|
Community Liaison Council Meeting
Minutes
January 18, 2007, 4:00–6:00 p.m.
Visitor Information Center, Building 45 (Natcher Building)
Conference Room D
National Institutes of Health
HANDOUTS
- November 16, 2006 CLC Meeting Minutes
- January 12, 2007 NIH Record
- January 2007 NIH News in Health
- MLP-6 Parking Facility Restoration Project
- South Lawn Update to the Community Liaison Council
- Summary of 11/17/06 Response to Rep. Van Hollen’s
Excessive Noise Concern
- NIH Director’s 11/17/06 letter to Rep. Van Hollen
- Summary of NIH’s 1/4/07 Input to BRAC EIS Scoping
Study
- January 3, 2007 email from Lesley Hildebrand to Dennis
Coleman with text of December 28, 2006 letter from Rep.
Van Hollen to BRAC Coordinator, National Naval Medical
Center (NNMC)
- January 4, 2007 letter from Daniel Wheeland, Director,
NIH Office of Research Facilities, to BRAC Officer in Charge,
NNMC
- Community input to the NNMC scoping study, including:
January 4, 2007 comments from the Huntington Parkway Citizens
Association; January 4, 2007 comments from the Action Committee
for Transit, Inc.; January 11, 2007 email from Ralph Schofer,
Maplewood Citizens Association; and January 2, 2007 letter
from Marilyn and George Mazuzan, Town of Oakmont
- “Traffic tops concerns for Walter Reed move,” Gazette, December
20, 2006
- “Expanding ‘Navy Med’ worth the
traffic pain,” Gazette, January 3, 2007
CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
By: Dennis Coleman, Director, OCL, OD, NIH
Ginny Miller, Co-Chair, Community Liaison Council
Al Decot, Clinical Research Center Donor Coordinator
Mr. Coleman called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. He
welcomed Dr. Barbieri from the Stone Ridge School, who was
attending the CLC meeting for the first time. Mr. Coleman
noted that January is National Blood Donor month, and he
invited Al Decot, Donor Coordinator at the Clinical Research
Center, to make an announcement in that regard.
Mr. Decot began by stating that January is typically a challenging
month for blood donations and has therefore been designated
as National Blood Donor Month by blood banks across the country.
He informed the CLC that the NIH Blood Bank is not in competition
with other area blood banks, and in fact has a collaborative
arrangement with blood banks at the National Naval Medical
Center and Walter Reed. Suburban Hospital does not have its
own blood bank and obtains blood from the Red Cross and other
suppliers.
Mr. Decot noted that the NIH Blood Bank collects blood,
platelets, or plasma for patient transfusion, and blood for
research purposes. The Blood Bank is open Monday through
Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The process takes about
45 minutes. The Platelet Center is open Monday through Thursday
from 7:30 to 6:30 and Friday and Saturday from 7:30 a.m.
to 1:00 p.m.; platelet donation takes about 90 minutes. Mr.
Decot said that blood donated to NIH is used for research
on cancer, sickle cell anemia, and immunodeficiency disorders.
Research donors are compensated; many donate their compensation
to Children’s Inn or other charitable organizations.
To illustrate the benefits of the process, Mr. Decot presented
case studies of two patients whose treatment is dependent
upon donated blood and platelets.
Of particular interest to community members, Mr. Decot noted
that the Blood Bank offers donors an Extended Visitor ID,
which is valid for 12 months. He indicated that he could
obtain such an ID for anyone who donated blood at least once
a year. He also encouraged CLC members to include information
about the Blood Bank in their community newsletters.
Mr. Decot then provided an overview of donor eligibility
criteria. The minimum age for donors is 17, with a minimum
weight of 110 pounds; there is no upper age limit. Individuals
who have received radiation or chemotherapy are deferred
from donating for a period of time. Individuals taking certain
medications (especially blood thinners) are also deferred.
Medications for high cholesterol or high blood pressure do
not present a problem. Individuals taking aspirin may donate
blood, but not platelets. Those who travel to a malarial
country are deferred from donating for 12 months from the
date of their return. People who have lived in Europe are
can be deferred due to mad cow disease, but they can donate
blood for research purposes.
A CLC member asked how NIH determines whether donors will
donate platelets or blood. Mr. Decot replied that the Blood
Bank initially treats each person as a whole blood donor
so that the blood can be typed and screened. Those who are
willing to commit to a 90-minute procedure are invited to
donate platelets as well. He noted that most people who are
eligible to donate whole blood are also eligible to donate
platelets. In response to another question, Mr. Decot indicated
that the shelf life of platelets is about 5 days. He
noted that the shelf life of whole blood is about 6 weeks.
Dr. Barbieri proposed that Stone Ridge School could organize
a group of people who could donate on a regular basis. Mr.
Decot stated that he would be pleased to help coordinate
such an effort and offered to make a presentation at the
school.
In response to another question, Mr. Decot indicated that
while blood banks in some states used to provide free blood
for family members of donors, those programs have been phased
out.
Mr. Decot concluded by thanking the group for taking an
interest in blood donation and for helping to save lives
in the community.
Mr. Coleman thanked Mr. Decot for his presentation. He reiterated
the fact that the Visitor Pass offered to blood donors could
alleviate the problem of campus access for at least some
commuters, and he suggested that CLC members convey this
information through their community associations.
In closing, Ms. Rice noted that she had donated blood at
NIH for 35 years and praised the staff she dealt with.
PRESENTATIONS
FACILITIES
By: Ron Wilson, Acting Director, Division of Facilities Planning,
Office of Research Facilities, NIH
Mr. Wilson addressed three items:
- Building 10 Antenna Upgrades
- Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility (CVIF): Additional
Screening Options
- Planned Multi-Level Parking Lot 6 (MLP-6) Renovation
Building 10 Antenna Upgrades: Mr. Wilson began
by noting that he had not presented this project to the CLC
before submitting it to the National Capital Planning Commission
(NCPC) at its December meeting because NIH was unsure whether
they would proceed with it. He explained that the project
would entail placing nine antennas on the roof of the Ambulatory
Care Research Facility (ACRF) to improve data, video, broadband,
and voice transmissions on the NIH campus. He noted
that the antennas would also improve communications along
Rockville Pike. The antennas are about four and a half feet
tall and will be mounted on poles, for a total height of
about 12-15 feet above the roof. Mr. Wilson indicated
that the antennas would be below the penthouse and were designed
to blend in with the sky for minimal visual impact. He
presented several “before and after” slides illustrating
what the antennas might look like from the ground after they
are installed. The installation of the antennas will be phased,
with six to be installed initially. The NCPC approved
the project in December for a standard five-year period. NIH
will have to submit the project for re-approval at the end
of 2011.
A CLC member asked whether the antennas could create any
neighborhood interference. Mr. Wilson stated that NIH
had conducted all of the required studies, which indicate
that there will be no interference with other frequencies
in the area and that the transmissions will not result in
any health effects. As a condition to the NCPC approval,
the NIH will put signs on the roof to alert maintenance staff
to the presence of the antennas. Mr. Wilson noted
that there is no general public access to the roof.
CVIF Screening Options: Mr. Wilson stated that
he met with Lynn Mueller, who is in charge of landscaping
at NIH, to follow up on the issues raised at the November
CLC meeting, including the feasibility of roof plantings
to screen the facility and the length of time that it would
take for the trees to reach the height indicated in the illustration.
Mr. Mueller informed him that it would take about ten years
for the trees to reach the height shown in the artist’s
rendering.
Several CLC members expressed concerns about this time frame.
Mr. Coleman asked if there were any other options for screening
the facility until the trees reach their full height. Mr.
Wilson replied that, according to the project officer, there
are no viable options. Early in the design process,
NIH had explored screening options but none were deemed feasible.
Landscaping was determined to be the most effective way to
screen the facility from Rockville Pike.
Ms. Rice stated that when the CVIF project was initially
presented to the CLC, the Council was never told that it
would take ten years to achieve the desired screening effect.
She suggested that faster-growing trees, such as Leyland
cypress, could be interspersed with the slow-growing evergreens.
She felt the CVIF was an industrial-looking eyesore, and
she asked whether there would be any screening for the new
Gateway Center, another industrial looking building with
concrete block walls facing Rockville Pike.
Mr. Wilson replied that the trees that were included in
the landscape design were selected, in part, to accommodate
overhead power lines. He noted that NIH met with County planners
to discuss this issue.
Ms. Rice noted that a beautiful campus has once been a source
of pride for NIH. She stressed that the new buildings
along Rockville Pike detracted from that image.
Mr. Schofer asked why the roof of the CVIF was so high.
Mr. Wilson replied that the height was dictated by the size
of vehicles that would pass through the facility and the
equipment needed to scan and inspect trucks from above.
Mr. Wilson stated that NIH was doing its best to respond
to the concerns raised by the CLC, but that there are limited
options for hiding such a large facility after it is built.
Ms. Rice suggested that an earth berm be constructed between
the road and the facility, with fast-growing trees planted
on top. Mr. Oberlander noted that the berms would have
to be quite high to screen the building, which could be problematic
since the building is close to the NIH property line. Mr.
Wilson noted that the landscaping already includes a berm
along Rockville Pike, but its height is limited.
Mr. Schofer expressed concern about increased traffic problems
due to the NNMC expansion. He noted that he had raised this
issue with NNMC several times, and he suggested that NIH
look into the potential impact of increased traffic on future
access to Gateway Center. Mr. Wilson replied that NIH has
been in communication with NNMC regarding the traffic situation
and has proposed that the Navy and NIH work together to address
this and other issues related to the expansion.
Mr. Coleman noted that the Council did not appear satisfied
with NIH progress in resolving the screening issue. He
asked Mr. Wilson to go back to the landscape architect to
discuss how to better screen the CVIF during the next ten
years while the trees mature, and to determine whether faster-growing
or taller species might be included in this project. Mr.
Wilson agreed to do so and stated that he would invite Mr.
Mueller to attend the next meeting.
MLP-6 Renovation: Mr. Wilson introduced Buz Orrison,
from the Property Management Division. Mr. Orrison
presented an overview of the renovation project. He
began by introducing Jim Gill, a representative of the general
contractor for the project. He reminded the Council
that he had presented a similar project for MLP-6 in 2003,
and he noted that MLP-6 is the oldest parking deck at NIH. The
2003 project improved the deck but additional work is needed.
Mr. Orrison noted that a significant concern in designing
this project was its environmental impact. The work
to be performed is an extension of that performed in 2003. Mr.
Orrison stated that NIH received no neighborhood complaints
about the 2003 project. The noise generated by the
project will comply with County standards. The parking
deck is set well back from the NIH property line, which provides
a buffer zone, and the air compressors and jackhammers to
be used for demolition will be outfitted with noise-reducing
mufflers. Dust emissions during construction will be minimized
through the use of floor-to-ceiling polyethylene screens.
Mr. Orrison stated that the hours of operation for this
project would be from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekdays
and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays,
though he anticipated very little weekend work. He noted
that this schedule was used for the 2003 project and did
not present a problem at that time. The project is scheduled
to begin in February. It will be completed within one
year, and possibly within nine months.
Mr. Orrison added that the renovation would reduce light
and sound emissions from the structure, which will benefit
the community. Using the MLP-8 renovation as a model,
the pole lighting on the exterior top level will be replaced
by wall-mounted, directional lighting, and extruded aluminum
screens will be placed on the side of the deck to shield
neighborhoods from interior sound and light.
In response to questions from Ms. Rice and Mr. Schofer,
Mr. Orrison confirmed that road salt is the major contributor
to concrete deterioration of garages like MLP-6. He
described the steps that will be taken to prevent further
salt damage to the structure, including coating of reinforcement
bars and a new waterproofing membrane. Responding to another
question from Mr. Schofer, Mr. Orrison stated that the project
would utilize the same hydraulic methods that were used to
remove the concrete during the renovation of the Building
10 parking structure.
A CLC member asked how many cars normally park in MLP-6
and where they would park during the renovation. Mr.
Orrison stated that MLP-6 is a four-level deck with 1,085
spaces. The project will only reduce capacity by 20% at any
one time. Once the deck is full, cars will be directed to
MLP-8, which has sufficient space to accommodate the overflow.
Mr. Oberlander commended NIH on taking steps to reduce light
emissions from the parking deck, as headlights shining into
neighboring homes had been a past isssue. He asked
if Mr. Orrison could estimate the extent to which the light
would be reduced and whether the aluminum baffling panels
might reflect sunlight into the neighborhood. Mr. Orrison
assured the CLC that every effort would be made to reduce
light and sound emissions from inside the garage, and he
offered to provide data on the ratio of light reduction at
a later meeting. Mr. Clifford noted that the steps
taken in MLP-8 to address similar issues worked very well,
and that lessons learned from MLP-8 would be applied. He
pointed out that MLP-6 has fewer entrances than MLP-8; it
is also at a lower elevation and is set further back from
the property line.
Mr. Coleman noted that CLC members had been upset about
the level of noise resulting from a demolition project last
year and expressed surprise that the Council had not expressed
similar concerns about this project. Ms. Miller
replied that the previous project had a much greater impact
on neighbors. Mr. Orrison added that this project would
involve only partial demolition that would take place at
random times, resulting in a much lower noise level. He
reiterated that he was not aware of any complaints about
excessive noise during the previous renovation project.
TRANSPORTATION
By: Brad Moss, Communication Director, Office of Research Services
Mr. Moss addressed five topics on the agenda on behalf of
Tom Hayden, who was unable to attend the meeting. He
read from notes provided by Mr. Hayden regarding the following
items:
- Wilson Drive Intersection Upgrade
- Wilson to South Drive Sidewalk Visibility Upgrade
- After-Hours Perimeter Transportation Options
- Permanent lights between Cedar Lane and Jones Bridge
- Update on Perimeter Shuttle Service
Wilson Drive Intersection Upgrade: All
Right of Entry forms were sent back to the Maryland State
Highway Administration in December for their review and signature. The
ball is now in SHA’s court. Once the State Highway
Administration signs the forms, they will be returned to
NIH and signed by Director of the Office of Facilities. Work
could begin shortly thereafter. If time permits, it
may be appropriate for the SHA to present the project at
a future CLC meeting. Mr. Wilson clarified that these forms
are an administrative requirement that limits NIH liability
whenever a state agency comes onto NIH property to do work.
In response to a question, Mr. Wilson stated that project
involves pedestrian signal improvements, replacement of existing
traffic lights with new lights that meet modern standards,
and installation of traffic control cabinets on NIH property
to control the signals.
Mr. Schofer noted that the design is done, the State Highway
Agency knows what they have to do, and the money has been
appropriated. He asked for the name of the contact
person at the State Highway Agency so that he could follow
up with them. Mr. Moss said that he would ask Mr. Hayden
to provide that information. Mr. Hayden did in fact
follow-up with Mr. Schofer via e-mail on two occasions and
provided the MD SHA contact (i.e. Bill Malcolm). This
follow-up was done on Friday, January 19.
Wilson to South Drive Sidewalk Visibility Upgrade: Mr.
Hayden asked the NIH maintenance shop to place two lights
in this corridor temporarily to illuminate the pathway; he
is waiting for an installation date from them. In response
to a question from Mr. Coleman, Mr. Moss stated that the
lights would be in addition to the reflective paint that
was initially requested by the CLC but not yet applied.
After-Hours Perimeter Transportation Options: Mr.
Coleman noted that this issue arose when the new hours for
the access gates were announced at the November meeting. At
that time, CLC members expressed concerns that community
members who use the Metro would have no way to get across
the campus if they returned home after hours. Following
up on a suggestion made by the CLC in November, Mr. Hayden
contacted the program lead for the County-funded taxi service
via email and phone. He has had not heard from them. Mr.
Hayden will continue to follow up on this matter and will
provide the CLC with an update once he obtains information. Mr.
Coleman reminded members that blood donation was an option
to make access easier for commuters wishing to cross the
campus. At the time of these notes, no contact has
been received from them.
Permanent lights between Cedar Lane and Jones Bridge:
This project is under review by NIH. An initial meeting was
held with the project officer to discuss the need and resolution
options. Mr. Hayden will provide additional information
once it has been obtained. Mr. Wilson clarified that
NIH has jurisdiction over the path because it is on NIH property,
but any additional lighting must not distract drivers along
Rockville Pike. Mr. Hayden has been working with the
state to determine what standards would apply to such lighting.
Perimeter Shuttle Update: Shuttle use has remained
constant at approximately 4,000 riders per month. Since
Mr. Hayden’s last report to the CLC there has been
only one complaint, which came from an NIH employee when
the shuttle was five minutes late at the Building 82 stop.
Any future complaints regarding the shuttle should be directed
to Mr. Hayden. He may be reached by phone at 301-402-8981
or by email at haydent@mail.nih.gov. In
response to concerns about incorrect information on signs
at some of the stops, Mr. Moss informed the Council that
new signs were being prepared with the correct phone number. The
new signs will be installed as soon as they are ready.
SPECIAL PROJECTS
By: Tony Clifford, Chief Engineer, Office of Research Facilities
Mr. Clifford provided an update on several issues related
to the South lawn.
Lighting: The low path lights were easily
knocked over, which created safety concerns. NIH is replacing
them with new path lights that match those in the rest of
the campus.
Storm drain: The County agreed that
the open storm drain on County property near the South Lawn
presented a safety problem and has installed metal bars to
prevent small children or animals from falling in. A
photo of the bars was shown.
Overflow from storm outlet: Mr. Clifford
showed a drawing and photographs illustrating the source
and extent of the flow onto NIH property from a 21-inch storm
water outlet on County property near the NIH fence line. During
a storm, a surge of water flows around a tree just inside
the NIH property line, continues across the lawn, where it
collects in large puddles and eventually flows out to a storm
drain just outside the NIH property (the same drain that
has just been repaired). In addition to flooding the
South Lawn, the water is eroding the base of the tree.
Ms. Miller asked why this problem arose in recent years,
since the storm drain has been there for many years. Mr.
Clifford responded that the South Lawn has always had drainage
issues. NIH took steps such as installing underground drains,
but this did not resolve the problem. The source of the water
flow was not correctly identified until a CLC member, Harvey
Eisen, noticed water pouring out of the storm outlet when
he was walking his dog on a rainy day.
Mr. Clifford summarized the steps that have been taken to
address this problem. He and his team wrote to the County
to request their assistance. After County staff visited
the site, Mr. Clifford wrote to the County’s Department
of Public Works and Transportation (DPWT) to ask for their
help in resolving the problem. Since the last CLC meeting,
Mr. Clifford sent several emails to follow up on that letter. Having
received no response to either the letter or the emails,
Mr. Clifford sent a letter on January 12 to the DPWT Director,
Arthur Holmes.
Mr. Clifford informed the CLC that he finally received a
reply to his emails the morning of this meeting. The
email response included a copy of a letter dated November
27, 2006 from the Chief of Highway Maintenance, Keith Compton. Mr.
Clifford had never received that letter, although the address
was correct. The letter stated that Mr. Compton had
asked a resident drainage engineer to conduct a cursory investigation
and recommend options. The engineer determined that
the County should bear little or no role in funding an engineering
solution to the problem. In the County’s opinion,
debris trapped in the chain link fence is a contributing
factor, because it acts as a dam and creates an area of ponding. Mr.
Compton stated that the County would be willing to monitor
the area adjacent to the fence in an effort to remove trapped
debris, and he indicated that he would be willing to reconsider
his decision if NIH provides additional data indicating that
resolving the issue is a County responsibility.
Mr. Clifford informed the CLC that had received a report
from an NIH consultant on the South Lawn drainage problem. The
report stated that the most obvious and effective solution
would be to capture the runoff in a closed storm system and
pipe it to the nearest existing storm drain. The consultant
recommended connecting the existing 21-inch storm pipe to
a new 24-inch storm sewer that would direct the water to
the storm drain. The second option identified by the
consultant would be to develop measures to capture the water
in the flooding area and allow it to soak into the ground.
Mr. Clifford noted that the County had also recommended that
approach.
Ms. Michaels noted that the County intends to install a
pond at the southeast corner of NIH property. She suggested
that NIH could use that project as leverage in negotiating
a solution to the drainage problem.
Mr. Clifford said that his next step would be to review
the consultant’s report in more detail and extract
further evidence that the County’s pipe is causing
the drainage problem. That report indicates that ponding
in the South Lawn is likely to continue if the offsite drainage
is not routed into a closed storm drain system.
Ms. Rice recommended that NIH contact the community’s
new member of the County Council, Roger Berliner. Other
members suggested going straight to the County Executive,
Ike Leggett, or the supervisor of the DPWT person who wrote
the County’s letter to NIH.
Mr. Clifford emphasized that the County had not been totally
unresponsive to NIH. He noted that his January 12 letter
had escalated the issue, and that can’t hurt. Mr.
Clifford also stressed the importance of maintaining good
communications between the County and NIH. Mr. Clifford
noted that Mr. Compton said he was willing to reconsider
his position if he received additional data. Mr.
Clifford said that his January 12 letter to Mr. Holmes included
a complete set of the photographs showing the water flow
during a storm; he will also send DPWT a copy of the consultant’s
report. Mr. Clifford will continue to work with his
team and with Dennis Coleman to determine how best to reply
to the letter from Mr. Compton.
In response to a question from Mr. Oberlander, Mr. Clifford
stated that the new storm sewer would need to be 500-600
feet long and would entail significant cost.
Mr. Eisen asked whether Mr. Clifford was looking for the
County to share the costs, or just to approve a project? Mr.
Clifford replied that water is coming onto the NIH campus
from an offsite location. NIH does not have access
to federal funds to resolve that problem. Mr. Clifford
felt that he owed the County an opportunity to propose solutions,
and he viewed the letter from Mr. Compton as an initial offer. NIH
now has an engineering report, which it can discuss further
with the County.
OCL INFORMATION REPORT
By: Dennis Coleman
- NIH Response to Rep. Van Hollen’s noise letter
- NIH Input to Navy Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Scoping Phase
NIH Response to Rep. Van Hollen’s noise letter: Mr.
Coleman noted that the Agenda Committee did not realize that
the packet for the December meeting included a copy of the
11/17/06 letter from Dr. Zerhouni to Rep. Van Hollen. As
recommended by the Agenda Committee, he summarized the letter
for the full Council. In short, Dr. Zerhouni informed
Rep. Van Hollen that NIH had conducted a series of noise
surveys from October 1987 through October 2006. Daytime
noise for hundreds of feet beyond the NIH property line is
dominated by traffic noise, and nighttime noise in surrounding
neighborhoods was found to range from 40 to 50 dBA. These
levels are below the limits established by the Montgomery
County noise ordinance (65 dBA daytime, and 55 dBA nighttime). Dr.
Zerhouni noted that the complex NIH terrain and noise environment
makes it challenging and time-consuming to identify the remaining
sources of noise. He stressed that NIH would make every
reasonable effort to minimize the noise impact even further
and would keep Rep. Van Hollen’s office, the CLC, and
neighbors informed as progress occurs.
Mr. Coleman thanked Mr. Schofer for pointing out that recent
County noise measurements requested by neighbors have confirmed
that NIH is in compliance with County standards. Mr.
Oberlander stated that while the noise may be within County
standards, neighbors close to NIH have described what they
feel is a noticeable problem and thus it deserves continuing
attention. Mr. Coleman stated that Dr. Zerhouni’s
letter promises that attention and does not express any doubt
that NIH noise can be heard off campus. Mr. Coleman
has visited affected neighborhoods and likened the
noise to the sound of an operating refrigerator or air conditioner
compressor. He stated that it seemed to emanate from
the utility plants and/or air handling equipment on the roofs
of certain NIH buildings.
A CLC member stated that neighbors had already been that
the noise level was within County standards, but NIH said
it would do something to further mitigate the problem. She
stated that the issue was referred to Rep. Van Hollen because
of the amount of time it was taking to achieve progress. Mr.
Coleman replied that NIH was committed to addressing the
campus noise issue, but the issue need not appear on the
agenda of every meeting unless there is substantive information
to present. When asked if there was consensus on that
approach, the CLC members agreed.
CLC members then asked whom they should contact when they
have concerns about excessive noise or unusual events. Mr.
Clifford replied that they should contact NIH police in the
case of any unusual event on the NIH campus. Brad Moss
clarified that the NIH Emergency Command Center, the emergency
branch of the NIH police, handles all off-hours problems,
and their number is 911. For a non-emergency issue,
call 301-496-5685.
Mr. Coleman noted that Mr. Eisen had contacted him regarding
noise from a steam vent on top of Building 35 that had continued
for most of Christmas weekend. Mr. Coleman informed the Council
that the building manager could not identify any unusual
event that would have triggered that noise. He suggested
that the noise might have been generated by scheduled maintenance
activity during the holiday, which is why it would not have
been perceived as an “event.” He informed the
CLC that he had asked the Facilities office to present a
list of scheduled maintenance activities at a future CLC
meeting.
BRAC EIS Scoping Study: Mr. Coleman called the
Council’s attention to the letter in their packet from
NIH to the Navy voicing NIH’s environmental impact
concerns about the proposed BRAC relocation of Walter Reed
operations to the Naval Medical Center. He noted that
it was unusual for NIH to identify issues and recommend mitigations
to another federal agency, but the nature and scope of impacts
warranted it in this case. The issues raised in the
NIH letter include:
- Increased traffic congestion on local roads accessing
the NIH campus;
- Greater transit use, which may require modifications
to the Metro station and support facilities located on
NIH property;
- Need for a comprehensive traffic demand management (TDM)
program which NIH is willing to help the Navy design and
operate, based on its own 10 years of experience;
- Need for centralized TDM support resources, such as NIH’s
Transportation Services group;
- Increased helicopter traffic, with attendant noise and
safety issues;
- Effectiveness and safety challenges to pedestrian and
bike transport across and along Route 355;
- Increased sharing of NIH facilities and resources, including
the CVIF and emergency response plans;
- Increased demand on local utility supply lines, which
are at or near capacity, such as the local natural gas
pipeline which runs in part down River Road; and
- Increased nonpermeable surfaces, such as new buildings
and parking lots, and attendant storm drainage issues.
The letter also stated that the BRAC process would offer
opportunities for NIH and NNMC to coordinate campus development
and lessen associated impacts, and it noted that federal,
state, and local agencies expect such cooperation. NIH
finally requested that the Navy designate it as a Cooperating
Agency in the BRAC NEPA process. Mr. Coleman clarified
that “Cooperating Agency” is a special role by
which a Lead Agency (i.e., the Department of the Navy) recognizes
the expertise of another federal agency (i.e., NIH) and utilizes
that expertise to the maximum extent possible in preparation
of its EIS. If the Navy agrees to this request, NIH
would no longer be commenting on the process, but would be
a full participant in BRAC planning.
Mr. Coleman noted that this is a very aggressive approach,
but the stakes are high. It is estimated that the NNMC
expansion would result in up to 9,000 additional car trips
per day. He pointed out that this would be the equivalent
of a 30-mile long backup if the cars were placed end-to-end.
The draft EIS is due in June 2007, with a final EIS due
in Dec 2007. It will then go to the NCPC for approval. Each
of these steps will provide further opportunities for public
input.
Mr. Coleman informed the Council that the Navy has not yet
responded to the NIH letter. However, given the fact that
NIH has recent and relevant experience, including a recent
Master Plan Update and EIS, the Navy would need a compelling
reason not to involve NIH in its own planning process. Mr.
Coleman stated that he had invited NNMC to make a presentation
to the CLC and had given them a choice of dates (Feb., March
or April).
Ms. Lueders noted that NIH is encouraging the Navy to open
the gates on Jones Bridge Rd. She asked whether there
was any possibility that NIH would open the gates on Cedar
Lane. Mr. Moss stated that the opening or closing of
NIH gates would certainly be reevaluated.
Mr. Oberlander thanked Mr. Coleman for including the letter
from the Huntington Parkway Citizen Association’s letter
in the packet for this meeting. He noted that the BRAC
only evaluated options from a cost factor and did not consider
the environmental impact of accommodating an additional 2
million square feet of space in a neighborhood environment.
ADJOURNMENT
The formal meeting ended at 6:20 p.m.
CLC Members Present
Richard Barbieri, Stone Ridge School
Marian Bradford, Camelot Mews Citizens Association
Harvey Eisen, Edgewood Glenwood Citizens Association
Darrel Lemke, Parkview Citizens Association
Kira Lueders, NIH Alumni Association
Marilyn Mazuzan, Town of Oakmont
Debbie Michaels, Glenbrook Village Homeowners Association
Ginny Miller, Wyngate Citizens Association
George Oberlander, Huntington Parkway Citizens Association
Lucy Ozarin, M.D., Whitehall Condominium Association
Eleanor Rice, Locust Hill Citizens Association
Ralph Schofer, Maplewood Citizens Association
NIH Staff Present
Anthony Clifford, ORF, NIH
Dennis Coleman, Director, OCL, OD, NIH
Ronald Wilson, ORFDO, NIH
Randy Schools, Recreation & Welfare Association, NIH
Brad Moss ORS, OD, NIH
Buz Orrison, ORF, NIH
Sharon Robinson, OCL, NIH
Guests
James Gill, Contractor Representative
back to top |
