Applicant Resource Guides

Environmental and Historic Preservation Compliance

Overview

As a federal agency, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and many of its federal agency applicants are subject to a series of laws and policies that regulate federal development actions. Paramount among these are the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). These two laws are intended to protect environmental and historic resources and form the cornerstone of responsible planning in the federal government. Any action or undertaking by a federal agency conducted with federal funding, or requiring a federal permit, license, or approval, is required to undergo analysis and assessment under these laws. Accordingly, NCPC has an independent responsibility to fulfill the requirements of NEPA and NHPA for any project where the Commission has approval authority, regardless of whether the applicant has a NEPA or NHPA responsibility. This guide is not a regulatory document..

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of their projects prior to taking an action, which can be done in one of three ways.

NCPC’s Role in the NEPA Process

NCPC will act as a cooperating agency in the NEPA process for projects on federal land where NCPC has an approval authority and the applicant is a federal agency. In these situations, the federal applicant, which also has a NEPA responsibility, will serve as the lead agency. A cooperating agency serves to support a lead agency in the completion of NEPA (technical expertise), and is a signatory on a FONSI or ROD.

If the applicant is a non-federal agency (e.g., a District agency, the Smithsonian Institution, the Kennedy Center, the National Gallery of Art, or the U.S. Institute of Peace), it will not have an individual NEPA responsibility and NCPC will serve as the lead agency. If NCPC does not have a CATEX for the type of project submitted, an EA or EIS must be completed. In such a case, NCPC will serve as the lead agency and will manage the NEPA process in coordination with the applicant. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) may be prepared to outline the terms of such an arrangement—either at the project level or to provide a larger framework for interagency cooperation on NEPA. The MOU at a minimum should specify project information; roles and responsibilities; project timelines and schedules; principle contacts and contact information; and a mechanism for solving disputes. For example, NCPC and the Smithsonian Institution entered into an agreement in December 2018 that outlines a joint approach to NEPA for all Smithsonian projects.

Public Involvement in NEPA

Public involvement is a cornerstone of NEPA, and therefore, the compliance process typically includes several opportunities to engage the public. Per CEQ guidance on the implementation of NEPA, agencies are required to provide meaningful opportunities for public participation, but the extent of public involvement depends on the specific NEPA regulations developed by the lead agency. In general, the public has an opportunity to engage during the early scoping process, and with the release of draft documents. NCPC’s environmental policies and procedures requires a public comment period for both an EA and an EIS. The length of the public comment period for an EA is at NCPC’s discretion and the length of the public comment period for an EIS is 45 days.

National Historic Preservation Act

The NHPA is legislation intended to preserve historical and archaeological sites in the United States. The act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation Offices. Under Section 106 of the NHPA, federal agencies are required to consult with State or Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO[s]/THPO[s]) and other affected agencies, parties, and individuals for projects, activities, or programs that qualify as an “undertaking.” Regulations published by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation define an undertaking as a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency including “…those requiring a federal permit, license or approval.” Based on this definition, similar to NEPA, NCPC has a NHPA responsibility when it exercises approval authority.

The Section 106 process includes four steps, depending on the extent of the impacts.

NCPC’S role in the NHPA Process

For federal projects that require NCPC review, NCPC will serve as a consulting party in the Section 106 process. NCPC is able to designate the applicant federal agency as the lead for Section 106 compliance and will generally serve as a signatory to the process if the Commission has approval authority on the project. If the applicant is not a federal agency, NCPC will serve as the lead agency for Section 106. The Smithsonian Institution is an exception to this rule, as federal law requires the Smithsonian to comply with NHPA for all of its projects that require NCPC approval.

It is important to note that these are general guidelines that govern the application of NHPA for NCPC, and exceptions may exist. For example, NCPC may determine that it should be the lead in the Section 106 process if it has a separate and distinct obligation from that of the applicant. Consultation with NCPC staff is important to determine the appropriate approach to Section 106, and to help streamline the application process for Commission review.

Local Historic Districts and Landmarks

In addition to Section 106 reviews, some projects submitted to NCPC may require additional historic preservation related reviews if the project is located within a locally designated historic district or is individually designated as a local historic landmark. The applicant should work with local historic preservation staff, usually housed in the locality’s planning office, to determine if their project requires local historic preservation reviews. In the District of Columbia, the DC State Historic Preservation Office also provides professional staff assistance to the District’s Historic Preservation Review Board, which reviews projects listed on the District’s Inventory of Historic Places.

NEPA and NHPA alignment with project submission stages

When projects that require NCPC approval are submitted for review, the NEPA/NHPA process must at a minimum have been initiated. The NEPA/NHPA requirement differs based on submission stage, which is outlined in the table below.

Integration of NEPA and NHPA

NEPA and Section 106 of NHPA share some common elements, and coordination among similar steps can help streamline the compliance process. NHPA regulations encourage federal agencies to consider their “Section 106 responsibilities as early as possible in the NEPA process, and plan their public participation, analysis, and review in such a way that can meet the purposes and requirements of both statutes in a timely and effective manner.”

NCPC has generally followed the process outlined in the following diagram where applicable. It is, however, important to note that a streamlined process may not be appropriate for projects with complicated environmental or historic preservation issues. For more information, see NEPA and NHPA - A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106, which is a joint publication from the CEQ and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

NEPA and Section 106 Process Overview

Review of Projects with theMetropolitan Washington Airports Authority

Overview

The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) holds operating responsibility for both Washington Dulles International Airport (Dulles Airport) and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (National Airport) in Virginia under a long-term lease from the United States. The law that authorized this transfer of responsibility, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986 (49 U.S.C. §§ 49101-49112), recognized the historic importance of these facilities and/or their visual prominence, and accordingly required that MWAA consult with the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) before undertaking any major alterations to the exterior of the main terminal at Dulles Airport (Below, left), and development that would alter the skyline of National Airport (Below, right) when viewed from the opposing shoreline on the Potomac River or from the George Washington Memorial Parkway. In 1988 NCPC and MWAA entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to guide the consultation process between the two agencies. This guide is intended to outline the specifics of the MOU and clarify NCPC’s review interest. This resource guide is for general information purposes, and is not a regulatory document.

MWAA Memorandum of Understanding

The MOU between MWAA and NCPC details a process for advisory NCPC review of certain projects at Dulles and National Airports consistent with the legal requirements in 49 U.S.C. § 49111(d). The MOU notes the historic significance of the main terminal at Dulles Airport, the visual character and quality of the Dulles Access Road, the highly visible location of National Airport on the Potomac River, as well as the Commission’s interest in determining potential impacts of plans on federal activities or interests in the nation’s capital. It also describes the shared interest between MWAA and NCPC to establish an effective working relationship and coordinate their respective planning activities and concerns.

To meet the long-term needs of both agencies, and in recognition of the significance of the airports, the MOU establishes a framework for the review of several projects by NCPC, including the following:

• Development proposals in certain defined areas within or adjacent to the Dulles Access Road with major views of the tower and main terminal building, as described in the MOU;
• Proposed revisions to the master plans for both airports, and
• Preliminary site and building plans for construction projects at Dulles Airport that would alter the exterior or significantly impact views of the terminal building, and at National Airport for any project that would alter the airport skyline when viewed from the opposing shoreline on the Potomac River or from the George Washington Memorial Parkway.

NCPC Review Interest

Per the MOU, in review of applicable development proposals, master plans, and site and building plans, the Commission will focus specifically on the impacts to views of Dulles Airport’s tower and main terminal building, and the impacts of the National Airport skyline on views from the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the opposing shoreline of the Potomac River. Federal sites along the opposing shoreline with the most direct visual connection to National Airport include the Monumental Core, East Potomac Park, and Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling. Depending on the nature of the proposals and plans, these federal sites may also include portions of Shepherd Parkway, Oxon Cove Park & Oxon Hill Farm, and possible others. Accordingly, NCPC review will focus closely on the impacts to these areas. Because NCPC’s review purview relates only to the main terminal and tower at Dulles, NCPC review at this airport will be more targeted to sites on airport property, such as the future Dulles International Airport Metrorail station.^[2]

Review ofForeign Missions in Washington

Overview

Review of Foreign Missions on Private Land

The Foreign Missions Act (FMA) of 1982 reaffirms the federal government’s jurisdiction over the operation of foreign missions and international organizations in the United States. It affirms a policy of support and facilitation of secure and efficient operation of U.S. missions abroad and foreign missions and international organizations in the United States. It also establishes the review process for foreign mission development on private land in Washington, DC. Pursuant to the FMA, the District of Columbia Foreign Mission Board of Zoning Adjustment (FMBZA) reviews foreign missions projects on private land such as chanceries and annexes thereto. NCPC’s Executive Director sits on the FMBZA, along with the three District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment members and the National Park Service representative from the District of Columbia Zoning Commission.

The FMA requires the FMBZA to review the location, replacement, or expansion of chanceries and apply six decision-making criteria that include: facilitating foreign missions in the U.S., historic preservation, the municipal and federal interests, adequacy of security, and parking. The FMBZA uses these criteria to either “disapprove” or “not disapprove” the project.

Review of Foreign Missions on Federal Land

There are two chancery enclaves located on large tracts of federal land in Washington, DC: the International Chancery Center (ICC), located at Van Ness Street and Connecticut Avenue, NW, and the Foreign Missions Center (FMC), located at 16th Street and Alaska Avenue, NW. The International Center Act, enacted in October 1968, guides NCPC review of foreign missions at the ICC, while a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), signed in February 2017 between the Department of State/Office of Foreign Missions (DOS) and NCPC, guides Commission review of foreign missions at the FMC.

International Chancery Center

The International Center Act authorized the creation of the International Chancery Center. The Act authorized NCPC to review and approve the development of individual foreign missions at the ICC based on a project’s conformance with development controls devised by NCPC in conjunction with the DOS. The development controls regulate the location, height, bulk, and number of stories of proposed chanceries. NCPC has amended these development controls many times since their initial adoption to reflect the evolving needs of foreign mission development.

Because NCPC has an approval authority for projects at the ICC, NCPC must comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The DOS developed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the development of the ICC in 1976 and a supplement in 1981, and uses these documents to meet its NEPA responsibility. NCPC has used these documents or its own categorical exclusions to meet its NEPA responsibility for projects located at the ICC.

The Department of State did not conduct Section 106 analysis when it developed the 1976 EIS. The EIS noted that the ICC site has the potential to yield unidentified archaeological resources, which requires an archaeological assessment with a GIS analysis, and an evaluation of the above-ground built resources. These components which the Department of State is looking to fund would inform a Determination of Eligibility for the entire ICC campus. In lieu of a campus Determination of Eligibility, NCPC initiates Section 106 directly with the DC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for individual projects.

Foreign Missions Center

The acquisition by DOS of a 32-acre portion of the former Walter Reed Army Medical Center campus allowed for the creation of a second chancery enclave in Washington, DC known as the Foreign Missions Center (FMC). Because the International Center Act and ICC Development Controls apply only to the ICC, DOS and NCPC developed an MOA to establish a review process for chancery development on individual lots at the FMC. The MOA requires NCPC to analyze individual chancery projects using the same six FMA decision-making criteria used by the FMBZA. Also, like the FMBZA, NCPC must either “disapprove” or “not disapprove” the project. Land at the FMC that is developed with infrastructure projects and the Memorial Chapel (i.e., roadways, pathways, sidewalks, landscaped areas) not governed by are the MOA. Instead, these projects must be reviewed and approved by NCPC in accordance with authority derived from the National Capital Planning Act.

Following acquisition of the FMC site, DOS developed and approved a master plan governing development at the FMC. Going forward with chancery development, DOS will use this master plan to govern leasing and development of individual sites (the EIS process included the development of formal development controls which foreign missions must follow to preclude or minimize adverse environmental impacts.). NCPC will use the DOS EIS, for which it was a consulting party, or its own categorical exclusions as applicable to meet its NEPA obligation resulting from approval of FMC infrastructure projects. NCPC does not have NEPA (or NHPA) responsibility for individual chancery projects at the FMC because it does not approve these projects.

Both DOS and NCPC have a NHPA obligation although NCPC’s obligation is limited to infrastructure projects. A programming agreement was developed between NCPC, Department of State, DC SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and sets forth a process for compliance with NHPA at the FMC.

Review of Projects from theWashington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Overview

In accordance with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA or Authority) Compact,^[1] the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) receives notice and has an opportunity to comment on WMATA’s mass transit plan and amendments. WMATA plans reviewed by the Commission per this agreement have ranged from major projects, such as the placement and design of Metrorail stations and route alignments, to relatively small-scale projects, like the reconfiguration of parking areas.^[2] Depending on the complexity of the project and level of federal interest, the Commission will either review the project in an open session or on its consent calendar. Minor projects may be delegated to the Executive Director.

WMATA Compact

WMATA is the multi-jurisdictional government agency that operates certain rail and bus service in the greater Washington area. The agency was created as part of an agreement between the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia to plan, develop, finance, and operate the region’s mass transit system, including Metrorail and Metrobus. The WMATA Compact, the guiding document for WMATA, sets the terms of the agreement, including the planning of the mass transit resource system.

NCPC Review Interest

Consistent with WMATA’s procedure for comment on Mass Transit Plan amendments, WMATA forwards all projects relating to the design, location, and character of facilities throughout the Metro system to the Commission for comment. Staff will determine if Commission review and comment is required, or if the project falls within the exception criteria described in Chapter 8 of the NCPC Submission Guidelines. Any comments from the Commission will serve as official correspondence to inform the WMATA Compact Public Hearing process.

In general, the Commission has the strongest interest in Metro projects proposed within the L’Enfant City, or on or adjacent to federal property. However, certain other major modifications, such as the establishment of new Metrorail transit lines, changes to existing Metrorail transit lines, or development of new Metrorail stations, have a strong nexus with the federal interest, which includes the orderly development of the National Capital, regional sustainability, multimodal transportation, and other principles described in NCPC’s plans and policies. Consequently, WMATA should expect that NCPC will comment on these projects.

The extent of NCPC comment may vary—ranging from delegated actions by the NCPC Executive Director to review by the Commission at one of its monthly public meetings. As with all projects reviewed by NCPC, the Commission will comment on the consistency of WMATA projects with the Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital and other areas of federal interest. The appropriate level of NCPC review must be determined by NCPC staff upon notification of the project. Should staff determine that there is no federal interest, the agency will issue an exception letter.

Limited Review of Development onPrivate Land in Washington

Overview

While the majority of the National Capital Planning Commission’s (NCPC) plan review authorities relate to the review of projects and master plans on federal and District owned land, there are a few circumstances where NCPC conducts an advisory review and provides comments on development projects and regulations for private land in Washington, DC. These include:

1. Amendments of the District Zoning Regulations and Maps
2. Site and building plans for private land in specific areas of federal interest
3. Site and building plans for private land on Pennsylvania Avenue between 1st and 15th Streets, NW
4. Development of air rights above or below public streets or alleys in the District of Columbia
5. The platting and subdividing of lands

This resource guide is for general information purposes, and is not a regulatory document.

What is NCPC’s interest in reviewing development projects and regulations for private land?

NCPC’s mission is to protect the natural, historic, and cultural resources of the National Capital Region and the property of the federal government so that it can perform its diverse set of missions. Protecting the form, character, and experience of the nation’s capital is important, particularly within the historic L’Enfant City. This includes the views and settings of the U.S. Capitol, White House, and National Mall; nationally significant civic spaces and institutions; national memorials and parks; and those streets, avenues, and reservations that link these national resources and reflect the fundamental design framework of the original city plan. Of equal importance is ensuring that the federal government, the largest property owner in Washington, DC, is able to achieve its missions, provide secure and appropriate workplaces, enhance public open spaces, and conduct a variety of operations.

Within Washington, private and federal land are often located adjacent to one another. To ensure federal interests are protected when development occurs on private land, NCPC reviews certain projects and regulations on private land in accordance with federal law or through an agreement with the District of Columbia’s government.

What are the five project types and regulatory processes where NCPC reviews development on private land?

1  Amendments to District Zoning Regulations and Maps
In accordance with the National Capital Planning Act, NCPC reviews any proposed zoning or map amendments to the District of Columbia’s zoning regulations. This includes comprehensive updates to the zoning regulations (most recently the 2016 update) or individual map and text amendments. Most often, the District of Columbia Zoning Commission (ZC) refers amendments to NCPC as part of a proposed planned unit development (PUD) project. This referral occurs after the ZC has taken preliminary action on the zoning case and before it takes final action. The District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) refers specific projects as well. NCPC reviews zoning and map amendments for any potential impacts to the federal interest and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan’s federal elements.

2  Site and building plans for private land in specific areas of federal interest
Since there are many areas in the city where private, District, and federal lands abut or are in close proximity to one another, the District has included special provisions in the zoning regulations that allow NCPC to comment on private development in areas sensitive to federal interests. Development projects in five defined areas are referred to NCPC for review and comment before they are heard at the ZC public hearing.

Naval Observatory (Subtitle D)

The Naval Observatory is a federal installation that is home to the Vice President of the United States. It also hosts operations that sustain the atomic clock, which provides the time standard for the United States Projects in the zoning districts surrounding this facility (R-11, R-12, R-13, RA-6, and MU-27) require special review and are referred by the BZA to NCPC for comment. For projects in the R-11, R-12 and R-13 zones, NCPC uses DC Zoning Regulations Subtitle D § 5203.1 (a) for its analysis. For projects in the MU-27 zone, NCPC uses Subtitle G § 1202.1(a) for its analysis. NCPC analyzes any proposed development for impacts regarding views to the facility, light pollution, security, and transportation/access.

Independence Avenue Sub Area (Subtitle I)

The Independence Avenue Sub-Area zones (D-4 and D-8) are part of the overall downtown zoning district and cover Independence Avenue between 6th and 12th Streets, SW. If any federal land on Independence Avenue becomes private in the future, the ZC will refer individual development projects to NCPC for comment before granting approval. NCPC’s interest in development on Independence Avenue is to protect the viewshed along the avenue and views to and from the National Mall.

Southeast Federal Center (Subtitle K)

The former Southeast Federal Center (SEFC), now known as The Yards, is a large, multi-stage redevelopment project located in Southeast Washington, DC between the Washington Navy Yard and Nationals Park. The land was once part of the historic Washington Navy Yard and until redevelopment was controlled by the General Services Administration. The SEFC is divided into four zoning districts, which were established to “…provide for the development of a vibrant, urban, mixed-use, waterfront neighborhood, offering a combination of uses that will attract residents, office workers, and visitors from across the District of Columbia and beyond.” (DC Zoning Regulations Subtitle K § 200.1 and 200.2). The ZC refers development projects in these zones to NCPC early in the design review process. NCPC’s interest in this area is due to its adjacency to the Washington Navy Yard and Anacostia River. NCPC analyzes development proposals for their consistency with the SEFC Master Plan and any impacts to the Navy Yard.

Capitol Gateway (Subtitle K)

The Capitol Gateway zones regulate development around the South Capitol Street corridor, between M Street and the Anacostia waterfront. The ZC will refer projects located in the CG-5 zone and projects “…abutting South Capitol Street, other than renovation or replacement of an existing row dwelling within Squares 653 or 655.” (DC Zoning Regulations Subtitle K § 512.1(a)). NCPC focuses its analysis on protecting the viewshed of the South Capitol Street corridor and views to and from the waterfront. The regulations require buildings proposed along South Capitol Street to be set back from the property line with upper-story setbacks to frame the view of the U.S. Capitol.

Union Station North Zone (Subtitle K)

Union Station North Zone (Subtitle K) The Union Station North (USN) Zone is included in the DC Zoning Regulations to “…implement the Comprehensive Plan by ensuring that development of the air rights is not inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan including: creation of …an active streetscape connection between west…and east of the railroad; infill of an underutilized property; and preservation and enhancement of Union Station.”

For projects in the USN zone, NCPC uses DC Zoning Regulations Subtitle K § 316.1 and § 317.1 for its analysis. Union Station is an important historic landmark. NCPC analyzes any proposed development located nearby to ensure that views of the station and its setting are preserved.

3  Site and building plans for private land on Pennsylvania Avenue between 1st and 15th Streets, NW
Federal law 40 U.S.C. 6702(d) grants NCPC responsibility for ensuring that development within the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation boundary (largely Pennsylvania Avenue between 1st and 15th Streets, NW) is carried out in accordance with the 1974 Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation Plan. A Memorandum of Agreement (61 FR 41789) entered into on August 12, 1996 between NCPC, the National Park Service, and the General Services Administration outlines the process by which the parties review and certify building permits within this area. The District Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) refers projects in this area to NCPC after the applicant submits them to DCRA for permitting. NCPC reviews the projects for their conformity to the Square Guidelines in the Pennsylvania Avenue Plan, which serve as specific development guidelines for each square.

4  Development of air rights above or below public streets or alleys in the District of Columbia
NCPC is required under the District of Columbia Public Space Utilization Act of 1968 to provide advice and recommendations on the development of air rights above or below public streets or alleys in the District of Columbia as described and defined in Subtitle G §700.2 of the DC Zoning Regulations (2016). NCPC’s primary concern is the protection of L’Enfant Street rights of way and maintaining alleys that support federal uses. These projects are rare and often accompany zoning case referrals.

5  The platting and subdividing of lands
In accordance with the National Capital Planning Act (40 U.S.C §8735), the Council of the District of Columbia submits to NCPC any proposed change in, or addition to, the regulations or general orders regulating the platting and subdividing of lands and grounds in Washington. NCPC must provide a report and recommendation before the Council adopts the change or addition.

Memorial Site Selection & Design Review

Overview

Commemorative works, including monuments and memorials, are important elements of the National Capital Region’s landscape and often are located among iconic buildings, structures, and open spaces. There are hundreds of commemorative works on federal land, representing a number of themes, ranging from military events to individuals such as presidents. The Commemorative Works Act of 1986 (CWA), as amended, provides a framework and guides decision making regarding memorial authorization, siting, and design on land under the jurisdiction of either the National Park Service (NPS) or the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) in Washington, DC and its environs.^[1] Under CWA, Congress authorizes each new commemorative work by separate law, usually in response to a request by a committed citizens group.^[2] The law authorizes the group to become the memorial sponsor and establish a commemorative work to a specific subject. Memorials authorized by Congress are required to comply with CWA, unless Congress explicitly grants an exemption from CWA or provisions within it. The purpose of this resource guide is to explain the site selection and design review process and the roles of the agencies involved in the process.

Commemorative Works Act

The intent of CWA is to preserve the integrity of the Plan of the City of Washington (L’Enfant and McMillan Plans) and protect and maintain open space in the nation’s capital. Under the provisions of CWA, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC or the Commission) and the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) have approval authority over the site and design of new memorials. CWA established the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) to advise the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of GSA, Congress, and memorial sponsors on topics relating to commemoration. Memorial sponsors consult with NCMAC during the site selection and design review process.

Agency Roles

The agencies involved with the planning, design, and review of memorials have different roles and responsibilities. These roles are described below.

National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission
The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission advises Congress, the Secretary of the Interior, and Administrator of GSA on matters related to commemoration. NCMAC provides recommendations to Congress regarding proposed legislation authorizing memorials. When sponsors seek Area I authorization, NCMAC makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior or Administrator of GSA with respect to preeminent and lasting historical significance to the nation. NCMAC provides comments to memorial sponsors during the site selection process. Prior to CFA and NCPC final approval, memorial sponsors consult with NCMAC on the memorial design. NCMAC also serves as a general source of information regarding establishment of memorials in Washington, DC and its environs. In addition to NCPC, CFA, NPS, and GSA representatives, other NCMAC members include the Architect of the Capitol, the Chairman of the American Battle Monuments Commission, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and the Secretary of Defense. The National Park Service provides staff to NCMAC.

National Capital Planning Commission
NCPC provides planning guidance for federal land and buildings in Washington and the environs. NCPC’s review of memorials covers site planning and development implications and focuses on issues related to access and circulation, program, land use, viewsheds, historic preservation, design, and landscape elements. NCPC approves sites and designs for new commemorative works and the NCPC Chairman is a member of NCMAC.

Commission of Fine Arts
CFA advises the government on matters of aesthetics and design, including the location and design of statues, memorials, and public buildings erected by the federal and District governments in the nation’s capital. In reviewing memorials, CFA considers whether a proposed design is in keeping with such criteria as aesthetic merit, compatibility with and protection of historic structures and landscapes, best professional practices, and the advancement of the design of the capital city. CFA approves sites and designs for new commemorative works and the CFA Chairman is a member of NCMAC.

National Park Service
While memorial sponsors consider sites under both NPS and GSA jurisdiction, NPS typically has the lead in assisting sponsors with memorial proposals in Washington and its environs. NPS, on behalf of the memorial sponsor, submits applications for memorials proposed on land under the jurisdiction of NPS to NCPC and CFA for review and approval. NPS, on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, reviews and approves sites and designs, and issues construction permits. When a memorial is built on NPS land, NPS maintains and interprets the memorial in perpetuity. The NPS Director is the NCMAC Chairman.

U.S. General Services Administration
GSA can also take the lead in working with the memorial sponsor on the site selection and design review process when the preferred site or sites are under GSA jurisdiction. In such cases, GSA submits applications to NCPC and CFA for review and approval. After construction, the memorial is typically transferred to NPS for maintenance and interpretation. The Commissioner of Public Buildings Service, representing the Administrator, serves on NCMAC.

Memorials and Museums Master Plan

The Memorials and Museums Master Plan (2M Plan), developed by NCPC in partnership with CFA and NCMAC, provides guidance regarding memorial location and design. The 2M Plan identifies potential memorial sites in Washington, DC and Virginia. The plan includes an evaluation of each site and information on scale of site, transit connections, historic resources, and neighborhood setting.

The plan is a tool for memorial sponsors and agencies to use when evaluating whether a project is suitable for a particular location and to identify planning and design issues for specific sites. Since its initial adoption in 2001, the 2M Plan has guided the site selection of several memorials. However, a memorial sponsor is not required to select a site in the 2M Plan and a few recently established memorials were located on other sites.

Commemorative Works: Site Selection and Design Review Process

After Congress authorizes a memorial on federal land, and the President signs the bill into law, memorial sponsors must gain site and design approval from NCPC and CFA. Generally, under CWA, the legislative authority for a memorial expires seven years after its enactment or seven years after a congressional enactment authorizing a memorial in Area I. Memorial sponsors work with NPS (or occasionally GSA depending on the jurisdiction of the sites under consideration) during the site selection and design review process. For purposes of this resource guide, “NPS/GSA” refers to the agency involved. NPS/GSA is the applicant to NCPC and CFA on behalf of the memorial sponsor. NPS/GSA coordinate meetings and consultation with NCPC and CFA to discuss site selection and memorial design.

* Environment Compliance includes the National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act.

The complexity of the project will determine the number of reviews NCPC and CFA conduct at each stage. Both commissions have to approve the project and there may be multiple concept level reviews to address commission concerns, and to achieve agreement. In cases when there are differences between NCPC and CFA, NPS/GSA and the sponsor consult with NCPC and CFA staff to determine how to reconcile the issues to the satisfaction of both commissions. At times, additional reviews may be needed by one commission to resolve a specific planning or design issue prior to moving forward with subsequent stages of the review process.

Project Initiation

During project initiation memorial sponsors, in consultation with NPS/GSA, develop the program including the scale, scope, and nature of the proposed memorial. Based on the program, size of the planned memorial, and its subject, certain sites identified in the 2M Plan may be more suitable for the commemorative work. Memorial sponsors conduct a review of the 2M Plan and identify potential sites for the memorial. Memorial sponsors are not limited to sites in the 2M Plan as other NPS and GSA land may be possible for commemorative use.

In considering potential locations, memorial sponsors should consider the CWA criteria that state “to the maximum extent possible that a commemorative work shall be located in surroundings that are relevant to the subject of the work. When considering sites, thematic and geographic context of nearby memorials, buildings, parks, and civic landmarks can establish a nexus to the proposed commemorative work.”

Memorial sponsors, in coordination with NPS/GSA, are encouraged early in the project initiation phase to meet with NCPC and CFA staff, as well as the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer, to discuss potential sites, the initial program, and identify potential issues such as impacts to open space, historic properties, and infrastructure requirements. NCPC’s Submission Guidelines call for a pre-submission briefing at this stage. More information on the pre-submission briefing can be found on NCPC’s website.

Eisenhower Memorial

The Eisenhower Memorial site is near several agencies and institutions that relate to Dwight D. Eisenhower’s legacy including the (A) Wilbur Wright Building, headquarters of the Federal Aviation Administration; (B) the National Air and Space Museum; (C) the Lyndon B. Johnson Department of Education Building; and (D) the Voice of America Building.

National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission Site Selection Review

Following the early consultation with NCPC and CFA staff, the memorial sponsor is responsible for preparing a site selection study to investigate potential sites for the memorial based on program, anticipated size, and thematic connections. NCMAC will review the site selection study prior to NCPC and CFA and provide comments on the sites under consideration. Depending on the complexity of the project, NCMAC may conduct multiple reviews of the site selection study prior to reviews at NCPC and CFA. The site selection study often includes historical context and background, as well as the memorial sponsor’s goals and objectives or vision for the memorial. Memorial sponsors typically develop a list of specific criteria as part of the site selection study to apply to 2M Plan sites (or other sites) to assist in identifying a suitable location.

Concept Review of Site Selection

The concept review of site selection includes the formal beginning of the environmental and historic preservation review processes. Prior to submitting to NCPC and CFA for review, the memorial sponsor and NPS/GSA initiate the scoping process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the consultation process under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The NCPC Environmental and Historic Preservation Compliance Resource Guide includes an overview and information on both processes. Information specific to NCPC’s NEPA process can be found in its NEPA Regulations (1 C.F.R. 601). The purpose of the NEPA scoping meeting is to introduce the project to the public and request comments on the potential sites under consideration. A separate NEPA scoping process takes place for the memorial design during the commemorative design stage. Before formal review at NCPC or CFA, the memorial sponsor and NPS/GSA initiate Section 106 consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer.

Both NCPC and CFA will complete concept level reviews and provide comments on the alternative sites under consideration. As part of the memorial sponsor’s submission, the site selection study should highlight the opportunities and challenges of a commemorative work at each proposed site as well as a proposed memorial program. At this time, the memorial sponsor often provides initial memorial design ideas so that NCPC and CFA have an understanding of the relationship between potential sites and designs.

NCPC review generally provides a series of comments on the range of sites, helps identify any major planning issues of concern, and an analysis of the consistency of the proposed sites with NCPC policies and plans. The commemorative works section of NCPC’s submission guidelines describes the primary issues of concern at this stage of review. The Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital provide policies that NCPC will apply in its review. For example, NCPC would be interested in the relationship of the surrounding land uses to the proposed memorial including the transportation network. The Visitors & Commemoration and Parks & Open Space Elements include specific policies that apply to commemorative works.

CFA will review and provide comments on the site selection study, leading to an initial endorsement of a site or sites. Generally, at this stage of review CFA’s comments focus on the suitability of sites in relation to the memorial subject, the site’s context, and proposed design ideas. During the site selection review process, NCPC and CFA may develop criteria or guidelines specific to each site that are mutually agreed upon to ensure that the design of the commemorative work carries out the purposes of CWA.

Memorial Design Development

Following NCPC and CFA review and an analysis of the public comments received from the NEPA/106 processes, the memorial sponsor, in consultation with NPS/GSA, determines the preferred site or sites to carry forward through design development. Depending on the complexity of the memorial project and subject, there may be times when multiple sites are carried forward into the design stage. As approval of both NCPC and CFA is required under CWA, the memorial sponsor and NPS/GSA ideally prefer the support of both reviewing agencies for the same site or sites prior to moving forward to the concept review for the memorial design. Therefore, there may be multiple site selection concept reviews at NCPC and/or CFA to achieve consensus on the preferred site or sites.

Concept Review of Commemorative Design

Following the site selection reviews at NCPC and CFA, the memorial sponsor develops design alternatives or proposals that respond to the site or sites under consideration. While developing design alternatives, the memorial sponsor and NPS/GSA initiate the NEPA scoping process and Section 106 consultation specific to the memorial design. This includes an additional NEPA scoping meeting and hosting Section 106 consulting parties meetings. Both processes must be initiated prior to submitting to NCPC and CFA for concept review.

The memorial sponsor and NPS/GSA submit the preferred site(s) and proposed design alternatives to NCPC and CFA for review and comment. During its review, NCPC will endorse a site and provide comments on the memorial design alternatives. NCPC’s comments tend to focus on urban design, site planning, and historic preservation at this stage of review. CFA’s comments focus on aesthetics, design, and how the proposal fits within the larger context of the capital city. The intent of NCPC and CFA comments is to assist the memorial sponsor in selecting a preferred design alternative for further refinement. During this stage, NCPC, as part of the NEPA process, may establish guidelines for the memorial sponsor and NPS/GSA to follow in preparing its preliminary and final plans for the commemorative design.

Design Development and Environmental Compliance

At the conclusion of the design concept review, the memorial sponsor considers all the comments received including those from NCPC, CFA, the public, and the Section 106 consulting parties and identifies a preferred alternative for further development. The memorial sponsor advances the proposed design in light of the comments and design guidelines, if any apply.

Prior to submitting the preliminary design to NCPC for approval, NPS/GSA must issue the NEPA document, most likely an environmental assessment but possibly a draft environmental impact statement, for public comment. In addition, NPS/GSA must issue its Section 106 assessment of effects report prior to submitting the preliminary memorial plans for NCPC’s review. In preparing the assessment of effects report, the memorial sponsor and NPS/GSA continue consultation with the Section 106 consulting parties to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed memorial on historic properties.

Revised Concept Review

As the memorial sponsor advances the commemorative design, NPS/GSA may submit revised concept plans to CFA for review and comment. NPS/GSA may submit revised concept plans to CFA on multiple occasions to address a range of design topics and elements. Revised concept reviews at CFA typically cover the artwork, landscape plans, architectural details and materials, inscriptions, lighting, interpretative program, or other subjects as needed.

Preliminary Review of Site Selection and Commemorative Design

During NCPC’s review of the preliminary plans, the Commission focuses on the project’s consistency with Commission plans and policies as well as any comments the Commission provided during concept review. During review of the preliminary plans, the Commission often considers the program, site context, scale of the proposal, viewsheds, impacts on historic properties, and circulation or access to the memorial. As part of the review, the Commission will provide comments, requests, or recommendations to address in the preparation of the final memorial plans.

National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission Commemorative Design Consultation

The CWA also requires NCMAC consultation on the memorial design at some point before a final design is submitted to CFA and NCPC. This consultation would typically occur during the development of the concept design and coincides with the NCPC preliminary review. However, the NCMAC consultation on the memorial design may also be completed after NCPC’s preliminary review, but before the final review of the memorial design.

Final Environmental Compliance

The memorial sponsor continues design refinements in response to the preliminary review at NCPC, revised concept review at CFA, comments from Section 106 consulting parties, and public comments from the NEPA process. Additional Section 106 consultation meetings may be required. If the Section 106 consultation concludes with an adverse effect determination, the memorial sponsor, NPS/GSA, NCPC, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the consulting parties will be required to negotiate a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Programmatic Agreement (PA). With the final plans, NPS/GSA must submit the final executed documentation of the Section 106 process. The determination (finding of no significant impact or record of decision) resulting from the NEPA document must be submitted in accordance with NPS/GSA regulations.

Final Review of Site Selection and Commemorative Design

During the final review, NCPC will confirm the design details advanced since the preliminary review as well as responses to Commission comments or recommendations. Following the Commission’s final approval of the site and memorial design, NCPC will issue its final NEPA documentation to satisfy the Commission’s responsibility.

CFA will also complete a final review during this stage. Once the memorial sponsor receives final approval from NCPC and CFA the site selection and design review process is complete. NPS/GSA and the memorial sponsor typically continue to consult with CFA staff and sometimes CFA members after final approval to ensure that details of the construction, such as lettering, artwork, or materials choices, are consistent with the approved design. At times, NCPC staff or NCPC Commissioners may participate in these consultations as well.

If substantial changes are made to the design of a commemorative work following final approval, the memorial sponsor and NPS/GSA must re-submit an application of the revised design to both NCPC and CFA.

NPS/GSA Permit Process

Following the conclusion of the site selection and design review process, the memorial sponsor continues to work with NPS/GSA to obtain construction permits and obtain approval from the Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of GSA. The memorial sponsor prepares construction documentation for NPS/GSA review. In addition, prior to issuance of a construction permit, the memorial sponsor must show sufficient funds are available to construct the project. Funding must include the donation required by CWA equal to 10 percent of the total estimated cost of construction to offset the costs of perpetual maintenance and preservation of the memorial. This donation is not required when a federal department or agency constructs the memorial and less than 50 percent of the funding is provided by private sources.

Stormwater Management

Overview

Federal and local government agencies in the National Capital Region (NCR) have developed strict regulations to reduce water quality problems from stormwater runoff. The NCR features major water bodies such as the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, Rock Creek, and their tributaries which flow to the Chesapeake Bay. Stormwater management is a key issue in the National Capital Planning Commission’s (NCPC) plan review process to improve the region’s water quality and reduce interior flooding. It also has implications for site design.

Federal agencies are required to meet both federal and applicable state and local stormwater requirements. NCPC reviews plans in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Each jurisdiction has different performance requirements to limit the quantity of stormwater that can leave a project site. At the same time, they share a similar goal of protecting and preserving both on-site and downstream water resources. In addition, all requirements provide common stormwater management practices to achieve retention requirements. This resource guide outlines the region’s varied stormwater regulations and federal requirements, and explains how they relate to NCPC’s review process. Identifying opportunities to integrate stormwater management practices early into the site and building design process, and using it as a landscape design tool, creates a better site plan and can help streamline NCPC’s review process. This resource guide is for general information purposes, and is not a regulatory document.

Legislation and NCPC Authorities

As shown in the chart below, there are two primary authorities for stormwater management: the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA).

• The CWA, enacted in 1972, delegates responsibilities to each state to manage local requirements for stormwater. Compliance with local regulations stems from the CWA. As a result, the District Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE), the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) administer local stormwater management regulations for projects located in Washington, Maryland, and Virginia, respectively.
• In 2007 Congress enacted EISA, which requires federal agencies to reduce stormwater runoff from federal projects to protect water resources. In 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13514 “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance,” calling upon all federal agencies to “lead by example” to address a wide range of environmental issues, including stormwater runoff. In 2015 this EO was revoked and replaced by EO 13693 “Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade.” EO 13693 directed federal agencies to improve agency water use efficiency and management by installing appropriate green infrastructure features on federally owned property. In 2018, President Trump issued EO 13834 “Efficient Federal Operations.” Referencing the requirements of EISA, this order requires federal agencies to reduce potable and non-potable water consumption and comply with stormwater management requirements.

Stormwater Management Technologies Green infrastructure, low impact development, and environmental site design mimic the natural hydrologic cycle of infiltration, evaporation/transpiration, and re-use of rainfall. Some examples include bioretention areas, rain gardens, swales, porous pavement, trees, cisterns, and green roofs.

The Clean Water Act

The CWA includes provisions that regulate the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States, a term defined largely by case law. For stormwater management, the two most important provisions are the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Program (NPDES) and Impaired Waters Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). State regulations generally integrate requirements of NPDES and TMDL permits.

Local Stormwater Management Regulations

In addition to federal regulations, applicants must comply with the applicable state stormwater rules based on the project location. Projects in Washington, DC, Maryland, or Virginia must comply with stormwater management regulations administered either by the DDOE, MDE, or VDEQ, respectively. Applicants should work with the relevant permitting agency, depending on the project location, to determine applicable local stormwater regulations. Links to each agency are located under applicant resources.

When several stormwater management regulations apply, applicants should apply the most stringent set of regulations.

Review of Amendments to theHighway Plan

Overview

While Pierre L’Enfant’s plan of the City of Washington is generally recognized as the foundation for the city’s urban form, it was the Highway Plan that helped implement that form throughout the city. In response to rapid, disorganized development outside the L’Enfant City in the latter half of the 1800’s, which was a contrast to the coherent grid in the central city, Congress passed the Highway Act of 1893. This act authorized the federally controlled District of Columbia government to develop a Highway Plan that would provide an organized framework for the orderly development of streets outside the L’Enfant City. The District government selected Olmsted and Associates as lead developer for the plan. The Olmsted and Associates plan proposed the extension of many of the L’Enfant streets from the city’s urban core, while suggesting more curvilinear streets or parkways in areas with challenging topography.

Congress began to implement the plan in 1899 through the extension and widening of several existing streets. The responsibility for plan implementation and modification was transferred to the District government in 1914, which became a shared responsibility with the predecessor agency to the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) in the 1920s. As the city developed and its road network expanded, the District government updated the plan and recorded any revisions on a document known as the Map of the Permanent System of Highways of the District of Columbia. The 1922 version of this map below displays both constructed and planned roadways throughout the city at that time. The last comprehensive Highway Plan map was created in 1968. Since then, revisions to the plan are processed by the District government as Highway Plan amendments, which are recorded in the land records maintained by the DC Office of the Surveyor.

Highway Plan Amendments

Many of the streets envisioned in the original Olmsted and Associates plan were constructed over the years, helping to shape the form of Washington outside of the L’Enfant City. However, as the city became more developed, plans for many streets envisioned in the Highway Plan were impeded by physical improvements on proposed rights-of-way or conflicted with the existing street grid. These unbuilt roads (many of which exist on private property) are still retained as paper streets in the land records held by the DC Surveyor. An amendment to the Highway Plan is required to modify or abandon any such paper street, which requires an affected landowner to submit an application to the DC Office of the Surveyor.

Pursuant to DC Code § 9-103.02, the District government must submit any amendments to the Highway Plan to NCPC for review and approval. The Commission makes a determination on any proposed amendment, which is then returned to the DC Surveyor in writing, who records the approved amendment in the land records. It is important to note that NCPC’s Highway Plan amendment approval process is distinct from its advisory review process for street and alley closures, under which NCPC submits comments for consideration by the Council of the District of Columbia pursuant to DC Code § 9-202.02.

NCPC Review of Highway Plan Amendments

NCPC is most interested in the protection of built or planned rights of way in the L’Enfant City. Because the Highway Plan was created to guide street development outside this area, staff has generally determined that Highway Plan amendments do not present issues of federal interest, particularly as they occur on private property. The exception to this may be in instances where such amendments relate to planned roadways that lie adjacent to federal properties or provide access to federal facilities. Because the Commission must provide a finding on Highway Plan amendments in writing, the Commission must take an official action on these submissions. Accordingly, any such amendment cannot be approved by delegated action to the Executive Director or Chairman but must be considered during a regular monthly Commission meeting. This resource guide is for general information purposes, and is not a regulatory document.

Review of Projects on District Land

Overview