Executive Director's Recommendation

Executive Director’s Recommendation Commission Meeting: May 1, 2014

PROJECT Draft Real Property Master Plan Joint Base Myer – Henderson Hall Washington, District of Columbia and Arlington County, Virginia SUBMITTED BY United States Department of Defense Department of the Army REVIEW AUTHORITY Approval of Master Plan for Use by the Commission as a Guide for Future Reviews of Individual Site and Building Projects per 40 U.S.C. § 8722(b)(1)

NCPC FILE NUMBER MP302/MP108 NCPC MAP FILE NUMBER 00.00(05.00)43919 APPLICANT’S REQUEST Approval of comments on draft master plan PROPOSED ACTION Approve with comments ACTION ITEM TYPE Consent Calendar

PROJECT SUMMARY The Department of the Navy has submitted a draft Joint Base Real Property Master Plan (RPMP) for Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall (JBM-HH). JBM-HH is comprised of two installations: a combined Fort Myer and Henderson Hall (which were formerly separate installations), and Fort Leslie J. McNair (Fort McNair). Fort Myer and Henderson Hall are contiguous sites located in Arlington, Virginia; generally, they are located along the along the western border of Arlington National Cemetery. Fort McNair is located at Buzzards Point, at the confluence of the Anacostia River and the Potomac River, in Washington, D.C. Following 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendations, Fort Myer assumed installation management responsibilities for Henderson Hall and Fort McNair, with the process formally completed on October 30, 2010. Because of its proximity to the Pentagon, Arlington National Cemetery, and Capitol Hill, JBM-HH functions as a major ceremonial, service, and institutional hub for the Department of Defense. The RPMP contains detailed planning strategies to organize these functions and guide the long-range use of land and facilities between Fort Myer and Henderson Hall, and Fort McNair. There are five components of the RPMP for JBM-HH: the Long Range Component; the Capital Investment Strategy; the Short Range Component; the Installation Design Guide; and the Real Property Master Plan Digest. In addition, a Transportation Management Program has been prepared.

Executive Director’s Recommendation NCPC File No. MP302/MP108

KEY INFORMATION

• The primary mission of JBM-HH is to conduct base operations and specialized support for the Department of the Army and the U.S. Marine Corps, as well as for other Department of Defense organizations within the Military District of Washington. This includes providing security, ceremonial operations, and housing for officers, non-commissioned officers and their families. In addition, JBM-HH is charged with providing security and crisis response in the National Capital Region.

• The primary unit based at Fort Myer is the Army’s 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment, The Old Guard. Henderson Hall is home to the U.S. Marine Corps Headquarters Battalion. Fort McNair is the Home of the Joint Forces Headquarters National Capital Region / Military District of Washington.

• Fort Myer comprises approximately 243 acres, Henderson Hall consists of approximately 29 acres, and Fort McNair is located on an approximately 107 acres.

• At Fort Myer and Henderson Hall, the Long-Range Component of the RPMP anticipates approximately 1,000,000 square feet of new development over a 20-year time frame.

• At Fort McNair, the Long-Range Component of the RPMP anticipates approximately 300,000 square feet of new development over this 20-year time frame.

• At Fort Myer and Henderson Hall estimated daily employment is expected to increase by 1551 to a total of 11,725 in the short-term (2012 to 2017).

• At Fort McNair, estimated employment is expected to increases by 395 to a total of 4,406 in the short-term (2012 to 2017). As specific future mission requirements have not been determined, specific long-term employment estimates have not been developed.

• At Fort Myer and Henderson Hall, the estimated total number of parking spaces remains unchanged in the short-term with a total of 3,800 (2012 to 2017). With the estimated increase in employment the employee parking ratio changes from 1:2.7 to 1:3.1 in the short-term (2012-2017). At Fort McNair, the estimated total number of parking spaces will decrease in the short-term by 70 for a total of 1,380 (2012 to 2017). With the estimated increase in employment the employee parking ratio changes from 1:2.8 to 1:3.2 (2012-2017). While these parking ratios remain under NCPC’s recommended employee parking ratio of one parking space for every four employees at the installation, they do include all installation parking spaces but do not account for the significant number of daily visitors to the Joint Base that also compete for the use of these parking spaces.


RECOMMENDATION The Commission provides the following comments:

Supports the guiding principles of the draft Joint Base Real Property Master Plan for Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall.

Supports the Future Development Plans for both Fort Myer and Henderson Hall, and Fort McNair, noting that they maintain the historic character of the installations while identifying new structures and future development areas that build upon and improve the existing physical layouts of the installation.

Fort Myer and Henderson Hall

Encourages the Department of the Army to work with Arlington County and the Pentagon on the potential to replace or supplement additional Department of Defense shuttle routes with ART bus routes.

Encourages the Department of the Army to review the practicality of and potential locations for on- and off-installation Capital Bikeshare stations and work to implement if appropriate.

Encourages the Department of the Army to coordinate with Arlington County on individual project proposals at the installation and with the Virginia Department of Transportation on individual project proposals that may generate sufficient traffic to potentially impact area roadways.

Supports the July 10, 2013 Memorandum of Understanding that the Department of the Army entered into that outlines parameters to potentially exchange real property among the Arlington County Board, the United States Government, and others, that may result in the vacation of the current Southgate Road, and the construction of the a new access road to serve the Joint Base. Encourages the Department of the Army to continue coordination with the master planning efforts of the Arlington National Cemetery and the Pentagon Reservation. Requests that the Army modify the Long-Range Component of the Real Property Master Plan to include the potential revised access to the installation.

Fort McNair

Encourages the Department of the Army to coordinate with the District of Columbia Government directly on new public/private developments exterior to the installation, including the potential soccer stadium, to ensure minimal impacts to installation operations including in the areas of impacts to historic resources and transportation as well as installation security.

Encourages the Department of the Army to review the practicality of and potential locations for on- and off-installation Capital Bikeshare stations and work to implement if appropriate.

Notes that individual project proposals at the installation will be coordinated with local review agencies through NCPC’s Coordination Committee.


Table of Contents

I. Project Description ............................................................................................................... 8

Site / Background ................................................................................................................. 8 History and Physical Descriptions of Fort Myer, Henderson Hall, and Fort McNair ........ 9

JBM-HH Real Property Master Plan ................................................................................ 15

JBM-HH Real Property Master Plan Guiding Principles ................................................. 15

Constraints and Opportunities for Development at JBM-HH Installations ...................... 16

Proposal ..............................................................................................................................21 Future Development Plan: Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall........................................... 22

Future Development Plan: Fort McNair ........................................................................... 29

II. Project Analysis/Conformance ............................................................................................34

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................34

Analysis ...............................................................................................................................34 Fort Myer and Henderson Hall ......................................................................................... 35

Fort Myer and Henderson Hall Functional Areas ........................................................... 35

Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Development Framework and Land Use Plan ................... 37

Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Circulation, Parking, and Transportation Framework ...... 40

Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Open Space Framework ..................................................... 44

Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Viewshed Framework ......................................................... 44

Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Topography, Soils, Geology and Water Resources ............ 45

Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Vegetation ........................................................................... 48

Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Cultural Resources ............................................................. 48

Fort McNair ...................................................................................................................... 51

Fort McNair Functional Areas ......................................................................................... 51

Fort McNair Development Framework and Land Use Plan ............................................ 53

Fort McNair Circulation Framework, Parking, and Transportation Plan ...................... 55

Fort McNair Open Space Framework .............................................................................. 57

Fort McNair Viewshed Framework .................................................................................. 57

Fort McNair Topography, Soils, Geography and Water Resources ................................ 58

Fort McNair Vegetation .................................................................................................... 61


Fort McNair Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 61

Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital ......................................................................64

Relevant Federal Facility Master Plan .................................................................................64

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ..........................................................................64

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) ..........................................................................65

III. Consultation ........................................................................................................................65

General Public .....................................................................................................................65

Virginia Public Agencies ......................................................................................................65

Coordinating Committee ......................................................................................................66

IV. Appendix .............................................................................................................................66


Figures and Maps

Figure 1: Regional Location Map ............................................................................................... 8

Figure 2: Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Aerial Site Map ...............................................................12

Figure 3: Fort McNair Aerial Site Map .......................................................................................14

Figure 4: Summary of Natural Resources .................................................................................17

Figure 5: Summary of Cultural Resources .................................................................................18

Figure 6: Operational Constraints..............................................................................................18

Figure 7: JBM-HH Combined Constraints Map..........................................................................19

Figure 8: Fort McNair Combined Constraints Map ....................................................................20

Figure 9: Real Property Master Plan process chart ...................................................................21

Figure 10: JBM-HH Long Range Future Development Plan ......................................................24

Figure 11: JBMHH Short Range Future Development Plan .......................................................28

Figure 12: McNair Long Range Development ...........................................................................30

Figure 13: Fort McNair Future Short Range Development Plan ................................................33

Figure 14: JBMHH Functional Areas Map .................................................................................36

Figure 15: JBM-HH Land Use Plan ...........................................................................................39

Figure 16: Conceptual diagram representing possible land exchange between the Army, Arlington County, and the State ................................................................................................44

Figure 17: JBM-HH Cultural Constraints Map ...........................................................................50

Figure 18: Fort McNair Functional Areas Map ...........................................................................52

Figure 19: Fort McNair Land Use Plan ......................................................................................54

Figure 20: Fort McNair Cultural Constraints Map ......................................................................63


I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Site / Background

Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall (JBM-HH) is centrally located within the National Capital Region (NCR). JBM-HH is comprised of two installations: a combined Fort Myer and Henderson Hall, and Fort Leslie J. McNair (Fort McNair). Fort Myer and Henderson Hall are located in Arlington, Virginia, immediately west of Arlington National Cemetery. Fort McNair is located in Southwest Washington, D.C., at the confluence of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers.

Figure 1: Regional Location Map

(Source Department of the Army; Joint Base Real Property Master Plan, Real Property Master Plan Digest, June 2013; p. 3-1)


Fort Myer is home to the U.S. Army’s oldest infantry unit, the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment, also known as The Old Guard. Henderson Hall is the home to the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Headquarters Battalion. Following Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 recommendations, Fort Myer assumed installation management responsibilities for Henderson Hall and the installation was named JBM-HH. Fort McNair is home to the Joint Forces Headquarters—National Capital Region/Military District of Washington (JFHQ-NCR/MDW), and falls under the command of JBM-HH. Fort McNair is also a center for military education and training and is the home of the National Defense University. JBM-HH is charged with conducting base operations and providing specialized support to Army, U.S. Marine Corps, and other Department of Defense (DoD) organizations. Many units stationed at JBM-HH have the primary mission of conducting official ceremonies throughout the NCR or providing security and crisis response in the NCR. In addition, JBM-HH provides services and support to military members, civilians, retirees, and their families. History and Physical Descriptions of Fort Myer, Henderson Hall, and Fort McNair

The separate installations that comprise Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall have a long history in serving the Nation’s military requirements. Below is a brief history and physical descriptions of the installations, which significantly guide the recommendations presented within the draft Real Property Master Plan. Fort Myer Fort Myer, with approximately 243 acres, is located between Arlington Boulevard (Route 50), Washington Boulevard (State Route [SR] 27) and the Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia. Fort Myer supports not only JBM-HH’s mission, but also the members and retirees of the Army in the National Capital Region. Fort Myer contains clusters of development devoted to post administration and support, medical services, education, officers’ housing, community/recreational facilities, troop housing, and ceremonial support, including a parade ground. Fort Myer has six primary access control points (ACP) for vehicles and pedestrians. The Hatfield Gate, located on Carpenter Street and accessed from Washington Boulevard, is the main gate and is operated 24 hours a day. The secondary gate, Wright Gate, is on Marshall Drive and accessed from Route 110. Wright Gate is operated with limited hours. A third gate, Henry Gate at Pershing Road and Arlington Boulevard, is operated for limited traffic exiting Fort Myer. Chapel Gate, Selfridge Gate, and Memorial Chapel Gate all provide limited pedestrian access to the Arlington National Cemetery. Fort Myer’s history is heavily associated with the continued development of the Nation and the NCR. Fort Myer is located on land that was originally owned by George Washington’s stepson, John Parke Custis, and subsequently Robert E. Lee. Upon the start of the Civil War in 1861, the


U.S. government expropriated the land to build what became Arlington National Cemetery and an Army post, Fort Whipple. Fort Whipple was established in 1863 as one of the many installations whose original mission was to form a protective barrier around the city of Washington during the Civil War. On 4 February, 1881 the Post was renamed Fort Myer, in honor of Brigadier General Albert A. Myer, the first chief signal officer of the Army, who had been in command of the Signal Corps School at Fort Whipple from 1866 until his death in 1880. In 1887, Gen. Philip H. Sheridan, the Army's commanding general, developed Fort Myer into a cavalry showplace. As such, Fort Myer earned the reputation as a premier cavalry post and was known until 1942 as the “Show Cavalry” post. The troops and mounts of the 10th Cavalry, Buffalo Soldiers, and 3rd Cavalry were often called upon to escort the President and other government officials during inaugurations and to perform parade exhibitions and other ceremonial functions. By 1902, most of the present-day historic district on the north end of Fort Myer had been built, with senior officer quarters constructed along Jackson, Grant, and Lee Avenues. Quarters One on Generals’ Row, originally built in 1899 as the post commander’s house, has served as the home of Army chiefs of staff including Generals Douglas MacArthur, George C. Marshall, Dwight D. Eisenhower, William C. Westmoreland, and Omar N. Bradley. The post is widely known as the “Home of the Generals” because of the many high-ranking officers of the Department of Defense who reside on the post. Fort Myer has also been the setting for many important historical events, including the place where the first Trans-Atlantic voice communication was made in 1915 and where, in 1908, Orville Wright tested a new flying machine for the military at the post which constituted the world’s first military flight. In addition, the famous riderless horse, Black Jack, who escorted the funeral caisson of many great Americans including Presidents Hoover, Kennedy, and Johnson, is buried on the Summerall Parade Ground at Fort Myer. At the beginning of the U.S. involvement in World War II, the cavalry was discontinued, and the post served as a processing station and housing for defense troops stationed to protect the nation’s capital. During this time, the U.S. Army Band moved from Fort McNair to Fort Myer in 1942. Then, in 1948 the 3rd Infantry Regiment, better known as The Old Guard, was reactivated and assigned to Forts Myer and McNair to become the Army's official ceremonial unit and security force in the NCR. Since 1972, the northern portion of the post has been designated as a National Historic Landmark District and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Quarters One, within the District, is a National Historic Landmark.


Henderson Hall Henderson Hall consists of 29 acres located east of Washington Boulevard (SR 27) and north of Columbia Pike (SR 244) in Arlington, Virginia. Henderson Hall’s diverse development pattern sustains the mission of supporting Marines stationed in the NCR, with installation administration and support facilities, troop housing, community/recreational facilities, Marine Corps Exchange (MCX), and open green space. Primary vehicular access to the installation is through Henderson Hall Main Gate (Gate 1), located at the western terminus of Southgate Road at its intersection with South Orme Street. Secondary entry access and the primary exit is provided at Annex Gate (Gate 3), located at the eastern corner of Henderson Hall at Southgate Road. Hobson Gate (Gate 5), located in the rear of Building 28 on the north side of the installation, provides access to Fort Myer. Henderson Hall is built on land acquired through deeds and other actions between 1943 and 1952. The site officially became U.S. government property on February 15, 1954, when the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia executed a Deed of Cession of Political Jurisdiction to the U.S. With the move of Headquarters Marine Corps to the adjacent Navy Annex in November 1941, and Marine Corps expansion following the outbreak of World War II, a Headquarters and Service Company was organized at Henderson Hall on March 1, 1942. Subsequently, the unit was designated Headquarters Battalion on April 1, 1943. A second Headquarters Battalion of Women Marine Reserves was organized in September 1943 to provide barracks for a portion of the 2,658 women assigned to the D.C. area. During August 1946, a substantial number of women Marines were released from active duty, making Henderson Hall barracks available for billeting of male Marines. Most of the buildings that exist today at Henderson Hall were built in the late 20th century and are not historic.


Figure 2: Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Aerial Site Map



Fort McNair Fort McNair is located on approximately 107-acres on a peninsula located south of P Street SW in Washington, D.C. Tenant organizations at Fort McNair include the National Defense University (NDU), the Center for Military History, and the Joint Force Headquarters—National Capital Region/Military District of Washington. Fort McNair also houses installation support facilities, community/recreational facilities, officers’ housing, a parade ground, a bank, a shoppette, and medical services. Fort McNair is accessed by two gates, the main ceremonial gate on 3rd Avenue that meets P Street SW and the main gate on 2nd Street SW. Fort McNair has a relatively compact development pattern with historical designation and character. The prominent point of land at the confluence of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers where Fort McNair is located was first known as Turkey Buzzard Point. This land was appropriated in 1791 by General George Washington as part of Major Pierre L’Enfant’s plan for the National Capital. The site was one of the sixteen focus points that L’Enfant included in his plan and one of the two primary defense positions for the new city. The first fortifications at the site are believed to have been built around 1796; however, very little construction actually occurred until 1803, when an arsenal was built. The arsenal was later captured and destroyed by the British in 1814. By 1817, the post served as a distribution, testing and repair center for locally manufactured weapons. In 1826, the first federal penitentiary in the District of Columbia was built on what is now the central portion of Fort McNair. The arsenal was closed in 1881, and the Post was transferred to the Quartermaster Department and renamed Washington Barracks. At the turn of the century, from 1898 to 1909, a general hospital, the precursor of Walter Reed Army Hospital, was located at Fort McNair. In 1901, the Army Engineer School of Application moved to the site, and in 1902, plans for an Army War College were approved. In 1903 the Army War College and the master plan for the Post were designed by the renowned architecture firm of McKim, Mead and White. The designers established a strong pattern of buildings which is still very visible today. . From 1903 to 1908, the post was developed into its present quadrangular shape by rearranging roads and completing landfills. From 1904, when most of the present buildings were completed, to the late 1980s the post changed very little physically except for additional landscaping and the introduction of some recreational facilities. In 1946, the National War College was established in the Army War College building, and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces was also moved to the post. In 1962, the Inter-American Defense College was opened at Fort McNair, expanding its already extensive academic atmosphere. In 1976, the National Defense University was established, combining the National War College and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. The Headquarters for the Military District of Washington moved to Fort McNair in 1971.


Figure 3: Fort McNair Aerial Site Map (Source Department of the Army; Joint Base Real Property Master Plan, Real Property Master Plan Digest, June 2013; p. 3-5)


JBM-HH Real Property Master Plan

The Joint Base Real Property Master Plan (RPMP)1 provides direction for the orderly development and sustainment of the real property assets of JBM-HH. This includes land, facilities, and infrastructure. Each Army community is required to have an RPMP. The RPMP is an integrated document comprised of the following five components:

• The Real Property Master Plan Digest (RPMPD) The RPMPD summarizes the development and implementation process of the RPMP and communicates the plan’s long-term vision.

• The Long Range Component (LRC) The LRC contains detailed planning strategies that guide the long-range use of land and facilities over a 20-year period.

• The Capital Investment Strategy (CIS) The CIS identifies required actions to implement the master plan, with a focus on strategies to integrate current facility demands with long-term facility needs, based on assessments of excesses and deficits.

• The Short Range Component (SRC) The SRC provides a list of development projects planned to be implemented over the next five to seven years.

• The Installation Design Guide (IDG) The IDG prescribes the urban design character of the installation.

In addition to the above documents, the Army prepared a Transportation Management Program (TMP) to supplement the RPMP. The TMP includes an evaluation of transportation issues based on future conditions (from the Short Range Component) and identifies installation strategies to improve awareness and availability of mass transit and ride sharing options. Although Fort McNair is part of JBM-HH, it is referenced independently from Fort Myer and Henderson Hall throughout this report to differentiate the installations for planning purposes. JBM-HH Real Property Master Plan Guiding Principles

The planning process for the Real Property Master Plan followed the professional practice of community planning as implemented by all DoD services and agencies. Through this process, the Army developed a set of guiding principles to help shape the future development of JBM-HH over the 20-year time frame of the RPMP. These guiding principles are summarized below. 1 The RPMP is authorized through Army Regulation (AR) 210-20 Real Property Master Planning for Army Installations and adheres to the guidance outlined in the Installation Management Command’s Master Planning Technical Manual (MPTM).


• Continue to enhance the quality of life for service members, their families, and civilian workers. This guiding principle includes: ensuring sufficient and efficient infrastructure; providing adequate facilities to meet recreational and physical training requirements; integrating pedestrian, bicycle, and transit / shuttle circulation into the overall transportation system; creating new places of work that reinforce community and collaboration; clustering troop housing and community support facilities to create activity nodes that minimize dependence on automobiles; ensuring that operational facilities meet departmental mission space requirements and needs; ensuring that all buildings are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); providing facility space for retail/dining services for installation and community use; and integrating aesthetics and site amenities in outdoor common areas.

• Maintain the traditions and standards of the ceremonial mission.

This guiding principle includes: preserving sacred areas that honor the history of the installation and provide for its continuing traditions; integrating plazas and parks with monuments and markers acknowledging significant historic events at the installation; and maintaining space that can accommodate special events and consolidating facilities and programs needed for ceremonial missions.

• Continue to enforce and enhance security measures to provide a safe and secure

environment.

• Protect and maintain environmental and cultural resources. This guiding principle includes: implementing sustainable practices to ensure an increased level of environmental stewardship; emphasizing design standards that are respectful of the installation’s historic nature and its contributions to local, regional, and national history; and instituting a landscape management program that incorporates environmentally friendly practices and supports visual unity.

• Involve the customer base and a diverse group of experts in the planning process.

• Coordinate Master Planning with the surrounding communities and agencies.

Constraints and Opportunities for Development at JBM-HH Installations

The history and physical characteristics of the installations that comprise JBM-HH have significant impacts on how these installations can grow and evolve in the future. In developing the draft Real Property Master Plan for JBM-HH, the Army identified a number of natural, cultural, and operational constraints and opportunities for installation development, and used this analysis, together with an existing facilities and needs analysis, to develop planning strategies to guide the long-range use of land and facilities on the installations.


The following tables and maps summarize features that may constrain or provide opportunities for installation development. Constraints include factors that inhibit development, limit recreational use, or restrict social interactions. Conversely, opportunities are factors that work well with future development and facilitate expansion of facilities.

Figure 4: Summary of Natural Resources (Source Department of the Army; Joint Base Real Property Master Plan, Real Property Master Plan Digest, June 2013; p. 4-2)


Figure 5: Summary of Cultural Resources (Source Department of the Army; Joint Base Real Property Master Plan, Real Property Master Plan Digest, June 2013; p. 4-2)

Figure 6: Summary of Operational Constraints (Source Department of the Army; Joint Base Real Property Master Plan, Real Property Master Plan Digest, June 2013; p. 4-3)


Figure 7: JBM-HH Combined Constraints Map



Figure 8: Fort McNair Combined Constraints Map



Proposal

The draft Joint Base Real Property Master Plan provides a long-range, flexible plan that accommodates the existing, currently planned, and future known requirements for Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall’s growth to the year 2030 and is directed by current missions, visions, and planning assumptions. ). As noted above, the RPMP contains detailed planning strategies to guide the long-range use of land and facilities on the installations within five components: the Long Range Component (LRC); the Capital Investment Strategy (CIS); the Short Range Component (SRC); the Installation Design Guide (IDG); and the Real Property Master Plan Digest (RPMPD). In addition, a Transportation Management Program (TMP) has been prepared. The chart below outlines the process followed to develop the RPMP.

Figure 9: Real Property Master Plan process chart (Source Department of the Army; Joint Base Real Property Master Plan, Capital Investment Strategy and Short Range Component, June 2013; p. 1-1)


The RPMP focuses on improving the quality of life, standards, and facilities at JBM-HH through a combination of short-term and long-term planned projects. The short-term planned projects within the SRC are generally projects of a known scope that address specific near-term plans, goals or challenges within the next few years. Many of the short-term projects are currently funded and anticipated to be built within the next five years. Long-term projects within the LRC are those facilities or strategies that are not currently planned or funded, but are recognized as part of the larger installation improvement context. Combined, the projects within both the SRC and the LRC make up the Future Development Plan for JBM-HH. The Future Development Plan is described below, followed by a summary of the SRC. The SRC and LRC are the primary components of the RPMP under this NCPC review. It should also be noted that some projects within the draft master plan may never be executed or may be modified as funding and priorities change, and that all of the projects are subject to change during the design process (and may require subsequent modifications to the final master plan). Future Development Plan: Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall

The following is the current list of proposed future development within the draft Real Property Master Plan for Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall to the year 2030. The plan recommends the type and location of development and includes projects supported in the Capital Investment Strategy and the Short Range Component as well as the Long Range Component. The Future Development Plan allows the RPP to serve as a flexible, overall guide that does not become outdated as the installation implements projects. The Future Development Plan:

• Provides the framework for accommodating the growth of the installation to 2030.

• Recycles land, space, and facilities to achieve its strategic goals, due to land availability constraints.

• Connects Henderson Hall to Fort Myer to establish a unified installation under one garrison command for real property responsibilities.

• Maintains the historic mission and character of the installation, while still providing development that meets mission requirements and areas for expansion.

• Consolidates similar functional uses in one area for efficiency of workforce, as well as ease of access and infrastructure use.

• Reserves sites within Henderson Hall for Joint Base Mission Use that are currently not determined.


• Enhances the quality of life of service members, their families, and civilian workers by providing: more efficient facilities that meet operational requirements, more community focused options, and an efficient transportation system with available parking options.

• Protects and maintains environmental and cultural resources throughout the installation.

• Includes major utility improvements. Projects within the Future Development Plan include the following (project numbers on the list below correspond to the following map):

1. Buffalo Soldiers Memorial Site 2. General Flag Officers’ Quarters Site 3. Historic Interpretive Park Site 4. DVP Substation Site 5. Recreation Area 6. Parking Structure Sites 7. New Unaccompanied Personnel Housing Sites* 8. New Dining Facility (DFAC) Site 9. Senior NCO Housing Sites 10. New Company HQ and In-Processing Center Site 11. TUSAB Staging Area and TOG Emergency Response Area 12. Fitness Center Addition 13. New United States Army Band (TUSAB) Facility Site 14. Expansion Opportunity Site - Town Center 15. Department of Emergency Services Facility Addition 16. Memorial Chapel Addition 17. Improved Access Control Point (ACP) 18. New Child Development Centers (CDCs) Sites 19. Expansion Opportunity Site - Regional Community Support 20. Rader Clinic Addition Site 21. New Primary Roadway connecting Henderson Hall 22. Joint Base Mission Use Sites 23. IT Hub Facility Site 24. MCX Annex Expansion 25. Administrative Facility Site


Figure 10: JBM-HH Long Range Future Development Plan (Source Department of the Army; Joint Base Real Property Master Plan, Real Property Master Plan Digest, June 2013; p. 6-15)


Taken from the Future Development Plan is a prioritized list of projects that serves as the SRC of the RPMP. The SRC consists of projects planned and programmed at the installation within a 5-7 year planning horizon (it should be noted that many of these projects have been completed and review by NCPC will not be required for interior renovation projects). At Fort Myer and Henderson Hall this list includes the following projects (project numbers on the list below correspond to the following map) (a number of the following projects have been completed):

1. Repair Historic Stables / Paddock Area Project includes the restoration and modernization of stables/paddock area to include exterior and interior repairs. (Building 236: 16,294 sf; Building 233: 10,108 sf; Building 234: 564 sf; Building 231: 10,672 sf)

2. Repair Heating Plant

Project includes the installation of gas fired boilers for summer use to allow the central heating plant to be shut down during non-heating months.

3. Renovate for Regimental Annex (Building 219)

The project includes the renovation of Building 219 to provide accommodation as a Regimental Annex for logistics operations and the Regimental Aid Station. (6,775 sf)

4. Renovate for TOG HQ CO (Building 249)

Project includes the renovation of Building 249 and conversion from a museum to Operations space for TOG Headquarters Company (HHC) Regiment. (32,003 sf).

5. Repair General Officers’ Quarters

Project includes extensive repair to general Officer’s Quarters to improve the living standards, provide greater energy efficiency, and extend the life of the structure.

6. Privatize Army Lodging (Building 50)

Project includes the renovation of Wainwright Hall (Building 50), which will reduce the number of suites from 18 to 15. (In 2009, management of the Army Lodging at JBMHH was transferred to Actus Lend Lease; if Actus Lend Lease is able to generate a profit with Wainwright Hall, then plans to construct a Staybridge Suites, with 138 rooms and 113 parking spaces may be pursued).

7. Construct Park

The project includes a development a park as a component of mitigation for the demolition of two historic buildings (Buildings 45 and 46).

8. Renovate the TOG Museum (Building 243)

The project includes the conversion of Building 243, the Town Hall, into a museum for The Old Guard and the construction of The Old Guard Monument south of Building 243 and adjacent to Summerall Field. (7,554 sf)


9. Construct Unaccompanied Personnel Housing Project includes the construction of a 70,056 sf Unaccompanied Personnel Housing Facility to accommodate 210 personnel.

10. Construct Child Development Center

A permanent Fort Myer CDC opened in 2008, however, approximately 500–700 children are on the waiting list for accommodation. To reduce this wait list, Fort Myer programmed two additional, permanent Child Development Centers with a capacity of 124 children each. The existing relocatable building will continue to serve as an interim fix until one permanent Fort Myer CDC opens, upon which the relocatable facility will be excessed, and construction of the second permanent CDC facility will begin on the footprint of the relocatable facility.

11. Construct DVP Substation 205

Project includes the construction of a new DVP substation in the north area of the Post adjacent to Building 205.

12. Construct Memorial Chapel Addition (Building 480) The project includes the construction of an addition to the Memorial Chapel. (17,103 sf)

13. Expand Physical Fitness Facility (Building 414)

The project includes the construction of 24,500 square-foot addition to the Physical Fitness Facility. (Building 414)

14. Expand Public Safety Facility (Building 415)

The project includes the construction of a wing addition to the Provost Marshal’s Wing of the Public Safety Center. (3,700 sf)

15. Reconstruct ACP at Hatfield Gate

The project reconstructs the ACP with security features required by current AT/FP standards (2,100 sf). Hatfield Gate is the primary entrance for employees, visitors and delivery trucks. The current gate layout does not meet DoD standards for access control points. Congestion and traffic problems hinder traffic flow entering and leaving JBM-HH. The proposed project may also include traffic improvements to the ramps connecting Hatfield Gate to Route 27/Washington Boulevard.

16. Renovate to BN HQ (Building 246)

The project converts Building 246 to support Battalion HQs and two Company Operations Facilities. (59,889 sf)

17. Construct Utility Shed (Building 238)

The project includes the demolition of Building 238, which sustained earthquake damage, and the construction of a replacement utility shed.


18. Renovate to Company Operations Facility (COF) (Building 247) The project converts Building 247 into Operational space for two companies.

19. Expand MCX

The project includes a 16,000 square-foot expansion of the existing Marine Corps Exchange at Henderson Hall.

In addition to the above, a program to privatize family housing is underway at JBM-HH that may include renovation, demolition, construction, and environmental mitigation of family housing as well as changes to how family housing is managed. Implementation of the SRC at Fort Myer and Henderson Hall is expected to increase estimated daily employment (military/civilian/tenants) by 401 to a total of 4,500 (2012 to 2017). However, due to the nature of the various tenant missions and support functions located at the installations, the daily employment numbers do not give a complete picture of the daily population at the installation. Fort Myer and Henderson Hall support a large off-base community (approximately 150,000 individuals) and see a daily surge in military personnel and other visitors. The Army estimates that a significant portion of its off-base community is at the installation at any one time on a typical day (these may be trips to the MCX, PX, Commissary, or other support facilities). With the implementation of the SRC during the years 2012 to 2017, the Army estimates that daily visitation from its off-base community will increase from 5,425 to 6,425 persons. In addition, the Army sees a surge in military and other visitors on a daily basis, and estimates this number will increase from 650 to 800 during the 2012-2017 time period. Combined, the Army estimates an increase 1,551 personnel and daily visitors to the installation during the 2012-2017 time period, from a total of 10,174 to 11,725. Actual daily population at Fort Myer and Henderson Hall, however, may be greater still than the above numbers, as funeral ceremonies, school drop-off and pick-ups, and special events can also increase total population at the installation. (As specific mission requirements have not been determined, specific long-term employment estimates have not been developed.)


Figure 11: JBMHH Short Range Future Development Plan



Future Development Plan: Fort McNair

The following is the current list of proposed future development within the draft Real Property Master Plan for Fort McNair to the year 2030. The plan recommends the type and location of development and includes projects supported in the Capital Investment Strategy and the Short Range Component as well as the Long Range Component. The Future Development Plan:

• Provides the framework for accommodating the growth of the installation to 2030.

• Recycles land, space, and facilities to achieve its strategic goals, due to land constraints.

• Infills development of similar scale in open parcels of land or redevelopment sites.

• Maintains the historic mission and character of the installation, while still providing development that meets mission requirements.

• Consolidates similar functional uses in one area for efficiency of workforce, as well as ease of access to and usage of infrastructure.

• Protects and maintains environmental and cultural resources throughout the installation.

• Uses land resources (the potential future acquisition site) outside the installation boundary to fulfill mission requirements and parking shortages on-post.

• Minimizes surface parking to create a campus-like atmosphere while meeting AT/FP requirements.

Projects within the Future Development Plan include the following (project numbers on the list below correspond to the following map):

1. Modernization of Building 48 2. Modernization of Inter-American Defense College 3. Addition to Shoppette 4. Fire Station Site 5. U.S. Army Transportation Agency Site 6. Pool Facility Addition 7. Expansion Opportunity Site 8. New Joint Force Headquarters-National Capital Region Site 9. Expansion Opportunity Site 10. Expansion Opportunity Site - National Defense University 11. Potential Future Acquisition Site 12. Renovation of Grant Hall


Figure 12: McNair Long Range Development



Taken from the Future Development Plan is a prioritized list of projects that serves as the SRC of the RPMP. The SRC consists of projects planned and programmed at the installation within a 5-7 year planning horizon (it should be noted that many of these projects have been completed and review by NCPC will not be required for interior renovation projects). At Fort McNair this list includes the following projects (project numbers on the list below correspond to the following map) (a number of the following projects have been completed):

1. Convert Dining Facility (Building 50) This project converts the Building 50 Dining Facility to a Conference Center and administrative use for IADC.

2. Modernize 3rd MP Platoon Barracks (Building 48)

This project converts and modernizes one floor of Building 48 to barracks for the 3rd Platoon Military Police. (24,000 sf)

3. Modernize Inter-American Defense College (Building 52)

This project modernizes Buildings 52 to include structural reinforcement of the attic for mechanical equipment and floor plan alteration to segregate administrative and student areas. The two-story structure with full basement will be upgraded and reconfigured to provide classroom (2 floors) and administrative space (1 floor) for 60 students enrolled in IADC’s one-year course and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its 55 staff members. (37,223 sf)

4. Convert/Renovate to Lodging/Administration (Building 54)

This project converts two floors of Building 54 from Privatized Army Lodging to IADC college housing and converts the remaining floor to administration use. (17,060 sf)

5. Convert to Administration (Building 47)

This project converts Building 47 to administrative use. (61,138 sf)

6. Renovate Administration (Building 45)

7. Construct Pool Facility (Building 69) This project constructs a 25-meter indoor swimming pool in a new facility (14,200 sf) to complement the existing Physical Fitness Center (Building 69). The indoor swimming pool is considered a part of the Physical Fitness Center and has been sited adjacent to the existing Physical Fitness Center.

8. Construct JFHQ-NCR Facility

This project includes the construction of a new facility to provide a safe and secure operational environment for military and civilian staff and representatives from services and agencies functioning together as the JFHQ-NCR. (33,000 sf)


In addition to the above, the Army plans other renovation projects, including the renovation of Buildings 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 40, 41 and 46 over the next five years. Because these buildings are located within the historic district of Fort McNair, all renovations will adhere to the guidelines of the district and be developed in accordance with determinations of the DC Historic Preservation Office. The projects include improvements to building accessibility, mechanical and electric systems, lighting, and roof/window replacement. Implementation of the Short Range Component within the RPMP at Fort McNair is expected to increase total daily employment by 395 to a total of 4,406 in the short-term (2012 to 2017). (As specific mission requirements have not been determined, specific long-term employment estimates have not been developed.)


Figure 13: Fort McNair Future Short Range Development Plan

(Source Department of the Army; Joint Base Real Property Master Plan, Real Property Master Plan Digest, June 2013; p 8-5)


II. PROJECT ANALYSIS/CONFORMANCE

Executive Summary

The draft Real Property Master Plan for Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall provides an appropriate direction for the long-term development of facilities and infrastructure at the installation while addressing current planning needs to conform to the recommendations contained in the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) act. As noted above in the Proposal section, the RPMP contains a set of guiding principles, which were established to help shape the future development of JBM-HH over a 20-year time frame. The guiding principles are:

• Continue to enhance the quality of life for service members, their families, and civilian workers.

• Maintain the traditions and standards of the ceremonial mission.

• Continue to enforce and enhance security measures to provide a safe and secure environment.

• Protect and maintain environmental and cultural resources.

• Involve the customer base and a diverse group of experts in the planning process.

• Coordinate Master Planning with the surrounding communities and agencies. Together with these guiding principles, the draft RPMP plan continues the broad land use patterns long established at JBM-HH while addressing current operational inefficiencies with Future Development Plans that contain both short-term and long-term planned projects. It also anticipates and accommodates a limited increase in the installation’s employment population, and directs expected growth from expanded missions or programs to areas with associated existing land uses. As such, staff recommends that the Commission support the guiding principles of the draft RPMP. Staff also recommends that the Commission support the Future Development Plans for both Fort Myer-Henderson Hall and Fort McNair, noting that they maintain the historic character of the installations while identifying new structures and future development areas that build upon and improve the existing physical layouts of the installation. In addition, staff recommends that the Commission provide the Army with additional comments on the draft master plan as noted below.

Analysis

The following analyzes the draft Real Property Master Plan under a number of planning frameworks, including: functional areas; land use; circulation, parking, and transportation; open space; viewsheds; topography, soils, geology, and water resources; vegetation; and cultural resources. Fort Myer and Henderson Hall are discussed first, followed by Fort McNair.


Fort Myer and Henderson Hall

The following sections discuss planning frameworks for Fort Myer and Henderson Hall contained within the RPMP. Fort Myer and Henderson Hall Functional Areas Proposed changes in land use designations at Fort Myer and Henderson Hall within the RPMP promote the consolidation of compatible land uses. These proposed changes account for an increase in troop functions that is expected over the long term and a slight increase in residential land uses. In addition, professional/institutional land uses are also expanded to meet mission demands. Community Support functions for the local and regional population will be focused within a Town Center. No change to Industrial land use is expected. Six distinct functional areas are delineated within the RPMP to encourage similar types of development within each functional area. These are:

• Industrial Zone The Industrial zone at Fort Myer and Henderson Hall contains the DPW, motor pool, and other maintenance-related functions of the Installation; future industrial facilities would be sited within the Industrial Zone.

• Troop Village The Troop Village at Fort Myer is central, characterized by barracks, headquarters buildings, Non-Commissioned Officer housing, The Old Guard buildings, dining hall, and recreational facilities.

• Town Center The Town Center area includes community support facilities such as the shoppette, emergency services, and a Privatized Army Lodging facility for use by local and regional customers.

• Regional Support The Regional Support area includes uses for the regional community such as Child Development Centers (CDCs), the Commissary, and a medical clinic.

• Mission Support The Mission Support area is characterized by administration buildings, Marine Corps Exchange, a swimming pool, and the Historic District. The Historic District contains senior officer housing, historic stables, Officers’ Club, recreational facilities (tennis courts, swimming pools), and areas of open space. Future development would increase administrative/office space.


Figure 14: JBMHH Functional Areas Map

(Source Department of the Army; Joint Base Real Property Master Plan, Long Range Component, June 2013; p. 3-11)


Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Development Framework and Land Use Plan Building off of the Functional Areas, the development framework for Fort Myer and Henderson Hall would consolidate similar functions of land use into core areas to improve efficiency and circulation. Fort Myer and Henderson Hall would be connected via an improved access road that creates efficient traffic movement. A dense urban core would be created along the primary north-south pedestrian axis of Fort Myer and Henderson Hall using redevelopment of the central area and additional development along the central transportation corridors. Regional support uses for regional and local customers would be located along primary roads and in the central core area in proximity of the public/main gate; a potential parking structure could be located within this area. Infill development to meet mission requirements and areas for expansion would be provided in accordance with the existing development pattern. The Historic District in the north section of Fort Myer would be preserved and infill development would match the historic development pattern. Specific land use changes that would occur at Fort Myer and Henderson Hall under the development framework are identified within the Land Use Plan. These include (project numbers on the list below correspond to the following map):

• Industrial The northeastern section would be maintained as industrial land use, primarily supporting the DPW. (1) Road improvements would create better traffic circulation.

• Troop Troop functions would expand in the northern and central sections to accommodate joint base consolidation. (2) Troop expansion would include storage and administrative functions. The thrift shop and auto craft shop would be relocated to the Town Center. (3) A Troop Village would be expanded along a pedestrian “spine” to consolidate Troop functions and encourage pedestrian use.

• Community Community land use in the northern section would shift to the east. A decrease in Community land use would result from the expansion of the Troop Village in the central portion of the Installation. Community functions would be consolidated into three main areas. (4) A compact and walkable Town Center would consolidate on-site community support functions used by the local and regional population. (5) Regional community support facilities would be concentrated to provide convenient access to services frequently used by local and regional populations. A new road


alignment would allow pedestrian access and improve connections between Fort Myer and Henderson Hall. (6) Recreational activities would be concentrated in the northern section; a new park would be added to the existing tennis courts and swimming pools.

• Residential A slight increase in Residential land use would occur. (7) Senior Non-Commissioned Officer housing would be expanded adjacent to the Troop Village.

• Professional/Institutional A small amount of Professional/Institutional land use would be maintained within current locations throughout Fort Myer; expansion of Professional/Institutional land use would occur within Henderson Hall. (8) Demolition of Barracks Building 25 would provide an opportunity for the development of a Professional/Institutional center at Henderson Hall.


Figure 15: JBM-HH Land Use Plan



Future development of Fort Myer and Henderson Hall resulting from implementation of the RPMP would result in an overall increase in gross square feet of 935,854 or 31 percent. The largest amount of development would occur within the Town Center (178 percent) and the Regional Support Area (48 percent). The Troop Village area would include development of 580 additional residential, administrative, and potential parking facilities. Functional Area

Existing GSF

Demolition GSF

Proposed GSF

Total GSF

Percent Change

Acres

Industrial 162,411 0 0 162,411 0 22.4 Historic 563,841 0 35,720 599,561 6 80.7 Troop 913,742 320,908 540,725 1,133,559 24 75.9 Town Center 133,236 23,995 260,793 370,034 178 26.7 Regional Support 139,028 0 66,966 205,994 48 37.9 Mission Support Unavailable N/A 31,650 N/A N/A 25.5 Total* 1,912,258 344,903 935,854 2,471,559 31 269.1 GSF = gross square foot. Total calculations do not include Henderson Hall.

(Source: Department of the Army; Joint Base Real Property Master Plan, Programmatic Environmental Assessment, March 2013; p. 26) Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Circulation, Parking, and Transportation Framework

As part of the proposed RPMP development framework, improvements to the internal transportation network are conceptually presented in the LRC for Fort Myer and Henderson Hall. Additional traffic studies and design plans would be necessary prior to the implementation of any improvements. In general, the existing roadway network at Fort Myer and Henderson Hall would be maintained; however, improvements to the road system could include widening, insertion of dedicated turn lanes, and upgrading ACPs to handle future traffic volumes. Facilities south of the main ACP include the Commissary, CDC, medical clinic, and other regional support services, and as such would receive regular use from individuals accessing these amenities from on and off Fort Myer. The Industrial area is a destination for delivery trucks that enter Fort Myer and Henderson Hall through Hatfield Gate; however, because the Industrial area is located near Wright Gate ACP, Wright Gate is regularly used as an exit. In addition, Installation DPW vehicles travel to and from the area daily. As a result of the vehicular traffic required to access the Industrial Area and the Town Center area, these areas would be developed with a vehicle-oriented focus. Because Fort Myer and Henderson Hall contains a high density of development over a relatively small area, the installation could support pedestrian-friendly corridors and focus areas. The Historic District, Troop Village, Town Center (north of the main ACP), and Henderson Hall would be developed with networks of pedestrian walkways and corridors along main activity centers, connecting buildings and future potential multimodal transportation facilities.


In regards to parking, as noted above, implementation of the Short Range Component within the RPMP at Fort Myer and Henderson Hall is expected to increase estimated daily employment (military/civilian/tenants) by 401 to a total of 4,500 (2012 to 2017). However, due to the nature of the various tenant missions and support functions located at the installations, the daily employment numbers do not give a complete picture of the daily population at the installation. Fort Myer and Henderson Hall support a large off-base community and see a daily surge in military personnel and other visitors. The Army estimates that at least ten percent of its off-base community is at the installation at any one time on a typical day (these may be trips to the MCX, PX, Commissary, or other support facilities at the installation). With the implementation of the Short Range Component during the years 2012 to 2017, the Army estimates that daily visitation from its off-base community will increase from 5,425 to 6,425 persons. In addition, the Army sees a surge in military and other visitors on a daily basis, and estimates this number will increase from 650 to 800 during the 2012-2017 time period. Combined, the Army estimates an increase 1,551 personnel and daily visitors to the installations during the 2012-2017 time period, from a total 10,174 to 11,725. Using this estimated increase in the daily total of personnel and daily visitors at Fort Myer and Henderson Hall, the parking ratio is anticipated to improve, as the estimated total number of parking spaces at both Fort Myer and Henderson Hall remains unchanged within the same 2012-2017 period, with a total of 3,800. Using this estimated increase in the daily population of the installations from 10,174 to 11,725 the parking ratio changes from 1:2.7 to 1:3.1 in the 2012-2017. While these parking ratios remain under NCPC’s recommended employee parking ratio of one parking space for every four employees, they include all available parking at the base (they do not exclude visitor parking or other parking such as that for government vehicles). Further, they do not account for the significant number of daily visitors that come to the installations for funeral ceremonies, for school drop-off and pick-ups, or for a multitude of musical, ceremonial, and recreational events. As specific mission requirements have not been determined, specific long-term employment estimates are not exact. However, JBM-HH estimates that long-term planning employment figures and potential parking expansions may result in a parking ratio of 1:4.2 or one parking space per 4.2 employees (including daily military and other visitors). However, events scheduled at the installation will continue to result in surges in the visitor population during events, and JBM-HH anticipates that there will not be adequate parking to support these surges. As such, JBM-HH proposes a number of strategies within Transportation Management Program (TMP) to improve awareness and availability of mass transit and ride sharing options. These include:

• Expand the Shuttle service: Plan and implement a dedicated shuttle bus service from the Fort Myer-Henderson Hall to the Rosslyn and Pentagon Metro stations. Coordination with other nearby military installation shuttle services could be a cost effective way to improve service frequency and coverage. Ideally the shuttle frequency should increase to 10-12 minutes during the morning and afternoon commutes, and every 20-30 minutes during the day.


• Conduct a full TMP to include a traffic engineering study: include vehicle counts when classes are in session. The TMP could be a part of a future master plan revision or to determine the exact requirements for a multi-level parking structure.

• Improve information flow: communicate schedules to installation employees concerning the shuttle bus, mass transit, and ride sharing:

• Appoint an Army Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC). • Conduct a campaign to increase awareness of mass transit commuting options

including carpooling and vanpooling and preferred parking for those vehicles.

• Identify, improve and develop mass transit interaction improvements: • Coordinate with nearby federal agencies to implement shuttle buses that

efficiently use federal funds to transport employees to and from key mass transit nodes.

• Revise Metrobus stops outside of Fort Myer Hatfield gate and Henderson Hall gate to integrate with pedestrian access at the gates.

• Coordinate with DoD National Capital Region Mass Transit Program to determine if increased tax-free transit subsidies have improved participation.

• Explore use of DoD commuter bus lines to and from the installations.

• Continue current actions including: • Maintain reserved parking spaces for residents, visitors and official vehicles • Enforce parking violations with military police assets

Apart from the above, the TMP can be strengthened with the continued coordination between Fort Myer, Henderson Hall and the Pentagon on transportation demand management in the area. In addition, at the suggestion of Arlington County, a TMP strategy should be for the Army to work with Arlington County and the Pentagon on the potential to replace or supplement additional Department of Defense shuttle routes with ART bus routes and to review the practicality of and potential locations for on- and off-installation Capital Bikeshare stations. As such, staff recommends that the Commission encourage the Army to continue coordination with the master planning efforts of the Pentagon Reservation on transportation demand management, encourages the Army to work with Arlington County and the Pentagon on the potential to replace or supplement additional Department of Defense shuttle routes with ART bus routes, and encourage the Army to review the practicality of and potential locations for on- and off-installation Capital Bikeshare stations and work to implement if appropriate. The current list of proposed future development within the Long Range Component of the draft RPMP for JBM-HH contains numerous projects with the potential to generate additional traffic on the roadways surrounding Fort Myer and Henderson Hall. As such, and at the suggestion of Arlington County, staff recommends that the Commission encourage the Army to coordinate with Arlington County on individual project proposals at the installation and with the Virginia Department of Transportation on individual project proposals that may generate sufficient traffic to potentially impact area roadways.


In addition, the Army has entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the County Board of Arlington County for the consideration and development of a future land exchange agreement between the County and the Army. The properties under consideration are in and around the site now or previously known as the Navy Annex site (FOB-2), immediately southwest of Henderson Hall. The comprehensive exchange of properties contemplated under the MOU allows for the Arlington National Cemetery to substantially increase the contiguous area of land available for grave sites and other cemetery-related purposes. This could be accomplished with a County proposal to realign a portion of Columbia Pike combined with various property exchanges between the Army, the County, and the Commonwealth of Virginia (State). With this exchange is the potential of a realigned Southgate Road with modified access to Henderson Hall. To the extent that the potential exchange in property may improve the Navy Annex site’s functionality and the County’s interest in improved area transportation, staff recommends that the Commission support the July 10, 2013 Memorandum of Understanding that the Army entered into that outlines parameters to potentially exchange real property among the Arlington County Board, the United States Government, and others, that may result in the vacation of the current Southgate Road, and the construction of the a new access road to serve the Joint Base. Staff also recommends that the Commission encourage the Army to continue coordination with the master planning efforts of the Arlington National Cemetery and the Pentagon Reservation on this matter, and request that the Army modify the Long-Range Component of the Real Property Master Plan to include the potential new access plan to the installation that could result from this property exchange.


Figure 16: Conceptual diagram representing possible land exchange between the Army, Arlington County, and the State

(Source Memorandum of Understanding between Department of the Army and County Board of Arlington County, Virginia, January 10, 2013)

Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Open Space Framework

The open space framework at Fort Myer and Henderson Hall would preserve previous open space areas for passive recreation and would integrate new recreational facilities throughout the installation to enhance accessibility and use. The pedestrian network described above would also create a network of open space where it connects all active and passive recreation areas and CDC playgrounds. Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Viewshed Framework The viewshed framework for Fort Myer and Henderson Hall would maintain the viewshed to the Capitol and the historic views of Washington, D.C. from Fort Myer. The viewshed framework would also impose height restrictions to a recommended maximum building height of four stories within the Arlington National Cemetery viewshed buffer to maintain views from the cemetery, and ensure compatibility of adjacent development along the eastern boundary of the Installation adjacent to ANC with cemetery land use and ceremonial functions.


Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Topography, Soils, Geology and Water Resources The majority of the area comprising Fort Myer and Henderson Hall has historically been developed. Construction activities, have occurred throughout the history of the installation, resulting in alterations to the original topography, excavated geology, and disturbed soils. In regards to topography, change in elevations at Fort Myer is moderate with elevations ranging from 55 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 235 feet msl. The steepest slopes occur in the northern portion of the installation. Henderson Hall is positioned on a knoll and topography ranges from 134 to 170 feet msl. The lowest elevation at Henderson Hall is in the 750 flood basin parking lot in the southwest section, and the highest point is at the northern corner of Henderson Hall adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery. There are no steep slopes that would constrain development within Henderson Hall. Soils on Fort Myer and Henderson Hall are moderately well drained, although during storm events water pools in low-lying sections. The Arlington County Soil Survey classified soils within Fort Myer and Henderson Hall as Urban land-Udorthents complex, with 2 to 15 percent slopes. Urban land typically refers to areas covered by impervious materials. Udorthents are well drained to excessively drained, loamy and clayey soils. Construction in the mid-1980s at Henderson Hall indicated that soils are of poor load bearing capacity. The geology of Fort Myer and Henderson Hall consists mainly of unconsolidated clays, silts, and sands that are underlain by depositional sand, gravel, and three types of similar sediments from the Cretaceous era: Patapsco, Arundel, and Patuxent, part of the Potomac Group, and are designated by upper beds of pink, red, and gray clay. The fundamental part of these formations is made up of sand, gravel, and occasionally a type of sandstone, which make some of the most valuable water-bearing formations in the region. The northeastern portion of Henderson Hall also includes river terrace deposits consisting of gravel, sand, silt, and loam, overlying boulders, pebbles, and sands. Implementation of the RPMP would be constrained to areas of suitable soils, topography, and geology. Poor load-bearing soils and steep slopes would be avoided. The RPMP would have limited areas for new development and would instead focus on the renovation of existing facilities and would develop areas where previous development would be demolished. Impacts to soils and topography at all installations would occur from localized areas of soil removal and disturbance as a result of excavations, any cutting and filling or leveling to grade for construction, resulting in alterations in topography. Permanent loss of soil function would occur in the footprint(s) of any new construction including roadway widening for turn lanes and circulation improvements, and redevelopment of previously developed areas could also recreate or increase areas of impervious surfaces. An increase in impervious surfaces would result from development of new facilities and the widening and/or relocation of roadways. Development would implement BMPs for erosion and sediment control for all development activities consistent with applicable erosion and sedimentation regulations. Standard engineering practices and BMPs would be implemented to address construction-related issues stemming from


local geology, including practices such as appropriate design criteria (e.g., depth and location) for placement of footings in preparation for building roads and foundations. Projects would be initiated only after an environmental review specific ton that project has been completed and the required permits are obtained. For Fort Myer and Henderson Hall, erosion and sediment control requirements would be in accordance with requirements set forth under the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and Regulations, the Virginia Stormwater Management Law, and the Virginia Stormwater Management Program in addition to the requirements set forth under the Arlington County Code. The Commonwealth of Virginia mandates erosion control techniques during and after construction and techniques apply even if erodible soils are not present. Poor load-bearing soils and steep slopes would be avoided. However, if unavoidable, new construction on steeply sloped terrain or poor load-bearing soils would be reviewed on a case-by case basis by analyzing individual building sites and appropriate engineering practices. In particular, new construction at Henderson Hall may require that buildings be designed with special foundations that include pilings because of the poor load-bearing qualities of existing soils. Reuse of removed soil and clean construction waste should be considered for use as fill where necessary. The use of pervious paving surfaces, restoration of vegetation, and landscaping would be implemented as appropriate to offset the increase in impervious surface. Other mitigation measures may include but are not limited to construction of site-specific controls for water quality management of impervious areas consistent with Low Impact Development (LID) practices. Fort Myer and Henderson Hall are located approximately 2 miles west of the Potomac River. An unnamed tributary runs along the southwestern boundary of Fort Myer and Henderson Hall, and drains into the Potomac River via Long Branch Creek, a tributary of Four Mile Run which flows into the Potomac River south of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for water quality was established in 2010 pursuant to Section 117(g)(1) of the CWA and EO 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, to restore the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and the region’s streams, creeks, and rivers, and to address nutrients and sediment impairments. As a response, six states (including Virginia) and the District of Columbia have prepared Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs), Phase I in order to establish a framework for guiding water quality restoration efforts. The WIPs outline procedures that the states and the District will follow for nutrient and sediment load reduction necessary to achieve TMDLs, which the U.S. EPA refers to as a “pollution diet.” Under the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, the states and the District are required to identify and commit to pollution reduction regulations in 2-year milestones. Virginia and the District have both released a Phase I WIP establishing criteria and procedures to achieve TMDL reduction. Phase II WIPs have been completed by both jurisdictions as of March 30, 2012. The Phase II WIPs provide strategies needed in order to achieve 60 percent reduction of TMDLs by 2025 and


provide a smaller scale breakdown of load allocation, either to small geographical areas or specific facilities. Federal facilities inclusive of JBM-HH are expected to comply with WIP regulations. Virginia views federal facilities as partners in implementing and meeting the WIP regulations and goals, as well as meeting the goals for the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) (Section 438) requiring stormwater management in all federal facilities. In accordance with the WIP, federal facilities are recommended to implement the following regulations: control of nitrogen air pollution; and development, implementation, and enforcement of the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) program. The MS4 program regulates publicly owned (state, county, municipality, etc.) conveyance systems for stormwater discharge including: illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site stormwater runoff control, post construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment, to protect water quality in nearby streams, rivers, and wetlands. JBM-HH maintains a valid MS4 permit that requires contractors to comply with the installation’s permit before initiating construction or demolition activities, and it requires submission of an erosion and sediment control plan when one or more acre of ground is to be disturbed. Virginia Stormwater Management Program permit requirements require the construction site owner/operator to secure a Virginia Stormwater Management Program general permit for discharges of stormwater from construction activities for construction activities of 1 acre or more, or equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet, or areas designated by the local government for protection under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act further requires BMPs to be implemented and developed, as well as the implementation of a site-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP outlines the steps and techniques to comply with regulations and the conditions of the permit to reduce pollutants in the stormwater runoff from the construction site. Consistent with Presidential EO 13508, EISA, and to meet TMDLs, the Virginia Commonwealth is expecting federal facilities to make efforts to implement WIP strategies in order to achieve reductions in nutrient and sediment loading. As mandated by the CWA and EPA Phase I and Phase II stormwater regulations, VDCR issues permits to dischargers of stormwater from industrial activities (including construction) and MS4 under the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Program. The VPDES Phase I permit program historically governed any construction activity including clearing, grading, and excavation activities, except for operations of less than 5 acres that are not a part of a larger development or sale. The Phase II VPDES permit expands permit coverage to stormwater discharges from construction activities affecting more than 2,500 ft2 1030 and located within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. VDEQ, Virginia Department of Health, the state Water Control Board, EPA, and USACE regulate water resources and water pollution in Virginia and administer programs created by the CWA, the Federal Water Quality Act, and a 1984 amendment to RCRA. When construction is planned within Fort Myer or Henderson Hall, permits may have to be obtained from the state if the facility to be constructed and operated will generate pollutants, has the potential to be hazardous, involves dredging or filling of waterways, or includes surface water or groundwater withdrawal.


The majority of JBM-HH lies outside the 100-year floodplain. Only the southwest portion of Henderson Hall lies within the 100-year floodplain. If avoidance is not possible, a field review will be performed to determine the type of encroachment permitted (habitable structures would not be permitted). Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Vegetation

Most native vegetation at Fort Myer and Henderson Hall has been removed as a result of prior development. Current vegetation consists of landscaped ornamental trees, shrubs, and grasses. Some native vegetation can be found in the form of scattered wooded areas along the installations’ periphery. Native trees include white oak, northern red oak, silver maple, American sycamore, tulip poplar, and black cherry. Implementation the RPMP will result in the development of new facilities. Once completed, projects will be landscaped with vegetation compatible with the surrounding landscape; native plant species will be used where appropriate. Implementation the RPMP also preserves much of the existing open space at Fort Myer and Henderson Hall, including the Parade Ground. New and improved existing recreational fields and improved pedestrian networks will also an improved vegetated environment. Projects would be initiated only after the environmental review has been completed and the required permits are obtained. Planning and design of final projects should maintain the historic landscape patterns and should attempt to offset vegetation loss with open space development in other areas of the installations. Restoration plantings should use compatible plant species that fit the historic landscape, however, as much as possible, native species should be used. When trees are moved, replacement trees should be planted consistent with the species lost; for trees over 4-in. diameter, tree replacement should occur at a 2:1 ratio. Fort Myer / Henderson Hall Cultural Resources Fort Myer and Henderson Hall are located in an area that contains numerous cultural resources, including buildings, structures, and prehistoric and historic archeological sites. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), as the State Historic Preservation Office, lists no archaeological sites within Fort Myer and Henderson Hall; however, four sites are listed adjacent to the installations: Arlington House, a nineteenth-century domestic site; small artifact scatter with prehistoric and late-nineteenth-century components; Arlington House Ravine, a nineteenth-century domestic site and Late Archaic lithic quarry; and a prehistoric site located on the property recently transferred from Fort Myer to Arlington National Cemetery. An Archeological Resources Management Plan that assessed the effects of ANC on site potential at Fort Myer, indicated that Fort Myer’s close proximity to the ANC suggest archaeological resources might be present in the picnic/pasture area of Fort Myer. In addition, archeological and cultural resource surveys at Fort Myer and Henderson Hall are continuing.


As noted above, Fort Myer traces its land ownership to George Washington’s family and its origins as a military installation to the Civil War. It became a post for the U.S. Cavalry in 1887. Most of the buildings at the north end of the installation were built during the ensuing 22 years after becoming a post for the cavalry. The northern portion of the installation is designated as a National Historic Landmark (NHL), the National Park Service’s highest recognition. There are no identified architectural resources at Henderson Hall. Fort Myer’s existing Historic District is a contiguous district of housing and administrative buildings and contains some of the first permanent construction at Fort Myer, dating from the 1890s. Also included in the Historic District are the horse stables built for the cavalry in the northwest corner of the installation, also dating from the 1890s. There are a total of 91 buildings, 2 sites, and 3 objects classified as cultural resources at JBM-HH. These resources are either contributing resources to the NHL or have been recommended as contributing elements of an expanded historic district. Effects of implementing the RRMP on cultural resources are directly related to the setting of historic properties and districts adjacent to or near proposed projects. Assessment of adverse effects on cultural resources depends on the exact location of future projects and the specific design details, which may include such things as building materials, construction footprint, height of buildings, and building design. The intent of the RPMP is to preserve and enhance historic structures at JBM-HH including the historic viewsheds from within and outside of the installation. While specific project details cannot be determined until the design process is initiated, JBM-HH would determine if any listed, eligible for listing, or potentially eligible cultural or archeological resources could be adversely affected by a project, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Fort Myer and Henderson Hall consultation would be conducted with the VDHR. If adverse effects are predicted, consultation would continue with the VDHR and other interested parties, as applicable, to minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects.


Figure 17: JBM-HH Cultural Constraints Map



Fort McNair

The following sections discuss planning frameworks for Fort McNair contained within the RPMP. Fort McNair Functional Areas The principal land use function at Fort McNair is associated with Professional/Institutional land uses and military education associated with the National Defense University, the Inter-American Defense College, and the Center of Military History. Development potential at Fort McNair is limited due to lack of available space and historic designations of existing facilities. Land use planning for Fort McNair reflects a decrease in Troop functions with the relocation of The Old Guard to Fort Myer and an increase in Professional/Institutional functions that focus on military education. Future land use would enhance the existing campus-like setting of Fort McNair as an increased demand for military education occurs. Industrial functions are maintained at Fort McNair; however, the space allocated would be decreased. Three functional areas are proposed as described below.

• Mission Support Mission support at Fort McNair consists of the Historic District, DPW offices, industrial functions, administrative and headquarters buildings, and a fitness center.

• Residential Students reside outside of the Installation and commute to Fort McNair; therefore, residential functions are small and include housing, the Officers’ Club, and the Parade Grounds (open space).

• Academic The Academic functional area includes administration and instructional buildings for the National Defense University.


Figure 18: Fort McNair Functional Areas Map



Fort McNair Development Framework and Land Use Plan Building off of the Functional Areas, the development framework within the RPMP for Fort McNair would include infill development to meet mission requirements and would support a comprehensive campus design by maintaining the current development pattern on the installation. Areas previously used for recreation would be preserved as low-density development to maintain the viewshed of the Washington Channel and the Potomac River. Parking would be consolidated in central areas to maintain and enhance the existing campus setting. Parcels outside of the Installation boundary have been identified for possible future expansion to meet mission requirements and in consideration of AT/FP requirements. Specific land use changes that would occur at Fort McNair under the development framework are identified within the Land Use Plan. These include (project numbers on the list below correspond to the following map):

• Industrial Industrial land use would expand in the northern section of the Installation. (1) The U.S. Army Transportation Agency is relocating to Fort McNair.

• Troop Land designated as Troop land use decreased as The Old Guard relocated to Fort Myer.

• Community Community land use would decrease as new infill development increases Professional/Institutional land use on the east side of the Parade Ground.

• Residential Residential land use would not increase as a result of the new Land Use Plan.

• Professional/Institutional Professional/ Institutional land use could expand on and off the Installation and increase the role of Fort McNair as a center for military education. (2) Area is identified for expansion. (3) Planned construction of new Joint Force Headquarters – NCR. (4) Demolition of two residences would provide area for expansion of Professional / Institutional. Buildings 47 and 54 would be converted into administration facilities. (5) An expansion area for the National Defense University has been identified. (6) Area is designated for the construction of a new instructional building.


Figure 19: Fort McNair Land Use Plan



Future development of Fort McNair could result in an overall increase in development of 353,079 gross square feet, or 33 percent. The largest potential increase in development capacity would occur in Mission Support (47 percent).

(Source: Department of the Army; Joint Base Real Property Master Plan, Programmatic Environmental Assessment, March 2013; p. 31) While JBM-HH does not propose significant new development at Fort McNair over the 20-year planning period, the neighborhood surrounding the installation is seeing significant redevelopment. Staff recommends that the Commission encourages the Army to coordinate with the District of Columbia Government directly on new public/private developments exterior to the installation, including the potential soccer stadium, to ensure minimal impacts to installation operations including in the areas of impacts to historic resources and transportation as well as installation security. Fort McNair Circulation Framework, Parking, and Transportation Plan

The Fort McNair circulation framework will maintain the existing central loop road around the installation. Long-term, existing surface parking areas could be removed to meet AT/FP requirements and parking would be consolidated into central surface parking lots or parking structures to alleviate the existing shortage of parking. Areas where parking would be removed would be rehabilitated as green space. Similar to Fort Myer and Henderson Hall, Fort McNair is compact and no major roadway realignments or development is necessary; potential road widenings and placement of dedicated turn lanes could improve internal traffic circulation. As noted above, implementation of the Short Range Component within the RPMP at Fort McNair is expected to increase total daily employment by 395 to a total of 4,406 in the short-term (2012 to 2017). This daily number includes the education and administrative populations, daily visitors to the Officer’s Club, and employment at the Center of Military History. During this period, parking on the installation is expected to decrease by 70 parking spaces, from 1,450 to 1,380. With this rise in total population and decrease in available parking, the installation’s parking ratio will improve, going from 1:2.8 to 1:3.2. While these parking ratios remain under NCPC’s recommended employee parking ratio of one parking space for every four employees, they include all available parking at the base (they do not exclude visitor parking). Further, they do not account for the significant number of daily visitors that may come to the installation for

Functional Area

Existing GSF

Demolition GSF

Proposed GSF

Total GSF

Percent Change

Acres

Mission Support 385,197 0 181,009 566,206 47 28.0 Residential 168,922 0 33,000 201,922 20 26.1 Academic 529,942 0 139,070 699,012 26 53.7 Total*

1,084,061

0

353,079

1,437,140

33

107.8 GSF = gross square foot.


various events, including ceremonial events and conferences. In particular, Lincoln Hall includes a state-of-the-art 600 seat auditorium that is consistently used for seminars, presentations and speeches. The new facility also contains a conference center that can support up to 3,000 personnel. As such, with constant surges in the on-base population, parking at the installation is difficult. JBM-HH maintains that there is a potential, in the long range, to provide additional, structured parking at the installation as part a future expansion of the University or other function, but acknowledges that funding for a structure will be difficult. As such, JBM-HH does not currently plan for additional parking at the installation and looks at the possibility of off-base public parking to meet some visitor parking needs as neighborhood redevelopment occurs,. As specific mission requirements have not been determined, specific long-term employment estimates are not exact. However, JBM-HH estimates that long-term the employee parking ratio will remain at 1:3.2 or one parking space per 3.2 employees (including daily military and other visitors). However, events scheduled at the installation will continue to result in surges in the visitor population, and JBM-HH anticipates that there will not be adequate parking to support these surges. As such, JBM-HH proposes a number of strategies within a Transportation Management Program (TMP) that will be utilized to improve awareness and availability of mass transit and ride sharing options. These include:

• Expand the Shuttle service: Plan and implement a dedicated shuttle bus service from the Fort McNair site to the L’Enfant Metro stations. Coordination with other nearby military installation shuttle services could be a cost effective way to improve service frequency and coverage. Ideally the shuttle frequency should increase to 10-12 minutes during the morning and afternoon commutes, and every 20-30 minutes during the day.

• Conduct a full TMP to include a traffic engineering study: include vehicle counts when classes are in session. The TMP could be a part of a future master plan revision or to determine the exact requirements for a multi-level parking structure.

• Improve information flow: communicate schedules to installation employees concerning the shuttle bus, mass transit, and ride sharing:

• Appoint an Army Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) to coordinate actions between the WHS, the Navy Yard, and Marine Corps Barracks.

• Conduct a campaign to increase awareness of mass transit commuting options including carpooling and vanpooling and preferred parking for those vehicles.

• Identify, improve and develop mass transit interaction improvements:

• Coordinate with nearby federal agencies to implement shuttle buses that efficiently use federal funds to transport employees to and from key mass transit nodes.

• Coordinate with DoD National Capital Region Mass Transit Program to determine if increased tax-free transit subsidies have improved participation.

• Coordinate with key agencies to establish a water taxi station at Buzzard’s Point for travel from Alexandria that would provide easy access to Fort McNair.


• Support initiatives in planning for South Capitol Street/Potomac Avenue interchange mass transit station.

• Explore use of DoD commuter bus lines to and from the installations.

• Continue Infrastructure Improvements: Fort McNair • Plan new shuttle bus shelters. Bus stop locations: National War College, Officer’s

Club, NDU entrance, and the Ceremonial gate. • Improve the Ceremonial and Marina gate for 24/7 pedestrian entrance • Designate ridesharing and commuter parking areas in the Historic District • Designate marked visitor parking areas around the Officer’s Club and ‘C’ Street • Identify locations to install bike racks around existing facilities and in key

locations around Fort McNair • Improve efficiency of existing parking by ensuring parking lines are clearly

marked to prevent inefficient parking practices • Ensure reserved spots are clearly marked for parking enforcement • Identify infrastructure improvements to the existing road network that will

improve safety and flow of traffic to and from Fort McNair • Reduce the quantity of reserved spots for employees on post

• Continue current actions including:

• Maintain reserved parking spaces for residents, visitors and official vehicles • Enforce parking violations with military police assets

Apart from the above, the TMP can be strengthened with a strategy for the Army to work with the District on the practicality of and potential locations for on- and off-installation Capital Bikeshare stations. As such, staff recommends that the Commission encourage the Department of the Army to review the practicality of and potential locations for on- and off-installation Capital Bikeshare stations and work to implement if appropriate. Fort McNair Open Space Framework

The open space framework for Fort McNair would maintain the Parade Ground and recreational sports fields as a central open space and would preserve the south and southwest point of the installation as passive recreation areas that protect the viewshed at the confluence of the Anacostia River and the Washington Channel of the Potomac River. The central pedestrian loop described above would also create a network of open space. The open space framework would also provide a connection to the Anacostia River Trail at the historic main gate on P Street and the 2nd Street gate. Fort McNair Viewshed Framework The viewshed framework for Fort McNair would restrict building heights associated with any new construction to maintain views, and would restrict development along the western and southern Installation boundaries to maintain viewsheds to the Washington Channel of the Potomac River and the Anacostia River. Low density development would maintain the views to


Washington, D.C. from the northern section of the Installation. The historic setting of Fort McNair would be preserved by maintaining views of the War College and historic buildings in the central and northern sections of the Installation. Fort McNair Topography, Soils, Geography and Water Resources

The majority of the area comprising Fort McNair has historically been developed. Construction activities, including extensive use of fill material at Fort McNair, have occurred throughout the history of Fort McNair, resulting in alterations to the original topography, excavated geology, and disturbed soils. At Fort McNair topographic relief is minimal. Elevation ranges from sea level along the Potomac River to 17 feet mean sea level in the National War College quadrangle. The seawall surrounding the facility has an elevation of 4.2 feet, and building areas are generally 10-12 feet in elevation. There is an approximate 5-foot change in elevation along the brick wall near the P Street gate, sloping to grade at the gate through the wall to 5th Avenue. The most recent soils survey done at Fort McNair is from 1975. It describes the majority of the soils as Matapeake-Urban Land, in addition to Urban-land association soils and Lindside loam soils. A large portion of the soils at Fort McNair are fill from the dredging of the Potomac River, and consist mostly of sandy silts with mixtures of clay. The Urban-land soils refer to soils in portions of the installation characterized by more than 80 percent impervious surfaces. Matapeake-Urban Land soils are nearly level or gently sloping, well drained, and found in areas that have been disturbed by grading for development. Lindside loam soils are found on the floodplains of the Potomac River. They have moderate permeability that can cause ponding after heavy rainfall. Lindside soils have poor potential for use of building sites. Some areas of the installation are known to have unconsolidated soils, possibly contaminated, and a high water table. Implementation of the RPMP would be constrained to areas of suitable soils, topography, and geology. Poor load-bearing soils and steep slopes would be avoided. The RPMP would have limited areas for new development and would instead focus on the renovation of existing facilities and would develop areas where previous development would be demolished. Impacts to soils and topography at the installation would occur from localized areas of soil removal and disturbance as a result of excavations, any cutting and filling or leveling to grade for construction, resulting in alterations in topography. Permanent loss of soil function would occur in the footprint(s) of any new construction including roadway widening for turn lanes and circulation improvements, and redevelopment of previously developed areas could also recreate or increase areas of impervious surfaces. An increase in impervious surfaces would result from development of new facilities and the widening and/or relocation of roadways. Development would implement BMPs for erosion and sediment control for all development activities consistent with applicable erosion and sedimentation regulations. Standard engineering practices and BMPs would be implemented to address construction-related issues stemming from


local geology, including practices such as appropriate design criteria (e.g., depth and location) for placement of footings in preparation for building roads and foundations. Fort McNair would be required to comply with erosion and sediment control requirements in accordance with the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations. Fort McNair would prepare a detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that incorporates some or all of these measures for submission, review, and concurrence by the District of Columbia, Department of Health. Furthermore, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities at JBM-HH would be required prior to any earth moving activities. Because Fort McNair is located on the Potomac River, stormwater quality control would be required. Stormwater quality control typically consists of providing treatment through the use of water quality BMPs. Typical stormwater management BMPs include bioretention, sand filters, or certain proprietary devices. The use of pervious paving surfaces, restoration of vegetation, and landscaping would be implemented as appropriate to offset the increase in impervious surface. Other mitigation measures may include but are not limited to construction of site-specific controls for water quality management of impervious areas consistent with Low Impact Development (LID) practices. Fort McNair is located at the confluence of the Washington Channel of the Potomac River and the Anacostia River. There are no streams or waterways within Fort McNair. In the 19th century, the James Creek, a natural water body, later known as the James Creek Canal, flowed north-south along the eastern edge of Fort McNair before emptying into the Anacostia River further south. Before its closure and filling in the early 1900s, the canal served as part of the District of Columbia sewage system, discharging sewage from the District to the Anacostia River. The Washington Channel of the Potomac River which drains the Tidal Basin, a man-made inlet adjacent to the Potomac River in Washington, D.C., forms the western edge of Fort McNair. The Anacostia River flows along portions of the eastern and southern edge of Fort McNair before draining into the Potomac River. As noted above, the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for water quality was established in 2010 pursuant to Section 117(g)(1) of the CWA and EO 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, to restore the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and the region’s streams, creeks, and rivers, and to address nutrients and sediment impairments. As a response, six states (including Virginia) and the District of Columbia have prepared Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs), Phase I in order to establish a framework for guiding water quality restoration efforts. The WIPs outline procedures that the states and the District will follow for nutrient and sediment load reduction necessary to achieve TMDLs, which the U.S. EPA refers to as a “pollution diet.” Phase II WIPs have been completed by both jurisdictions as of March 30, 2012. The Phase II WIPs provide strategies needed in order to achieve 60 percent reduction of TMDLs by 2025 and provide a smaller scale breakdown of load allocation, either to small geographical areas or specific facilities.


Washington, D.C. anticipates that federal facilities inclusive of Fort McNair will adhere to strategies and procedures of the WIP in partnership. The District views federal facilities as partners in implementing and meeting the WIP regulations and goals, as well as meeting the goals for the EISA (Section 438) requiring stormwater management in all federal facilities. The WIP suggests that federal facilities in Washington, D.C implement the following regulations: use green infrastructure; construct green roofs; increase tree canopy cover, use of LID in accordance with EISA to implement stormwater controls on all federal facilities; implement programs to control discharge; and reduce nonpoint source pollution (18 percent reduction of total nitrogen, 44 percent reduction of total phosphorus, and 47 percent reduction in sediment load). At Fort McNair permits and approval must be obtained from DC Water prior to performing any work that directly or indirectly affects the public water or sewage system. The stormwater drainage system at Fort McNair conveys runoff directly into Washington Channel and the Anacostia River via inlets and pipes. The current drainage system is considered adequate; however, minor flooding occurs as a result of the storm drain system's inability to accommodate runoff from impervious surfaces. Multiple storm drains are located in the northern section of the Installation (between P Street SW at the north and B Street), some of which discharge directly into the Washington Channel and are affected by tidal action, which can often block the end of pipes with floating debris. Other pipes west of 3rd Avenue drain to a city storm drain and eventually drain into the Anacostia River. Stormwater quality control would be required for Fort McNair due to its proximity to the Potomac River. Quality control typically consists of providing treatment through the use of water quality BMPs and LID technology. Typical stormwater management BMPs and LID technologies would include bioretention areas, sand filters, or certain proprietary devices. Fort McNair is at an elevation of 10 foot msl, and because the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has determined that flood elevations are at the 11-ft elevation, FEMA has recommended that the 10-ft contour be used to define the 100-year storm at Fort McNair, which reduces the acreage of the floodplain at Fort McNair from 22.5 to 11.7 acres. There are also areas of shallow flooding in the 500-year floodplain. The extensive presence of the floodplain and the low-lying topography of Fort McNair act as a constraint to development. EO 11988, Floodplain Management, directs all federal agencies to avoid both long- and short term adverse effects associated with occupancy, modification, and development in the 100-year floodplain, when possible. In the EO, floodplains are defined as “the lowland and relatively flat areas joining inland and coastal waters including flood prone areas of offshore islands, including a minimum, that area subject to a one percent greater chance of flooding in any given year.” Areas that lie within the 100-year floodplain in Fort McNair should be avoided where possible. If avoidance is not possible, field review should be performed to determine the type of encroachment permitted (habitable structures would not be permitted).


Fort McNair Vegetation Vegetation on Fort McNair consists almost exclusively of landscaped trees and grasses and no native vegetation. Implementation the RPMP will result in the development of new facilities. Once completed, projects will be landscaped with vegetation compatible with the surrounding landscape; native plant species will be used where appropriate. Implementation the RPMP also preserves much of the existing open space at Fort McNair, including the Parade Ground. Projects would be initiated only after the environmental review has been completed and the required permits are obtained. Planning and design of final projects should maintain the historic landscape patterns and should attempt to offset vegetation loss with open space development in other areas of the installations. Restoration plantings should use compatible plant species that fit the historic landscape, especially at Fort McNair where historic plantings of little-leaf linden trees and ornamental flowering trees occur; however, as much as possible, native species should be used. When trees are moved, replacement trees should be planted consistent with the species lost; for trees over 4-in. diameter, tree replacement should occur at a 2:1 ratio. Fort McNair Cultural Resources Fort McNair is located in an area that contains both prehistoric and historic archaeological and cultural resources. Cultural Resources include, but are not limited to: buildings, structures, and prehistoric and historic archeological sites. No archaeological sites have been recorded at Fort McNair; however, there is a high potential for significant historic archaeological resources from the eighteenth through the twentieth century to be present at Fort McNair, due to the extensive historic use of the land. Currently there is an ongoing archaeological survey at Fort McNair. The area bounded by the Washington Channel, Fifth Avenue, P Street, and the Anacostia River is considered the Fort McNair Historic District, eligible for listing on the NRHP in 1977 by the District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office (DC HPO). There are 54 buildings, 5 structures, and 1 site in the Historic District, including the original location of the Washington Armory, the Army’s first medical center and school, and the District of Columbia Penitentiary, which served as the location of trial and execution of the Lincoln Conspirators. There are a total of 37 historical objects on Fort McNair, including static displays of artillery pieces dating back to the Revolutionary War, as well as an extensive archive of original documents relating to military history. Effects on cultural resources from implementing the RRMP are directly related to the setting of historic properties and districts adjacent to or near proposed projects. Assessment of adverse effects on cultural resources depends on the exact location of future projects and the specific design details, which may include such things as building materials, construction footprint, height of buildings, and building design. The intent of the RPMP is to preserve and enhance historic structures at JBM-HH including the historic viewsheds from within and outside of the installation. While specific project details cannot be determined until the design process is initiated, JBM-HH would determine if any listed, eligible for listing, or potentially eligible


cultural or archeological resources could be adversely affected by a project, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Fort McNair consultation would be conducted with the DC HPO. If adverse effects are predicted, consultation would continue with the DC HPO and other interested parties, as applicable, to minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects.


Figure 20: Fort McNair Cultural Constraints Map



Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

The Joint Base Real Property Master Plan contains a set of guiding principles, which were established to help shape the future development of JBM-HH over this 20-year time frame, and are noted below.

• Continue to enhance the quality of life for service members, their families, and civilian workers.

• Maintain the traditions and standards of the ceremonial mission. • Continue to enforce and enhance security measures to provide a safe and secure

environment. • Protect and maintain environmental and cultural resources. • Involve the customer base and a diverse group of experts in the planning

process. • Coordinate Master Planning with the surrounding communities and agencies.

These guiding principles are generally in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital, and particularly conform to the goals and policies of the Federal Workplace Element by expanding federal facilities at an existing federal site.

Relevant Federal Facility Master Plan

The last Commission action on the Fort Myer master plan was a modification in December 1996 (see MP32). The Commission last modified the Henderson Hall master plan master plan in September of 1998 (see MP124). The last Commission action on a master plan for Fort Myer was a modification in September, 2003. The Joint Base Real Property Master Plan is an update to all three of these documents. (The previous master plans for Fort Myer and Fort McNair were 30-year plans; the plan for Henderson Hall was an Area Development Plan.)

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

In compliance with the NEPA, the Department of the Navy prepared a final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) and on April 8, 2013 completed a final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in support of the Joint Base Real Property Master Plan. The PEA identifies existing physical, natural and cultural resources and potential impacts that would occur to those resources as a result of the implementation of the RPMP. The PEA further establishes mitigation measures and procedures to offset impacts and ensures compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, while providing for the safety and efficiency of federal and state missions. Implementation of the RPMP was determined to be the Preferred Alternative in the PEA process.


The development of a PEA in association with the RPMP was chosen by JBM-HH as a suitable format for describing and analyzing the broad issues and impacts related to the RPMP and would allow future tiering of subsequent environmental analyses whenever site-specific statements are necessary as individual projects or plans are developed. Consequently, this PEA and its findings are applicable to those future actions that are associated with the PEA’s Proposed Action as part of the RPMP, provided those actions meet the requirements for review through a PEA under NEPA. Each project resulting from the implementation of the RPMP would be initiated only after environmental review has been completed and any required permits are obtained. NCPC does not have an independent NEPA responsibility for federal projects outside the District of Columbia, including those at Fort Myer and Henderson Hall. However, NCPC does have a an independent NEPA responsibility for those projects at Fort McNair and will work with the Army to ensure any subsequent environmental analysis required beyond the PEA is in compliance with NEPA requirements.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

Consistent with the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act, in the development of the above discussed Programmatic Environmental Assessment, the Department of the Navy consulted on the Joint Base Real Property Master Plan with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), as the State Historic Preservation Office, and the District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office (DC HPO). However, consistent with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations which allow agencies to conduct nondestructive project planning activities before completing compliance with Section 106, the Army intends to conduct Section 106 at the time of project design and implementation. NCPC does not have an independent NHPA responsibility for federal projects outside the District of Columbia. NCPC will be kept apprised of Section 106 consultations with the VDHR for projects at Fort Myer and Henderson Hall, and Section 106 consultation will include NCPC for projects at Fort McNair.

III. CONSULTATION

General Public

On February 20, 2014, NCPC placed the Joint Base Real Property Master Plan documents on NCPC’s public website to allow the general public to review and comment. No public comments have been received to date.

Virginia Public Agencies

On February 19, 2014 NCPC referred the Joint Base Real Property Master Plan for review and comment to the following public agencies in Virginia: Arlington County Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development; Arlington County Department of Environmental Services; Arlington County Department of Environmental Services; Northern Virginia Regional Commission; Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments; Northern


Virginia Transportation Commission; Virginia Department of Transportation; Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; Virginia Department of Historic Resources; Arlington National Cemetery; Department of Defense Washington Headquarters Services. NCPC received comments from the Arlington County Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development, which consolidated comments from multiple County agencies; and the Arlington County Division of Transportation. NCPC also received comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation. These comments are attached in the Appendix. In addition, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality provided NCPC with a copy of comments given by multiple State of Virginia public agencies on September 13, 2012, when they reviewed the RPMP draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment. These comments are not attached in the Appendix but can be reviewed within the final Programmatic Environmental Assessment. Comments received have also been forwarded to the Department of the Army.

Coordinating Committee

The Coordinating Committee reviewed the Joint Base Real Property Master Plan at its April 9, 2014 meeting. The Committee forwarded the draft master plan to the Commission with the statement that the proposal has been coordinated with all participating agencies. The participating agencies were: NCPC; the District of Columbia Office of Planning; the General Services Administration and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. The District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office did not attend the April 9, 2014 Coordinating Committee meeting, but provided NCPC with a copy of comments given to the Army on May 13, 2011, when they reviewed a copy of the RPMP. The DC HPO’s are not attached in the Appendix but can be reviewed within the final Programmatic Environmental Assessment.

IV. APPENDIX

Executive Director's Recommendation

Documents

Transcript of Executive Director's Recommendation