armed forces retirement home nepa and nhpa ......2017/12/13 · armed forces retirement home nepa...

Armed Forces Retirement HomeNEPA and NHPA ComplianceDecember 13, 2017

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Welcome to the Armed Forces Retirement Home public hearing. The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to provide an update on the AFRH master plan and to obtain comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement or EIS which has been prepared to update the impact analysis of the master plan. In carrying out our social and environmental responsibilities, the Home is committed to ensuring that we provide proper consideration to the environment when undertaking a major federal project. This meeting is an opportunity for you (both as a vested community and as individual citizens) to voice your comments on the environmental affects of the proposed project. We appreciate you taking the time to participate.

Protecting a PromiseRenewing the Trust

Tonight’s Agenda

Project Background

NEPA

Section 106

Master Plan Alternatives

Impacts

Public Comments

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The following presentation will explain the Master Plan project and the National Environmental Policy Act compliance process. The presentation also provides an update on our compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act as a Federal steward of important historic resources. We will review the Master Plan alternatives and the findings of the Draft Supplemental EIS. You will then have the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft EIS.


ArmedForces Retirement HomeWashington

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Nestled in the heart of the nation’s capital, the 272-acre Armed Forces Retirement Home is currently developed with 93 structures including the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Landmark District.


The Site

Established in 1851

Approximately 272-acre campus

Home to nearly 600 military veterans

Over 100 existing buildings and ancillary structures

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The Home was established in 1851 and is currently home to nearly 600 veterans. There are over 100 buildings and ancillary structures on the property.


PURPOSE AND NEED


The Need

Operational funding comes from:

Active duty enlisted military personnel

Fines and forfeitures

Resident fees

Interest from the Trust Fund and other investments

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Since the Home's beginning, operational funding came from active military personnel themselves. A permanent trust fund was established nearly 165 years ago, and was fed by monthly, active duty payroll deductions of 25 cents, when the average pay of a soldier was $7 a month. Today the payroll deduction to fund the trust fund is 1 dollar. Fines and forfeitures from the armed forces and the monthly withholding have provided the principal support for the Home throughout its history.


The Need

$20 million/year operating loss

$18 million in deferred maintenance/required capital improvements

Must prepare for the next generation of enlisted personnel

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Expenses at the AFRH have increased over time as residents live longer and require additional services as they deal with chronic medical conditions. The existing buildings have aged which requires more upkeep. At the same time, contribution to the Trust Fund have been drastically reduced. AFRH has saw a 24 percent reduction in revenue receipts between 2009 and 2016. Due to expenses outpacing income, Congress authorized $42 million in FY 2016 and FY 2017 to temporarily support AFRH operations. Without additional revenues, the AFRH will be forced to scale back services.


The Need

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002

gave AFRH authority to sell or lease its land to replenish the Trust Fund

Presenter

Presentation Notes

In 2002, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 gave the AFRH, with approval of the Secretary of Defense, authority to dispose of any property by sale, lease, or otherwise that is excess to the needs of the AFRH. Proceeds from such a disposal are to replenish the AFRH’s Trust Fund and generate sufficient revenue to continue providing the best housing and comprehensive support services in an independent living retirement community for America’s Armed Forces retired enlisted personnel and have the ability to develop future facilities for their changing populations.


THE MASTER PLAN


Proposed Action

AFRH finalized a Master Plan in 2008

Included a lease for underutilized land (Zone A)

4,403,083 gsf mixed-use development

Presenter

Presentation Notes

To implement this authority, AFRH developed a Master Development Plan for the Washington, DC campus to guide the long-term use and development of the site. The Master Plan was approved in 2008 and called for a lease of underutilized land for implementation of a mixed use program consisting of Commercial Residential Institutional and Other uses That development would occur in Zone A as shown on this map.


Proposed Action

AFRH selected a developer for Zone A, but could not come to an agreement

Development put on hold during the economic downturn

AFRH is once again moving forward with the mixed use development

Presenter

Presentation Notes

AFRH selected a developer for the property in 2008. However, they could not come to an agreement with the developer, and the project was put on hold during the subsequent economic downturn. AFRH is once again moving forward with the proposed project and anticipates releasing a Request for Proposal to solicit proposals and select a new developer for the mixed use development To do this, an update to environmental compliance was necessary.


NEPA and Section 106


Environmental Compliance

National Environmental Policy Act – Requires agencies to consider the impacts of Federal actions on the human environment

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act –Requires agencies to consider the effects of undertakings on historic resources

Presenter

Presentation Notes

To implement the Master Plan, there are two primary laws with which AFRH must comply. These are the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA as it is called which requires agencies to consider the impacts of Federal actions on the human environment and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act which requires agencies to consider the effects of undertakings on historic resources.


National Environmental Policy Act

Environmental Impact Statement - Completed in 2007

Record of Decision – 2008

Presenter

Presentation Notes

In 2007 to comply with NEPA, AFRH completed an Environmental Impact Statement or EIS that assessed the impacts of 5 alternatives for the Master Plan. In 2008, a Record of Decision was signed that selected that included the AFRH zone for ongoing AFRH uses Zone A which is the development zone, and retention of the golf course and land to the west to provide a buffer between residential areas and the new development.



Supplemental EIS needed to address changes in laws and to update the impact analysis

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Because of the time that has passed, AFRH has prepared a Supplemental EIS to update the prior EIS. The Supplemental EIS addresses changes in the proposed action and changes in laws and regulations.



Changes since 2008 include:

Scott Building demolished & replaced

Lincoln Cottage restored

Zones B&C removed from development

Heating Plant added to the development zone

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Changes that have occurred since 2008 include: Demolition and replacement of the Scott Building, Restoration of the Lincoln Cottage, and Removal of Zones B&C from the development area. In addition, AFRH has proposed adding the Heating Plant to Zone A



Step Approximate Date

Publication of the NOI April 2, 2015Publication of Notice of Availability (NOA) for Draft Supplemental EIS November 17, 2017

Public Comment Period on Draft SEIS November 17 – January 12, 2018

Public Hearing on Draft SEIS Week of December 11, 2017Publication of Notice of Availability for Final SEIS February 2019

Public Review Period on Final SEIS February – March 2019Record of Decision April 2019

Presenter

Presentation Notes

AFRH prepared a Notice of Intent to prepare the Supplemental EIS in April 2015. After conducting studies to update the EIS impact analysis, AFRH published a Notice of Availability for the Draft Supplemental EIS on November 17, 2017. The public comment period – which we are in now – will last until January 12, 2018. AFRH will then address comments including those received tonight to prepare a Final Supplemental EIS. Over the next year, AFRH will be accepting proposals for development of Zone A in accordance with the Master Plan. We will be waiting to publish the Final Supplemental EIS until proposals are received to ensure that we can fully consider any new information that arises from the developers proposals. We estimate that the Final Supplemental EIS will be complete by March 2019. After a 30-day public review period on the Final Supplemental EIS, AFRH will issue a Record of Decision that documents the final course of action that AFRH will take on implementation of the Master Plan.


March 2008 – AFRH entered into a Programmatic Agreement with NPS and the DC Historic Preservation Office for:• Implementation of the Master

Plan• Review & approval of changes to

the Master Plan• Mitigation measures

• Historic Preservation Plan

NHPA – Section 106

Presenter

Presentation Notes

AFRH also conducted compliance activities for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as the Master Plan was developed. In March 2008 – AFRH entered into a Programmatic Agreement with NPS and the DC Historic Preservation Office for: Implementation of the Master Plan Review & approval of changes to the Master Plan Mitigation measures Historic Preservation Plan This programmatic agreement is being followed as AFRH moves forward with developing Zone A.


AFRH is currently consulting with the DC HPO and Consulting Parties on the Master Plan Revision – including the addition of the Heating Plant to Zone A

NHPA – Section 106

Presenter

Presentation Notes

In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, AFRH is currently consulting with the DC HPO and Consulting Parties on the Master Plan Revision – including the addition of the Heating Plant to Zone A, the development zone.


ALTERNATIVES


Alternative Studied in Detail:

No Action Alternative

Master Plan Alternative plus the Heating Plant

Alternative Considered & Dismissed:

Alternatives 2, 3B, 3C, and 4 from the 2008 EIS

Alternatives

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Alternatives that were studied in the Draft Supplemental EIS include the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the entire AFRH property would remain in Federal ownership and no private development would occur. The No Action Alternative does not meet the intent of the National Defense Authorization Act but it has been studied as required by NEPA to provide a baseline for assessing impacts of the proposed action. The Draft Supplemental EIS also studies impacts associated with full implementation of the Master Plan including adding the Heating Plant to the Zone A development zone. The alternatives that were studied in the 2008 EIS have been dismissed from further consideration.


Impacts: Stormwater Management

Hard, nonporous surfaces would be increased.

Development would conform to the 2013 DC Department of Energy and Environment Stormwater Rules

Stormwater Mitigation would include Best Management Practices such as bioretention devices, water quality catch basins, manufactured water quality BMP’s, and green roofs

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The implementation of the 2008 Master Plan would result in a total increase of 19.9 acres of impervious surface area on the AFRH site, or an additional 7 percent of the overall project area The 2008 Master Plan recommends providing two stormwater management ponds to satisfy stormwater retention volume requirements for Zone A, but current stormwater management and low-impact development techniques encourage the use of a decentralized stormwater management system in place of the traditional pond Therefore, implementation of the Master Plan will likely require additional stormwater retention BMPs such as bioretention devices, water quality catch basins, manufactured water quality BMP’s, and green roofs.


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS


Impacts: Greenhouse Gases

New natural gas boilers at the AFRH would result in a minor increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Mitigation measures would include:

• Maintenance of construction vehicles

• Energy efficient building designs

• Use of green roofs and landscaping

Presenter

Presentation Notes

New natural gas boiler capacity for the AFRH-W development would result in minor increases in greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions would be a small fraction of the greenhouse gases produced in the District of Columbia. There are measures that may be implemented as part of the proposed action to reduce greenhouse emissions. These include: Maintenance of construction vehicles to ensure they are operating efficiently Energy efficient building designs, and Use of green roofs and landscaping


Impacts: Land Use Planning and Zoning

Consistent with the Federal and District Elements of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital.

2007 MOU establishes review authorities for development on the AFRH

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Implementation of the AFRH Master Plan would be consistent with the Federal and District Elements of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital including elements for Environment Parks, Open Space, and Natural Features Preservation and Historic Features Urban Design, and Transportation In addition, the Master Plan would be consistent with the District’s Area Elements for Rock Creek East. Implementation of the Master Plan Alternative would expand the mix of land uses on the site. In 2007, AFRH signed a MOU with the DC Office of Planning and the National Capital Planning Commission to establish a hybrid approach for controls over the mixed use redevelopment of parts of the campus that would be developed by the private sector. Under the MOU, federal use development occurring within the AFRH Zone would not be subject to review or approval by DCOP. Private development would be subject to the zoning established under the terms of the MOU and reviewed under the terms of the Historic Resources Programmatic Agreement.


Impacts: Transportation

Master Plan would generate approximately 2,800 new AM peak hour vehicle trips and 3,740 new PM peak hour vehicle trips

Intersections may operate under unacceptable conditions:North Capitol Street & Rock Creek Church Road/Buchanan Street SB North Capitol Street Ramp & Scale Gate RoadNB North Capitol Street Ramp & Scale Gate Road First Street/Site Driveway 2 & Irving Street Park Place & Hobart Place

Mitigation: roadway improvements, signal modifications, and transportation management plans

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The Master Plan would generate approximately 2,800 new vehicle trips in the AM and 3,740 vehicle trips in the PM Intersections may operate under unacceptable conditions including North Capitol Street and Rock Creek Church Road at Buchanan Street SB North Capitol Street Ramp and Scale Gate Road NB North Capitol St Ramp and Scale Gate Road First Street/Site Driveway 2 and Irving Street Park Place & Hobart Place Mitigation through roadway improvements, signal modifications, and transportation management plans


Traffic Analysis Study Area



Master Plan would generate approximately 1,000 new trips on mass transit in the am and pm

Mitigation may include: Establish shuttle service to and from the Columbia Heights and

Brookland-CUA Metrorail stations Shift existing bus routes to busy routes Utilize articulated buses Extend bus routes into the AFRH site

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The Master Plan would generate approximately 1,000 new trips on mass transit in the am and pm Mitigation for these additional riders may include: Establishing shuttle service to and from the Columbia Heights and Brookland-CUA Metrorail stations Shifting existing bus routes to busy routes Utilizing articulated buses Extending bus routes into the AFRH site



City planned improvements for pedestrian and bicycle usage are needed off-site

Mitigation on- and off-site may include: Marked crosswalks Sidewalks Dedicated bike lanes or paths Bikeshare Bicycle parking

Presenter

Presentation Notes

With additional development on AFRH, there will also be additional pedestrians and bicyclists. Many of the recommendations currently outlined in the District of Columbia’s plans for pedestrian and bicycle improvements would be necessary to ensure adequate connections between the AFRH-W site, nearby transit options, and surrounding community. Mitigation both on and off of the AFRH property may include: Marked crosswalks Sidewalks Dedicated bike lanes or paths Bikeshare Bicycle parking


Mitigation Alternative 1

New Coordinated Signal System

New Traffic Signal

Modify Interchange

New Hospital Access

Intersection Improvements


Presenter

Presentation Notes

Additional improvements at Harewood Road NW and Allison Street/Rock Creek Church Road NW not shown.


Mitigation Alternative 2

New Traffic Signal

Modify Interchange

New Hospital Access



Realign Irving Street with Park Place

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Additional improvements at Harewood Road NW and Allison Street/Rock Creek Church Road NW not shown.


Proposed Ped/Bike Improvements


Proposed Transit Enhancements

Realign Routes D8, H1, H2.New Shuttle Service to Metro.


PUBLIC COMMENTS


Comments

Sign up to speak at the Welcome table

Please limit comments to 5 minutes

Written comments must be postmarked by January 12, 2018

Presenter

Presentation Notes

We will now open the hearing up to those who wish to comment on the proposed action and the Draft EIS. If you wish to speak, you may sign up at the Welcome table. We are asking that you limit your comments to 5 minutes to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to speak. If you want, you may also submit written comments. There are comment forms at the Welcome table. You may submit written comments tonight or mail them later. We just ask that all comments be postmarked by January 12, 2018. Please note – the meeting is being recorded so that we have a complete record of your comments.

THANK YOU

armed forces retirement home nepa and nhpa ......2017/12/13 · armed forces retirement home nepa...

Documents