Louis Berger Group Inc. :: Fort Ritchie BRAC/Environmental Impact Statement

A U.S. military base is more than a place that houses equipment, trains soldiers, and guards against the nation's enemies. Each base has a unique character, purpose, culture, and place in history. During its' experience with Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), The Louis Berger Group has ensured that these factors, which are often difficult to quantify, are included in the environmental analysis process.

Military bases are usually the products of a time in which this nation is at war, or engaged in the preparations for preventing one. Once constructed, they take on a life of their own. Constantly evolving as their mission's change and as needs arise. Ft. Ritchie is an example of a base that has evolved over time. Built on farmland 75 years ago, Ft. Ritchie is located near the northern edge of Western Maryland. In 1926 the Maryland National Guard purchased 638 acres, including two lakes, and constructed facilities to support the National Guardsmen. In honor of the then governor of Maryland, the camp was called Camp Albert C. Ritchie.

The design of the Fort was inspired by the Corps of Engineers' insignia, a life-size version of the Corps' miniature castle façade. Camp Ritchie was controlled by the Maryland National Guard until 1942. During World War II, Camp Ritchie was converted to a Regular Army installation and used as a Military Intelligence Training Center. Office of Strategic Services (OSS) agents, interpreters and others would be stationed at Camp Ritchie to gain skills used by spies behind Japanese and German enemy lines. A replica of a German village was constructed at the Fort to simulate conditions that spies would encounter. At the end of the war, Camp Ritchie was once again a Maryland National Guard post.

The United States Army Communications Command Continental United States (USACC-ConUS) headquarters moved from Alexandria, Virginia, to Fort Ritchie in 1971, its mission was to coordinate telecommunications functions in the continental United States, Puerto Rico, Caribbean, and Europe.

Between 1988 and 1995 Congress authorized the formation of an appointed commission to review possible ways of saving money in the military by changing unit functions, disbanding units, changing a military installation's purpose and recommending installations for closure. The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission's report, once approved by the Secretary of Defense and the President, was sent to Congress. The House and Senate could only vote to accept or reject the entire list. No modifications were allowed. By moving these decisions to the BRAC Congress had hoped to "de-politicize" the military restructuring effort.

The 1995 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended the following actions at Fort Ritchie in its 1995 report to the President:

Cease military operations at Fort Ritchie except for a National Guard enclave.
Relocate the 1111th Signal Battalion and 1108th Signal Brigade to Fort Detrick, Maryland.
Relocate Information Systems Engineering Command elements to Fort Huachuca, Arizona and establish a U.S. Army Information Systems Engineering Command (USAISEC) East Coast Field Office at Fort Detrick.

On September 30, 1998 Fort Ritchie ceased operations and the BRAC recommendations were implemented. Approximately 714 military personnel and 607 civilian personnel were relocated as a result of Base closure. A National Guard Enclave remained on a 19.3-acre site at the installation. All its remaining assets were turned over to the PenMar Redevelopment Corporation whose purpose is to find tenants who can use the former Fort Ritchie's buildings and other facilities.

Following the closure announcement, the Army conducted an Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) at Fort Ritchie that documented the environmental conditions related to hazardous waste and materials at the installation. The EBS was used to identify contaminated and uncontaminated property parcels. Next, the Army contracted The Louis Berger Group (Berger) to begin preparation of this EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The purpose of NEPA in the BRAC process is to address the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of disposing of the property and, secondarily, the impacts of foreseeable reuse alternatives.

In the EIS, Berger explored several methods of property disposal, including the transfer to another federal agency, conveyance to the public at a discount, conveyance for economic development, negotiated sale, and competitive sale.

Two alternatives to the immediate disposal of the property as excess were investigated in the EIS; the No Action and Encumbered Disposal alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, Fort Ritchie would be placed into an inactive or "caretaker" status until the property disposal process is completed. The Encumbered Disposal Alternative would have involved the transference of the property with conditions imposed by the Army to protect natural and cultural resources.

From the alternatives considered, a preferred alternative was identified. The disposal and reuse of the excess property made available by the BRAC, with the retention of the National Guard Enclave was analyzed as the proposed action. This proposed action resulted in the cessation of military operations and the disposal of approximately 638 acres of property and 252 buildings. Approximately 310 acres of the BRAC disposal property are currently developed areas and 328 acres are undeveloped. The facilities include administrative buildings, a helipad, parade grounds, maintenance facilities, community facilities including a chapel and library, family and troop housing, two manmade lakes, roads, and other infrastructure. The remaining 19.3 acres were retained by the Army for use as a National Guard Enclave. The National Guard Enclave was not evaluated in this EIS since it is not a part of the BRAC disposal property.

The responsibilities of the Army after Congress's decision to close the Base could have ended with the analysis of impacts associated with that closure. Consistent with the Army's commitment to the region however, potential impacts and mitigation measures for various Base reuse scenarios were explored. The Army chose to look at how the scenarios could possibly effect its' long-time neighbors and the reuse of the property was evaluated as a secondary action to be taken by other non-Army organizations. Three levels of development intensity were evaluated for Fort Ritchie:

The land use intensities referred to the ratio of persons, buildings, or a level of development to a fixed unit of land. In the context of study, medium intensity reuse was characterized as full buildout and a considerable amount of activity, while low intensity reuse was characterized by minimal site activity.

The EIS identified and evaluated the anticipated direct and indirect adverse impacts of the primary action (disposal) and the secondary action (reuse) alternatives with respect to the following resource categories: Land Use; Climate; Air Quality; Noise; Geology, Soils, and Topography; Water Resources; Infrastructure; Hazardous and Toxic Substances; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Legacy Resources; Sociological Environment; Economic Development; Quality of Life; Installation Agreements; and Permits and Regulatory Authorizations. The environmental impacts of each alternative are summarized below.

There were no actions associated with the disposal of Fort Ritchie that required mitigation or permits, however, there were measures that the Army could take to assist in minimizing the potential minor impacts anticipated from the disposal alternatives. These measures included:

Continued work with the Local Redevelopment Agency to ensure that encumbered disposal transactions are consistent with the proposed reuse plan for the installation;
The maintenance of all installation buildings, infrastructure, and natural resources in caretaker status; and
Notifying future owners of the property of particular obligations concerning environmental, cultural resources, hazardous waste and other environmental conditions.

Although the Army, has no responsibility to explore mitigation measures for reuse, the following points general mitigation actions were identified for implementation by other parties for the reduction, avoidance, or compensation of potential impacts resulting from their actions.

Effective site planning and design, and the establishment of adequate buffer zones between certain land uses where appropriate.
Over time, the Washington County officials could also assume an increased role in regulating growth and development within the installation and the surrounding area.
Best management practices to reduce sediment loading to surface water resources could be applied to reduce potential adverse impacts on water quality associated with the Low-Medium and Medium Intensity reuse alternatives. The construction of stormwater retention systems could help reduce potential adverse impacts associated with runoff from impervious surfaces and construction sites.
Where disturbances to soil resources can not be avoided, erosion control measures including desilting basins, sediment traps, silt fences, straw barriers, and revegetation could be constructed to reduce potential impacts.
Minimal disturbance to closed canopy forested areas on the installation is recommended for the benefit of breeding birds and other wildlife species. It is recommended that future property owners continue to manage existing fisheries resources at the installation.

The Department of the Army acknowledged Berger's performance on this project through its' award of a Certificate of Appreciation. Noting that the Ritchie BRAC EIS received the highest ever EPA rating of any BRAC EIS, the Army expressed its appreciation of Berger's conscientiousness, diligence and professionalism. The development of a useful document which adheres to the NEPA process, and the recognition by the client for a job well-done, is the type of outcome Berger values for all of its' projects.


	About Us Locations Sectors Services News Employment Login Contact Us