Final_EA_ANC_Southern_Expansion.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

United States Department of the Army Arlington National Cemetery

Prepared by:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District

August 2019

Environmental Assessment for the Southern Expansion and Associated Roadway Realignment

FINAL

Arlington County, Virginia

Final Environmental Assessment Arlington National Cemetery Southern Expansion and Associated Roadway Realignment i August 2019

UPDATE NOTICE

Following the August 16, 2018 release of the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Arlington National Cemetery Southern Expansion (ANCSE), several comments were received that require clarification and/or additional information. These changes, and any others required in response to comments received during the public comment period, are reflected in this Final EA prior to a decision to be made under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

1. The future Pentagon Memorial Visitor Education Center (VEC) design effort is on hold while the Pentagon Memorial Fund (PMF) – a non-governmental organization – conducts market research to inform the size and scope of the future facility. The VEC is a separate land use action sponsored by private interests, subject to site plan approval and traffic impact analysis, as necessary, by regulatory agencies. Although this future project is listed in the EA under Section 3.18 Indirect and Cumulative Effects as a “Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions”, there is no current plan of development upon which to assess further cumulative impacts. FHWA-EFLHD will review potential impacts, and potential mitigations, as appropriate, based on use assumptions during its traffic modeling for an Interchange Modification Report (IMR) update. The IMR update will be issued with FHWA’s decision document, e.g. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) containing a summary of the findings and recommended design changes.

2. A follow-up traffic study as mentioned in Section 3.10 Transportation and Traffic was completed in April 2019 and finalized in August 2019. The Traffic Technical Memorandum analyzed and documented the potential traffic impacts from the change in the land use proposed by ANC. The study: a) served as validation for the IMR to ensure the planned improvements are still valid with the anticipated land use changes (Operations Complex, garage and parking from Southgate Road, and Air Force Memorial (AFM)); b) evaluated new access points, and c) determined if additional improvements were needed.

The objective of the study was to evaluate the traffic operational impacts resulting from the proposed ANCSE project’s changes to land use, and to identify if any additional improvements beyond the IMR-proposed configuration were necessary. In addition to the trip generation and traffic analysis, a parking analysis based on an employee survey concluded a total of 244 spaces would be needed for the new Operations Complex parking garage. The following elements were also analyzed:

a. New trips generated from the ANC Southern Expansion; and,

b. Diversion of traffic to and from:

i. AFM;

ii. Existing ANC Service Complex;

iii. Closure of Southgate Road; and,

iv. New Operations Complex.

The following is a summary of the ANCSE Traffic Technical Memorandum:

A traffic signal is warranted for the intersections along Columbia Pike at Nash Street and the Route 27 ramps for the Baseline Conditions and both Build Scenarios.

ii

The traffic operations at the new Operations Complex driveways perform at a better Level of Service (LOS) in Build Scenario 1 than in Build Scenario 2. As a result, Build Scenario 1 is recommended.

The mitigation scenarios for the Baseline Conditions and both Build Scenarios include an additional southbound right-turn lane (dual right turn lanes) with turn bay length of over 400 feet at intersection of Columbia Pike and the Route 27 ramps. The additional lane reduced queuing on the ramp from over 700 feet to under 400 feet.

The pedestrian signal warrant analysis for the crosswalk at Columbia Pike and the AFM established the need of a “pedestrian hybrid beacon” signal to improve safety and to better serve pedestrians crossing to and from the new Operations Complex. Pedestrians would be provided a 7-second walk interval and a 14-second flash-don’t-walk interval followed by clearance interval to cross four lanes of traffic.

The new Operations Complex has the capacity to process vehicles through the inspection points with at most 10 percent of the vehicles flagged for further inspection during the AM peak hour.

The capacity is based on the processing times and the number of lanes for the gate. A higher percentage of vehicles flagged could result in queue spillback onto South Joyce Street.

3. The participation of the Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway (FHWA-EFLHD) in this project has included assistance with this EA as a cooperating agency. In addition, FHWA-EFLHD will be designing the roadways that would be relocated as a result of the ANC expansion. Recently, FHWA-EFLHD, at the request of the County and VDOT, agreed to further traffic studies to further analyze the modified access to Route 27 (Washington Boulevard) with Columbia Pike. FHWA-EFLHD has indicated to ANC that all decision-making to-date concerning this EA is agreeable to them, and that FHWA-EFLHD intends to adopt the ANC’s EA and issue its own FONSI, if appropriate, after completion of the additional traffic study and IMR update.

4. Numerous comments/suggestions regarding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along the Columbia Pike corridor were received during the public comment period. ANC is sensitive to the public's concerns, however, the conceptual realigned roadway and trail corridor width is not unlimited. The conceptual roadway design presented in the Draft EA is a generic depiction. It is in keeping with state and local policies for "complete streets," and will preserve the bicycle and pedestrian trail link between Southgate Road and South Joyce Street via the proposed South Nash Street and Columbia Pike. Based on comments received, separate the bicycle and pedestrian trails, which would connect with Arlington County's existing trails to the Pentagon, are proposed. Specific design suggestions have been passed along to the design team; the roadway and trails are under design at this time. The final design, including actual widths of the Columbia Pike realignment and trails, is outside the scope of this EA. It will include the appropriate level of bike/pedestrian infrastructure that is consistent with Virginia Department of Transportation/American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials/National Association of City Transportation Officials (VDOT/AASHTO/NACTO) standards and Arlington County's Columbia Pike design standard.

Please see Section 3.10 for additional information.

5. FHWA-EFLHD has determined that Section 4(f), which applies only to Federal Transit Administration and other Department of Transportation (USDOT) agencies, is not applicable to this action. Section 3.15 Section 4(f) Resources and Figures 3-13 and 3-14 contained in the Draft iii

EA have been removed from the Final EA. If the FHWA-EFLHD determination changes, Section 4(f) will be addressed in the FHWA-EFLHD decision document.

6. The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for 2019, Public Law 115-232, published on August 13, 2018, directed the Secretary of the Army to grant to Arlington County a permanent easement of no less than 0.1 acre of land within the right-of-way of Southgate Road to the south and west of Hobson Drive and west of the planned joint base access road that is also continuous with Foxcroft Heights Park for the purpose of commemorating Freedman’s Village. This proposed action would be developed by Arlington County at a later date. Although this was previously mentioned in the Draft EA under Section 3.18 Indirect and Cumulative Effects as a “Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions”, there is no current plan of development upon which to assess further cumulative impacts.

iv

COVER SHEET

Proposed Action: Arlington National Cemetery proposes to establish a single, contiguous parcel of land south of the cemetery by closing, relocating, and realigning local roadways and develop the parcel to increase interment capacity and create an opportunity to increase multimodal transportation capacity on a portion of Columbia Pike.

Type of Document: Environmental Assessment

Lead Agency: Arlington National Cemetery, a Direct Reporting Unit of Headquarters, Department of the Army

For Further Cara Sydnor, PMP Information: Southern Expansion Program Manager

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District Norfolk, VA

SouthernExpansion@usace.army.mil

Abstract:

Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) proposes to establish a single, contiguous parcel of land south of the cemetery by closing, relocating, and realigning local roadways and develop the parcel to increase interment capacity. This document simultaneously addresses the establishment and development components of this action with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and Arlington County as cooperating agencies. The realignment of Columbia Pike is integral to a successful ANC expansion. This EA assesses the potential impacts of the realignment to ensure that the cumulative effects of the collective federal actions – roadways and cemetery expansion – are considered.

The 2013 ANC Real Property Master Plan (RPMP) and its 2014 Programmatic Environmental Assessment (RPMP PEA) discussed the elements of the proposed action. The Southern Expansion site – bounded by Washington Boulevard, I-395, the VDOT Maintenance Complex, Foxcroft Heights, and ANC – involves approximately 70 acres among three landowners – ANC, Arlington County, and VDOT. This document describes potential impacts to the existing environment and resources associated with the Proposed Action.

The anticipated construction could begin as early as 2020, pending environmental review and design, with completion as early as 2025.

ANC needs additional burial capacity to meet future demand; Arlington County, the owner of Columbia Pike, needs to increase its capacity for multimodal transportation. The Proposed Action presents an opportunity for VDOT, the owner of the Washington Boulevard interchange and ramps, to reconfigure the interchange within a smaller footprint, thereby providing increased safety and operational efficiency. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase burial capacity and extend the operational life of the cemetery and to provide an opportunity to increase multimodal capacity on this portion of Columbia Pike. The Preferred Alternative would accomplish the Proposed Action’s purpose and need.

ANC evaluated various roadway realignment alternatives that would maximize the potential burial space and create an opportunity to increase multimodal capacity while upgrading safety and capacity levels. The RPMP PEA included discussions with ANC and cooperating agencies on roadway realignment options.

mailto:SouthernExpansion@usace.army.mil v

Cooperating agencies are FHWA, United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Capital Planning Commission, VDOT, and the Board of Arlington County, Virginia.

Organization

This document is organized as follows: The Executive Summary provides a brief overview including a summary table of the potential impacts for each resource category. Chapter 1 describes the Purpose and Need for action and provides background information. Chapter 2 defines the Proposed Action and discusses the alternatives considered and why they are either dismissed or carried forward for detailed environmental analysis. Chapter 3 describes the existing conditions of the site, including potentially impacted environmental resources, and identifies the potential environmental consequences, both positive and negative. Chapter 4 is a list of persons and/or agencies consulted. Chapter 5 lists the document preparers and their experience.

vi

Acronyms and Abbreviations AADT average annual daily traffic AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACM Asbestos Containing Materials AFM Air Force Memorial AMSL above mean sea level ANC Arlington National Cemetery

APE Area of Potential Effects AR Army Regulation AST Aboveground Storage Tank

BMP Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CESQG Conditionally-Exempt Small Quantity Generator CFA U.S. Commission of Fine Arts CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CLRP Constrained Long Range Transportation Plan CO Carbon monoxide CWA Clean Water Act

CBPA Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act CZMP Coastal Zone Management Program DA Department of Army

DAR Defense Access Roads Program dBA decibels (A-range) DEA Draft Environmental Assessment

DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program DoD U.S. Department of Defense EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPAct Energy Policy Act EA Environmental Assessment EFLHD Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (branch of FHWA) vii

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act

EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FEA Final Environmental Assessment

FHWA-EFLHD Federal Highway Administration-Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FTA Federal Transit Administration

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act HQDA Headquarters, Department of the Army HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

ISWMP Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan JBMHH Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall LBP Lead-Based Paint

LID Low Impact Development LOS Level of Service LQG Large Quantity Generator

MOA Memorandum of Agreement MPH miles per hour MWAQC Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NCPC National Capital Planning Commission NDAA National Defense Authorization Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NEX Navy Exchange NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NRHP National Register of Historic Places NOx Nitrogen oxides NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS National Park Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NVTA Northern Virginia Transportation Authority

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls viii

PM2.5 Particulate matter (< 2.5 microns)

PM10 Particulate matter (< 10 microns) PMF Pentagon Memorial Fund PMVEC 9/11 Pentagon Memorial Visitor Education Center POL Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RPMP PEA Real Property Master Plan Programmatic Environmental Assessment SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users

SDD Sustainable Design and Development SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SO2 Sulfur dioxide

SQG Small Quantity Generator SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds TDP Transit Development Plan (Arlington County, Virginia) tpy tons per year USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

UST Underground Storage Tanks VDCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality VDGIF Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

VDHR Virginia Department of Historic Resources VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation VOC volatile organic compounds

WHS Washington Headquarters Services ix

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary ES-1 Type of Report ES-2 Purpose of and Need for Action ES-3 Description of the Proposed Action ES-4 Alternatives ES-5 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts ES-6 Public Involvement

1 INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ...................................... 1-1

1.1 Action Summary ....................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Need for the Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Action................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.1 Increase Burial Capacity ..................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.2 Upgrade Safety and Capacity Levels of Service for Roadways within the Action Area.. 1-3

1.3.3 Create an Opportunity to Increase Multimodal Capacity Along this Portion of Columbia Pike ................................................................................................................. 1-3

1.4 Laws or Previous Actions Influencing the Proposed Action ............................................. 1-3

1.4.1 Land Transfer of the Former Navy Annex Property ................................................. 1-4

1.4.2 ANC Real Property Master Plan and Programmatic EA ........................................... 1-6

1.4.3 Arlington County Improvements for Regional Multimodal Transportation .................. 1-6

1.4.4 Public Law 114-158 ........................................................................................... 1-8

1.5 Decision-Making Process ........................................................................................... 1-8

1.6 Scoping and Public Involvement ................................................................................. 1-9

1.7 Required Regulatory Review and Consultations............................................................1-11

2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Proposed Action ....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Planning Elements..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3.1 Roadway Realignment ........................................................................................ 2-1

2.3.2 Land Acquisitions/Transfers ................................................................................ 2-4

2.3.3 Air Force Memorial (AFM) ................................................................................. 2-4

2.3.4 Highest and Best Use.......................................................................................... 2-5

2.3.5 Southern Boundary Wall and Patton Drive ............................................................. 2-6

2.3.6 Support Services and Infrastructure....................................................................... 2-7 x

2.3.7 Sustainability Measures ...................................................................................... 2-7

2.4 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated ....................................................................... 2-8

2.4.1 Alternatives Noncontiguous to Existing Cemetery Considered and Eliminated ............ 2-8

2.4.2 Roadway Realignment Alternatives to Create a Single Contiguous Parcel Considered and Eliminated .......................................................................................................2-10

2.5 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...............................................................................2-13

2.5.1 Relocate Operations Complex Alternative (Preferred).............................................2-13

2.5.2 Maintain Operations Complex with Underpass Alternative ......................................2-16

2.5.3 Maintain Operations Complex without Underpass Alternative..................................2-17

2.5.4 No Action Alternative........................................................................................2-17

2.6 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................2-18

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES................ 3-1

3.1 Land Use and Sustainability........................................................................................ 3-2

3.1.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................... 3-2

3.1.2 Threshold of Significance.................................................................................... 3-4

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 3-4

3.2 Air Quality............................................................................................................... 3-6

3.2.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................... 3-6

3.2.2 Threshold of Significance.................................................................................... 3-6

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 3-7

3.3 Noise ...................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.3.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................... 3-8

3.3.2 Threshold of Significance...................................................................................3-11

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................3-11

3.4 Topography, Soils, and Geology.................................................................................3-13

3.4.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................3-13

3.4.2 Threshold of Significance...................................................................................3-14

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................3-14

3.5 Water Resources ......................................................................................................3-16

3.5.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................3-16

3.5.2 Threshold of Significance. ..................................................................................3-19

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................3-20

3.6 Biological Resources ................................................................................................3-22

3.6.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................3-22

3.6.2 Threshold of Significance...................................................................................3-26

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................3-26 xi

3.7 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................3-27

3.7.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................3-28

3.7.2 Threshold of Significance...................................................................................3-33

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................3-33

3.8 Visitor Use and Experience .......................................................................................3-36

3.8.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................3-36

3.8.2 Threshold of Significance...................................................................................3-36

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................3-36

3.9 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Protection of Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks..............................................................................................3-37

3.9.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................3-38

3.9.2 Threshold of Significance...................................................................................3-38

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................3-39

3.10 Transportation and Traffic .........................................................................................3-40

3.10.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................3-40

3.10.2 Threshold of Significance...................................................................................3-44

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................3-44

3.11 Utilities ..................................................................................................................3-50

3.11.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................3-50

3.11.2 Threshold of Significance...................................................................................3-50

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................3-50

3.12 Solid Waste.............................................................................................................3-51

3.12.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................3-51

3.12.2 Threshold of Significance...................................................................................3-52

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................3-52

3.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste..................................................................................3-53

3.13.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................3-53

3.13.2 Threshold of Significance...................................................................................3-55

3.13.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................3-55

3.14 Visual and Aesthetic Resources..................................................................................3-57

3.14.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................3-57

3.14.2 Threshold of Significance...................................................................................3-59

3.14.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................3-59

3.15 Issues Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Discussion ...........................................3-62

3.16 Other NEPA Considerations ......................................................................................3-63

3.16.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .............................................................................3-63 xii

3.16.2 Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity ................................3-64

3.16.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ........................................3-64

3.16.4 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions .........................................3-64

3.16.5 Regulatory Compliance......................................................................................3-65

3.17 Indirect and Cumulative Effects .................................................................................3-67 4 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED .................................................. 4-1

5 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 5-1

List of Tables Page

Table 3.1 Estimated Acreage of Land Cover Types ................................................................... 3-5 Table 3.2 Noise Sources at Southern Expansion Site ................................................................. 3-8 Table 3.3 State-Listed Species ..............................................................................................3-23 Table 3.4 Roadway Level of Service Analysis.........................................................................3-49 Table 3.5 Compliance with Federal Statutes............................................................................3-66 Table 3.6 Cumulative Effects to Resources .............................................................................3-72 Table 4.1 Agencies and Persons Consulted .............................................................................. 4-1 Table 4.2 Other Consultations – Native American Tribes and Non-Governmental Organizations .... 4-2 Table 5.1 List of Preparers .................................................................................................... 5-1

List of Figures

On or Following Page

Figure 1-1 Vicinity and Location ......................................................................................... 1-1 Figure 1-2 Southern Expansion Project Site........................................................................... 1-1 Figure 1-3 Noncontiguous Parcels ....................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 1-4 Navy Annex Property 2004 ................................................................................. 1-5 Figure 1-5 Navy Annex Property 2015 ................................................................................. 1-5 Figure 2-1 Proposed Roadway Alignment ............................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2-2 Conceptual South Nash Street Cross-Section.......................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 Conceptual Columbia Pike Cross-Section .............................................................. 2-3 Figure 2-4 Proposed Land Acquisitions and Disposals ............................................................ 2-4 Figure 2-5 Air Force Memorial Integration............................................................................ 2-5 Figure 2-6 RPMP PEA Alternative 1 – Southern Expansion Site .............................................. 2-8 Figure 2-7 RPMP PEA Alternative 2 – Southern Expansion Site with Southgate Road................. 2-9 Figure 2-8 RPMP PEA Alternative 3 – Southern Expansion Site with New Access Road ............2-10 Figure 2-9 RPMP PEA Alternative 4 – Southern Expansion Site with Realigned Roadways ........2-11 Figure 2-10 Sub-Alternative 4a ............................................................................................2-11 Figure 2-11 Sub-Alternative 4b ............................................................................................2-12 Figure 2-12 Sub-Alternative 4c ............................................................................................2-12 Figure 2-13 Sub-Alternative 4d ............................................................................................2-12 Figure 2-14 Sub-Alternative 4e ............................................................................................2-12 Figure 2-15 Relocate Operations Complex Alternative (Preferred) ............................................2-13 Figure 2-16 Maintain Operations Complex with Underpass Alternative......................................2-16 file://alxw00/PMWork2/59776%20USACE%20Norfolk%20ANC%20Civil%20IDIQ/xArchive/06.4%20-%20TO4-ADP_NEPA_Phase/09_TechProd/3.2%20NEPA%20Support/NEPA/Documents/8_Final%20EA%20w_FONSI/Final-Final/ANCSE_Final_EA_28-Aug-2019.docx#_Toc17902220 file://alxw00/PMWork2/59776%20USACE%20Norfolk%20ANC%20Civil%20IDIQ/xArchive/06.4%20-%20TO4-ADP_NEPA_Phase/09_TechProd/3.2%20NEPA%20Support/NEPA/Documents/8_Final%20EA%20w_FONSI/Final-Final/ANCSE_Final_EA_28-Aug-2019.docx#_Toc17902220 file://alxw00/PMWork2/59776%20USACE%20Norfolk%20ANC%20Civil%20IDIQ/xArchive/06.4%20-%20TO4-ADP_NEPA_Phase/09_TechProd/3.2%20NEPA%20Support/NEPA/Documents/8_Final%20EA%20w_FONSI/Final-Final/ANCSE_Final_EA_28-Aug-2019.docx#_Toc17902220 xiii

Figure 2-17 Maintain Operations Complex without Underpass Alternative .................................2-17 Figure 3-1 Local Land use in the Vicinity of ANC ................................................................. 3-2 Figure 3-2 Topography .....................................................................................................3-13 Figure 3-3 Drainage Areas .................................................................................................3-18 Figure 3-4 Existing Stormwater Infrastructure .......................................................................3-18 Figure 3-5 Area of Potential Effect .....................................................................................3-28 Figure 3-6 Map of Arlington Estate, 1888 ............................................................................3-30 Figure 3-7 Census Tracts...................................................................................................3-38 Figure 3-8 Transportation Network Within and Adjacent to the Southern Expansion Site ............3-40 Figure 3-9 2040 Preferred Alternative Traffic Movements and Intersection Level of Services ......3-45 Figure 3-10 2040 No Action Alternative Traffic Movements and Intersection Level of Services ....3-45 Figure 3-11 Limited Access Line .........................................................................................3-46 Figure 3-12 Demolition Debris Sites .....................................................................................3-53

Appendices Appendix A – Public Comment Matrix and Correspondence Appendix B – Road Alignment Criteria Matrix Appendix C – Air Quality Appendix D – Federal Consistency Determination Coastal Zone Management Act Appendix E – Stormwater Management Appendix F – Biological Resources Appendix G – Cultural Resources Appendix H – Traffic Study

Executive Summary ES-1 Type of Report

This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with Arlington National Cemetery’s (ANC) Proposed Action to establish a single contiguous parcel of land south of the cemetery to increase interment capacity. ANC would meet its objectives by closing, relocating, and realigning local roadways, thereby creating an opportunity to increase the capacity for multimodal transportation while upgrading safety and capacity levels on this portion of Columbia Pike – a connected action. This document simultaneously addresses the establishment and development components of this action with the FHWA, VDOT, and Arlington County as cooperating agencies. The closure and removal of Southgate Road, construction of a new access road for traffic to/from Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall (JBMHH), realignment of Columbia Pike, and modification of Route 27 (Washington Boulevard) at Columbia Pike are integral to a successful ANC expansion. This EA assesses the potential impacts of those changes to ensure that the cumulative effects of the collective federal actions – roadways and cemetery expansion – are considered.

This EA follows regulatory guidance of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508); and Environmental Analysis of Army Actions (32 CFR 651). Arlington National Cemetery, a Direct Report Unit of the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) is the lead agency for the Proposed Action. Cooperating agencies are Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA-EFLHD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and the Arlington County Board.

This EA is tiered1 from the 2014 ANC Real Property Master Plan Programmatic Environmental Assessment (RPMP PEA) and contains references to and summaries of that document. The earlier document contained development alternatives of the Southern Expansion site including Alternative 4 – Southern Expansion Site with Realigned Roadways. This EA contains a robust analysis of Alternative 4.

ES-2 Purpose of and Need for Action

The Proposed Action is needed to meet the forecasted interment/inurnment demands of eligible veterans, to preserve ANC as an active military cemetery, and to create an opportunity to increase multimodal capacity on this portion of Columbia Pike. The related actions involving land acquisition and jurisdictional transfers and the realignment of roadways will allow several noncontiguous parcels to merge into a single contiguous parcel that permits the cemetery expansion. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to extend the operational life of the cemetery. The objectives of the Proposed Action are to increase burial capacity, upgrade safety and capacity levels on affected roadways, and create an opportunity to increase multimodal capacity for personal vehicles, transit, pedestrians and bicyclists on this portion of Columbia Pike.

1 Agencies are encouraged to tier their environmental impact statements to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. (40 CFR §1502.20 Tiering.)

ES-3 Description of the Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is to establish a single, contiguous parcel of land south of the cemetery. by closing, relocating, and realigning local roadways and develop the parcel to increase interment capacity and create an opportunity to increase multimodal capacity and upgrade safety and capacity levels on this portion of Columbia Pike. Land acquisition and jurisdictional transfers and roadway realignments are a necessary component of the cemetery expansion to create a single contiguous parcel for maximizing burial capacity.

The Proposed Action includes: the closure and removal of Southgate Road; the construction of a new access road for traffic to/from Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall; the realignment of Columbia Pike; the modification of the Route 27 interchange at Columbia Pike; and the development of the space for cemetery use, including the integration of the Air Force Memorial (AFM). The new access road would include traffic control – signage, speed limits, etc. – to meet Arlington County and VDOT design standards. The undertaking also involves land acquisitions to accomplish the project.

Cemetery development would include supporting infrastructure such as water fountains, waterlines, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, underground electrical and communications/information systems, landscaping, retaining walls, perimeter fencing, vehicle and pedestrian access roads and walks, and security systems. The number of burial spaces would balance the Cemetery’s expected usage trends for above- and below-ground interment and inurnment spaces. The cemetery expansion could include a mixture of columbaria, niche walls and in-ground burial spaces. The design would balance character, function and use, mirroring the aesthetic character, traditional image, and experience of ANC. The Proposed Action would enable ANC to increase its burial capacity by approximately 40,000-60,000 first interment opportunities. 2

ES-4 Alternatives

This EA evaluates four alternatives: three action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is the Relocate Operations Complex Alternative.

The Preferred Alternative, Relocate Operations Complex Alternative, would create a 49-acre contiguous parcel available for cemetery development by relocating the Operations Complex to the noncontiguous parcel south of Columbia Pike. This alternative proposes to construct an underpass below Columbia Pike to connect the Operations Complex with the cemetery interment area thereby providing a direct path of travel for ANC maintenance vehicles. This alternative would create an opportunity to increase the regional multimodal transportation capacity on this portion of Columbia Pike, and would provide for safe and efficient transportation movements on the realigned roadway network. The AFM would be integrated with the cemetery design.

The Maintain Operations Complex with Underpass Alternative would create a 38-acre contiguous parcel available for interments/inurnments and would leave the Operations Complex in its current location. Other cemetery support services – such as spoils stockpiling and contractor equipment – would be located on the noncontiguous parcel south of Columbia Pike. The noncontiguous parcel would be connected by an underpass below Columbia Pike similar to the Preferred Alternative to provide a direct path of travel for ANC maintenance vehicles. This alternative would create an opportunity to increase the multimodal

2 ANC burial spaces can have multiple interments, i.e. first , second, etc. ANC uses preplaced underground crypts to maximize burial capacity.

transportation capacity on this portion of Columbia Pike, and provide for safe and efficient transportation movements on the realigned roadway network. The AFM would be integrated with the cemetery design.

The Maintain Operations Complex without Underpass Alternative proposes to use the area south of Columbia Pike for landscape contractor and laydown area. The alternative would create a 38-acre contiguous parcel available for interments/inurnments and leave the Operations Complex in its current location. This alternative would not provide an underpass below Columbia Pike to connect with the noncontiguous parcel; work vehicles would be required to travel on public roadways to access ANC via the current Operations Complex entrance. This alternative would create an opportunity to increase the multimodal transportation capacity on this portion of Columbia Pike and provide for safe and efficient traffic movements on the realigned roadway network. The AFM would be integrated with the cemetery design.

The No Action Alternative is defined as no comprehensive development of the Southern Expansion site – no contiguous expansion of the cemetery, no land acquisition and jurisdictional transfers, no changes to the roadway alignments, and no increase in burial capacity to extend the operational life of the cemetery. The Southern Expansion site under the No Action Alternative would be used for cemetery support services such as spoil stockpiling or landscape contractor laydown.

Other alternatives were discussed in the RPMP PEA; these alternatives were summarized, considered, and eliminated from detailed analysis in Section 2.6, Alternatives Considered and Eliminated.

ES-5 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts

This document describes potential environmental impacts on land use and sustainability; air quality; noise;

topography, soils, and geology; water resources; biological resources; cultural resources; visitor use and experience; socioeconomics, environmental justice, and protection of children’s health risks and safety risks; traffic and transportation; utilities; solid waste; hazardous materials and waste; visual and aesthetic resources; and Section 4(f) resources. A summary of the environmental consequences by impact category is provided in Table ES-1.

Table ES-1:

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Impact Category

Relocate Operations Complex Alternative

(Preferred)

Maintain Operations

Complex with Underpass Alternative

Maintain Operations

Complex without

Underpass Alternative

No Action Alternative

Land Use & Sustainability

Short Term

The impacts in the short term would be the transition from unimproved condition to improved. The expansion site and surrounding area would experience a large construction project – noise, heavy equipment, earth moving, etc.

Short-term impacts would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative.

Short-term impacts would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative.

There would be no comprehensive development of the Southern Expansion site and as many as 60,000 burial sites would be lost. However, the site would be used for cemetery support services such as spoil stockpiling or landscape contractor laydown. The No Action Alternative would conflict with Congressional legislation to redevelop the site for ANC burial space and would not support Arlington County’s plans for improving the multimodal capacity of the Columbia Pike corridor.

Long Term Redevelopment would improve the character of the site; improvements would be compatible with surrounding land uses.

The Preferred Alternative would reduce the amount of impervious surface and increase the amount of open space when compared to the 2006 conditions which included the Navy Annex facilities.

Long-term impacts those under the Preferred Alternative.

Long-term impacts would be similar to those under the Preferred

I

Table ES-1:

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Impact Category

Relocate Operations Complex Alternative

(Preferred)

Maintain Operations

Complex with Underpass Alternative

Maintain Operations

Complex without

Underpass Alternative

No Action Alternative

Air Quality

Short Term Temporary impacts would result from construction vehicle air emissions and fugitive dust. The short-term impact would not have local or regional significance. Emissions associated with construction were compared to the Clean Air Act (CAA) de minimis values with respect to General Conformity. The estimated emissions were below these values;

therefore, the Proposed Action is presumed to conform to the State Implementation Plan. The use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction would minimize impacts from fugitive dust.

Short-term impacts would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative.

Short-term impacts would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative.

There would be no modifications to Columbia Pike and the Southern Expansion site would remain undeveloped. Air emissions for criteria pollutants would remain consistent with estimates for the National Capital Region.

Long Term The Preferred Alternative would not change employment or traffic estimates included in the 2015 CLRP Air Quality Conformity Analysis.

Future emissions, therefore, would not exceed the NAAQS and the Preferred Alternative would conform to the State Implementation Plan. Additionally, a multimodal transportation corridor could help reduce vehicular traffic thereby reducing air emissions.

Long-term impacts would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative.

Long-term impacts would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative.

There would be no long-term benefit to air quality because there would be no increased capacity from a multimodal transportation corridor.

Table ES-1:

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Impact Category

Relocate Operations Complex Alternative

(Preferred)

Maintain Operations

Complex with Underpass Alternative

Maintain Operations

Complex without

Underpass Alternative

No Action Alternative

Noise

Short Term Temporary impacts from construction noise, primarily heavy equipment, would occur.

Short-term impacts would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative.

Short-term impacts would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative.

There would be no development and no changes to the current urban noise environment.

In the long term, assuming ANC uses the site of the FOB2 for support services, heavy equipment or maintenance vehicles may create chronic elevated noise impacts to Foxcroft Heights residential area.

Long Term There would be an increase in noise impacts to Foxcroft Heights from rifle salutes, but the audible impact would be negligible or minor.

Potential noise from vehicular traffic on the proposed Southgate connector road would not exceed VDOT’s noise abatement criteria or its substantial noise increase criteria.

Maintenance and cemetery operational noise would be minor. Potential noise emanating from the relocated Operations Complex would be similar to the neighboring VDOT maintenance complex. The proposed design elevation of the Operations Complex would be lower than Columbia Pike which would act as a buffer to further reduce potential noise impacts.

Impacts to the noise environment would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative.

Impacts to the noise environment would be similar to those under the Preferred

Table ES-1:

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Impact Category

Relocate Operations Complex Alternative

(Preferred)

Maintain Operations

Complex with Underpass Alternative

Maintain Operations

Complex without

Underpass Alternative

No Action Alternative

Topography, Soils, & Geology

Short Term

The final cemetery and roadway designs would be based on geotechnical investigations. Potential impacts would be minor, and effects would be mitigated by adherence to stormwater management plans and use of BMPs.

The potential impacts and benefits to topography, soils, and geology resulting from this alternative would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative.

Short- and long-term impacts would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative.

There would be no changes to soil, geology, or topography from current conditions. The slide on the east side of AFM would continue to be monitored and remedied, as needed.

Long Term Large quantities of soil would be moved to shape the landform to create the traditional characteristics of ANC and to create a new roadbed for Columbia Pike.

The topography of the cemetery expansion would have a positive impact as it would reflect the image and character of ANC. The cemetery design would eliminate the need for slope stabilization for the slide on the east side of the AFM.

Water Resources

Short Term Potential temporary stormwater impacts during construction would be avoided or minimized by the use of BMPs and following the requirements of VDEQ for preparing an erosion and sedimentation control plan.

Impacts would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative.

Impacts would be similar to those under the Preferred…