[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 179 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56817-56821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22701]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Public Hearings for the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement for Medical Facilities Development and University Expansion, 
Naval Support Activity Bethesda, Maryland

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (Title 40 Code of 
Federal Regulations parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy (DoN) 
has prepared and filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential 
environmental effects of Medical Facilities Development (MFD) and 
University Expansion at Naval Support Activity (NSA) Bethesda, MD.
    The purpose of the MFD proposed action is to implement the 
Congressional mandate from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) to achieve the new statutory world-class 
standards for military medicine at the Walter Reed National Military 
Medical Center

[[Page 56818]]

(WRNMMC) by providing enduring medical facilities commensurate in 
quality, capability and condition as those provided by the 2005 Base 
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) investment. The 2005 BRAC program was 
designed to accommodate transfer of Walter Reed Army Medical Center 
(WRAMC) to WRNMMC but not address mission capability or improvements of 
the existing infrastructure. The MFD is needed because current space is 
insufficient to meet world-class standards.
    The purpose of the University Expansion of the Uniformed Services 
University of the Health Sciences (USU) is to provide adequate 
education and research space to meet Military Health System (MHS) 
commitments to deliver training and post-graduate level education to 
the military medical community and enable USU to serve as the core 
academic health research center at WRNMMC. The University Expansion is 
needed because current operations are dispersed between the main USU 
buildings and nineteen facilities comprising off-site leased locations 
in Montgomery County and other buildings on NSA Bethesda. Operations 
are fragmented and insufficient to meet education and research space 
requirements as well as Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) 
accreditation requirements.
    NSA Bethesda is the action proponent and Joint Task Force National 
Capital Region Medical, WRNMMC, and USU are tenants of NSA Bethesda. 
There are no cooperating agencies for the EIS.
    The EIS considers the 2012 NSA Bethesda Master Plan relative to the 
implementation of the MFD and University Expansion. The EIS evaluates 
the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed actions in 
the context of the programmed projects already in progress and the 
programmatic effects of the potential future development opportunities 
identified in the 2012 NSA Bethesda Master Plan.
    The DoN will conduct two public hearings to receive oral and 
written comments on the Draft EIS. Federal, state, and local agencies, 
elected officials, and other interested individuals and organizations 
are invited to be present or represented at the public hearings. This 
notice announces the dates and locations of the public hearings for 
this Draft EIS.
    Dates and Addresses: Public hearings will be held on the following 
dates and locations:
    1. October 4, 2012 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the Bethesda Marriott, 
5151 Pooks Hills Road, Bethesda, MD 20814; and
    2. October 11, 2012 from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Bethesda Marriott, 
5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Both meetings will start with an open house session followed by a 
presentation by the DoN and a public hearing session, which will be 
transcribed by a court reporter. The open house session will allow 
individuals the opportunity to review summaries of the information 
presented in the Draft EIS. DoN representatives will be available 
during the open house sessions to clarify information related to the 
Draft EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NSA Bethesda Public Affairs Office, 
Attn: Joseph Macri, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889, Email: 
[email protected], Phone: 301-295-1803, or Web site: 
http://www.wrnmmc.capmed.mil/PatientVisitors/SitePages/EIS.aspx.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the EIS 
was published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2011 (76 FR 51957). 
The DoN held two public scoping meetings on September 7, 2011 and 
September 12, 2011 at the Pooks Hills Marriott, Bethesda, MD.
    The proposed actions would enhance and support but not add to the 
missions of the installation, medical center, or the USU.
    The MFD proposed action includes:
    1. Demolition of five hospital buildings (Buildings 2, 4, 6, 7, and 
8) and construction of a single 5-story replacement facility in the 
same footprint (Medical Center Addition and Alterations--MCAA);
    2. Construction of a 500-space underground parking garage for 
visitors, patients, and very important persons (VIPs);
    3. Utility capacity upgrades;
    4. Temporary medical facilities to maintain uninterrupted patient 
care during construction;
    5. Internal renovations of five hospital buildings (Buildings 1, 3, 
5, 9, and 10);
    6. Internal and external renovation of a workshop/warehouse to 
office space (Building 13); and
    7. Accessibility and appearance improvement projects.
    The internal and external renovation of a workshop/warehouse to 
office space was added to the MFD proposed action after the NOI and 
public scoping period.
    The University Expansion proposed action includes:
    1. Construction of a 341,151 square-foot (SF) education and 
research facility (Building F);
    2. Construction of a 400-space staff parking garage; and
    3. Internal renovations to existing USU buildings.
    The purpose of the MFD proposed action is to implement the 
Congressional mandate from the FY 2010 NDAA to achieve the new 
statutory world-class standards for military medicine at the WRNMMC by 
providing enduring medical facilities commensurate in quality, 
capability and condition as those provided by the 2005 BRAC investment. 
The MFD is needed because current space is insufficient to meet world-
class standards such as, single occupancy patient rooms, a state-of-
the-art simulation center, and a health innovation center.
    The purpose of, and need for, the MFD were identified subsequent to 
the programming for BRAC 2005. The BRAC 2005 construction was 
specifically designed to accommodate the transfer of WRAMC to WRNMMC 
and restricted BRAC funding to projects related to accommodating BRAC 
relocation. Therefore, parts of the medical center did not undergo 
renovation or improvement during BRAC construction because that program 
was never intended to address the mission capability or functionality 
of the existing infrastructure.
    The MFD would allow space for single-patient rooms and in-fill 
development for consolidating units to better serve the patient 
population. The development would also provide space for world-class 
features such as a state-of-the-art simulation center and a health 
innovation center. The proposed parking garage would serve visitors, 
patients, and VIPs using the medical facilities and meet the overall 
parking needs across NSA Bethesda. The proposed utility improvements 
would provide the additional capacity and repairs required. Utility 
capacity at NSA Bethesda is essentially at equilibrium, with only a 
small margin of excess capacity. The WRNMMC Master Plan concluded that 
any development of future facilities would require additional 
electrical capacity and that a large percentage of the utility services 
at NSA Bethesda are either nearing capacity or is in need of 
significant repair. The accessibility and appearance improvement 
projects provide accessible and aesthetically pleasing pedestrian 
pathways focused on wounded warriors, their special needs, and the 
staff helping them to adjust to their new challenges. These projects 
are needed because currently there are deficiencies in existing 
pathways or a lack of pathways that make areas of the installation 
inaccessible to wounded

[[Page 56819]]

warriors and other disabled patients. The internal and external 
renovations to the warehouse/workshop (Building 13) would convert the 
current facility to administrative space. The renovations would provide 
a consolidated location for security services currently in fragmented 
and temporary spaces at NSA Bethesda.
    The purpose of the University Expansion is to provide adequate 
education and research space to meet MHS commitments to deliver 
training and post-graduate level education to the military medical 
community and enable USU to serve as the core academic health research 
center at WRNMMC. The University Expansion would address the most 
recent LCME accreditation requirements to provide additional space for 
student-centered learning, small-group teaching, and technological 
innovation. The University Expansion is needed because current 
operations are dispersed between the main USU buildings and nineteen 
facilities comprising off-site leased locations in Montgomery County, 
MD and other buildings on NSA Bethesda. Operations are fragmented and 
insufficient to meet education and research space requirements as well 
as the LCME accreditation requirements.
    The MFD proposed action resulted from an iterative planning process 
from the Comprehensive Master Plan for the National Capital Region 
Medical (CMP), which identified and evaluated alternatives based on the 
departmental needs anticipated at the WRNMMC after the completion of 
the BRAC-mandated relocations in September 2011. Selection criteria 
were based on mandates from the Defense Health Board Study and the 2010 
NDAA and were used to identify alternatives that were ``reasonable'' 
(i.e., practical and feasible). Selection criteria included:
    1. Patient care--provide adequate quantity of single patient rooms; 
allow on-site separation of inpatient and ambulatory services; provide 
an improved surgical suite, including operating rooms, support areas, 
and perioperative flow and configuration; provide adequate space for 
centers of excellence and clinics; incorporate evidence-based design; 
include expansion of technology; and allow for operational efficiency;
    2. Teaching hospital--provide adequate space and infrastructure for 
Simulation Center design and configuration, classroom and meeting 
spaces/learning environment, medical center auditorium, and DoN medical 
manpower personnel training and education;
    3. Physical plant--provide adequate infrastructure/utilities, 
sustainability features, infrastructure/facilities parking capacity, 
and enhanced public support and amenities required;
    4. Cost factors--based on an eight-year construction period and a 
30-year economic life for the facilities, provide the most economical 
value over the life of the asset, taking into consideration operational 
and energy costs in addition to the initial capital investment for 
construction/renovation; and
    5. Construction impacts--minimize temporary relocation/facilities 
and disruption to operations.
    The CMP development process identified the proposed action as the 
best approach to meet the Congressional mandate for world class 
facilities commensurate in quality, capability, and condition with the 
BRAC investment. Reasonable alternatives were carried forward in the 
Draft EIS analysis.
    The Draft EIS considers the No Action Alternative and the MFD with 
four alternative parking facility sites on NSA Bethesda:
    1. No Action Alternative--evaluates the impact at NSA Bethesda in 
the event that the proposed action does not occur. Neither demolition/
construction nor renovation would occur, and staffing at NSA Bethesda 
would not change. The No Action Alternative would not provide WRNMMC 
with facilities to accommodate the DoD healthcare mission, including 
the attributes of the new statutory, world-class standards for military 
medicine as mandated by 2010 NDAA. The No Action Alternative is 
considered in accordance with Section 1502.14(d) of the NEPA 
regulation.
    2. MFD--demolition of five hospital buildings, construction of a 
single 5-story replacement facility, a parking garage, utility capacity 
upgrades, temporary medical facilities, internal renovations of five 
hospital buildings, internal and external renovations of a workshop/
warehouse to office space (Building 13), and accessibility and 
appearance improvement projects.
    a. Underground parking garage (Preferred)--construction of an 
approximately 225,000 SF, 500-space underground parking garage west of 
Building 1 on the installation;
    b. Warehouse Area parking garage--construction of an approximately 
29,200 SF footprint, up to 6-story above ground parking garage in the 
existing industrial and warehouse area located in the northeast corner 
of the installation;
    c. Taylor Road Facilities parking garage--construction of an 
approximately 28,450 SF footprint, up to 5-story above ground parking 
garage located in the northeast area of the installation; and
    d. H-Lot parking garage--construction of an approximately 39,100 SF 
footprint, up to 6-story above ground parking garage in the south area 
of the installation.
    The 2008 National Naval Medical Center Master Plan identified an 
area south of the University campus for facility expansion. Since the 
2008 Master Plan, a second location west of the USU campus was 
identified as a potential site for the expansion. These sites were 
selected based on the following selection criteria:
    1. Address LCME accreditation requirements;
    2. Unify 19 departments, activities, and centers currently 
dispersed in NSA Bethesda buildings or in leased space in and around 
Rockville, MD;
    3. Resolve space constraints following BRAC integration; and
    4. Position the USU for sustained relevancy as a competitive and 
lead academic institution for medical education and biomedical science 
research, and so enable the WRNMMC endeavors to achieve status as a 
World Class Academic Health Center.
    The Draft EIS considers the No Action Alternative and two 
alternative sites for the University Expansion. Both alternative sites 
involve construction of an approximately 341,151 SF education and 
research facility (Building F) and an approximately 144,000 SF, 400-
space parking structure that will serve USU and the overall parking 
needs across NSA Bethesda:
    1. Alternative 1 site--would be located south of the USU campus on 
a forested lot east of Grier Road. Building F and the above ground 
parking garage would be located in two separate buildings.
    2. Alternative 2 site (preferred)--would be located west of the 
current USU campus on a developed parking lot and adjacent to the Armed 
Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI). Building F and the 
above ground parking garage would be located in one structure with the 
garage under Building F.
    3. No Action Alternative--evaluates the impact at NSA Bethesda in 
the event that the proposed action does not occur. The No Action 
Alternative would not allow construction of an education and research 
facility, parking garage, and renovations to USU buildings. USU would 
continue to operate sub-optimally in 19 dispersed departments, centers, 
and activities in inadequate and temporary spaces at NSA Bethesda or in 
off-campus leased locations in Montgomery County, Maryland. LCME

[[Page 56820]]

accreditation of USU would be in jeopardy, and the institution would 
not be able to provide adequate education and research space to meet 
its MHS commitments. The No Action Alternative is considered in 
accordance with Section 1502.14(d) of the NEPA regulation.
    The Draft EIS evaluates the potential environmental effects 
associated with the MFD and University Expansion. The proposed actions 
and alternatives were evaluated within several environmental resource 
areas: Geology, topography, and soils; surface water and groundwater; 
floodplains; wetlands; vegetation; wildlife; aquatic and wetland 
habitat; threatened and endangered species; air quality; noise; 
utilities and infrastructure; transportation and traffic; cultural 
resources; land use and aesthetics; socioeconomics and environmental 
justice; and human health and safety. Methods to avoid, reduce or 
minimize impacts to affected resources are addressed. The analysis 
includes an evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.
    The Draft EIS finds that overall there would be minor impacts to 
geology, topography, and soils. The Draft EIS finds that the proposed 
MFD and parking garage alternatives would result in a minimal increase 
in impervious surface area and minimal impacts to biological resources 
because new facilities would be constructed on existing developed or 
landscaped areas. The increase in storm water runoff resulting from the 
increase in impervious surface would be controlled with storm water 
management and erosion and sediment control measures.
    The Draft EIS finds that for the MFD, the underground parking 
garage alternative (preferred) would require excavation of the lawn in 
front of Building 1; no adverse effects on Building 1 are anticipated 
if the ingress/egress is designed in accordance with the Secretary of 
Interior standards. The underground parking garage alternative would 
interact with groundwater and would require dewatering system. The 
Draft EIS finds that there would be no significant impacts to 
floodplains. The Draft EIS finds that approximately 0.11 acres of the 
Stoney Creek Trail Improvements would occur along Stoney Creek in the 
vicinity of the areas that are considered to be potential wetlands. The 
final design layout and construction of the trail improvements in these 
areas would seek to avoid the potential wetland areas to the maximum 
extent possible.
    The Draft EIS finds that emissions of air pollutants from the 
proposed MFD during construction and operations would not exceed de 
minimis levels or ambient standards established by the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for protection of the airshed 
and thus air quality impacts would not be significant. The Draft EIS 
finds that there would be no significant increase in greenhouse gases.
    The Draft EIS finds that short-term increases in noise levels would 
occur during construction that are typical of construction activities; 
for some components of the proposed action, depending on distance 
between sensitive receptors on NSA Bethesda and construction areas, 
noise mitigation measures could be required.
    The Draft EIS finds that impacts on aquatic and wetland habitats 
would primarily be temporary during construction and those impacts 
would be minimized. Per DoN's communication with the United States Fish 
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), except for occasional transient 
individuals, no federally proposed or listed endangered or threatened 
species are known to exist within the project areas for the proposed 
actions. Therefore, the DoN would not be required to consult with USFWS 
to satisfy Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Per DoN's 
communication with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the 
agency has determined that there are no state or Federal records for 
rare, threatened, or endangered species within the boundaries of the 
project sites; therefore, the agency does not have specific comments or 
requirements pertaining to protection measures at this time.
    The Draft EIS finds that the proposed MFD and parking garage 
alternatives would generate new staff trips (50 new staff) and shift 
patient or staff trips within the installation roadway network. 
However, no significant impacts on external traffic would occur as a 
result of the MFD or any of the parking garage alternatives.
    Formal consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act 
with appropriate agencies such as the Maryland Historical Trust by the 
DoN is ongoing to ensure avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of 
any potential adverse effects on historic properties at NSA Bethesda 
including Building 1, Central Tower Block, or Buildings 3 and 5.
    The Draft EIS finds that the proposed updates to the utilities 
would provide the required support to the MFD. The DoN is coordinating 
with the utilities service providers to ensure that the proposed 
changes would not affect service delivery to the larger community.
    The Draft EIS finds that the proposed MFD is compatible with 
existing land use plans and land use planning underway within NSA 
Bethesda. Aesthetic impacts from construction activities would be 
temporary and cease upon their completion. Beneficial economic impacts 
to the surrounding economy are anticipated, resulting from the 
investment in construction and renovations of facilities but would not 
have a significant impact on the local economy. There would be no 
disproportionately high or adverse impacts on minority, low-income 
populations, or children. Adherence to applicable regulations and 
guidance will avoid impacts to human health and safety.
    The Draft EIS finds that overall there would be minor impacts to 
geology from either of the University Expansion alternatives. The Draft 
EIS finds that proposed University Expansion Alternative 1 would 
require clearing of forested area, extensive cut and fill and grading, 
and result in approximately 2.8 acres of new impervious surface. The 
loss of forested area would result in direct loss of wildlife habitat. 
University Expansion Alternative 2 is the preferred site and would be 
located in an existing parking lot and landscaped area and would 
require less new impervious surface (1.6 acres). The increase in runoff 
resulting from the increase in impervious surface from either of the 
University Expansion alternatives would be controlled with storm water 
management and erosion and sediment control measures. Under University 
Expansion Alternative 1, an approved sediment and erosion control plan 
and stormwater Best Management Practices would reduce runoff and 
potential pollutants carried to University Pond, preventing any 
potential impacts on the wetland on the northeast side of the pond. Per 
DoN's communication with the USFWS except for occasional transient 
individuals, no federally proposed or listed endangered or threatened 
species are known to exist within the either of the University 
Expansion alternatives. Therefore, the DoN would not be required to 
consult with USFWS to satisfy Section 7 of ESA.
    Under University Expansion Alternative 1, the conversion of 
forested area to impervious surfaces would permanently impact the 
previously undisturbed infiltration area. However, NSA Bethesda would 
ensure that precipitation and runoff from impervious surfaces would be 
conveyed through stormwater control structures to the natural drainage 
system.

[[Page 56821]]

    The Draft EIS finds that emissions of air pollutants from the 
proposed University Expansion alternatives during construction and 
operations would not exceed de minimis levels or ambient standards 
established by the USEPA for protection of the airshed and thus air 
quality impacts would not be significant. The Draft EIS finds that 
there would be no significant increase in greenhouse gases.
    The Draft EIS finds that under University Expansion Alternative 2, 
short-term increases in noise levels would occur during construction 
and noise mitigation measures could be required.
    The Draft EIS finds that there is sufficient capacity for 
telecommunication to support either of the University Expansion 
alternatives. There is sufficient power to support the expansion via an 
independent electrical feeder; however the DoN will coordinate with the 
utility service provider to confirm the capacity once the exact 
requirements are known. For the increase in demand for potable water 
and natural gas, the initial utility coordination is based on the 
building footprint and the DoN will confirm the capacity once the 
design work is completed and exact requirements are known. The DoN is 
also coordinating with the utilities service providers to ensure that 
the proposed changes would not affect service delivery to the larger 
community. University Alternative 1 would require steam/chilled water 
lines to travel a longer distance to connect to existing systems 
compared to Alternative 2.
    The Draft EIS finds that either of the proposed University 
Expansion alternatives would generate new staff trips from the 
consolidated staff (220) and would also either shift patient or staff 
trips within the installation roadway network. However, because the 
staff is current USU personnel that already travel within the area, no 
significant impacts on external traffic would occur as a result of 
either of the University Expansion alternatives.
    The Draft EIS finds that there would be no impacts to historic 
properties University Expansion Alternative 1. University Expansion 
Alternative 2 would not have any adverse effects on the integrity of 
the National Register of Historic Places eligible AFRRI.
    The Draft EIS finds that the proposed University Expansion is 
compatible with existing land use plans and land use planning underway 
within NSA Bethesda. The Draft EIS finds that University Expansion 
Alternative 1 would impact forested areas and would alter the visual 
characteristics of the area; the DoN would ensure that the design of 
the building would minimize the removal of trees to the extent 
possible. University Expansion Alternative 2 would offer the potential 
for fostering a continuous campus feel between AFRRI and USU; visual 
character of the area would not change noticeably.
    The Draft EIS finds that either of University Expansion 
alternatives would have beneficial economic impacts to the surrounding 
economy, resulting from the investment in construction and renovation 
of facilities but would not have a significant impact on the local 
economy. There would be no disproportionately high or adverse impacts 
on minority, low-income populations, or children. Adherence to 
applicable regulations and guidance will avoid impacts to human health 
and safety.
    The decision to be made by the DoN is to determine which of the MFD 
and University Expansion alternatives to implement based upon 
operational needs and the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts 
identified in the EIS.
    The Draft EIS was distributed or made available to Federal, state, 
and local agencies, elected officials, and other interested individuals 
and organizations. The public comment period will end on October 29, 
2012. The Draft EIS is also available for public review at the 
following local libraries and public facilities:
    1. Bethesda Library, 7400 Arlington Road, Bethesda, MD 20814;
    2. Chevy Chase Library, 8005 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 
20815;
    3. Davis Library, 6400 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817;
    4. Kensington Park Library, 4201 Knowles Avenue, Kensington, MD 
20895;
    5. Rockville Library, 21 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, MD 20850; and
    6. Bethesda-Chevy Chase Regional Services Center, 4805 Edgemoor 
Lane, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    The Draft EIS is also available for public viewing at the following 
Web site: http://www.wrnmmc.capmed.mil/PatientVisitors/SitePages/EIS.aspx. The executive summary or a single compact disc of the Draft 
EIS will be made available upon written request by contacting: NSA 
Bethesda Public Affairs Office, Attn: Joseph Macri, 8901 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889.
    Federal, state, and local agencies, elected officials, and 
interested individuals and organizations are invited to be present or 
represented at the public hearings. Written comments can also be 
submitted during the open house sessions preceding the public hearings. 
Oral statements will be heard and transcribed by a court reporter; 
however, to ensure the accuracy of the record it is encouraged that all 
statements also be submitted in writing. All statements, both oral and 
written, will become part of the public record on the Draft EIS and 
will be responded to in the Final EIS. Equal weight will be given to 
both oral and written statements. In the interest of available time, 
and to ensure all who wish to give an oral statement have the 
opportunity to do so, each speaker's comments will be initially limited 
to three (3) minutes. If a long statement is to be presented, it should 
be summarized at the public hearing with the full text submitted either 
in writing at the hearing, or via mail, email, or online to: NSA 
Bethesda Public Affairs Office, Attn: Joseph Macri, 8901 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889, Email: [email protected], 
Web site: http://www.wrnmmc.capmed.mil/PatientVisitors/SitePages/EIS 
during the comment period. All written comments must be postmarked or 
received by October 29, 2012 to ensure they become part of the official 
record. All comments will be addressed in the Final EIS.

    Dated: September 7, 2012.
C.K. Chiappetta,
Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-22701 Filed 9-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P