fired and natural 

gas-fired generation (60.8%) and carbon-free generation (39.2%) (PEPCO, 

2016). 

Effects of Climate Change 

General climate change effects that have been observed and are projected in the 

future include more frequent and heavier rains and storms, increased flooding 

and drought, more severe and frequent heat waves, worsened air quality, sealevel rise, and negative impacts on ecosystems and wildlife (CEQ, 2016). 

Maryland is currently being affected by climate change in the following ways: 

longer droughts and heat waves during the summer months; higher risk of 

flooding because of intensified rainfall events; health problems related to air 

pollution; and coastal flooding as a result of rising sea levels (Montgomery 

County, 2009). While current and future emission control measures should help 

to reduce future impacts on climate change, GHGs already in the atmosphere 

will continue to cause climate change for many years to come (CEQ, 2016). In 

Maryland, this is expected to result in progressively hotter and more severe 

weather conditions, further exacerbating the effects described above and 

straining both natural and urban environments (USGCRP, 2017). 

Accordingly, climate change adaptation and resilience, which are defined as 

adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or expected 

climate changes, are important considerations when planning an action (CEQ, 

2016). Climate change impacts of particular relevance to the NIST Gaithersburg 

Campus include more severe and frequent heat waves, which would affect 

cooling demand on Building 302 (Steam and Chilled Water Generation Plant); 

prolonged droughts, which would affect vegetation on campus; and intensified 

storm and rainfall events, which affect vegetation and buildings and would put 

the campus at higher risk of flooding. NIST considers these climate change 

factors when planning future actions at the campus. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Under the Master Plan, steam generation activities and operation of the new 

facilities, including increased electricity consumption and periodic emergency 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-31 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

generator use, would generate recurring direct and indirect (Scope 1, 2, and 3) 

GHG emissions. The overall increase in climate-controlled floor space would 

require an increase in the campus steam load, emergency generator capacity, and 

purchases of electricity. This would result in more fuel consumption by boilers 

and generators throughout the campus, and potentially could result in increased 

fuel consumption by the sources that supply electricity to the PEPCO regional 

network, leading to increases in direct and indirect GHG emissions. These 

increases would be mitigated by the construction of more energy efficient 

facilities and the potential reduction in the overall energy intensity of campus 

facilities. The Master Plan would include installation, where feasible, of 

renewable energy photovoltaic energy systems on top of new and renovated 

building structures as well as over the canopies shielding the parking areas. In 

addition, as discussed in Section 5 (Cumulative Effects), separate projects are 

underway to construct a new CHP plant within Building 302 (Steam and Chilled 

Water Generation Plant) and to develop a new 5-MW photovoltaic solar array 

on 15 acres at the south end of campus. These projects would further offset 

GHG emissions from the campus by reducing campus reliance on purchased 

electricity. Also, as discussed in Section 4.6 (Sustainable Development), NIST 

would continue to purchase RECs to reduce campus reliance on non-renewable 

sources of electricity in accordance with EO 13693. 

Construction, renovation, and demolition activities under the Master Plan would 

temporarily generate direct (Scope 1) GHG emissions from construction 

equipment and indirect (Scope 3) GHG emissions from contracted solid waste 

disposal. 

While the Master Plan would increase the number of personnel commuting to 

and working at the campus, NIST assumes that this represents a relocation of 

existing commuter-related GHG emissions (i.e., the Master Plan would not 

“create” new commuters). Details regarding the current and future commuting 

methods and routes of these new campus personnel do not exist, and the increase 

or decrease in associated GHG emissions cannot be calculated. However, as 

discussed in Sections 4.8.1 (Vehicle Circulation and Parking) and 5 (Cumulative 

Effects), the POV use and GHG emissions resulting from this personnel increase 

would likely be at least partially offset by improved housing availability near the 

campus (resulting in shorter commutes), increased availability of public and 

other alternative methods of transportation, and continued innovation in 

autonomous vehicles and ridesharing services. 

Effects of Climate Change 

As discussed in Section 4.2 (Biological Resources) and Section 4.5.3 

(Stormwater Management), the Master Plan would incorporate various 

landscaping improvements, including reforestation and revegetation efforts. 

These efforts would increase runoff infiltration and uptake, thereby putting the 

campus at lower risk of flooding during intensified rainfall events. Replacing 

existing plants with low-maintenance grasses and other native vegetation would 

also avoid creating a new irrigation demand within the campus. The use of 

drought-resistant landscaping would improve the resilience of the campus 

vegetation during prolonged droughts, thus reducing localized climate change 

effects within the campus. 

As discussed in Section 4.5.4 (Energy Systems), the Master Plan could result in 

an increased demand for chilled water from Building 302 (Steam and Chilled 

Water Generation Plant). More severe and frequent heat waves because of 

continued climate change could further increase this projected cooling need, 

leading to additional electrical demand and the associated GHG emissions and 

potentially contributing to further climate change. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would result in no changes in GHG emissions at the 

campus and would not increase contributions to climate change. However, the 

No-Action Alternative would not achieve the potential improvements in energy 

and water efficiency described under the Master Plan and would not reduce the 

potential impacts of climate change-driven droughts and heat waves within the 

campus. 

Localized climate change effects within the campus are expected to increase 

over time. Under the No-Action Alternative, the existing landscape vegetation 

would remain relatively more drought-prone and therefore become less resilient 

as droughts associated with climate change become more prolonged and severe. 

4.11 Cultural and Historic Resources 

4.11.1 Architectural Resources 

Affected Environment 

Historic properties include prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, or objects that are significant in American history, architecture, 

archeology, engineering, and culture. Historic properties serve as resources, as 

they provide valuable information about the history of human life and cultures. 

To ensure the protection of historic resources, the U.S. Congress passed the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in 1966 and then amended the 

NHPA in 1976, 1980, 1992, and 2016. The NHPA established the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and authorized the creation and 

maintenance of the NRHP The NRHP is composed of districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, 

archeology, engineering, and culture. 

Typically, properties considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are at least 

50 years old. A property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP if it 1) possesses 

the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and 

association, and 2) meets at least one of the following NRHP Criteria for 

Evaluation (NPS, 2002): 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-32 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to

the broad pattern of U.S. history (Criterion A).

B. It is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past

(Criterion B).

C. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method

of construction; it represents the work of a master; it possesses high

artistic values; or it represents a significant and distinguishable entity

whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion C).

D. It has yielded or may be likely to yield important information in

prehistory or history (Criterion D).

Section 106 of the NHPA, which is implemented under 36 CFR 800, requires 

federal agencies to consider the effects of undertakings (i.e., actions) on any 

historic property, and to afford the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment 

on such undertakings. An adverse effect is anything that could alter the historic 

fabric (i.e., characteristics) that makes the property eligible. Examples of 

adverse effects may include changes to the property or alterations to landscape, 

noise levels, visual characteristics, traffic patterns, or land use near the property, 

depending on how these changes specifically impact the property. 

The NHPA also authorized the creation of a State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) for each state. The SHPO participates in statewide historic preservation 

planning and surveying activities; nominates properties for the NRHP; provides 

advice, assistance, training, and public outreach; and participates in Section 106 

undertaking reviews. In Maryland, the Maryland Historical Trust (a division of 

the Maryland Department of Planning) serves as the SHPO. 

Additionally, the Maryland SHPO administers its own program for properties 

that are of significance to American history and culture. The Maryland 

Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) includes all properties from the NRHP 

that are located in Maryland, plus additional properties that are considered 

significant in Maryland history and culture. Properties listed in the MIHP are 

protected under the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 24A of the 

Montgomery County Code), which provides certain controls regarding 

alteration, demolition, and maintenance of the property. 

The NIST Gaithersburg Campus was constructed in the 1960’s to relocate NIST 

(then known as the National Bureau of Standards) from its overcrowded campus 

in Washington, DC. Prior to becoming the campus, the site was used for 

agricultural purposes. Even with a few newer facilities constructed over the 

decades, the campus remains today much as originally developed except for 

several building additions and facility upgrades. Buildings completed in the 

initial campus development have begun to reach 50 years of age. The major 

buildings of this period established a campus architectural identity, designed in 

the International Style with character-defining features of curtain-wall 

construction, ample use of glass, clean monolithic forms, and minimal 

ornamentation. The suburban setting, formal landscape, ample parking, largescale monumental buildings, and general and specialized laboratories are 

hallmarks of postwar research campus design. Building 101 (Administration 

Building) is the central campus focus and the destination for public, 

professional, and social events. It is an example of the International Style 

applied to a principal building in a campus setting. Together with Building 101, 

eight other buildings and their surroundings form a cohesive architectural 

precinct within the campus. 

In 2015, NIST performed a historic assessment of the campus in accordance 

with the NHPA. The Historic Assessment recommended the central campus 

precinct eligible as a historic district, significant under Criterion A for its 

association with events that made important contributions to the broad patterns 

of history under the Science and Technology and Postwar Research Campus 

Design themes, and under Criterion C as a recognizable entity that embodies the 

characteristic of Post War Research Campus design. That district included nine 

contributory buildings completed between 1965 and 1966, and one noncontributing building (Building 227) completed in 1999. The campus landscape 

plan, including the Newton Apple Tree and the flag pole (both located near 

Building 101), were also determined contributing resources. Building 101 was 

recommended individually eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a representative 

example of the International Style (Criterion C). 

Upon review and evaluation of NIST’s determination and recommendation for 

the above described historic district at the campus core, the Maryland SHPO 

concluded that the entire 579-acre campus is eligible for listing on the NRHP as 

a historic district. The Maryland SHPO further recommended that all 26 

resources constructed between 1960 and 1969 were contributing resources to the 

NRHP-eligible district. The 47 resources constructed after 1970 were identified 

as non-contributing resources. NIST subsequently requested a formal 

determination by the Keeper of the NRHP pursuant to 36 CFR Part 63. On June 

22, 2016, The Keeper of the NRHP responded with a formal, non-appealable 

determination, namely: that the entire 579-acre NIST campus is eligible for 

listing on the NRHP as a historic district under National Register Criteria A and 

C for its historic and architectural importance. The historic district's period of 

significance corresponds to the initial period of construction of the campus in 

1960-1969. Outside of the campus, no extant properties listed in the NRHP or 

the Maryland Register of Historic Places are located in the immediate vicinity of 

the campus, with the nearest property (the Gaithersburg Latitude Observatory, a 

National Historic Landmark) being located more than a half-mile east of the 

campus (Maryland Historical Trust, 2017). 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

NIST understands and acknowledges that the Master Plan, because it 

recommends changes within an NRHP-eligible historic district, is an 

undertaking as defined by the NHPA. Accordingly, NIST has consulted with 

and sought input from the Maryland SHPO on its development. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-33 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Master Plan embraces the campus status as an eligible historic district and 

proposes new buildings that would be architecturally compatible in scale, 

massing, and design approach with the original campus buildings. In accordance 

with Section 106 of the NHPA, NIST consulted with the Maryland SHPO to 

determine if any new construction, renovations, additions, or demolition under 

the Master Plan would cause adverse effects. On March 16, 2018, the Maryland 

SHPO agreed with NIST’s determination that the Master Plan would have no 

adverse effect on historic properties. This finding is contingent on NIST 

submitting individual undertakings to the SHPO during the planning stage for 

review. NIST acknowledges that future expansions and alterations under the 

Master Plan would be governed by the NHPA and the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67). No impacts on historic properties 

outside the campus are anticipated. Refer to Appendix B for NIST’s 

correspondence with the Maryland SHPO regarding the Master Plan. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not involve direct or indirect impacts on 

potentially historic properties at NIST or in the surrounding area. Therefore, 

there would be no adverse effect to historic resources. 

4.11.2 Archeological Resources 

Affected Environment 

Archeological resources are material remains of past life or activities. Some 

examples include pottery, bottles, weapons, tools, rock carvings, gravesites, and 

other evidence of prior inhabitation. Archeological sites that retain sufficient 

integrity may be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. 

In June 2014, the MTA conducted a Phase I archeological survey for the CCT 

project in Rockville and Gaithersburg, Maryland, a portion of which 

encompassed 9.9 acres of the western portion of the NIST Gaithersburg Campus 

along Quince Orchard Road. The survey identified a cluster of late nineteenthto twentieth-century domestic and architectural refuse associated with disposal 

activities; however, MTA was unable to determine the function and period(s) of 

deposition for these artifacts because of the disturbed context of the artifacts, 

limited date range with the artifact assemblage, and lack of features. 

Excavations in the area also found evidence of graded fill associated with 

landscaping and contouring of the campus during construction activities. 

Therefore, MTA concluded that the study area was unlikely to contribute new 

research into late nineteenth- to early twentieth-century domestic activities in 

Montgomery County because of varying levels of disturbance associated with 

agricultural and grading activities (MTA, 2014). 

While no other archeological surveys have been performed to date within the 

campus, the campus is generally believed to have been extensively disturbed 

from agricultural use and subsequent development, resulting in a low potential 

for significant archeological resources. NIST is currently coordinating plans for 

a Phase I archeological survey of the campus, which will include a literature 

review and fieldwork at selected locations to investigate the archeological 

potential throughout the campus. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

According to all current and available records, the Master Plan would not 

involve any earth disturbance within known archeologically sensitive areas or 

any previously identified archeological sites. However, certain elements of the 

Master Plan may have higher potential to encounter archeological resources 

because of more extensive grading and earthwork that could impact previously 

undisturbed areas. In particular, a Phase I survey should be conducted at the 

proposed site of the NCNR expansion because of the extensive amount of 

earthwork that would be required for its construction. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, NIST would not perform any earth 

disturbance. The No-Action Alternative would not adversely affect any 

archeological sites listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

4.12 Visual Impacts 

4.12.1 Aesthetics 

Affected Environment 

Aesthetics of a site are affected by physical characteristics, including the 

following: 

• Vegetation, which may conceal or complement views; 

• Building characteristics, such as height and architectural features; and 

• Topography. 

Development projects have the potential to modify aesthetics by changing one 

or more of these physical characteristics. 

The viewscape of the NIST Gaithersburg Campus is characterized by rolling 

terrain and an open atmosphere, complemented by wooded areas. The campus is 

visually connected, with low-scale brick buildings in a suburban setting. 

Building 101 (Administration Building) is the central focus of the campus, with 

an eleven-story tower and public spaces arranged around the first floor. Figure 

4-5 demonstrates a view of Building 101 from within the campus. The research 

buildings are mainly buff-colored brick and the support buildings are red brick. 

The remaining campus laboratories and associated support facilities have a 

similar look, but are designed to accommodate designated research purposes. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-34 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As noted in Chapter 2 of the Master Plan, the beautiful campus and open green 

space were among the key positives highlighted in the results of a 2016 

employee survey. 

The Maryland SHPO and the Keeper of the NRHP have determined that the 

campus is eligible for listing on the NRHP because of its historical and 

architectural significance. The planning of any new construction or renovation 

projects within the campus must therefore take into account the potential 

aesthetic effects on, and compatibility with, the identified historic resources 

within the campus. Refer to Section 4.11.1 (Architectural Resources) for 

additional information. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan seeks to complement the aesthetics of the historic campus by 

preserving the exteriors of old buildings while replacing the infrastructure of 

those in poor repair with new mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and security 

features. Proposed new facilities would be designed to be architecturally 

compatible in scale, massing, and design approach with the original campus 

buildings in accord with the principles of the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Structures. These buildings will be three 

stories above grade to match the existing GPLs. Limiting the height of the 

conference addition to Building 101 would ensure that the office areas in the 

tower retain unobstructed natural views of the northern area of the campus. 

Prescribed heights and set-backs for new and renovated facilities are described 

in Exhibit 88 in the Master Plan. 

The Master Plan would plant additional forested areas and smaller focused 

clusters of trees, which would enhance the natural look and feel of the campus. 

The reforestation efforts would occur on the eastern side of the campus, 

extending to the west and to the south. These forested areas would assist in 

creating a barrier for the campus from the noise and visual presence of Interstate 

270, but would not adversely affect or obscure historic views of the campus 

structures. The tree clusters would buffer the visual impact of the campus 

parking lots. The Master Plan would also replace mowed lawns with native 

meadows, which would provide for a complementary view to the natural 

landscape. 

During implementation of the Master Plan, construction equipment may 

temporarily impact the viewscape from surrounding areas. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not impact the campus aesthetic. The NoAction Alternative would also not enhance the viewscape on the campus and its 

surroundings. While the No-Action Alternative would preserve the current 

aesthetics of historic resources within the campus, it would fail to replace older, 

temporary buildings with newer, more aesthetically pleasing architecture. 

Figure 4-5. View of Building 101 from the Southeast 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-35 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.12.2 Light Pollution 

Affected Environment 

Exterior lighting of parking lots, roads, buildings, and pathways is often used to 

enhance the safety and security of persons and property. Exterior lighting may 

also be used to emphasize features of architectural and historic significance and 

enhance the enjoyment of outdoor areas. 

Excessive and inappropriate exterior lighting, however, can generate light 

pollution. The International Dark Sky Association (IDA) identifies four main 

elements of light pollution (IDA, 2016): 

• Urban Sky Glow – the brightening of night sky over inhabited areas,

reducing the visibility of stars;

• Light Trespass – light falling where it is not intended, wanted, or

needed, such as light from a streetlight entering a residential window;

• Glare – excessive brightness that can cause visual discomfort and

decreased visibility; and

• Clutter – bright, confusing, and excessive groupings of light sources.

Clutter contributes to urban sky glow, light trespass, and glare.

Furthermore, light pollution associated with over-illumination or inefficient 

fixtures can contribute to excess energy consumption. 

Several standards and guidelines exist for designing effective and appropriate 

exterior lighting systems, as follows: the IDA Outdoor Lighting Code Handbook 

(version 1.14, December 2000/September 2002), the Illuminating Engineering 

Society (IES) Lighting Handbook (tenth edition, 2011), the United States Green 

Building Council, and the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design 

and Construction (2009). 

Section 24.220(d) of the City of Gaithersburg Municipal Code requires that 

adequate lighting be provided for parking lots, areas, or facilities that will be 

used at night. The Code also requires that lighting be installed in a manner not to 

reflect or cause glare into abutting or facing residential premises. There are 

overhead streetlights installed throughout the campus, along streets, pathways, 

and parking lots for safety and security purposes. This lighting is directed 

downward and complies with the City’s applicable lighting requirements. NIST 

also employs low-rise light bollards along pedestrian walkways in multiple 

locations around the campus, which were recently converted or replaced with 

light-emitting diode fixtures. The use of the bollards also minimizes light 

trespass from the campus to the surrounding communities. 

One of the main aspects of energy efficient lighting involves the use of 

daylighting, which focuses on organizing buildings to maximize the use of 

natural light for illuminating spaces and increasing employee comfort. The 

NIST Sustainable Design Manual sets a minimum goal of a 2% daylighting 

factor for 75% of the campus’ regularly occupied buildings. The use of 

daylighting, however, can increase the potential for light trespass from interior 

lighting during nighttime hours. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan is not expected to generate any substantial changes in light 

trespass outside the campus boundary from new exterior lighting. The Master 

Plan would incorporate a sustainable design approach. As described below, 

redesigned lighting features would be energy efficient and would minimize 

impacts on light pollution. 

The construction, renovation, or replacement of new facilities, the east-west 

pedestrian walkway, and parking areas under the Master Plan would require the 

installation of additional lighting systems for these areas to ensure that the safety 

and security of the campus is maintained. To minimize light pollution impacts, 

NIST would ensure that all new exterior lighting systems installed under the 

Master Plan are designed in accordance with current IES and IDA guidance and 

City of Gaithersburg requirements. The Master Plan also incorporates strategic 

tree plantings in the eastern portion of the campus to intercept light trespass 

outside the campus boundary. 

The Master Plan would increase the use of natural lighting throughout the 

campus to the extent feasible. This would involve redevelopment with large 

windows oriented north to south, to minimize glare. While new windows would 

increase the potential for light trespass from interior lighting, this would be 

mitigated through the use of comprehensive lighting control systems for 

appropriate spaces and tinting of some windows during specific hours of the 

day. The intensity of light would be accurately tailored to the task requirements 

of the users, with little or no excess capacity. Similar to existing operations, 

interior lighting would be reduced after hours, and would turn off when spaces 

are not being used. 

The new lighting would have a minor impact on on-campus users. The lighting 

characteristics mentioned above would mitigate the potential impacts. 

The Master Plan could result in minor temporary impacts on light trespass 

because of the use of supplemental lighting (e.g., temporary portable lighting) 

during construction activities. NIST would conduct construction activities 

during daylight hours, primarily to limit noise during off hours. Temporary 

construction lighting may be used to illuminate work areas in the nighttime to 

ensure safety and security at unoccupied work sites. If applicable, NIST would 

mitigate this temporary lighting by ensuring construction contractors direct 

lighting away from the campus boundary whenever feasible. 

The Master Plan would provide solar collection on new non-laboratory facilities, 

GPLs, the new parking structure, and over the surface parking lots. Reflected 

sunlight from solar panels installed under the Master Plan would have the 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-36 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

potential to cause glare, creating a potential nuisance in the vicinity of the 

campus if the panels are not sited and designed appropriately. When designing 

specific solar panels under the Master Plan, NIST would ensure that the designs 

incorporate glare reduction measures (e.g., anti-reflective coatings and textured 

glass) and that the panels are sited in a manner to avoid creating excessive glare 

within or outside of the campus. 

Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not impact lighting at the campus. The NoAction Alternative would also not improve existing interior or exterior campus 

lighting and efficiency. 

4.13 Noise Levels 

Affected Environment 

High noise levels that occur over a long duration can impact the health of 

exposed populations and be a nuisance to the surrounding community. The Aweighted decibel scale (dBA) is a logarithmic scale generally used to measure 

noise levels because it can account for the sensitivity of the human ear across the 

frequency spectrum. Table 4-1 compares decibel noise levels, common noise 

sources, and the relative perception of these noise levels. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates 

workplace noise with standards for two different types of noise: constant and 

impulse. The OSHA limit for constant noise is 90 dBA for eight hours; however, 

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends a 

constant noise limit of 85 dBA for eight hours to minimize occupational noise 

induced hearing loss. The OSHA maximum sound level for impulse noise is 140 

dBA. In areas where workplace noise exceeds these sound levels, employers 

must provide workers with personal protective equipment to reduce noise 

exposure. 

State and local government agencies regulate noise within the community. Noise 

standards set by the state under COMAR 26.02.03 limit the 24-hour average 

sound levels for residential, commercial, and industrial zones to 55, 64, and 70 

dBA, respectively. The Montgomery County Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 

31B of the County Code) established maximum allowable noise levels in the 

county. The Montgomery County noise exposure limits for residential and nonresidential properties are summarized in Table 4-2. At the source, noise levels 

from construction activities must not exceed 75 dBA between 7:00 am and 5:00 

pm, with higher allowances if the Montgomery County Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) has approved a noise suppression plan. 

The campus is surrounded on three sides by busy secondary roads and an 

interstate highway, with commercial and residential developments beyond. 

Residential areas approach or border the campus to the west, across Quince 

Orchard Road near Gate D; to the south and southwest, through forested areas 

with rolling topography; and to the southeast, across Muddy Branch Road 

between Gates E and F. Ambient noise levels at the campus are affected by 

noise generated both onsite and offsite. Minor noise associated with vehicular 

traffic on nearby roads is the primary source of noise in the area immediately 

surrounding the campus. Sources of noise within the campus include chillers at 

Buildings 235 (NIST Center for Neutron Research) and 302 (Steam and Chilled 

Water Generation Plant), an outdoor metal grinding facility west of Building 

301 (Supply and Plant Building), exhaust fans at Building 205 (Large Fire 

Facility), emergency generators, and commercial vehicles and other vehicles 

entering and exiting the campus. NIST personnel report that the campus has no 

history of recurring noise complaints from neighbors. 

Table 4-1. Perception of Noise 

Noise Level 

(dBA) Common Noise Source 

Subjective 

Evaluation 

100 Automobile horn 10 feet away. 

Very Loud 90 Diesel truck 50 feet away. 

80 Very loud speech 3 feet away. 

Loud 70 Outdoors in a commercial area. 

60 Average of normal speech three feet away. 

Moderate 50 Open office background noise. 

40 Quiet suburban environment at night. 

Faint 30 Quiet rural environment at night. 

20 Concert hall background noise. 

Very Faint 10 Human breathing. 

0 Threshold of hearing or audibility. Inaudible 

Sources: Egan 1988, Cavanaugh 1998, and Burge 2002. 

Table 4-2. Montgomery County Maximum Allowable Noise 

Receiving Noise Area Daytime Nighttime 

Residential 65 dBA 55 dBA 

Non-Residential 67 dBA 62 dBA 

Source: DEP, 2014. Montgomery County Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 31B 

of the County Code). 

Note: Daytime hours are 7:00 am to 9:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am to 9:00 

pm on weekends and holidays. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-37 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Under the Master Plan, the overall change to operational noise levels is expected 

to be minor. The upgrade and expansion of facilities would introduce new minor 

noise sources on campus, including new laboratory activities, air-handling units, 

exhaust fans, and emergency generators. The majority of new development 

would be focused around the center of the campus, although some development 

would be closer to the boundary and could have the potential to have a minor 

increase in noise levels. Under the Master Plan, the increased operational 

ambient noise levels at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus would remain within 

Maryland and Montgomery County noise thresholds and would not adversely 

affect the character of the site. 

The proposed Wind/Fire Facility has the potential to create a minor increase in 

noise because of the large blowers that would be used to simulate strong wind 

environments inside the building. Prior to design, NIST would conduct a more 

detailed noise study to assess the potential need for noise mitigation measures 

(e.g., baffles, or additional tree screening around the building) and would ensure 

that ambient noise levels remain below relevant state and county noise 

thresholds. In addition, the overall impacts would be mitigated by an anticipated 

low frequency of use and only during daytime. 

The Master Plan would also include the addition of two 3,500-ton chillers at 

Building 302 (Steam and Chilled Water Generation Plant). As with the 

Wind/Fire Facility, NIST would determine appropriate noise mitigation 

measures as this project enters the design phase, but increases in ambient noise 

are expected to be minor. 

As new laboratories are renovated or constructed, the Master Plan would install 

new emergency generators to increase the campus-wide backup capacity from 

approximately 4 MVA to 15 MVA upon completion of the Master Plan. Noise 

increases outside of the campus from generator testing are expected to be 

minimal, because of the infrequency of their operation (automatically tested 

once per week during daytime hours, with additional manual testing performed 

once per month) and the presence of the expanded forest buffer around the 

campus perimeter under the Master Plan. 

On-campus noise from commercial vehicles would be shifted from the Gate 

C/Building 301 area (west campus) to the area around Gate F, where the new 

Commercial Vehicle Inspection Complex would be located. This would 

decrease overall on-campus noise because of fewer commercial vehicles driving 

on the campus but would increase off-campus noise near Gate F because of the 

added presence of commercial vehicles entering the campus. Proposed Gate F 

developments under the Master Plan would seek to mitigate off-campus noise by 

placing vegetative screening between the complex and the campus boundary and 

by establishing a separate commercial vehicle entrance to limit the presence of 

commercial vehicles idling on the perimeter of the campus. As the Commercial 

Vehicle Inspection Complex project enters the design phase and additional 

details become available regarding potential noise-generating activities, NIST 

would evaluate whether additional design and landscaping measures would be 

necessary to mitigate noise trespass into adjacent residential properties. 

Construction activities associated with the Master Plan would temporarily 

increase environmental noise levels in the vicinity of the project sites, primarily 

because of the use of heavy equipment. Equipment that may be used includes 

backhoes, bulldozers, and excavators. Construction equipment noise emission 

levels generally range between 74 to 101 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the 

source, depending on the type of equipment (FHWA, 2014). The construction 

noise would be temporary and would dissipate as the distance from the source 

increases. Thus, it is expected that residents in surrounding neighborhoods and 

visitors to nearby parks would not experience noise louder than the applicable 

noise limit. To further limit impacts on nearby residences, NIST would limit 

disruptive noise-generating construction activities to normal daytime working 

hours (beginning no earlier than 7:00 a.m.). Construction personnel would take 

the necessary precautions (e.g., hearing protection) to ensure that they would not 

be exposed to noise louder than the OSHA standard of 90 dBA for 8 hours. 

Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not affect ambient or interior noise levels 

associated with routine activities. The No-Action Alternative would not generate 

any temporary noise associated with construction activities. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 4-38 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Cumulative Effects 

The Master Plan, in combination with the other past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions at or near the campus, could 

contribute to cumulative improvements and impacts on certain 

environmental resources. Cumulative effects can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over a period of time. 

5.1 Evaluated Actions 

This section identifies the other past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable actions at or near the NIST Gaithersburg Campus that 

were considered and evaluated in this cumulative improvements 

and impacts analysis. 

5.1.1 Projects Within the Campus 

Past Actions 

The following actions were completed within the NIST 

Gaithersburg Campus within the five years spanning from January 

2013 through May 2018: 

• Large Fire Facility Renovation/Expansion. See parcel 1

on Figure 5-1. Building 205 (Large Fire Facility) is an

above-grade, two-level structure that was constructed in

1974 to provide for expanded testing needs in fire

research. The building was recently expanded to 48,750

GSF, over twice its original size, to include a posttensioned reinforced strong floor and strong wall for

construction of large-scale burn props. Adjoining the test

area are calibration and test equipment spaces, offices,

and an observation overlook. This project also constructed

a new emissions control system (afterburners, dry

scrubbers, and a baghouse) on the north side of the

building.

• NCNR Storage Construction (Building 321). See parcel

2 on Figure 5-1. Building 321 (NCNR Storage) is a 1,900-

GSF facility completed in 2017 for storage of equipment

to support NCNR operations.

• Road and Sidewalk Construction at Building 207. See

parcel 3 on Figure 5-1. An approximately 350-foot

roadway and 450-foot sidewalk were constructed to

connect Building 207 (Robotics Test Facility), which was

completed in 2010, to Center Drive.

• Consolidated Logistics Center Addition to Building

301. See parcel 4 on Figure 5-1. Building 301 (Supply

and Plant Building) is a single-level, above-grade

structure occupied in 1964 as a hub for several campuswide facility operations and logistics support services. In

2013, NIST constructed a 30,000-GSF addition to the

southern end of the building to house the new

Consolidated Logistics Center. The expansion included

renovation of interior spaces and addition of a new high

bay warehouse and receiving area.

• Emergency Services Facility Construction (Buildings

318 and 319). See parcels 5 and 6 on Figure 5-1. Building

318 (Emergency Services Facility) and Building 319

(Emergency Services Storage Building) were constructed

in 2014 to allow for relocation of NIST Fire and

Emergency Services from Building 303 (Service

Building). Building 318 is an approximately 22,125-GSF

structure that supports the NIST police and fire

departments. Building 319 is a 312-GSF concrete block

structure with no heating, ventilation, cooling, or

plumbing services.

Ongoing Actions 

The following actions within the campus are ongoing as of May 

2018 and will be completed independently of any decisions 

regarding implementation of the Master Plan: 

Building 245 Renovation/Expansion (Phase 1). See 

parcel 7 on Figure 5-1. Building 245 (Radiation Physics) 

is a 207,908-SF facility consisting of laboratory, office, 

storage, and facility support space. Renovation and 

expansion of Building 245 is a multi-phase project. 

Construction of Phase 1, which involves an addition to the 

east side of the building, began in 2017. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 5-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
Figure 5-1. Past, Ongoing, and Potential Future Actions within the NIST Gaithersburg Campus 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 5-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Combined Heat and Power Plant Construction. See parcel 8 on

Figure 5-1. The new CHP plant is housed within a 4,000-SF addition to

Building 302 (Steam and Chilled Water Generation Plant) and includes

an 8-MW gas turbine electricity generator, a heat recovery steam

generator, new electrical equipment, and a new fuel gas compressor.

New electric transformers and a fuel gas compressor enclosure are

located outside the building addition. The CHP plant, which is expected

to become fully operational by the end of 2018, will fulfill

approximately 41% and 80% of the campus’ electricity and steam

requirements, respectively.

Potential Future Actions 

The following actions within the campus are reasonably foreseeable and are 

expected to be completed independently of any decisions regarding 

implementation of the Master Plan: 

• Solar Field Installation. See parcel 9 on Figure 5-1. NIST plans to

install a 5-MW direct current array of solar photovoltaic panels

spanning 15.4 acres in a field to the east of Building 235 (NIST Center

for Neutron Research). The array would be constructed under an

Energy Savings Performance Contract and would consist of 14,700

solar panels installed on steel support structures; electrical inverters and

transformers installed on concrete pads; underground electric conduits;

gravel maintenance roads; and an eight-foot perimeter fence. It would

connect directly to the campus electrical distribution system and would

fulfill approximately 5% of the campus’ electricity requirements.

• Building 245 Renovation/Expansion (Phases 2-6). See parcel 10 on

Figure 5-1. Renovation and expansion of Building 245 (Radiation

Physics) is a multi-phase project, which would involve expansion and

modernization of the B/C Wings, including utility upgrades and

modification; an addition to D Wing; a mechanical penthouse to serve

the A Wing basement and sub-basement; and a new service drive and

landscape modifications. Completion of construction is anticipated in

2027.

• Corridor Cities Transitway Project. See parcel 11 on Figure 5-1. The

CCT is a planned 15-mile Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line in

Montgomery County initiated by the Maryland Transit Administration.

The CCT would use dedicated bus lanes to connect the Shady Grove

Metro Station and the Metropolitan Grove MARC train station, with

potential for future route extension. The transit station at the NIST

Gaithersburg Campus would be constructed on the west side of the

campus at the intersection of Quince Orchard Road and Quince

Orchard Boulevard. This project would require acquisition and

development of 14 acres of right-of-way from within the campus, as

well as closure and relocation of Gate C to move it further south to

accommodate the transit station. Funding for the CCT has been 

deferred to at least 2022. 

• Quince Orchard Road Shared-Use Path Construction. See parcel 12

on Figure 5-1. The Quince Orchard Road Shared-Use Path would be an

extension of the existing path along the east side of Quince Orchard

Road that currently terminates approximately one-quarter mile south of

Gate D across from Dosh Drive, leaving an approximately one-mile

gap in the trail between that point and the West Diamond Avenue

intersection to the north. The new 10-foot wide trail would fill this gap,

facilitating safer pedestrian access to the campus. It would require

acquisition of minor amounts of right-of-way from within the campus

and relocation of a chain link fence.

5.1.2 Development Projects External to the Campus 

During the scoping phase of the Master Plan, NIST consulted with staff from the 

City of Gaithersburg Planning Division to identify any planned projects that 

could potentially combine with the Master Plan to result in adverse cumulative 

effects (e.g., traffic congestion). The City of Gaithersburg staff provided NIST 

with a map and list of proximate development projects, which are illustrated in 

Figure 5-2 and summarized in Table 5-1. Among these, the following projects 

were highlighted by City of Gaithersburg staff for consideration during 

development of the Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan because of their 

proximity to the campus and potential to contribute to traffic concerns: 

• Quince Orchard Park – MedImmune/AstraZeneca Campus

Development. See parcels 25, 26, and 27 on Figure 5-2. MedImmune,

a bioscience company that is the second largest employer in the City of

Gaithersburg, is constructing a parking garage that will include

approximately 1,400 parking spaces with seven tiers above ground. The

parking garage is located on Great Seneca Highway south of Quince

Orchard Road and will include bicycle parking. The parking garage

will support approximately 1.5 million SF of new office and laboratory

space at the campus, development of which has been approved by the

City of Gaithersburg.

• Construction at Diamond Farms (700 Quince Orchard Road). See

parcel 45 on Figure 5-2. This project would redevelop the existing

commercially developed parcel across Quince Orchard Road from the

campus, between Gates B and C. It would construct a mixed-use

development containing 175 residential units and 300,000 SF of

commercial and office spaces on approximately 15.4 acres.

• Construction at The Gateway (Orchard Pond). See parcels 48 and

49 on Figure 5-2. This project, located at the intersection of West

Diamond Avenue and Quince Orchard Road northwest of the campus,

would redevelop a medium-density residential complex (formerly the

Orchard Pond Apartments and now named The Gateway Apartments)

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 5-3 Final Environmental Assessment 
Source: City of Gaithersburg, 2017a. 

Figure 5-2. Potential Future Development Actions within the City of Gaithersburg 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 5-4 Final Environmental Assessment 
Table 5-1. Potential Future Development Actions within the City of Gaithersburg 

Subdivision 

Dwelling Units Population Projected 

Commercial/Other 

Complete Projected Current Growth Projected Development (SF) Key to Figure 5-2

Projects with Approved Conceptual, Preliminary, or Final Site Plans 

Brown's Addition 1 2 3 3 6 -- 1 

Crown 360 1,712 1,042 3,370 4,412 52,317 2, 3, 4 

Diamond Farms -- -- -- -- -- 71,020 5, 6 

North Frederick Avenue -- 300 -- 458 458 696,761 10, 11, 15, 16, 56, 57, 58 

Observatory Heights -- 1 -- 3 3 -- 18 

Olde Towne 52 542 128 1,083 1,211 31,630 21, 23, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 

Quince Orchard Park -- -- -- -- -- 1,506,782 25, 26, 27, 28 

Quince Tree Executive Center -- -- -- -- -- 5,154 29 

Sears Addition to Shady Grove -- -- -- -- -- 225,000 31 

The Spectrum at Watkins Mill (Casey East) -- 202 -- 499 499 213,903 34 

Washingtonian Center -- 365 -- 902 902 571,336 35, 36, 37, 38 

Washingtonian Industrial Park -- -- -- -- -- -192 39 

Watkins Mill Town Center 4 732 12 1,316 1,328 1,152,583 40, 41, 69 

Asbury -- 63 -- 158 158 -- 43, 44 

Fairgrounds -- 1,350 -- 3,336 3,336 1,150,000 47 

GE Tech Park/GBURG Aquatic Center -- -- -- -- -- 62,897 50 

Johnson Property -- 110 -- 339 339 10,000 51 

Metropolitan Grove Park -- -- -- -- -- 152,200 54, 55 

Rashidian Estates 1 4 3 10 13 -- 65 

South Frederick Avenue 87 265 216 430 647 23,752 66, 67, 68 

Subtotal 505 5,648 1,404 11,907 13,312 5,925,143 

Anticipated (Not Yet Submitted or Approved), Expired, and Postponed Development 

Diamond Farms (700 Quince Orchard Rd.) -- 175 -- 531 531 300,814 45 

The Gateway (Orchard Pond) 747 1,410 1,846 1,638 3,484 1,425,571 48, 49 

Kentlands -- 1,745 -- 4,312 4,312 -- 52, 69 

Total (Approved + Anticipated/Expired/ 

Postponed) 

1,252 8,978 3,250 18,388 21,639 7,651,528 

Source: City of Gaithersburg, 2017a. 

Note: Many of these development estimates represent projects with conceptual approvals that are unlikely to be constructed in the near future. Projects in blue text 

were highlighted by City of Gaithersburg staff for consideration during development of the Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 5-5 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

containing 747 apartments constructed in the mid-1970s. It would 

construct a four-story residential building containing 410 units on 

approximately 11 acres during the first of two phases. The second 

phase of the project covers approximately 32 acres and would include 

1.4 million SF of retail, office, and hotel space, and 1,000 additional 

residential units. 

• Kentlands Apartments Construction. See parcel 52 on Figure 5-2.

This project, located at the intersection of Great Seneca Highway and

Quince Orchard Road southwest of the campus, would redevelop a

parcel currently occupied by a restaurant and construct two six-story

apartment buildings and a seven-level parking garage on approximately

3.1 acres. The apartment buildings would contain 295 residential units.

• Kentlands Square Construction. See parcel 69 on Figure 5-2. This

project, also located at the intersection of Great Seneca Highway and

Quince Orchard Road southwest of the campus, would redevelop the

Kentlands Square shopping center with up to 1,450 residential units on

approximately 12 acres.

Each of the above projects, with the exception of the Quince Orchard Park – 

MedImmune/AstraZeneca Campus Development, is listed by the City of 

Gaithersburg as “Anticipated (Not Yet Submitted or Approved), Expired, and 

Postponed Development.” 

5.1.3 Transportation Projects External to the Campus 

In addition to the above development efforts, several major transportation 

projects are planned or underway in and around the City of Gaithersburg. These 

projects, which include the following, are intended to reduce traffic congestion, 

improve connectivity, and encourage the use of public transit: 

• Corridor Cities Transitway Project. See the project description in

Section 5.1.1.

• Maryland 355 Bus Rapid Transit Project. The Montgomery County

Department of Transportation (DOT), in partnership with Maryland

DOT, is planning the implementation of bus rapid transit on MD Route

355 (North Frederick Road, Rockville Pike, and Wisconsin Ave) as

part of the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan. This

project would span from Clarksburg through Gaithersburg to Bethesda,

mostly along MD Route 355. The project is currently in the conceptual

stage, including solicitation of public input on the conceptual

alternatives.

• Maryland 355 Express Bus (“RideOn ExtRa”). This project

established a limited-stop (and thereby faster) bus service operating

during peak periods along MD Route 355. The bus service runs

between Gaithersburg (Lakeforest Transit Center) and North Bethesda

(Medical Center Metro) and commenced operation in October 2017.

• Watkins Mill Interchange at Interstate 270. This project will

construct a four-lane bridge to connect Watkins Mill Road over

Interstate 270 with connecting entry and exit ramps to the interstate. It

is currently under construction with completion anticipated by 2020.

5.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis 

NIST focused this cumulative effects analysis on those resource areas that could 

reasonably be expected to experience a perceptible, continuing (non-temporary) 

adverse effect outside the campus boundaries as a result of implementation of 

the Master Plan. NIST then considered whether any of the past, ongoing, or 

potential future actions described in Section 5.1 (Evaluated Actions) would have 

the potential to combine with the Master Plan to present cumulative effects 

(whether adverse or beneficial) to these resource areas. Specifically, this 

analysis evaluates potential cumulative effects on the following resource areas: 

• Transportation (vehicle circulation and public and alternative

transportation);

• Light pollution; and

• Noise levels.

Transportation 

As discussed in Section 4.8.1 (Vehicle Circulation and Parking), a NIST traffic 

study in 2015 found that the following three intersections near the campus 

currently provide a LOS below acceptable levels, especially during morning 

rush hour: 

• West Diamond Avenue (MD Route 117) and Quince Orchard Road

(MD Route 124), immediately northwest of the campus;

• Great Seneca Highway (MD Route 119) and Quince Orchard Road

(MD Route 124), approximately 0.6 miles southwest of the campus;

and

• Great Seneca Highway (MD Route 119) and Muddy Branch Road,

approximately 0.8 miles south of the campus.

NIST staff also mention that the ramp from MD Route 117 to southbound 

Interstate 270 can become very congested during peak hours. 

Site-generated traffic from the projected growth in the Master Plan would 

exacerbate traffic conditions at these intersections unless substantial changes are 

made to the roadway geometry. Additionally, the relocation of the commercial 

vehicle entrance to Gate F would also have the potential to increase traffic along 

Muddy Branch Road and Diamondback Drive (located southeast of the campus) 

as commercial vehicle drivers follow different routes to access the campus from 

Interstates 270 and 370. However, this shift in commercial vehicle traffic would 

be expected to reduce traffic along West Diamond Avenue and Quince Orchard 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 5-6 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Road, and is not expected to result in an increase in commercial vehicle traffic 

along Great Seneca Highway. 

Of the on-campus projects described in Section 5.1.1, only the CCT Project and 

the Quince Orchard Road Shared-Use Path would have the potential to affect 

traffic levels outside the campus. Both projects would be expected to reduce 

personal vehicle use and traffic congestion along Quince Orchard Road, 

including the congested intersections with West Diamond Avenue and Great 

Seneca Highway, by encouraging the use of alternative methods of 

transportation to and from the campus and the surrounding areas. 

Many of the off-campus projects described in Section 5.1.2 would have the 

potential to affect traffic levels in the roads that border the campus by 

encouraging population growth and increasing commercial and office space. 

However, traffic studies have already been completed for the Quince Orchard 

Park – MedImmune/AstraZeneca Campus, the Gateway (Orchard Pond), and the 

Kentlands Apartments projects. Those studies concluded that the projects would 

not have negative impacts on the adjacent public road network (City of 

Gaithersburg, 2010, 2015b, and 2017c); however, NIST has not attempted to 

update or validate those findings. The remaining projects, 700 Quince Orchard 

Road and Kentlands Square, would be subject to future traffic studies as 

required by the City of Gaithersburg to minimize any unnecessary traffic impact. 

Residents in these new developments who work at the NIST Gaithersburg 

Campus would be able to walk or bike to work, potentially offsetting some of 

the increased vehicle traffic. All of these development efforts are located west of 

the campus, away from the relocated commercial vehicle entrance at Gate F 

along Muddy Branch Road under the Master Plan. As a result, none of these 

development efforts is expected to result in adverse cumulative traffic impacts 

along Muddy Branch Road. 

The transportation projects described in Section 5.1.3 would also help to reduce 

traffic congestion around the campus and prevent adverse cumulative traffic 

impacts. The CCT Project would help to relieve high demand for parking 

facilities at the Shady Grove Metrorail and Metropolitan Grove MARC rail 

stations; reduce cut-through traffic in some neighborhoods and communities; 

and offset the increased traffic congestion associated with the planned 

commercial and residential developments (MTA, 2017). The Maryland 355 Bus 

Rapid Transit Project and Express Bus (“RideOn ExtRa”) projects along MD 

Route 355 are expected to encourage the use of public transportation along that 

corridor, which may help to offset any increase in traffic congestion associated 

the Master Plan or other development. The Watkins Mill Interchange at 

Interstate 270 will allow commuters from the interstate to more directly access 

current and proposed residential development at the Watkins Mill Town Center 

and The Spectrum at Watkins Mill, bypassing MD Routes 117 and 124 

(including the congested intersection immediately northwest of the campus). 

This connection will reduce congestion at the MD Route 124/Interstate 270 

interchange and the MD Route 124/MD Route 355 intersection. 

Based on the above, and based on the additional mitigation measures described 

in Section 4.8.1 (Vehicle Circulation and Parking) to reduce vehicle conflicts 

and further encourage use of public transportation and bicycles, the Master Plan 

is not expected to contribute to significant adverse cumulative traffic impacts in 

the road network surrounding the campus. 

Light Pollution 

As discussed in Section 4.12.2 (Light Pollution), the Master Plan incorporates 

numerous mitigation measures to reduce potential glare and light trespass from 

new interior and exterior lighting. These measures include ensuring consistency 

with current IES and IDA guidance and City of Gaithersburg requirements; 

incorporating vegetative screening; and using comprehensive interior lighting 

control systems. Despite these mitigation measures, there is some potential that 

the Master Plan could increase nighttime light trespass outside the campus 

boundary. 

Of the on-campus projects described in Section 5.1.1, only the CCT Project 

would have the potential to affect nighttime light trespass outside the campus. 

According to MTA, lighting for the new bus stations under that project would be 

designed to minimize light pollution to surrounding residential communities 

(MTA, 2017). NIST does not have enough information regarding the off-campus 

projects described in Section 5.1.2 or the transportation projects described in 

Section 5.1.3 to perform a detailed assessment of potential light pollution 

concerns. However, given the projected increase in the density of residential, 

commercial, and office development near the campus, it is reasonable to expect 

that these projects would result in an overall increase in nighttime light trespass 

as compared to current conditions. This increase could be partially offset by 

replacement of existing exterior lighting systems that do not comply with City of 

Gaithersburg requirements (if any such lighting systems exist in the affected 

areas). 

These potential light pollution concerns serve to emphasize the importance of 

the mitigation measures described in Section 4.12.2 (Light Pollution) for the 

Master Plan. The Master Plan is not expected to contribute to significant adverse 

cumulative light pollution impacts provided that the designs of new facilities 

and interior and exterior lighting systems incorporate these mitigation measures 

to reduce or eliminate nighttime light trespass. 

Noise Levels 

As discussed in Section 4.13 (Noise Levels), the Master Plan would have the 

potential to slightly increase ambient noise levels in some off-campus areas 

because of the operation of new laboratory activities, air-handling units, exhaust 

fans, and emergency generators, and relocation of the commercial vehicle 

entrance from Gate C to Gate F. These projects would incorporate design and 

landscaping measures as appropriate to ensure that ambient noise levels remain 

below relevant state and county noise thresholds. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 5-7 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

Some of the on-campus projects described in Section 5.1.1 also have the 

potential to affect ambient noise levels outside the campus. The Large Fire 

Facility Renovation/Expansion (Building 205) resulted in a slight increase in 

noise because of the addition of a second emissions control system; however, 

this increase is not believed to be perceptible in off-campus residential areas. 

Operation of the CHP plant is expected to result in a slight increase in ambient 

noise; however, NIST estimates that noise levels would remain below relevant 

state and county thresholds and has incorporated numerous design mitigation 

measures to reduce interior and exterior operational noise levels. The CCT 

Project would increase noise levels because of transitway operations, including 

along Quince Orchard Road; however, MTA performed a quantitative noise 

assessment and determined that future noise levels associated with the CCT 

project would have “No Impact” to receptors near the campus boundary along 

Quince Orchard Road (MTA, 2017). 

Of the off-campus projects described in Section 5.1.2 and the transportation 

projects described in Section 5.1.3, the Construction at Diamond Farms (700 

Quince Orchard Road) appears to be the only project with the potential to 

present cumulative ambient noise impacts when viewed in combination with the 

Master Plan and other on-campus projects. This is due to its location on Quince 

Orchard Road, near the CHP plant and the proposed CCT Project. However, the 

project consists of redevelopment of an existing commercial parcel and does not 

appear to involve introduction of a new noise-generating industrial use of the 

site. 

Based on the above, and based on the mitigation measures described in Section 

4.13 (Noise Levels) to reduce ambient noise levels, the Master Plan is not 

expected to contribute to significant adverse cumulative noise impacts outside 

the campus. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 5-8 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

6 Literature Cited 

1. Burge, P. 2002. “The Power of Public Participation.”

Proceedings of the 2002 International Congress and

Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, Inter-Noise

2002 Conference, Dearborn, Michigan. August 19-21,

2002.

2. Cavanaugh W. and G. Tocci. 1998. Environmental Noise

- The Invisible Pollutant. Published in ESC, Volume 1,

Number 1, Fall 1998. USC Institute of Public Affairs.

3. City of Gaithersburg. 2010. Preliminary Background

Report: Applications Z-312 and SDP-09- 001, Orchard

Pond. http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/government/cityprojects. Accessed 18 December 2017.

4. City of Gaithersburg. 2014. Muddy Branch Study.

November 12, 2014.

5. City of Gaithersburg. 2015a. City of Gaithersburg 2009

Master Plan: Environment and Sustainability.

http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/~/media/city/documents/

government/master_plan/2014/environment_and_sustaina

bility_element.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2017.

6. City of Gaithersburg. 2015b. Resolution No. R-82-15.

Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of

Gaithersburg Granting Approval of Schematic

Development Plan, SDP-7059-2015, Known as

Medimmune Garage “C”.

http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/~/media/city/documents/

government/city_projects/medimmune_parking_garage/r_

82_15.pdf. Accessed 18 December 2017.

7. City of Gaithersburg. 2017a. Gaithersburg Pipeline

Development and NIST Master Plan. Dated 30 May 2017.

8. City of Gaithersburg. 2017b.

http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/services/environmentalservices/emerald-ash-borer. Emerald Ash Borer. Accessed

25 October 2017.

9. City of Gaithersburg. 2017c. Preliminary Background

Report- Amended SDP-7362-2016: Kentland Apartments.

http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/~/media/city/documents/

government/city_projects/kentlands_apartments/prelimina

ry_staff_analysis.pdf. Accessed 18 December 2017.

10. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2016. Final

Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on

Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the

Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental

Policy Act Reviews.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/d

ocuments/nepa_final_ghg_guidance.pdf. Accessed 27

September 2016. (Rescinded)

11. Department of Commerce (DoC). 2013. Implementation

Handbook for the Strategic Sustainability Performance

Plan.

http://www.osec.doc.gov/ofeq/Documents/OSEEP/Docs

%20&%20Newsltrs/Documents/DOC_SSPP_Implementa

tion_Handbook_August_2013.pdf. Accessed 15 July

2016.

12. DoC. 2016. 2016 Strategic Sustainability Performance

Plan.

http://www.osec.doc.gov/ofeq/Documents/OSEEP/Docs

%20&%20Newsltrs/Documents/DOC%202016%20SSPP

%20(FINAL%20Posted%209.08.16).pdf. Accessed 6

November 2017.

13. Egan, M. 1988. Architectural Acoustics. McGraw-Hill,

Inc., New York, New York. Page 13.

14. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014.

Highway Traffic Noise. Construction Noise Handbook.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/constructio

n_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm. Accessed 24 October

2017.

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 6-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15. International Dark-Sky Association (IDA). 2016. IDA Practical Guide:

Introduction to Light Pollution – What’s the Problem?

http://www.globeatnight.org/dsr/dsee/IDA%20Resources/IDA%20Practic

al%20Guides/IDA%20PG1%20-

%20Introduction%20to%20Light%20Pollution.pdf. Accessed 11 July

2016.

16. Maryland Historical Trust. 2017. Map Search Results, Medusa Cultural

Resource Information System. https://mht.maryland.gov/secure/medusa/.

Accessed 15 November 2017.

17. MD iMAP. 2017. Maryland GIS Data Catalog: Maryland Living

Resources - Forest Interior Dwelling Species.

https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=ae2e53392ffd462daac93e101

ca1696f#visualize. Accessed 15 November 2017.

18. Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2012. Watershed

Report for Biological Impairment of the Potomac River Watershed in

Washington County, Maryland Biological Stressor Identification Analysis

Results and Interpretation.

mde.maryland.gov/programs/Water/TMDL/Documents/BSID_Reports/Po

tomac_R_WA_CTY_BSID_013012_revisedfinal.pdf. Accessed 3

November 2017.

19. MDE. 2014a. Water Quality Assessment Report: Seneca Creek Basin.

http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/Integrated303dRepo

rts/Pages/303d_mapsearch.aspx?a=go&qBasinName=Seneca+Creek&qBa

sinCode=&qHUC=&qCountyName=&qWaterType=&qListingCategory=

&qImpairmentCategory=&action=1&B1=Search&action2=2&action3=3.

Accessed 20 November 2017.

20. MDE. 2014b. Water Quality Assessment Report: Potomac River

Montgomery County Basin.

http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/Integrated303dRepo

rts/Pages/303d_mapsearch.aspx?a=go&qBasinName=Potomac+River+M

ontgomery+County&qBasinCode=&qHUC=&qCountyName=&qWaterT

ype=&qListingCategory=&qImpairmentCategory=&action=1&B1=Searc

h&action2=2&action3=3. Accessed 20 November 2017.

21. MDE. 2017. Fact Sheet Reissuance of the NPDES General Permit for

Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4).

http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/water/stormwatermanagementprog

ram/documents/fact%20sheet%20municipal%20permit.pdf. Accessed 2

November 2017.

22. Maryland Transit Administration (MTA). 2014. Corridor Cities

Transitway Phase I Archeological Survey Technical Report. June 2014.

23. MTA. 2017. Environmental Assessment for the Corridor Cities

Transitway Project. August 2017.

24. Montgomery County. 2009. Climate Protection Plan.

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DEP/Resources/Files/ReportsandP

ublications/Sustainability/Working%20Group/Climate-Protection-PlanSustainable-Working-Group-09.pdf. Accessed 14 November 2017.

25. Montgomery County. 2016. Summary: County Schools.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountabi

lity/glance/currentyear/schools/county.pdf.

26. Montgomery County Department of Economic Development (DED).

2014. World of Opportunity: A Perfect Address for Global Business.

Businessclimate.com/Montgomery-county-md. Accessed 8 January 2015.

27. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2017. Climate

change: How do we know? http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. Accessed 14

November 2017.

28. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 2015. Traffic and

Gates Study for Gaithersburg, MD Campus. 2015.

29. NIST. 2017. National Institute of Standards and Technology 2016 Annual

Recycling and Waste Reduction Report. January 2017.

30. National Park Service (NPS). 2002. National Register Bulletin: How to

Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm.

Accessed 1 July 2016.

31. National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2016.

http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

32. Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO). 2016. 2016 Environmental

Information for Standard Offer Service Provided by Pepco.

http://www.pepco.com/uploadedFiles/wwwpepcocom/Content/Page_Cont

ent/myhome/Pay_Your_Bill/Pepco%20Fuel%20Mix%20DC%20Insert%204.17.

pdf. Accessed 14 November 2017.

33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Office of

Research and Development. The Use of Best Management Practices in

Urban Watersheds.

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000D1LM.txt. Accessed

11 July 2016.

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 6-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

34. USEPA. 2009. Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater

Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the

Energy Independence and Security Act.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

08/documents/epa_swm_guidance.pdf. Accessed 28 August 2016.

35. USEPA. 2017a. EJSCREEN. https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/. Accessed

26 October 2017.

36. USEPA. 2017b. NEPAssist.

https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9ebb047b

a3ec41ada1877155fe31356b. Accessed 3 November 2017.

37. USEPA. 2017c. NAAQS Table. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants/naaqs-table. Accessed 15 November 2017.

38. USEPA. 2017d. Carbon Monoxide (1971) Maintenance Area/State/

County Report (Redesignated from Nonattainment). Current as of

September 30, 2017. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/cmca.html.

Accessed 15 November 2017.

39. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Migratory Bird Program:

Birds of Conservation Concern. https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-andregulations/regulations.php. Accessed 17 November 2017.

40. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. United States Department of the

Interior. United States Geologic Survey.

http://md.water.usgs.gov/groundwater/web_wells/current/water_table/cou

nties/montgomery/index.html. Accessed 31 October 2017.

41. U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2017. National

Climate Assessment: Northeast.

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/northeast. Accessed 14

November 2017.

42. The White House. 2014. Presidential Memorandum – Creating a Federal

Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-pressoffice/2014/06/20/presidential-memorandum-creating-federal-strategypromote-health-honey-b. Accessed 11 July 2017.

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 6-3 Final Environmental Assessment 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

7 List of Preparers 

Name: Patrick Goodwin Name: Kettie Holland Rupnik 

Position: Project Manager Position: Environmental Scientist 

Firm: Eastern Research Group, Inc. Firm: PG Environmental 

Items: Overall EA coordination, analysis, review, and Items: Wastewater; stormwater management; 

documentation sustainable development; visual impacts; noise 

Experience: B.A. Environmental Science; 16 years of levels 

experience in environmental and cultural Experience: B.S. Integrated Science and Technology; 6 years 

resource studies and documentation of experience in environmental compliance and 

enforcement, focus on stormwater and 

Name: April Eilers wastewater management 

Position: Senior Environmental Scientist 

Firm: Eastern Research Group, Inc. Name: Alec Lambert 

Items: Overall EA coordination, analysis, review, and Position: Environmental Scientist 

documentation Firm: PG Environmental 

Experience: M.S. Biological Sciences/B.S. Biological Items: Land use and socioeconomics; biological 

Sciences; 9 years of experience in environmental resources; water resources; potable water supply; 

impact analysis and natural resources energy systems; circulation and transportation 

management Experience: B.A. Environmental Science; 6 years of 

experience in environmental science, focus on 

Name: JJ Johnson habitat assessments, aquatic biology, 

Position: Environmental Engineer geomorphology, and water sampling frameworks 

Firm: Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

Items: Topography, geology, and soils; air quality; Name: Doug Jackson 

overall EA review Position: Staff Engineer 

Experience: M.E.M. Engineering Management/B.E. Firm: Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

Environmental Engineering; 8 years of Items: GCR analysis 

experience in environmental engineering, Experience: PhD Ecology and Evolutionary Biology/B.S. 

environmental impact analysis, planning, and air Mechanical Engineering; 17 years of experience 

emissions analysis in biophysical modeling, ecology, and mobile 

source emissions modeling 

Name: Allison Harding 

Position: Environmental Engineer 

Firm: Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

Items: Solid and hazardous waste; climate change; 

cultural and historic resources 

Experience: B.S. Environmental Resources Engineering; 

1 year of experience in environmental 

engineering, focus on solid waste management 

and soil science 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 7-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

8 List of Agencies and Persons 

Consulted 

Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Ecological 

Services Field Office 

Reason: Potential presence of rare, threatened, or endangered 

species on the campus. 

Agency: Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and 

Heritage Service 

Reason: Potential presence of rare, threatened, or endangered 

species on the campus. 

Agency: Maryland Historical Trust 

Reason: Potential impacts on historic resources. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 8-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

9 Distribution List 

National Capital Planning Commission 

Michael Weil, Community Planner 

michael.weil@ncpc.gov 

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 

Nancy Sturgeon, Supervisor, Master Plan Team, Area 2 Division 

nancy.sturgeon@montgomeryplanning.org 

Maryland State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental Assistance 

Myra A. Barnes, Lead Clearinghouse Coordinator 

mdp.clearinghouse@maryland.gov 

City of Gaithersburg 

Trudy Schwarz, Director of Planning 

trudy.schwarz@gaithersburgmd.gov 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Chris Guy, Biologist 

chris_guy@fws.gov 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Christopher Wilson, Program Analyst 

cwilson@achp.gov 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 9-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
APPENDIX A 

PHASING OF THE MASTER PLAN 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

Table A-1. Summary of Phasing Packages and Associated Major Components under the NIST Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 

Phasing Packages Major Components Comments 

Phase 1: Immediate Priorities 

Building 245 Addition/Renovation* • Laboratory additions (3) construction

• Renovation of existing building

Ongoing phased construction 

Utility Upgrades • Utility loop to the south campus

• New electrical substation

• Detailed study of underground utilities

• Replace feeders, ductbanks

To provide redundancy/back-up 

Aging, failing electrical infrastructure 

Gate A Modification • Building 103 addition/renovation

• Canopy construction

• Roadway/parking modifications

• Security equipment installation

Modifications in response to security policies 

Research Building I • Laboratory building construction

• Connection to campus concourse

• Pedestrian path to Gate A

• Stormwater management facility

To facilitate start of GPL renovations 

GPL Renovations • Building renovations

• New office additions to Buildings 221, 222, 226

• Construction of high-bay addition and renovation of

Building 206

• Demolition of Building 411

• New electrical switch gear

• Courtyard activation

Multi-step process, proceeding building-by-building 

Gate F Modification • Visitor screening construction

• Commercial vehicle screening facility and

shipping/receiving facility construction

• New roadway, curb cut, parking

• Renovation in Building 301 for Building 428 occupants

Modifications in response to security policies 

Phase 2: Next-Step Projects 

Building 101 Addition • Building addition construction

• Renovation: public access areas

• Renovation: offices

• Upgrades: building systems and facade

Office renovation will improve utilization, free-up 

space for additional administrative staff 

Phase 3: Program Expansion Projects 

Center Campus 

New Research Buildings II, III, IV 

• Laboratory building construction

• Connection to campus concourse

• Parking structure construction

• Chiller plant expansion

• Roadway/parking modifications

• Courtyard landscape/social spaces

Added as needed 

May overlap GPL renovations to enable early office 

occupancy of one GPL 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan A-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Table A-1. Summary of Phasing Packages and Associated Major Components under the NIST Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan 

Phasing Packages Major Components Comments 

Steam and Chilled Water Plant Expansion • Chilled water addition to Building 302

• New cooling tower installation

Coordinated with timing of new research building 

needs 

Independent Projects or Beyond Phase 3 

Site and Landscape Improvements • East-West pedestrian walkway/planting

• Activation of courtyards

• Stormwater management features

• Walking/multi-use trails

• Meadow replacement of lawns

• Reforestation

These should be implemented immediately, 

separately or in concert with construction projects 

Standard Reference Material Facility • Laboratory building construction

• Access road/loading modifications

• Relocation of associated staff from Building 222

This will proceed as mission priorities dictate 

Specialty Laboratory—Additions/New • Addition/renovation to Buildings 207, 235

• Construction of Strong Facility, Wind/Fire Facility

• Access drive/parking modifications

Each will proceed as mission priorities dictate 

Specialty Laboratory Renovations • Upgrades to Buildings 202, 230, 231, 233, 237/238 Phased renovations, protecting ongoing research 

programs 

Advanced Measurement Laboratory • Laboratory building construction

• Tie in to Building 216

• Solar panel removal/replacement

• Parking removal/roadway modification

This will proceed as mission priorities dictate 

Note: 

* The renovation and expansion of Building 245 (Radiation Physics) would take place over a total of seven phases. The first of these phases is underway, while a

separate NEPA EA is being prepared for the remaining phases. To avoid duplication of NEPA reviews, the Proposed Action evaluated in this Master Plan EA does not

include the renovation and expansion of Building 245.

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan A-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
Note: Elements marked with a red asterisk (*), while addressed in the Master Plan, are not considered part of the Proposed Action evaluated in this EA. These elements 

are addressed in separate NEPA analyses and/or are beyond the 20-year time horizon of the Master Plan. See Section 5 (Cumulative Effects). 

Figure A-1. Phase 1 — Immediate Priorities 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan A-3 Final Environmental Assessment 
Note: Elements marked with a red asterisk (*), while addressed in the Master Plan, are not considered part of the Proposed Action evaluated in this EA. These elements 

are addressed in separate NEPA analyses and/or are beyond the 20-year time horizon of the Master Plan. See Section 5 (Cumulative Effects). 

Figure A-2. Phase 2 — Anticipated Next-Step Projects 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan A-4 Final Environmental Assessment 
Note: Elements marked with a red asterisk (*), while addressed in the Master Plan, are not considered part of the Proposed Action evaluated in this EA. These elements 

are addressed in separate NEPA analyses and/or are beyond the 20-year time horizon of the Master Plan. See Section 5 (Cumulative Effects). 

Figure A-3. Phase 3 — Anticipated Mid-Plan Projects 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan A-5 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Note: Elements marked with a red asterisk (*), while addressed in the Master Plan, are not considered part of the Proposed Action evaluated in this EA. These elements 

are addressed in separate NEPA analyses and/or are beyond the 20-year time horizon of the Master Plan. See Section 5 (Cumulative Effects). 

Figure A-4. Independent Projects or Beyond Phase 3 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan A-6 Final Environmental Assessment 
APPENDIX B 

CORRESPONDENCE 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Chesapeake Bay Ecological Services Field Office 

177 Admiral Cochrane Drive 

Annapolis, MD 21401-7307 

Phone: (410) 573-4599 Fax: (410) 266-9127 

http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/ 

http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/endsppweb/ProjectReview/Index.html 

In Reply Refer To: June 22, 2017 

Consultation Code: 05E2CB00-2017-SLI-1466 

Event Code: 05E2CB00-2017-E-03061 

Project Name: NIST Gaithersburg 

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project 

location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as 

well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your 

proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. This species list fulfills the 

requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the 

Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of 

species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to 

contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to 

federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical 

habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the 

Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be 

completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be 

completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and 

implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested 

through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. 

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the 

ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the 

Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to 

utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or 

designated critical habitat. 

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having 
 

 

 

06/22/2017 Event Code: 05E2CB00-2017-E-03061 2 

similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) 

(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological 

evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may 

affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended 

contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. 

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that 

listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the 

agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service 

recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed 

within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 

consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered 

Species Consultation Handbook" at: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF 

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require 

development of an eagle conservation plan 

(http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects 

should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing 

impacts to migratory birds and bats. 

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications 

towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; 

http://www.towerkill.com; and 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html. 

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages 

Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project 

planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in 

the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project 

that you submit to our office. 

Attachment(s): 

Official Species List 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries 

Wetlands 
06/22/2017 Event Code: 05E2CB00-2017-E-03061 1 

Official Species List 

This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the 

requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether 

any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed 

action". 

This species list is provided by: 

Chesapeake Bay Ecological Services Field Office 

177 Admiral Cochrane Drive 

Annapolis, MD 21401-7307 

(410) 573-4599
06/22/2017 Event Code: 05E2CB00-2017-E-03061 2 

Project Summary 

Consultation Code: 05E2CB00-2017-SLI-1466 

Event Code: 05E2CB00-2017-E-03061 

Project Name: NIST Gaithersburg 

Project Type: ** OTHER ** 

Project Description: NIST Gaithersburg EA 

Project Location: 

Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/39.13159072849467N77.21640750779213W 

Counties: Montgomery, MD 

Endangered Species Act Species 

There is a total of 0 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on your species list. Species on 

this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species 

that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list 

because a project could affect downstream species. See the "Critical habitats" section below for 

those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area. Please contact the 

designated FWS office if you have questions. 

Critical habitats 

There are no critical habitats within your project area. 
06/22/2017 Event Code: 05E2CB00-2017-E-03061 1 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuges And Fish 

Hatcheries 

Any activity proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility 

Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any 

questions or concerns. 

There are no refuges or fish hatcheries within your project area. 
06/22/2017 Event Code: 05E2CB00-2017-E-03061 1 

Wetlands 

Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. 

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers District. 

FRESHWATER POND 

 PUBHh 
Mr. Alec Lambert 

PG Environmental, LLC 

1113 Washington A venue 

Suite 200 

Golden, CO 80401 

RE: Environmental Review for National Institure of Standards and Technology (NIST) Campus 

located at 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Montgomery County, Maryland. 

Dear Mr. Lambert: 

The Wildlife and Heritage Service has determined that there are no official State or Federal records for listed 

plant or animal species within the delineated area shown on the map provided. As a result, we have no specific 

concerns regarding potential impacts or recommendations for protection measures at this time. Please let us 

know however if the limits of proposed disturbance or overall site boundaries change and we will provide you 

with an updated evaluation. 

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to review this project. If you should have any further questions 

regarding this information, please contact me at (410) 260-8573. 

Sincerely, 

l0t-: a. 13--r--

Lori A. Byrne, 

Environmental Review Coordinator 

Wildlife and Heritage Service 

MD Dept. ofNatural Resources 

ER# 2017.1218.mo 

Tawes State Office Building - 580 Taylor Avenue -Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

410-?h0-Rr1NR nr tnll frpp in M:=trvl;:mrl R77-hJO-RnNR - rlnr mr1rvlr1nrl nov -TTY I Jc;pri:;: rr1II vir1 thP Mr1rvlr1nrl RPlrtv 
-

UNITEC STATES CEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20888-

May 9, 2016 

Mr. Paul Loether, Chief 

National Register of Historic Places 

National Park Service 

1201 Eye Street, NW (2280) 

Washington, DC 20005 

ATI

N: Mr. Patrick Andrus 

RE: National Register Determination of Eligibility of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Campus, Gaithersburg, Maryland 

Dear Mr. Andrus: 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is requesting a formal determination of 

eligibility by the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places pursuant to 36 CFR part 63 regarding 

its 579-acre campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland. 

Since 1901, NIST (known as the National Bureau of Standards until 1988) has developed and maintained 

key standards for the Nation, a role that the U.S. Constitution assigns to the Federal government, and 

has been supplying the measurements and tools to help U.S. industry compete. The attached report 

entitled, Historic Assessment. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 

(R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 2015), hereafter referred to as the Assessment was prepared 

by NIST in compliance with 54 U.S.C. 306108 and 306102 (formerly Sections 106 and 110 respectively) of 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. It provides a thorough summary of the 

acquisition, planning, design, and construction of the Gaithersburg campus, as well as a discussion of the 

scientific research undertaken, and related principles applied to postwar research campus design. 

Finally, it identifies property types associated with the NIST campus (see ATTACHMENT I). 

A total of 74 buildings, structures, objects, and landscapes were documented as part of the attached 

Assessment. Analysis of archival and architectural data applying the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4[a-d]) resulted in our identification of a cohesive collection of 

thirteen resources (buildings, structures, and landscapes) that represent a recognizable historic district 

located within the center of the campus, all united by design and historical association within the initial 

construction period of the campus (1961-1969). Our recommended NRHP eligible district summarized in 

the attached table and corresponding Historic District Boundary Map (ATTACHMENTS Ill and IV), 

includes the original seven (7) interconnected General Purpose Laboratories (Bldgs. 220-226) of 1963-

1966, the Shops (Bldg. 304) of 1962-1964 as well as the architecturally prominent administrative office 

tower building (Bldg. 101). Other contributory resources include the flag pole and the surrounding 

designed landscape. Non-contributory resources include the relocated (1976) Entrance Gates and the 

attached, but much later (1999) Advanced Chemical Sciences Laboratory (Bldg. 227). Eligibility 

Determinations were made using NRHP Criterion A and C (see the Assessment for details) and all 

contributing resources in the proposed NIST historic district were completed between 1965 

and 1966. 

NlSI 
-2-

Upon review of our 2015 Assessment and corresponding Determination of Eligibility, the Maryland 

Historical Trust {MHT) SHPO Elizabeth Hughes, in a letter dated 10/29/2016, proposed the entire 579-

acre campus as an eligible National Register Historic District (see ATTACHMENT V). Please note that in 

this letter the SHPO somewhat misconstrues a DOE made by the FTA in conjunction with the Maryland 

Transit Authority (MTA) for a 2014 Section 106 review of the Montgomery County Corridor Cities Transit 

way {CCT) project. At that time, realizing the highly generalized nature of the MT A's survey and 

assessment (Section 106 Finding Assessment), NIST's Chief Facilities Management Officer Stephen Salber 

requested that a formal DOE be delayed until NIST could undertake a more comprehensive assessment 

of its resources (see ATTACHMENTS VIII, IX, and X). 

NIST and its consultants, Metropolitan Architects & Planners and R. Christopher Goodwin, met with 

MHT staff to discuss the disputed boundary issues late last year on 12/ 2/2015 and Minutes of that 

meeting are attached (ATTACHMENT VI). It was then that MHT staff reminded us that NIST may request 

final determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places. Finally, in an 

e-mail dated 2/12/2016, Beth Cole of the MHT, further recommended that all 26 resources constructed

between 1960 and 1969 were contributing resources to their proposed 579-acre National Registereligible district. The 47 resources constructed after 1970 were identified as non-contributing resources.

To be clear, NIST disagreed with the MHT's recommendations (see ATTACHMENT VII)

I have attempted to provide you with a complete package of information, but invariably I may 

inadvertently omitted information you find necessary to review and analyze. If so, please do not hesitate 

to contact me by telephone: (301)975-6940 or by e-mail: phillip.neuberg@nist.gov. 

Thank you in advance for your time and effort. We look forward to your response. 

Sincerely, 

Phillip W. Neuberg, AIA 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Enclosures 

cc: all with enclosures 

Ms. Elizabeth Hughes, MHT 

Ms. Beth Cole, MHT 

Mr. Stephen Salber, NIST 

Ms. Susan Cantilli, NIST 

Ms. Amber Hayes, NIST 

Mr. Sanjay Arora, MAP 

Ms. Kirsten Peeler, R Christopher Goodwin & Assoc. 
NIST proposed NRHP District 

List of ATTACHMENTS 

For Review by Keeper of the NRHP 

According to 36 CFR part 63 

May 2016 

I. Historic Assessment, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

prepared for Metropolitan Architects and Planners by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates,

Frederick, MD 6/25/2015

II. Quad Locator (USGS) Map showing 579 acre NIST Campus in Gaithersburg Maryland

Ill. NIST proposed NRHP eligible Historic District

IV. List of Contributing and Non-Contributing Resources within the NIST proposed NRHP eligible

Historic District

V. 10/29/2015 Letter from Elizabeth Hughes, MD SHPO (MHT) to Stephen Salber of NIST, rejecting

NIST's recommended NRHP eligible District for a much larger district whose boundaries would

be inclusive of the 579-acre campus grounds.

VI. Minutes from 12/2/2015 Meeting between MHT staff, NIST staff, and consultants

VII. E-mail dated 2/12/2016 from MHT's Beth Cole to Kirsten Peeler (NIST consultant@ R.

Christopher Goodwin & Associates) with Addendum to the MIHP (Maryland Inventory of Historic

Places) form itemizing contributory (26) and non-contributory (47) resources across an

expanded 579 acre NRHP District as recommended by MHT

VIII. Letter dated 12/11/2014 from Steven Salber to MHT's Rodney Little, then MD SHPO

IX. Letter dated 10/23/2014 from federal DOT to Rodney Little, then MD SHPO including Section

106 Findings of Effects

X. E-mail dated 01/09/2015 from MHT's Jonathan Sager to NIST's Susan Cantilli, stating that NIST's

Assessment will supersede and\or expand on the conclusions of FT A's limited analysis because it

(the Assessment) "will be based on the more holistic and up-to-date information."
United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

1349 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20240 

INltEPLY RUEa 10: 

DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY NOTIFICATION 

National Register of Historic Places 

National Park Service 

Name of Property: National Institute of Standards and Technology Campus Historic District 

Location: Gaithersburg, Montgomery County State: MD 

Request submitted by: Philip W. Neuberg, AIA, Federal Preservation Officer, US Department of 

Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, MD 

Date received: 05/11/2016 Additional information received 

Opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer: 

-.X_Eligible _Not Eligible _ No Response _Need More Information 

Comments: 

The Secretary of the Interior has determined that this property is: 

2S__Eligible _Not Eligible 

Applicable criteria: A and C 

Comment: The entire 579-acre NIST campus is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district under 

National Register Criteria A and C for its historic and architectural importance. The historic district's period of significance 

corresponds to the initial period of construction of the NIST campus in the early 1960s. 

See attached for a detailed explanation of this determination of eligibility. 

Keeper of the National Register Date 

WAS0-28 
United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20240 

IN REPLY RDEll TO: 

DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY NOTIFICATION 

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Name of Property: National Institute of Standards and Technology Campus Historic District 

Location: Gaithersburg, Montgomery County, MD 

Page 2 of 3 

On May 11, 2016, the Federal Preservation Officer (FPO) for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

requested that the National Register of Historic Places issue a formal Determination of Eligibility (DOE) under Federal 

regulations 36 CFR Part 63, for properties located on the NIST campus. This DOE request resulted from a disagreement 

between the FPO and the Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) over the boundaries of the proposed 

district. 

The documentation on the proposed district is found in the June 12, 2015, report "Historic Assessment, National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland," prepared for NIST by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., 

and a "Maryland Historical Trust, Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties Form," prepared by the same firm in June 2015. 

The FPO has recommended a historic district encompassing 57.89 acres, while the MD SHPO has proposed that the 

entire 579-acre campus is eligible for the National Register as a historic district. 

The area encompassing the NIST campus was bought and developed by the Federal government in the late 1950s and 

1960s to replace the overcrowded NIST facility in Washington, DC. The documentation defines three periods of 

development of the campus: the Initial Construction Period (1961-1969); the Second Period (1970-1999); and the Third 

Period (2000-2015). FPO and SHPO agree that only properties dating from the Initial Construction Period would contribute 

to the historic district and that not enough time has elapsed to evaluate the eligibility of the Second and Third Period 

properties. The documentation establishes the historic importance of the NIST campus under National Register Criterion A 

for its association with developments in science and technology, and the architectural importance of the campus under 

National Register Criterion C as a significant example of post-World War II research campus design. 

The FPO-recommended boundary for the historic district includes the contributing original seven interconnected General 

Purpose Laboratories (Buildings 220-226) built 1963-1966, the Administration Building (Building 101) constructed 1962-

1965, the Shops (Building 304), constructed 1962-1964, the flagpole (1965) and designed landscape elements. This 

boundary excludes some 15 or so buildings constructed during the Initial Construction Period, many of which are located 

immediately adjacent to the FPO-proposed district. These buildings include Special Purpose Laboratories and other 
United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20240 

IN ltEPLY RDE1l TO: 

DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY NOTIFICATION 

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Name of Property: National Institute of Standards and Technology Campus Historic District 

Location: Gaithersburg, Montgomery County, MD 

Page 3 of 3 

buildings which were used in the investigation of fluid mechanics, radiation physics, engineering mechanics, non-magnetic 

studies, the study of the properties of concrete, etc. They are associated with the same historic and architectural 

importance as the properties included within the FPO-recommended district and they contribute to the more expansive 

historic district found eligible here. 

The entire NIST campus is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The boundary of the eligible historic 

district is the same as that shown as the "NIST Campus Boundary" in Figure 7.1 on page 70 of the "Historic Assessment" 

report, and the list of contributing and non-contributing properties is that shown in the "Addendum to Maryland Historical 

Trust, Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties Form," dated February 12, 2016, and included as "Attachment 7," 

submitted by the FPO with the Determination of Eligibility request. 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT CF CDMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20888-

January 2018 

Ms. Beth Cole 

Administrator, Project Review and Compliance 

Maryland Historical Trust 

Maryland Department of Planning 

100 Community Way 

Crownsville, MD 21032 

RE: MHT Review of the Master Plan prepared for the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, Montgomery County, Maryland 

Dear Ms. Cole: 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is pleased to submit a hard and electronic copy 

of the Draft Master Plan and Environmental Assessment for our Gaithersburg campus to the Maryland 

Historical Trust. As you know, the campus master plan was identified as a federal undertaking pursuant to 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The Area of Potential Effect 

(APE) for the undertaking encompasses the 579-acre NIST campus and neighborhoods immediately 

adjacent to the historic property. The NIST Gaithersburg campus was determined eligible for listing in The 

National Register of Historic Places in June 2016; NIST currently is pursuing formal listing of the historic 

district. Our agency consulted with the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) during the development of the 

Draft Master Plan through an August 2017 site meeting and in subsequent e-mail correspondence. 

Project Location and Description 

The NIST campus is located in the City of Gaithersburg. Interstate 270 adjoins the eastern boundary of the 

campus, Muddy Branch Road is located along the southeast boundary, and Quince Orchard Road is located 

along the western boundary. The existing road network separates the campus from surrounding commercial 

and residential development constructed during the late twentieth century. Residential development consists 

of single-family dwellings and townhouses. Commercial development consists of strip malls, big-box 

retailers, and office buildings. 

The Draft Master Plan was developed in accordance with Department of Commerce requirements to 

anticipate agency needs and to identify potential impacts upon surrounding communities. The result of the 

collaborative efforts of NIST and stakeholders are presented in the Draft Master Plan, which identifies the 

following goals: 

• A plan that creates a comprehensive and coordinated framework for future physical development

of the Gaithersburg campus;

• A plan that develops appropriate facilities and infrastructure for the evolving and advancing

scientific research meeting both near and long-term needs;

• A plan that maintains the attractive campus environment;

• A plan that respects and embraces the designation of the campus as a historic district;

• A plan that supports and advances the sustainable design and environmental goals of NIST and the

Department of Commerce; and,

• A plan for gradual change, complete at each step (Metropolitan Architects and Planners, Inc.

2017:10).

NISI 
Ms. Beth Cole 

Maryland Historical Trust 

Key components of the draft plan include the appropriate treatment of the historic property; building 

modernization; construction of new research buildings and additions to existing structures; modifications 

to campus gates; removal of temporary buildings and, landscape and open space, utility infrastructure, and 

parking improvements. 

Summary of Master Plan Alternatives 

As part of the master planning process, the NIST campus was divided into three functional areas: the central 

core, Gates A and F, and the southern campus. The central core comprises the main administrative hub 

(Building 101); it is the location of the seven original General Purpose Laboratories (GPL). The southern 

campus located below South Drive houses the various specialty laboratories. The master planning process 

developed six alternatives for addressing these Master Plan goals for the central core, Gates A and F, and 

additions to the specialty laboratories. Six alternatives were developed and analyzed for compatibility with 

mission requirements, programming needs, and consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary's Standards). 

• Alternative A

Alternative A considers the creation of two new courtyards through the construction of new

research buildings in the central core of the campus. The two new courtyards would be created in

the vicinity of the Advanced Measurement Laboratory and around Buildings 227 and 226. A new

administrative building adjacent to Building 304 also would be constructed. Finally, the GPLs

would be modernized and expanded under this alternative.

• Alternative B

Alternative B takes into consideration the important role of the internal concourses in the overall

function of the campus. Under this alternative, all new buildings would be tied to the concourses,

augmenting the existing central spine. This central spine would be elongated through the

construction of two new GPLs at the northern end of the complex. The Advanced Measurement

Laboratory also would be expanded under this alternative. A new administrative building to be

located on an existing parking lot would be constructed, and modernization of and new additions

to the GPLs would be completed.

• Alternative C

A new administrative and research neighborhood would be created under Alternative C. Located

below South Drive and south of the Advanced Measurement Laboratory, the new neighborhood

would share amenities and services with specialized laboratory occupants and research and

administrative functions. The new complex would be attached to the internal concourse. No

additions would be constructed; however, the GPLs would be modernized.

• Alternative D

Alternative D concentrates new construction in the center of the campus and emphasizes proximity

and assignment flexibility in research, administrative, and service functions. New construction

connected to the central concourse would occur south of Building 304 on the existing parking lots.

In addition, a portion of the existing roadway would be removed to accommodate a new pedestrian

Page 2 of 3 
Ms. Beth Cole 

Maryland Historical Trust 

walkway to the administrative office building. Under this alternative, the GPLs would be 

modernized and additions would be constructed. An addition also would be constructed to the 

Advanced Measurement Laboratory. 

• Alternative E

Alternative E concentrates laboratory and office-only functions in new buildings, with office space

for researchers to be provided in the adjacent GPLs. Non-laboratory functions currently housed in

the GPLs would be relocated to a new administrative building. New construction in the campus

core would emphasize administrative rather than laboratory uses.

• Alternative F

Research buildings would be concentrated in the campus center and the GPLs would be modernized

and expanded to accommodate both laboratory and office functions. New construction would be

for laboratory purposes with related support and office requirements. The new laboratories would

be linked with new internal concourses; and a new research building also would be constructed at

the northern end of the existing concourse. An addition to the Advanced Measurement Laboratory

would be completed. The GPLs would be renovated to accommodate administrative office needs,

as well as modernized laboratories, resulting in greater usable square footage.

Alternative F was selected as the preferred option to address programming, space needs and mission 

objectives while complying with the Secretary's Standards. Among its other advantages, Alternative F calls 

for more office space in the GPLs, an approach that requires a smaller amount of new construction to 

achieve the overall Master Plan goals. 

The Draft Master Plan takes into consideration NIST's programming and mission needs while emphasizing 

stewardship of the historic property by applying the Secretary's Standards. Our agency requests MHT's 

concurrence with our finding that the Master Plan will have no adverse effect to historic properties. Of 

course, once they are funded, we anticipate future review of individual projects by your office to consider 

possible effects to historic properties and consistency with the Standards pursuant to 800.5 of 36 CFR Part 

800. 

Please contact me at 301-975-6940 if you have any questions regarding this submittal. Thank you in 

advance for your thoughtful consideration. 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Enclosures 

cc: Ms. Natalie Loukianoff, Preservation Officer, MHT w/ enclosures 

Mr. Michael Weil, NCPC w/ enclosures 

Page 3 of 3 
MARYi.AND DEPARTMENT OF 

� 1 .. 61111 

PLANNING 

L

MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST 

arry Hogan, Governor Robert S. McCord, Acting Secretary 

Boyd Rutherford, Lt. Governor 

March 16, 2018 

Phillip W. Neuberg 

Federal Preservation Officer 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

100 Bureau Dr. 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Re: MHT Review of Draft Master Plan for NIST 

Montgomery County, Maryland 

MD20180 I 09-0007 

Dear Mr. Neuberg: 

Thank you for providing the Maryland Historical Trust (Trust), Maryland's State Historic Preservation Office, 

with copies of the draft Master Plan and Environmental Assessment for the NIST Gaithersburg Campus. The 

Trust is reviewing the undertaking with respect to potential effects on historic properties, pursuant to Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and we are writing to provide our comments. 

The NIST Gaithersburg campus was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places 

(National Register). The Master Plan is well written and incorporated the Design Guidelines (Chapter 11) which 

NIST and the Trust had previously discussed. The Trust concurs with NIST's determination that the Master 

Plan will have No Adverse Effect on Historic Properties on the condition that NIST will submit individual 

undertakings to the Trust to review for effects on historic properties pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.5, when 

planning proceeds for those undertakings. 

The Trust applauds NIST efforts in pursuing a formal listing in the National Register. We also appreciate 

NIST's proactive efforts to take historic properties into account during your planning process. We look forward 

to future consultation regarding a Programmatic Agreement for the campus. Thank you for providing us this 

opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or we may be of assistance, please contact me at 

natalie.loukianoff@maryland.gov or 410-697-9587. 

Sincerely, 

<-rlaAA-� 

N�t��ie Loukianoff 

Preservation Officer 

Maryland Historical Trust 

NSL/EJC/201800123 

CC: Michael Weil (NCPC) Rebecca Ballo (Montgomery County) 

Chrtstopner Wilson (ACHP) Rita P1 itchetl (Clem inghouse, 

Maryland Historical Trust • 100 Community Place • Crownsville • Maryland • 21032 

Tel: 410.697.9591 • toll free 877.767.6272 • TTY users: Maryland Relay • MHT.Maryland.gov 
 

 

 

Patrick Goodwin

From: Cantilli, Susan P (Fed) <susan.cantilli@nist.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:40 PM

To: Susan Drew; Debargha Sengupta

Subject: FW: NIST Campus Plan Comments

FYI

From: Laura Howell [mailto:Laura.Howell@gaithersburgmd.gov]  

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:23 PM 

To: Weil, Michael <michael.weil@ncpc.gov> 

Cc: Trudy Schwarz <Trudy.Schwarz@gaithersburgmd.gov>; Cantilli, Susan P (Fed) <susan.cantilli@nist.gov> 

Subject: RE: NIST Campus Plan Comments 

Hi Michael,

The City of Gaithersburg offers the following comments on the NIST Master Plan: 

The City of Gaithersburg is supportive of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Draft Master Plan for the 

Gaithersburg Campus. NIST submitted a copy of the draft Master Plan and which was reviewed by staff.  Representatives

of NIST then presented the plan to the Mayor and City Council on February 5, 2018. As evidenced by feedback from the 

Mayor and City Council following the presentation, the City greatly values NIST’s presence, and views this plan as a great 

model of sustainability and environmental consciousness. In particular, the City appreciates the plan’s focus on 

pedestrian and green infrastructure, as well as traffic flow and entrance queuing improvements. City Staff had the

opportunity to provide comments during the development of the draft, and is of the opinion that the plan is compatible 

with the adjoining Master Plan of the City of Gaithersburg and concurs with the goals and conclusions outlined in the

draft plan.  

Thank you, 

Laura 

Laura Howell

Long Range Planner

City of Gaithersburg|Planning and Code Administration 

31 S. Summit Avenue Gaithersburg, MD 20877

(240)805-1153

From: Weil, Michael [mailto:michael.weil@ncpc.gov]

Sent: Friday, March 09, 2018 8:27 AM 

To: Laura Howell 

Subject: NIST Campus Plan Comments 

Hi Laura – I spoke to Susan Cantilli from NIST, who gave me your contact information.  

1
 

I am currently reviewing the draft NIST master plan for our federal planning commission, and will present the plan to our 

Commission in April (5th), and I was interested in getting any sort of written comments that your department would like

to provide for our consideration as part of our review. I spoke to Phil Neuberg, and he told me that they presented their 

draft master plan to the Gaithersburg planning board, and he characterized your board as being generally supportive of 

their plan. So in follow‐up, we wanted to give your department an opportunity to provide written comments to us –

either via more formal letter, or by e‐mail. Also, if interested, you and/or other planners from your department are

welcome to attend our April meeting (April 5th @ 1:00 PM) and either watch the meeting only, or also testify in front of 

our Commission. 

Please contact me if you have any questions, and thanks for your consideration.  

Michael W. Weil

Urban Planner

National Capital Planning Commission

401 9th Street, NW

Suite 500

Washington, DC 20004

(t) 202.482.7253

(f) 202.482.7272

2
Co

mission Members 

Presidential Appointees 

L. Preston Bryant, Jr., Chairman 

Thomas M. Gallas 

Elizabeth A. White 

Mayoral Appointees 

Arrington Dixon 

Geoffrey Griffis 

Ex Officio Members 

Secretary of Defense 

The Honorable James Mattis 

Secretary of the Interior 

The Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Acting Administrator 

General Services Administration 

The Honorable Timothy Horne 

Chairman 

Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ron Johnson 

Chairman 

Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy 

Mayor 

District of Columbia 

The Honorable Muriel Bowser 

Chairman 

Council of the District of Columbia 

The Honorable Phil Mendelson 

Executive Director 

Marcel Acosta 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

NCPC FILE No. MP23 

APR 11 2018 

Mr. Robert C. Vaughn, Director 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

US Department of Commerce 

Office of Facilities and Property Management 

Chief Facilities Management Officer 

100 Bureau Drive 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20708 

Dear Mr. McKee: 

The National Capital Planning Commission, at its April 5, 2018 meeting, approved 

the enclosed comments on the draft master plan for the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST), Draft Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan. A 

copy ofthe Executive Director's Recommendation for the project is also enclosed. 

Sincerely, 

Marcel C. Acosta 

Executive Director 

Enclosures 

cc: Ms. Gwen Wright, Director of Planning, Maryland-National Capital Park 

and Planning Commission, Montgomery County 
-�National

��

�Capital • Planning llii�Commission 

Commission Action 

April 5, 2018 

PROJECT NCPC FILE NUMBER 

Draft Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan MP23 

National Institute of Standards 

NCPC MAP FILE NUMBER and Technology 3115.10(05.00)44725 100 Bureau Drive 

Gaithersburg, Maryland APPLICANT'S REQUEST 

Approval of comments on draft SUBMITTED BY master plan United States Department of Commerce 

ACTION TAKEN 

REVIEW AUTHORITY Approved comments on draft Advisory master plan per 40 U.S.C. § 8722(a) and (b)(1) 

The Commission: 

Approves the following comments on the draft campus plan for the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) Gaithersburg campus. 

Supports the Alternative F development concept, which concentrates new development in the 

campus center (historic core) to facilitate research; preserves the campus's open space character; 

and adds more programmable outdoor spaces to facilitate professional collaboration. 

Finds that Alternative F most successfully provides for NIST's research mission, while preserving 

the historic campus core and integrating new sustainable development measures. 

Historic Preservation 

Notes that the Maryland Historic Trust (State Historic Preservation Office) has determined the 

campus is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places "for its association with 

events that made important contributions to the broad patterns of history under the Science and 

Technology and Postwar Research Campus Design themes, and as a recognizable entity that 

embodies the characteristic of Post War Research Campus design." 

Finds that Alternative F best preserves the campus core's existing grid pattern of development, 

formal landscape, large-scale monumental buildings, and general/specialized laboratories, 

identified as hallmarks of postwar research campus design. 

Commends NIST' s careful consideration of the campus's unique historic character throughout the 

planning and design process. 
Commission Action Page2 

NCPC File No. MP23 

Sustainability 

Supports the National Institute of Standards & Technology's effort to meet federal and State 

sustainability goals at its Gaithersburg campus through integrated, campus-wide strategies related 

to stormwater management, landscaping, and energy-efficiency. 

Finds that all of the proposed alternatives, including Alternative F, convert significant amounts of 

manicured property to new forests and meadows; identify a campus-wide system of rain gardens, 

bioswales, and planter boxes; and identify future solar panel installations and net-zero energy 

buildings. 

Accessffransportation 

Supports NIST's plans to develop a new pedestrian promenade between the adjacent Corridor 

Cities Transitway station and campus core, new interior campus trail network, additional 

sidewalks/crosswalks, bikeshare stations, and new external bicycle trails to encourage pedestrian, 

bicycle, and transit travel. 

Supports the planned development of Gate F to accommodate future commercial vehicle 

inspections, shipping/receiving, and conference visitor screening based on site compatibility. 

Requests that NIST continue refining the project's design to minimize impacts to the campus 

setting and off-site neighborhoods through landscaping, reconfiguring access roads, and light 

control measures. 

Notes that NIST will improve its overall parking ratio from 1: 1.5 to 1: 1.9 with the implementation 

of the campus plan. The proposed ratio for federal employees, who comprise approximately 70 

percent of the total population on campus, is 1:2. The proposed ratio for non-federal employees 

(contractors, guest researchers), who comprise 30 percent of the total population, is 1:1.7. 

Requests that NIST prioritize development of a detailed Travel Demand Management plan with 

future mode share goals, program implementation steps/schedules, and regular commuter travel 

monitoring program for both federal and non-federal employees. The TDM plan should contain 

programs, strategies, goals, and implementation information specifically directed at encouraging 

more sustainable travel behavior by non-federal employees. 
Commission Action Page3 

NCPC File No. MP23 

Requests that NIST submit a transportation progress report to NCPC for review prior to submitting 

the new parking garage and Building 411 lot expansion projects with the following information: 

• Status of programs included in the future NIST Travel Demand Management plan, which

demonstrate progress towards attaining future non-single occupant vehicle mode share

goals; and

• Travel trend information based on commuter surveys given between 2016 and most recent

survey prior to submission of the new garage and Building 411 lot expansion projects.

04/05/2018 

J uiia A. Koster Date 

I / 

\__..-·Secretary to the National Capital Planning Commission 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
APPENDIX C 

GENERAL CONFORMITY RULE APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

The General Conformity Rule (GCR) was established to ensure that federal activities do not hamper local efforts to control air pollution. In particular, the GCR 

implements Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits federal agencies, departments, or instrumentalities from engaging in, supporting, licensing, or approving 

any action that does not conform to an approved state or federal implementation plan. The purpose of the GCR Applicability Analysis is to determine whether the 

Proposed Action—execution of a Master Plan for the NIST Gaithersburg Campus—is subject to the federal GCR. 

Under the Proposed Action, NIST would execute new construction and additions to existing facilities totaling approximately 1,417,000 gross square feet (GSF), the 

renovation of approximately 2,608,000 GSF, and demolition of two temporary facilities totaling approximately 20,000 GSF. The Proposed Action would also construct a 

four-story parking garage and reconfigure pavement and sidewalks throughout the campus to support the new facilities. These activities would result in emissions because 

of the use of equipment and vehicles during construction activities and building demolition. In addition, the construction of new facilities that would be serviced by the 

campus Steam and Chilled Water Generation Plant (the Plant) would result in annual operating emissions from increased heating and cooling demand. The Proposed 

Action would occur in multiple phasing packages over a 20-year period. The number of personnel working at and commuting to the NIST Gaithersburg Campus during 

this period would increase by approximately 1,109 (from 4,007 to 5,106). The additional personnel commuting to campus would generate mobile source emissions. Using 

USEPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator, this analysis estimated the resulting emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. This analysis 

conservatively estimates the emissions of nonattainment criteria pollutants using a worst-case scenario construction schedule. Because of more stringent emission 

standards and improving vehicle efficiencies, emission rates are expected to decrease over the course of the Master Plan. Therefore, emissions from construction 

activities, employee commuting, and operation of the affected facilities were modeled using 2019 as the construction year to provide a conservative estimate. These 

calculations demonstrate that the emissions resulting from the Proposed Action would be below the de minimis levels defined for those pollutants in the Applicability 

Section of the GCR for the year 2019. Therefore, the GCR is not applicable to the Proposed Action. 

Introduction 

The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the Proposed Action— 

execution of a Master Plan for the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland—is subject to the federal 

General Conformity Rule (GCR) established in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), Part 51, Subpart W, Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions 

to State or Federal Implementation Plans. The GCR was established to ensure 

that federal activities do not hamper local efforts to control air pollution. In 

particular, Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) prohibits federal 

agencies, departments, or instrumentalities from engaging in, supporting, 

licensing, or approving any action that does not conform to an approved state or 

federal implementation plan. This analysis will determine under which of the 

following areas the Proposed Action will fall: 

• Not subject to the rule – The action does not emit criteria pollutants or 

precursors for which the area is designated as a nonattainment or 

maintenance area—all procurement actions are excluded from the 

GCR. 

• Exempt or below de minimis levels – Emissions from the action are 

below de minimis levels and are not regionally significant, or the action 

is exempt. 

• Does not meet de minimis levels or is regionally significant – 

Emissions from the action exceed de minimis levels—a Conformity 

Determination must be prepared for such actions. 

This analysis is organized into the following sections: 

• Background – Information on applicable air emission programs and 

limitations, including de minimis levels. 

• Proposed Action – A description of the Master Plan at the NIST 

Gaithersburg Campus. 

• Emissions Calculation Methods and Results – Procedures and results 

for estimating emissions associated with the Proposed Action. 

• Conclusion – Assessment of whether the GCR is applicable to the 

Proposed Action. 

Background 

As part of the implementation of the CAA Amendments, the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide 

(CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan C-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10) and 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), 

ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb) (USEPA, 2017a). USEPA 

defines ambient air in 40 CFR Part 50.1(e) as “that portion of the atmosphere, 

external to buildings, to which the general public has access.” Table C-1 shows 

the current NAAQS concentration limits as of November 2017 (USEPA, 2017a). 

Table C-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Criteria Pollutant Averaging Time Level a 

Ozone (O3) 8-hour 0.070 ppm b 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24-hour 35.0 ug/m3 

Annual Mean 12.0 ug/m3 

Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-hour 150 ug/m3 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-hour 35.0 ppm 

8-hour 9.0 ppm 

Lead (Pb) 3-month 0.15 ug/m3 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-hour 100 ppb 

Annual Mean 53 ppb 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-hour 75 ppb 

3-hour 0.5 ppm 

Notes: 

a – All of the standards are primary standards, which provide public health 

protection, except for the 3-hour SO2 limit, which is a secondary standard and 

provides public welfare protection. Units of measure are parts per million 

(ppm) by volume, parts per billion (ppb) by volume, and micrograms per cubic 

meter of air (ug/m3

). 

b – A final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015 

established a more stringent 8-hour standard of 0.070 ppm. The previous 

(2008) ozone standards of 0.075 ppm remain in effect in some areas. 

The CAA divides the U.S. into geographic areas called “air quality control 

regions” (AQCRs). These AQCRs are established areas such as counties, 

urbanized areas, and consolidated metropolitan statistical areas. An AQCR in 

which levels of a criteria air pollutant meet the health-based NAAQS is 

designated an attainment area for the pollutant, while an area that does not meet 

the NAAQS is designated a nonattainment area for the pollutant. An area that 

was once designated a nonattainment area but was later reclassified as an 

attainment area is known as a maintenance area. Nonattainment and 

maintenance areas can be further classified as extreme, severe, serious, 

moderate, or marginal. An AQCR may have an acceptable level for one criteria 

air pollutant but may have unacceptable levels for other criteria air pollutants. 

Thus, an area could be attainment, maintenance, and/or nonattainment at the 

same time for different pollutants. 

Each nonattainment AQCR is responsible for submitting a State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), which specifies the manner in which NAAQS will be achieved and 

maintained. Maintenance areas must adhere to a maintenance plan for the 

specific pollutant for which the area was initially designated nonattainment. 

The NIST Gaithersburg Campus is located in Montgomery County, Maryland. 

Montgomery County is part of the Metropolitan Washington AQCR, which is 

managed by the Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee (MWAQC). 

The Washington, DC-MD-VA Metropolitan Area is also included in the larger 

North-East/Mid-Atlantic Ozone Transport Region. The USEPA has designated 

Montgomery County as nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS. Montgomery 

County is an attainment area for PM, CO, SO2, NO2, and lead (40 CFR 81.321). 

Part of Montgomery County is a CO maintenance area, but the campus is not 

located within this area (USEPA, 2017b). 

The Applicability Analysis Section of the GCR, 40 CFR 93.153, states that 

Federal actions are required to perform a conformity determination for each 

nonattainment criteria pollutant (or precursor to those pollutants) if the total of 

direct and indirect emissions of those pollutants would equal or exceed the de 

minimis levels defined in that section. Table C-2 identifies the de minimis levels 

that would apply to actions at the NIST Gaithersburg Campus in Montgomery 

County, Maryland. This GCR applicability analysis will determine whether the 

Proposed Action has the potential to result in emissions above the levels listed in 

Table C-2. 

USEPA promulgated revisions to the GCR on March 24, 2010. The revised rule 

removes requirements for federal agencies to conduct conformity determinations 

for “regionally significant” actions that have emissions greater than 10% of the 

emissions inventory for a nonattainment area if expected pollutant emissions do 

not exceed de minimis levels. Therefore, this applicability analysis does not 

evaluate the Proposed Action for “regional significance.” 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan C-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table C-2. Montgomery County Attainment Status and General Conformity Rule De Minimis Thresholds 

Criteria Pollutant Classification of Montgomery County 

Pollutant or 

Precursor of 

Concern 

De Minimis 

Emission Rate 

(tons/yr) a, b 

Ozone (O3) Nonattainment of the 1997 standard (moderate) NOx 100 

Nonattainment of the 2008 standard (marginal) VOC 50 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment CO N/A 

Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment PM10 N/A 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment PM2.5 N/A 

NOx N/A 

SO2 N/A 

Lead (Pb) Attainment Pb N/A 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment NO2 N/A 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment SO2 N/A 

Notes: 

a – De minimis levels are emission rates specified in 40 CFR 93.153(b), which may not be exceeded by federal 

actions taking place in nonattainment and maintenance areas. 

b – N/A designates that Montgomery County is an attainment area for that pollutant and de minimis levels are 

therefore not applicable for that pollutant. 

Proposed Action 

The need for the NIST Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan, and the campus 

improvements prescribed therein, is driven by both institutional policy and the 

inability of existing facilities to support current and projected mission 

requirements at the campus. The Master Plan emphasizes quality and 

collaborative research in addition to sustainable and efficient operations. The 

Master Plan addresses current campus needs and delineates future development 

through phasing packages. The Master Plan provides for the modernization of 

aging, inefficient buildings and accommodates the anticipated growth in 

research programs over the next 20 years. Under the Master Plan, NIST would 

execute new construction and additions to existing facilities totaling 

approximately 1,417,000 GSF, the renovation of approximately 2,608,000 GSF, 

and demolition of two temporary facilities totaling approximately 20,000 GSF. 

The Proposed Action would also construct a four-story parking garage and 

reconfigure pavement and sidewalks throughout the campus to support the new 

facilities. The Proposed Action would occur in multiple phasing packages over a 

20-year period. 

To ensure a conservative analysis, NIST assumed a very aggressive construction 

schedule for the year 2019. See Table C-3 for a summary of construction and 

demolition activities, including the associated square footage assumed for this 

worst-case scenario construction year. Because of more stringent emission 

standards and improving vehicle efficiencies, emission rates are expected to 

decrease over the course of the Master Plan. Therefore, emissions from 

construction activities and operation of the affected facilities were modeled 

using 2019 as the construction year to provide a conservative estimate. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan C-3 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

Table C-3. Summary of Construction and Demolition Activities for WorstCase Construction Year under the Master Plan 

2019 Construction and Demolition Activities Total (SF) 

Construction 

Buildings (New) 250,000 

Buildings (Renovation) 200,000 

Pavement/ Sidewalks 15,000 

Demolition 

Buildings 20,000 

Pavement/ Sidewalks 15,000 

Notes: 

This is an assumed construction schedule, specifically for the purposes of this GCR 

applicability analysis. 

Emissions Calculation Methods and Results 

Because USEPA has designated the Washington, DC-MD-VA area a 

nonattainment area for ozone, this applicability analysis estimates emissions of 

ozone precursors (NOx and VOC) associated with the Master Plan. This analysis 

considers the changes in emissions resulting from temporary construction and 

demolition activities (including equipment and vehicle use and painting 

activities); operation of campus boilers and generators; and relocation of new 

staff to the NIST Gaithersburg Campus. 

Construction and Demolition Equipment Emissions 

Emissions associated with construction and demolition under the Master Plan 

would originate from mobile sources such as excavators, bulldozers, loaders, 

dump trucks, and privately owned vehicles (POVs). Emissions from these 

vehicles were estimated using USEPA’s MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator 

(MOVES), which models both on-road (e.g., dump trucks and POVs) and 

nonroad vehicles (e.g., excavators, bulldozers, loaders). USEPA developed 

MOVES to help states develop estimates of current and future emission 

inventories for on-road motor vehicles and nonroad equipment. MOVES can 

calculate emission inventories from the default database or user inputs at the 

county or sub-county scale. For this analysis, MOVES was used to develop 

emission factors outside the model in units of either grams of pollutant per mile 

traveled for on-road vehicles or grams of pollutant per horsepower-hour for 

nonroad equipment. These emission factors reflect all US mobile source 

emissions regulations specific to the 2019 calendar year. 

MOVES requires the user to select settings in an input file (termed a “run 

specification” file) through the following navigation panels of the model’s 

graphical user interface: 

• Scale: On-road or Nonroad model; National, County, or Project scale; 

and Inventory or Emission Rate calculation mode. 

• Time Spans: Year(s), month(s), day(s), and hour(s). 

• Geographic Bounds: Nation, state(s), and county(ies). 

• Vehicles/Equipment: Fuels and source use type (on-road) or sector 

(nonroad). 

• Road Type: Road type(s) for on-road only. 

• Pollutants and Processes: Combinations of pollutants and emission 

processes (e.g., VOC from running exhaust). 

• Manage Input Datasets: Optional input database tables to override 

default data. 

• Strategies: Optional checkbox to compute Rate-of-Progress “No Clean 

Air Act Amendments” Emissions. 

• General Output: Create output database name, select units, and choose 

activity types to report. 

• Output Emissions Detail: Choose aggregation options for the output. 

• Advanced Performance Features: These options are not needed for 

most analyses. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan C-4 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The MOVES selections for this GCR analysis are specified in Table C-4. 

The activity and emissions corresponding to the on-road and nonroad fleets for 

the Master Plan are shown in Table C-5 and Table C-6, below. The model year 

of the vehicles used in construction and demolition was assumed to be five years 

before the 2019 construction year. The model years of the passenger fleet 

associated with new employees reflects the national average mix of vehicle ages 

for the 2019 calendar year. The emission standards, technology types, and fleet 

turnover effects are all built into MOVES and result in reduced emissions on a 

per unit activity basis in future years. The vehicle types, number of vehicles, 

mileage, and operating hours were based on information gathered from 

comparable federal demolition and construction projects. On-road and nonroad 

input files were created for the 2019 calendar year to model the described 

scenario. 

Total estimated temporary emissions under the Master Plan from construction 

and demolition activities for the 2019 calendar year are shown in Table C-7. 

Painting Activities (VOC Emissions) 

VOCs are emitted as gases from a variety of construction materials, including 

paints and coatings. For the purposes of this analysis, it is conservatively 

assumed that the interior surface area requiring painting is three times the total 

building footprint, three coats of paint would be applied (one primer and two 

finish), and the average VOC content of the paint would be 1 pound of VOC per 

gallon of paint. 

VOC emissions from painting activities for 2019 are summarized in Table C-8. 

Operating Emissions 

Operating emissions changes were assessed by comparing the total emissions 

generated from boilers in FY 2016 with the projected annual emissions from the 

boilers following completion of the 2019 construction activities under the 

Master Plan. 

In 2016, the boilers at the Steam and Chilled Water Generation Plant consumed 

727 million standard cubic feet (MM scf) of natural gas, while servicing the 

NIST Gaithersburg Campus consisting of 3,641,215 gross square feet (GSF) of 

facility space. For this analysis, NIST assumed that the change in campus-wide 

boiler emissions would be proportional to the increase in facility space. These 

fuel consumption estimates and associated total and net change in operating 

emissions are shown in Table C-9. This approach likely overestimates fuel 

consumption under the Master Plan, which would incorporate energy efficiency 

improvements through renovation activities. 

MVA to 15 MVA upon completion of the Master Plan. The emergency 

generators operate up to one hour per week for regular testing to ensure system 

functionality. For this analysis, it is conservatively assumed that two additional 

emergency generators, rated at 100 kilowatts (kW) and 1,000 kW, would be 

installed to support new facilities associated with the assumed 2019 construction 

activities under the Master Plan. It is assumed that the generators would each 

operate 1 hour per week and up to 48 hours during emergencies for a total of 

100 hours per year. Estimated operating emissions associated with these new 

generators are summarized in Table C-10. 

The Master Plan could result in a minor increase in VOC emissions because of 

the installation of additional fume hoods in various laboratories. Emissions 

estimates for fume hoods are not available. For this analysis, NIST assumed that 

any changes in VOC emissions associated with fume hoods would be negligible 

and would not influence the conclusion of this GCR applicability analysis. 

Employee Commuting Emissions 

The Master Plan would increase the number of personnel working at and 

commuting to the NIST Gaithersburg Campus by approximately 27% (from 

4,007 to 5,106) over the course of a 20-year period. The assumed 2019 

construction activities would increase the number of personnel working at the 

campus by approximately 220. However, emissions from personnel commuting 

to the campus would be expected to decrease in the future because of USEPA’s 

Tier 3 emission standards and fuel program. The Tier 3 program mandates lower 

sulfur gasoline, evaporative emission standards, and exhaust emission standards 

that reduce NOx, VOC, PM2.5, CO, and air toxics. Compared to 2014 fleetaverage emission standards, the new Tier 3 standards represent an 80% 

reduction in light-duty vehicle emissions of non-methane organic gas and NOx, 

and a 70% reduction in per-vehicle PM standards. The vehicle emissions 

standards component of Tier 3 phases in over years 2017-2025, and the 

transition to 10 parts per million (ppm) sulfur gasoline occurred in 2017. As a 

result, the net employee commuting emissions over the course of the Master 

Plan may actually decrease relative to current levels, despite the increase in 

campus population. 

The MOVES model was used to estimate the emissions associated with the 

additional personnel commuting to and from work. Approximately 84% of 

personnel commute to the NIST Gaithersburg Campus via personal vehicles and 

the remainder of the personnel commute via bicycle, transit bus, 

carpool/vanpool, or walking. To develop a worst-case scenario emissions 

estimate, it is assumed that all 220 personnel would relocate to Montgomery 

County from outside the Metropolitan Washington AQCR, and that all 220 

personnel would commute via personal vehicles without carpooling. 

Individual emergency generators are located throughout the campus to provide According to Montgomery County census data, the average commute time for 

emergency power for life safety and standby power. As new laboratories are Montgomery County residents in 2015 was 34.5 minutes (NIST, 2017). 

renovated or constructed, the Master Plan would install new emergency Assuming an average commute speed of 30 miles per hour, yields a commute 

generators to increase the campus-wide backup capacity from approximately 4 distance of 17.25 miles. Therefore, each new employee is assumed to drive 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan C-5 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

17.25 miles one-way from their residence in the Metropolitan Washington 

AQCR to the campus, for a total of 34.5 miles per weekday, 260 days per year. 

Using these assumptions, the 2019 staff increase of 220 people translates to a 

total of approximately 2.0 million more vehicle miles traveled (VMT) annually 

from personnel commuting to work at the campus. 

Table C-11 summarizes the VMT and emissions associated with additional 

employee commuting under the Master Plan. 

Conclusion 

The projected levels of emissions generated by the Master Plan, resulting from 

construction and demolition activities and operating changes, would be below de 

minimis thresholds for the assumed 2019 worst-case construction year, as 

summarized in Table C-12. Therefore, the GCR is not applicable to the Master 

Plan. 

References 

1. NIST. 2017. Living in Montgomery County. 

https://www.nist.gov/ohrm/living-montgomery-county-md. Accessed 

13 November 2017. 

2. USEPA. 2017a. NAAQS Table. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants/naaqs-table. Accessed 15 November 2017. 

3. USEPA. 2017b. Carbon Monoxide (1971) Maintenance 

Area/State/County Report (Redesignated from Nonattainment). Current 

as of September 30, 2017. 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/cmca.html. Accessed 15 

November 2017. 

4. USEPA. 2017c. De Minimis Tables. https://www.epa.gov/generalconformity/de-minimis-tables. Accessed 15 November 2017. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan C-6 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

Table C-4. MOVES Input File Selections 

MOVES Navigation Panel Model Parameter GCR Analysis Setting 

Scale Model On-road, Nonroad 

Domain/Scale National 

Calculation Type Inventory 

Time Spans Time Aggregation Level Year (on-road) and Day (nonroad) 

Years 2019 

Months All 12 

Days Weekday and Weekend 

Hours All 24 

Geographic Bounds Region County 

States and Counties Montgomery, Maryland 

Vehicles/Equipment Fuels Gasoline, E85, Diesel, and Nonroad Diesel 

Source Use Types (on-road) Passenger Car, Passenger Truck, Light 

Sectors (nonroad) Commercial, Construction 

Road Type Selected Road Types All (on-road) 

Manage Input Datasets Database/tables input N/A 

Strategies Rate-of-Progress N/A 

Output Units Grams, Joules, Miles 

Activity (on-road) Distance Traveled, Population 

Time Year (on-road), Day (nonroad) 

Location County 

Aggregation Levels Model Year, Source Use Type (on-road), SCC 

Advanced Performance Features N/A N/A 

Acronyms: Horsepower (HP), not applicable (N/A), source classification code (SCC). 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan C-7 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Table C-5. On-Road Construction and Demolition Vehicle Activity and Estimated 

Emissions (Based on Assumed 2019 Activities) 

MOVES Vehicle Class Annual Miles 

Emissions (tons/year) 

NOx VOC 

Light Commercial Truck 1,096,317 0.19 0.14 

Single Unit Short-haul Truck 456,192 0.44 0.06 

Combination Unit Short-haul Truck 32,319 0.05 0.00 

Total 1,584,828 0.68 0.21 

Table C-6. Nonroad Equipment Activity and Estimated Emissions (Based on Assumed 2019 Activities) 

Equipment Type SCC Max HP Load Factor Annual Hours 

Emissions (tons/year) 

NOx VOC 

Air Compressor 2270006015 16 0.43 108,000 3.66 0.41 

Asphalt Paver 2270002021 175 0.59 120 0.00 0.00 

Backhoe 2270002066 175 0.21 5,404 0.06 0.03 

Bulldozer 2270002069 175 0.59 5,644 0.18 0.10 

Crane 2270002045 175 0.43 16,136 0.38 0.21 

Excavator 2270002036 600 0.59 5,000 0.55 0.30 

Generator 2270006005 40 0.43 108,000 6.16 0.30 

Loader 2270002066 175 0.21 264 0.00 0.00 

Roller 2270002015 100 0.59 5,000 0.09 0.05 

Skid Steer Loader 2270002072 75 0.21 5,540 0.29 0.01 

Steel Track Loader 2270002066 50 0.21 1,040 0.04 0.00 

Vibratory Compactor 2270002015 6 0.59 5,000 0.09 0.05 

Total 265,148 11.50 1.47 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan C-8 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Coats of VOC Content Paint Coverage Total VOC 

Interior Surfaces (SF) Paint (lb/gal) (SF/gal) Emissions (tons) 

1,350,000 3 1.0 300 6.8 

 

 

 

Table C-7. Total Estimated Construction and Demolition Equipment 

Emissions (Based on Assumed 2019 Activities) 

Emission Source 

Emissions (tons) 

NOx VOC 

On-road 0.68 0.21 

Nonroad 11.50 1.47 

Total 12.19 1.68 

Table C-8. Total Estimated VOC Emissions from Painting Activities (Based on Assumed 

2019 Activities) 

Table C-9. Summary of Existing and Projected Boiler Fuel Consumption (Based on Assumed 2019 Activities) 

Metric Existing (2016) 

Projected 

(2019) Net Change 

Steam and Chilled Water Generation Plant Boilers 

Proposed Construction (GSF) N/A 250,000 N/A 

Proposed Demolition (GSF) N/A 20,000 N/A 

Total Building Area (GSF) 3,641,215 3,911,215 270,000 

Annual Fuel Consumption (MM scf) 727 781 54 

Operating Emissions 

(tons/year) 

NOx 19.4 20.8 1.4 

VOC 2.02 2.16 0.14 

Notes: 

The projected annual fuel consumption represents the expected annual emissions once the assumed 2019 

construction is completed. Although these emissions would not occur until after the 2019 construction is 

completed, these emissions are counted toward the 2019 emission totals to provide a conservative analysis. 

Existing gross square footage (GSF) data was obtained from the Draft NIST Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan, 

Exhibit 3. 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan C-9 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

Table C-10. Projected Emissions from Operation of New Diesel Generators (Based on Assumed 2019 

Activities) 

Generators Projected Emissions (tons/year) 

Capacity (kW) Model Year Count Operation (hrs/yr) NOx VOC 

1,000 2018 1 100 1.61 0.05 

100 2018 1 100 0.21 0.02 

Total 1.82 0.07 

Table C-11. Vehicle Miles Traveled and Emissions from On-road Vehicles 

of New Personnel (Based on Assumed 2019 Activities) 

Personnel Added VMT Added 

Emissions (tons/year) 

NOx PM10 

220 1,973,400 0.66 0.63 

Notes: 

Personnel data were extrapolated from the Draft NIST Gaithersburg Campus 

Master Plan, Exhibit 3. 

Table C-12. Estimated Emissions from the Worst-Case Construction Year under the Master Plan Compared to GCR De Minimis 

Thresholds 

Pollutant 

Construction and Demolition Activities 

Net Change in 

Operating 

Emissions (tons) 

Net Change in 

Employee 

Commuting 

Emissions (tons) 

Total Net Change in 

Emissions under 

Proposed Action 

(tons) 

De Minimis 

Level (tons) 

Construction and 

Demolition 

Equipment 

Emissions (tons) 

Painting Activity 

Emissions (tons) 

NOx 12.2 - 3.3 0.7 16.1 100 

VOC 1.7 6.8 0.2 0.6 9.3 50 

Gaithersburg Campus Master Plan C-10 Final Environmental Assessment 
Metropolitan Architects & Planners, Inc. 

Alexandria, VA 

Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

Chantilly, VA