This document is a reconstructed version of the Development Plan and Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Assessment for the new addition to NSA Headquarters located at Fort Meade, Maryland called “Site M”.  The document was originally part of a series which seem to have inadvertently been made publicly available via the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ FTP server located at: ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/pub/nab/New%20Folder/NativeFiles/ The documents were removed before they could be downloaded, however, versions of the documents cached by Google allow them to be reconstructed with a high level of completeness, missing only the images/figures.

(U) Site M Area Development Plan and ATFP Study

PREPARED FOR:
US Army Corps of Engineers
FINAL SUBMITTAL – May 31, 2011

W912DR-10-D-0024

Delivery Order #0003 & #0004

 

1.0 (U) Introduction 1-1

1.1 (U) Purpose and Scope of the Area Development Plan 1-1
1.2 (U) Site M Background 1-2
1.3 (U) ADP Planning Process 1-4

2.0 (U) Existing Conditions 2-1

2.1 (U) Introduction 2-1
2.2 (U) Natural Conditions 2-2
2.3 (U) Built Conditions 2-10
2.4 (U) Circulation and Access 2-16
2.5 (U) Utilities 2-18
2.6 (U) Opportunities and Constraints 2-20

3.0 (U) Alternative Concept Plans 3-1

3.1 (U) Introduction 3-1
3.2 (U) Planning History 3-1
3.3 (U) Visioning 3-2
3.4 (U) Evaluation Criteria 3-6
3.5 (U) Development Program 3-7
3.6 (U) Initial Concepts 3-8
3.7 (U) Refined Concepts 3-11
3.8 (U) Preferred Plan 3-15

4.0 (U) Area Development Plan 4-1

4.1 (U) Land Use and Zoning 4-2
4.2 (U) Site M Parcels 4-4
4.4 (U) Site Layout 4-6
4.5 (U) Utilities 4-20
4.6 (U) Circulation and Parking 4-24
4.7 (U) Green Campus Initiatives 4-28

5.0 (U) Site M Anti-Terrorism / Force Protection (AT/FP) Plan 5-1

5.1 (U) Introduction 5-1
5.2 (U) Current AT/FP Situation 5-2
5.3 (U) Existing AT/FP Standards, Guidelines and Policies 5-4
5.4 (U) Site M AT/FP 5-5
5.5 (U) Phasing 5-24

6.0 (U) Cost Estimate 6-1

7.0 (U) Conclusion 7-1

1. (U) Introduction

1. (U) Purpose and Scope of the Area Development Plan

(U) The Site M Area Development Plan (ADP) for the National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) coordinates the development of facilities on Site M at Fort George G. Meade (Ft. Meade), allowing for growth and expansion over time. Site M development is planned to consist of administrative buildings, operation buildings, High Performance Computing Centers (HPCC) and associated support facilities.

(U) Previous studies have illustrated the long-term relationship between the National Security Agency Washington (NSAW) Exclusive Use Area (EUA) and Site M and they provide the foundation for the ADP. The NSAW Real Property Master Plan (RPMP) in particular, provides the basis for the development strategy. In addition, other studies are also being undertaken to develop detailed plans for Site M, which include the Utilities Availability and Distribution Master Plan (UAD) and development of DD Form 1391s for individual facilities on the site. The intent of the ADP is to provide an overall master plan that will guide development of the individual facilities over the next five to ten years.

(U) The Site M ADP provides a detailed approach to site development including facility siting, site grading, site zoning, facility relationships, gross building areas, functional space requirements, environmental issues and design recommendations. Several key drivers and themes have been critical to the development of these plans including phasing of the development, maximizing the development potential of the site, ensuring the necessary space for utilities to meet long term requirements, interconnection with the existing campus, security and protecting sensitive environmental areas. A more detailed list of development criteria developed as part of this study is included in Section 3.3.

2. (U) Site M Background

(U//FOUO) Site M has been proposed for development since the development of the Fort Meade Comprehensive Expansion Master Plan (CEMP) completed in May 2005. Site M, along with Sites F and G, are component parcels of the Applewood and Park golf courses and total approximately 435 acres dedicated to future development as part of the Fort Meade CEMP. A planned relocation of the two 18-hole golf facilities will allow greater public access and to free land at the core of Fort Meade for development of secure Government activities.

(U//FOUO) Site M is located to the east of the NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus (See Figure 1-1) and has gently rolling topography with limited areas of steep slopes. The highest elevation is located in the western part of the site adjacent to NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus and is mostly wooded. Site M includes ancillary buildings that support golfing activities (i.e., maintenance and clubhouse buildings). The site is surrounded by housing areas to the north and northeast, NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus operations, satellite communications (SATCOM), open areas, and troop housing to the northwest, and mixed-use areas to the south and east (including open areas, community facilities, maintenance areas, troop housing, parade grounds, service and industrial facilities).

(U) The CEMP originally designated Site M as two divided sites: Site M1 (the northern half of Site M) and Site M2 (the southern half of Site M). Initial expansion of the NSAW EUA was planned for Site M1 with Site M2 planned for long-term NSAW operational use. The Site M ADP eliminates this distinction, providing a single boundary for Site M (See Figure 1-1). The site boundary is roughly the same as the fence line around NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus, with the addition of Site M. Sites F and G, parcels adjacent to Site M, are designated for use by Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) and Defense Media Activity (DMA), respectively. DISA has completed construction and DMA is currently under construction and will be operational in 2011.

(U//FOUO) The ADP re-examined Site M in total and redefined the site boundaries to encompass a total of 243 acres – with approximately 12 acres at the eastern edge set aside for continued use of the clubhouse and development of a driving range and practice putting facility.

Figure 1-1: (U) Site M Context

3. (U) ADP Planning Process

(U) Development of the ADP occurred through a several step process that included fact finding, site analysis and participation in a week-long workshop, refinement of the workshop plan and coordination of the plan with the Recapitalization Building study, Joint Operations (JOC) Center study and the UAD. This report summarizes the results of each of these planning steps. The fact finding and site analysis process included interviews with a number of key stakeholders and collection and review of previous studies related to site development, building requirements, utilities, security, and parking and circulation. To help summarize the important site planning drivers, a series of existing condition maps were prepared, as well as a summary constraints map which illustrates critical setbacks, areas of environmental concern, and potential site access points.

• (U) The week-long workshop involved stakeholders from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Maryland Procurement Office (MPO) and the consultant team. The workshop schedule included review of background information, presentation of other example campuses for reference, and break out work sessions to discuss the details of the key drivers.
• (U) During the week, the consultant team developed a number of site plan options for Site M that were presented and evaluated to narrow the options and identify a preferred plan for the site. A plan was identified at the end of the week to carry forward, refine and document as part of this report. A Draft ADP report was previously submitted. This Final ADP report was prepared incorporating comments on the Draft. Also, a more detailed description of the Workshop is included in Section 3.0 of this document.

Figure 1-2: (U) Planning Process

Figure 1-3: (U) Site M Aerial

2. (U) Existing Conditions

1. (U) Introduction

(U) A site analysis of the Fort Meade property designated as Site M is described in this section along with the opportunities and constraints affecting development.

(U) Detailed site documentation, contained in this report, covers existing natural conditions, including topography, geology and soils, hydrology, vegetation, wildlife and critical habitat. This report also examines the existing built conditions of Site M, including historic and cultural resources, hazardous sites, utility systems, circulation and access, and security and antiterrorism/force protection (AT/FP) requirements.

2. (U) Natural Conditions

(U//FOUO) The following sections provide a detailed description and analysis of the natural conditions of Site M.

1. (U) Topography

(U) Site M elevations range from a high point of 260 feet above mean sea level in the northwest corner (adjacent to NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus) to a low point of 124 feet in the southwest corner at the intersection of Mapes Road and O’Brien Road. Site M topography ranges from rolling areas to relatively flat areas of land with the exception of six localized areas throughout the site that have moderately steep slopes.

(U) The topographic elevation and slope analysis in Figure 2-1 graphically displays the following:

• (U) Site elevation in 20-foot intervals.
• (U) Major ridges and drainage areas.
• (U) Steep slope areas categorized as:
  • (U) 15–25 percent – Slopes in this range severely restrict all forms of construction. Roadways and utilities are difficult to build on these slopes and building construction requires unique engineering solutions. Soil erosion can be a serious problem.
  • (U) 25 + percent – Slopes above 25 percent are rare on the site and usually affiliated with a drainage swale or man-made grading adjacent to buildings. Any natural slopes in this range should not be disturbed, and built slopes should be managed carefully.

Figure 2-1: (U) Topography

2. (U) Geology and Soils

(U) The geology and soils information that follows and is shown in Figure 2-2 is taken from the NSAW RPMP, which is based upon the 1995 Soil Survey of Fort Meade and the 2003 Soil Survey for Anne Arundel County.

(U) Site M is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. It is underlain by a wedge-shaped mass of unconsolidated coastal plain sediments above metamorphic crystalline rock of the Precambrian to early Cambrian ages. The bedrock surface dips to the southeast and is the lower hydraulic confining layer for the overlying Potomac Group unconsolidated sediments, which include (from oldest to youngest) the Patuxent, Arundel, and Patapsco Formations.

(U) The Patapsco Formation contains an upper, middle, and lower unit. The upper Patapsco unit is distinguished by medium to fine, yellow-brown, orange-brown, tan sand and silty sand. The middle Patapsco unit consists of thick, tough, highly plastic, mottled, reddish-brown to light gray clay. The lower Patapsco unit is comprised of medium-fine, silty sand, grading with depth to coarser sand.

(U) The Arundel Formation consists mainly of red and brown clays, with some places containing ironstone nodules. It is poorly drained and has a high shrink-swell potential. There are no aquifers as the small spaces between clay particles do not allow for easy penetration and withdrawal of water.

(U) The Patuxent formation consists of sand, gravel, sandy clay, and clay. The sand and gravel commonly occur in one or two widespread sheet-like units, which constitute the water-bearing part of the formation. The gravels are coarse stones generally less than 3 inches in diameter, consisting of quartz and quartzite. The sands are cross-bedded and the clay layers confine the underground flow of water supply for many areas in the formation.

(U) When considering soils on Site M, development limitations can be defined primarily by slope and areas of wetness caused by seasonal high water. Soils having “severe” limitations to development are generally unfavorable for construction of small commercial buildings (of four floors or less). The areas on the site rated with severe constraints have flooding and wetness conditions and are associated with streams or wetlands. Some soils that are unstable on steep slopes also occur on the site, but none of these areas have slopes steep enough to be a constraint. Soils classified as having “moderate” limitations to development pose fewer constraints whereas soils with “slight” limitations have little or no constraint to development of small commercial buildings. These three classifications are described for preliminary planning purposes. Specific soil conditions should be further investigated to determine the extent of development limitations.

Figure 2-2: (U) Soils

3. (U) Hydrology

(U) Two streams occur on Site M – Midway Branch and one unnamed tributary. Midway Branch enters Site M just south of the Rockenbach Road and Cooper Avenue intersection and continues directly south to Mapes Road. The path of the stream is straight with a few meandering sections. The stream is routed through culverts at several locations throughout the golf course. See Figure 2-3 for an illustration of the existing hydrology. Midway Branch originates off-post and flows through the campus. Its watershed encompasses approximately 3,106 acres, with roughly 46 percent of this comprising developed land. A 2002 USACE watershed assessment of Midway Branch concluded that the habitat condition was fair. The study also recommended restoration opportunities that included restoring riparian buffer vegetation and planting new vegetative cover to stabilize stream banks.

(U) The unnamed tributary is located in the southwest corner of Site M in the forest conservation area near the intersection of Mapes Road and O’Brien Road. This unnamed tributary drains into the NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus, which is located in a subwatershed that is delineated by the tenant boundary instead of topography. This tributary eventually drains into a stormwater management wetland area before passing under Route 32 and into another subwatershed, which eventually drains into Little Patuxent River.

(U) There are a few small wetland areas located along the Midway Branch on the northeastern edge of Site M, which are identified in the 2010 Fort Meade Campus Development Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

(U) The golf course drains into the Midway Branch, which is of concern due to lack of riparian buffers and associated pollutants from various herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers used for golf course maintenance. Any development on Site M would require stormwater retention and treatment before the release of contaminant-laden stormwater into tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. A 100-foot buffer must be established, preserved, and maintained between development and the on-site streams to comply with state environmental laws and policies. The buffer acts as a water quality filter for the removal or the reduction of sediment, nutrients, and toxic substances found in surface runoff. The buffer also minimizes the adverse impact of human activities on habitat within the critical area.

(U) According to the MD Department of Natural Resources, all of Fort Meade and surrounding Anne Arundel County fall within Maryland’s Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) area. The CZMP, established by Executive Order and approved in 1978, is a network of State laws and policies designed to protect coastal and marine resources. The program strives to achieve a balance between development and protection in the coastal zone. In addition, Ft. Meade falls within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and Federal facilities within this watershed are required to minimize runoff.

Figure 2-3: (U) Hydrology

4. (U) Vegetation and Habitat

(U) Forest coverage on Site M is concentrated to the west and surrounds the existing golf course fairways.

(U) Under present conditions, wooded areas provide habitat to waterfowl such as mallards on an intermittent basis when rainfall is sufficient. In addition, although a formal inventory has not been compiled for the wooded areas, they are home to deer, rabbits, squirrels and songbirds, such as the scarlet tanager. Bluebirds historically nested in large numbers in the area, but recently have relocated as the woodland footprint has been reduced due to development.

(U) Fort Meade voluntarily complies with the Maryland Forest Conservation Act (FCA). In keeping with the FCA standards and in lieu of performing a Forest Stand Delineation and Conservation Plan for individual projects, the campus requires that the equivalent of 20 percent of a project area to be forested. To the extent possible, this would occur within the project area to enhance forest corridors and preserve existing tree cover. Preservation of dominant trees and woodland areas may be credited towards FCA requirements. Forestation that cannot feasibly be performed within a project area is required to be performed on other designated lands within the campus. A planting plan and specifications are a required component of a project’s planning documents. In addition, all forested areas should be planted with native and dominant species to allow existing forestland to grow naturally without hindrance.

(U) One critical habitat site was identified within Site M during a natural heritage inventory conducted for Fort Meade in 1993 and 1994 and is shown in See Figure 2-4. The site is located adjacent to a forested area along the west central border of Site M, in an area identified in the Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) as the U.S. Army Antenna Site. The site supports two species, shaved sedge (Carex tonsa) and Asa Gray’s sedge (Carex grayi or Cyperus grayi), which at the time of the inventory were listed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources as “highly rare” and “watch list” species, respectively. These two plant species and another “watch list” plant species, chinquapin (Castanea pumila) that was later identified in the same area, are no longer listed under the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Heritage Program. However, the U.S. Army Antenna Site is reported in the Site M Constraints Analysis Report to be “one of the few old field sites remaining on Fort Meade that contains remnants of a native plant community.” Shaved sedge and Asa Gray’s sedge were still present on the site in field surveys completed in 2001 and were considered to have State importance in the Fort Meade Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. Therefore, the U.S. Army Antenna site is still considered by USACE to be critical habitat and a development constraint.

Figure 2-4: (U) Habitat and Vegetation

3. (U) Built Conditions

(U//FOUO) The following sections provide a detailed description and analysis of the built conditions at Site M.

1. (U) Historic and Cultural Resources

(U) An Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) was prepared for Fort Meade in 2001 and is shown in Figure 2-5. The ICRMP identifies three archaeological and historic sites within the Site M boundaries. These sites include two prehistoric sites recommended for Phase II Cultural Resource Evaluation and one historic site recommended for protection. Phase II investigations were completed in 2003.

(U) Site 18AN234 was initially identified in 1972 by a groundskeeper for the golf course. At that time, several lithic artifacts, including a possible projectile point (arrow or spear head), were recovered from the ground surface. Since the initial identification, the area around 18AN234 has been dramatically altered. It appears that 18AN234 has been disturbed and no evidence of archaeological resources remains.

(U) Site 18AN930 was a camp site occupied from the Late Archaic through the Woodland Periods (3,000 B.C. through A.D. 1600). The Phase II evaluation of the site yielded only two eroded, quartz-tempered ceramic shards dating to the Woodland Period. No other diagnostic artifacts were recovered, and no features were identified during the Phase II excavations. The artifact density was low, and no horizontal or vertical patterning was observed.

(U) Neither of these sites is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The State Historic Preservation Office concurred that no further work was required at any of the three sites.

(U) A third site, identified as an historic cemetery, predates the establishment of Fort Meade. This site is located about 650 feet north of the golf clubhouse and is recommended for protection in the ICRMP. Additionally, based on reports from Fort Meade personnel, there are potentially two other small cemeteries within the boundaries of Site M that are not identified in the ICRMP. The reported general locations of these cemeteries are directly south of the U.S. Army Antenna Site and approximately 550 feet south of the intersection of Rockenbach Road and Cooper Avenue. A cemetery delineation study should be conducted to determine the exact boundaries of the cemetery if it will be affected by the development of Site M.

Figure 2-5: (U) Historic and Cultural Resources

2. (U) Hazardous Waste and Materials

(U) Based on findings in the 2004 EBS, several Environmental Conditions of Property (ECOP) parcels are located on Site M (See Figure 2-6). These parcels are classified as Category 7, meaning that they require further evaluation to assess whether the release or disposal of hazardous materials has occurred. Remediation of these parcels may be required prior to or during development.

(U) According to the ECOP Survey, Parcel 1 is a 4.2-acre area that contains visible areas of fill material, including deteriorated 55-gallon drums. Large geophysical anomalies were recorded during the survey. Concentrations of iron and arsenic in soil samples exceed the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) cleanup standard and anticipated typical concentration (ATC). Additionally, aluminum, iron, and manganese in groundwater samples exceed MDE cleanup standards. Recommended actions include further investigation to confirm the presence of hazardous substances, continued environmental evaluation to better characterize the nature of and delineate the extent of contamination, and performance of an interim removal action of the fill. Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) may be present in the fill. Remediation of UXO located on Site M is in-progress. Further evaluation of background metal concentrations to assess potential significance of reported metals is also recommended. Parcel 1 is identified as an area to be developed (structure, road, sidewalk, or utility construction) under this ADP.

(U) Parcel 2 totals 3.2 acres and includes two areas of interest. The first area contains a geophysical anomaly and concentrations of benzaldehyde in soil samples, exceeding the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III Risk Based Concentration (RBC) 2 for residential soil (no MDE standard exists). Explosive compounds were also found in the soil samples from this area. Visible fill was observed in the adjacent area. Samples from both areas in Parcel 2 exceed the MDE standards for arsenic in soil and aluminum, iron, and manganese in groundwater. Recommended actions include the assessment of the anomaly and further investigation of the background metal concentrations in groundwater. Required cleanup procedures may include excavation of fill, debris, and contaminated soil. Parcel 2 is identified as an area to be developed (structure, road, sidewalk, or utility construction) under this ADP.

(U) Parcel 3 totals 3.3 acres and is the current location of the golf course maintenance facility. This facility consists of six buildings, five of which have been used for the storage of various hazardous wastes (e.g., unused and used oil, pesticides, fertilizer, and aboveground and underground storage tanks). Groundwater samples collected in this parcel exceed MDE cleanup standards for 1,1,2,2-trichloroethane and EPA tap water standards for heptachlor epoxide and tetrachloroethene. Diesel range organics, arsenic, and mercury levels exceed MDE soil cleanup standards in surface soil collected from a stain area near Building 8860.

Figure 2-6: (U) ECOP Parcels

(U) The Site M buildings may also contain asbestos and lead-based paint. Recommended actions include evaluation of groundwater to determine the extent of contamination and evaluation of soils at Building 8860 to determine the vertical extent of soil contamination. Remedial action may include soil excavation, management of lead-based paint, and deed restrictions to address the contaminated groundwater. Parcel 3 is within an area to be developed (structure, road, sidewalk, or utility construction) under this ADP.

(U) Parcel 4 is a 1.5-acre area. Groundwater samples collected in this area exceed MDE standards for aluminum, iron, and manganese in groundwater. Further evaluation of the background metal concentrations is recommended. Parcel 4 is identified as an area to be developed (structure, road, sidewalk, or utility construction) under this ADP.

(U) Parcel 5, which is roughly 0.4 acres, contains soils that exceed MDE standards and ATC for aluminum, arsenic, iron, and chromium. Further evaluation of the potential extent of soil impact and possible impact to groundwater is recommended. Parcel 5 is identified as an area to be developed (structure, road, sidewalk, or utility construction) under this ADP.

(U) Parcel 7 is 81.3 acres of land located to the west of Site M. The land parcel is currently occupied by four golf holes, a softball field, and a forest. Parcel 7 lies within the boundary of a former mortar range. Limited geophysical investigation confirmed the presence of magnetic anomalies and potential UXO. As a result, ordnance and explosives may be present. Aluminum, iron, and manganese levels in groundwater samples exceed MDE cleanup standards. Recommended actions include further investigation of background metal concentrations in groundwater. Parcel 7 is identified as an area to be developed primarily as roads and sidewalks under this ADP.

(U) Parcel 8 is 2.7 acres. Aluminum, iron, lead, manganese, and nickel in groundwater samples from this parcel exceed MDE standards. Geophysical anomalies were also identified in the area. Recommended actions include further evaluation of the nature and extent of lead and nickel in the groundwater and further investigation into the background metal concentrations to determine whether reported aluminum, iron, and manganese are of concern. Parcel 8 is identified as an area to be developed with a parking structure and road/sidewalk under this ADP.

(U) UXO may be encountered in the historic range areas and range safety zones located in the southwest portion of Site M, including ECOP Parcel 7 (See Figure 2-7). A UXO survey with exploratory test pitting is underway to evaluate the identity of magnetic anomalies. This type of survey, while a relatively low-level effort, requires the expertise of personnel trained in UXO avoidance and construction support. If the magnetic anomalies are confirmed to be ordnance-related items, remediation may require a moderate to high-level effort.

Figure 2-7: (U) Unexploded Ordnance Areas

4. (U) Circulation and Access

(U) This portion of the report focuses on the transportation systems that directly impact Site M.

1. (U//FOUO) External Access

(U//FOUO) Site M can be accessed (via secured gates) from MD 32, MD 175, Fort Meade Road (MD 198), and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. MD 175 and MD 32 are important perimeter highways that provide access to the Fort Meade entry/exit gates. Ft. Meade uses ten controlled access points, of which eight are actively in use and connect with the surrounding road network. Three of the externally controlled access points are dedicated to the NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus including Vehicle Control Point (VCP) 1, located at MD 32 and Canine Road, VCP 6 located at MD 32 and Samford Road, and VCP 2 located at the exit from MD 295 South. The vehicle control point intersections and interchanges are shown in Figure 2-8.

2. (U) Internal Access and Circulation

(U) Internal access to the NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus from the Fort Meade cantonment area is controlled by gates located on Rockenbach Road (VCP 3), on O’Brien Road near its intersection with Rockenbach (VCP 4), and north of Mapes Road (VCP 5). The gates on Rockenbach Road (VCP 3) and O’Brien Road at Rockenbach Road (VCP 4) are closed during off-peak hours.

(U) The main roads within Fort Meade are Mapes Road, Reece Road, and Rockenbach Road in the east-west direction, and O’Brien Road, Cooper Avenue, and Ernie Pyle Road in the north-south direction. MD 175 and MD 32 are important perimeter highways. O’Brien Road forms the western boundary of Site M and separates it from the NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus. Rockenbach Road forms the northern boundary of Site M, and the intersection of Cooper Avenue marks the northeast corner of Site M. From the south, a loop road extends from Mapes Road into Site M, accessing the existing clubhouse and golf course facilities.

Figure 2-8: (U) Site M Circulation and Access

5. (U) Utilities

The following section provides a brief summary of the existing utility conditions on Site M, for more detailed discussion of the utilities please see the UAD report.

(U) Water

The water treatment and distribution system has been privatized and is now operated by American Water Military Services Group (AW). The water facilities that are in the proximity of Site M are the water storage tanks on Chaffee Hill next to SATCOM and Pershing Hill Tank located north of Rockenbach Road. There is an upper pressure zone and a lower pressure zone that serves the existing NSA Campus but these do not currently connect to Site M. Development of Site M will link to these systems but due to the scale of construction, additional capacity will need to be provided as part of the program.

(U) Wastewater

The wastewater system was also privatized and is under the management of American Water. The system includes the wastewater treatment plan south of Rt 32 and a series of sewer sub basins to collect water from the site and connect with the treatment plan. Site M falls within 2 sub basins – C and D with the Midway branch being the divide between sub basins C and B. A key consideration for the development of Site M is the existing Line C which traverses the eastern side of Site M and may need to be relocated as part of the development of Site M.

(U) Stormwater

The existing stormwater system at Site M consists of broad drainage swales, small drainage ditches, golf course culverts, and golf course under drains. The site generally drains to the east and southeast toward the Midway Branch which is a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. There is a 100 year floodplain along the Midway which impacts a part of the Site M in the east. Currently, since Site M is a golf course, there are no stormwater management facilities located on site.

(U) Electricity

Electrical power is supplied to the NSA/ CSS Ft. Meade by Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE). Power is fed to the site via several feeders through a series of distribution substations that feed all of Ft. Meade. Currently there are two new substations planned for the existing Agency campus, but these substations are not planned to have capacity to serve Site M. There is a planned future 115 kV line that will be designed to link the new Tipton Substation with Site M. This system is in design. Within Site M the only existing power comes from the Mapes Road line and connects to the clubhouse and maintenance facility.

(U) Natural Gas

BGE is the main distributor of natural gas at Ft. Meade. The natural gas system in the vicinity of Site M runs in the north along Rockenbach Road and in the south along Mapes Road. Additional data has been requested from BGE to determine their ability to serve Site M with natural gas either from these existing lines or through additional lines connecting with the site.

(U) Telecommunications

Commercial carrier telecommunications exist on Rockenbach Road and O’Brien Road. There potential connection points with these existing telecommunication lines at manholes near Mapes and O’Brien and just north of Site M on Rockenbach Road. The NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus has an extensive system of duct banks that support telecommunications running through the campus, but most of these lines are at or near capacity so making future connections between Site M and the existing campus will require additional telecommunication pathways to be established to support the required needs of Site M.

6. (U) Opportunities and Constraints

The following section provides a summary list of the opportunities and constraints affecting the long-term development of Site M. Opportunities and constraints provide the foundation for the development of the Alternative Concept Plans in Section 3.0 and the Area Development Plan in Section 4.0. Figure 2-9 illustrates Site M constraints.

1. (U) Opportunities

• Environmental Resources:
  • Existing Vegetation – potential to retain some vegetation to provide quality green space and visual buffer
  • Sloping Topography – provides visual interest – could be used to access multiple levels of buildings and parking
• Built Environment:
  • Lack of existing built features on site allows for an opportunity to create a new type of campus to support cyber security requirements of the future and provide quality environment for recruiting new employees

2. (U) Constraints

• Environmental Resources:
  • Requirement to replace removed tree cover on site
  • Existing Steep Slopes limits some areas for development and will increase the cost of site development due to grading
  • Timeframe to clean up hazardous sites
  • Cemetery / Historic Site – requires access and protection
• Built Environment:
  • Greenfield location – limited existing infrastructure
  • Need for additional electricity capacity to serve Site M
  • Requirement to relocate or integrate the existing sewer line and water line that runs through the site and serves areas north and south of the site to another area on Site M.
  • Access to Site M – site currently has no (or limited access) so plan needs to provide best ways to extend road network into the site
  • Constraints of existing campus utilities and extending these facilities to Site M
• Operational:
  • Operational requirements for SATCOM
  • Retain some capacity of golf (golf clubhouse and driving range)
  • Required 400-foot AT/FP setbacks from all external boundaries

Figure 2-9: (U) Consolidated Constraints

3. (U) Alternative Concept Plans

1. (U) Introduction

(U//FOUO) This chapter of the ADP addresses alternative development concepts considered for Site M. As described in the previous chapter, the site analyzed in this document consists of the portion of Fort Meade designated as Site M. The site consists of approximately 243 acres of the Fort Meade Golf Course, as described in detail in the previous chapter.

(U) A five-day workshop was held the week of November 1 – November 5, 2010 to develop a recommended ADP for Site M. A detailed summary of the workshop is included in the Appendix. The full project team, including members from the USACE, MPO and the consulting team participated, including engineers, architects, planners, environmental specialists and security and space planning experts. The resulting conceptual site plan reflects the full range of knowledge, ideas, and recommended approach to developing the site and creating a flexible, scalable and executable plan for development at Site M.

(U) This chapter also describes the process for selecting the preferred development concept. This process, with its multiple concepts and screening criteria, is summarized in this chapter. It includes a summary of all of the initial concepts considered, the narrowing down of those into a select number of refined concepts, and ultimately, the selection of the preferred plan.

2. (U) Planning History

(U) Site M has been the subject of a number of site planning studies, with various concepts for development prepared for the unique requirements identified at that time. Over time, key themes for development of the site have included “smart” growth, scalability and flexibility. The building and infrastructure layout can significantly influence the achievement of these goals at this site. The team set out to develop a vision for the site that identified the lessons learned from previous studies, as well as other campus type developments, in order to set the direction for the long-term vision for the site.

(U) The Ft. Meade Comprehensive Expansion Master Plan, prepared in 2005 identified the golf courses that comprise Site M as a potential area for future campus expansion. Several master plans for Site M were developed as part of a property analysis completed by the Louis Berger Group in 2005 and 2008. In 2008, the Ft. Meade RPMP was completed and provided a vision for Site M as part of the recapitalization of the Main Campus. Finally, the Operations Center Charrette, in 2009, illustrated a concept for a new Operations Center as a focus for Site M.

3. (U) Visioning

(U) In order to stimulate feedback on the vision for development on Site M, new institutional and governmental complexes. Over the past 50 years, seven basic types of “campuses” have evolved. Common factors involved with each type include:

• A main entrance or entry
• Wayfinding (signage) systems
• Shared services among users and campus residents
• Proximity and communications among users
• Planning flexibility to accommodate growth
• A sense of community

(U) A typical campus layout is an “Office Park” (Figure 3-1). Some of the key design potentially lower first cost, and efficient floor plans. Design constraints sometimes include an unclear main entry, wayfinding challenges and movement between buildings, little shared services, a limited sense of “community” and limited privacy.

(U) Another type of campus layout design can be characterized as a “Village” (Figure 3-2). Design benefits for this type of layout include outdoor connecting paths, a relationship between the building and site, good internal circulation, potentially a “great commons” accessible to all tenants, and a development pattern that it is expandable. Constraints with this type of development include an indistinguishable entrance, challenging wayfinding, and an “informal” character, lacking a clear identity or hierarchy.

Figure 3-1: (U) Office Park Figure 3-2: (U) Village

(U) Another prototypical campus design is based on the examples of “College Campuses”. Traditional benefits of this type of layout include outdoor connecting paths, a clear sense of “inside/outside”, an identifiable outdoor common “green”, collegiality or sense of community, good internal way-finding systems and efficient floor plates. Drawbacks to this type of design can include identifying the “front character.

(U) “Hub and Spoke” (Figure 3-3) – type campus designs include benefits such as comprehensible way-finding and a clear main entrance. Design constraints with this type of design include no exterior circulation, limitations for exit strategy, a perception of no connections beyond the campus, lack of functionality, limited expansion possibilities, and less efficient floor plans.

(U) The “Flying Bridge” (Figure 3-4) – type of campus design includes benefits such as good interior circulation, a variation of scales with specific nodes, good exterior access and centralized amenities. Constraints with this type of design include an unclear main entry, lack of connectivity, limited ability to expand, and less efficient floor plans.

Figure 3-3: (U) Hub and Spoke Figure 3-4: (U) Flying Bridge

(U) Another example of campus design is an “Airport”-like layout (Figure 3-5), which includes design benefits such as good movement between spaces, a clear entry, and expandability. Design constraints include challenges with way-finding, a long distance to parking, sparse surrounds and less efficient floor plans.

(U) The final example of campus design can be characterized as an “Aircraft Carrier”(Figure 3-6), which includes benefits such as easily secured, good site approach, open floor plans and expandability. Design constraints include an ambiguous main entry, challenging wayfinding, sense of scale and less efficient floor plans.
Figure 3-5: (U) Airport Figure 3-6: (U) Aircraft Carrier

(U) The first exercise undertaken at the Site M site layout charrette was the development of a cohesive vision statement. Example vision statements were collected from all of the charrette participants and consolidated into four separate vision statements. These, in turn, were further consolidated into the Vision Statement for the Site M ADP, which is as follows:

• Provide a flexible, secure environment that supports the mission and allows growth and changes with the new iconic campus of the intelligence community.
• Realize the development of a comprehensive plan for an employee centric, state-of-the-art campus for the intelligence community that accommodates an ever changing and expanding mission.
• Create a functional, efficient and high performing campus that is scalable and allows for phased development without disturbing the mission of the organization.
• Create a modern, human-scale campus that supports a large, collaborative workforce and fulfills immediate and long-term capabilities envisioned to meet a dynamic adversary while providing the highest attainable levels of sustainability and quality-of-life.

4. (U) Evaluation Criteria

(U) To help in identifying the best plan for Site M, a series of evaluation criteria were developed based on discussions with stakeholders during the investigations and during the workshop. These criteria are intended to address the full range of goals for the development of Site M to meet identified mission requirements and are as follows:

Ease of Phasing

• Can the plan be easily phased to allow for funding of complete projects through a step-by-step process

Allows Scalability

• Can the plan be expanded over time both for additional buildings and additional growth in utility requirements to meet future mission requirements

Incorporates Flexibility

• Can the plan and layout of buildings provide flexibility to meet mission change, support multiple tenants, and allow for re-purposing of the buildings over time.

Supports Collaboration

• Can the plan offer ease of access between users and places for collaboration such as outdoor areas or interior gathering spaces

Achieves Security Requirement

• Can the plan meet the physical and operational requirements for security including gates, single points of entry, security setbacks and separation of critical infrastructure

Provides Mission Critical Infrastructure

• Can the plan meet the critical mission requirements, provide redundancy, sustainability and continuity of operations

Creates Efficient Circulation Pattern

• Can the plan provide ease of access, parking and support shuttle service to the site, as well as limit vehicular and pedestrian conflicts

Establishes High Quality Campus

• Can the plan provide a high quality and attractive campus for future employees

Sensitive to Existing Site Conditions

• Can the plan preserve the existing topography, vegetation and cultural resources on the site as well as address potential hazardous sites

Maximizes Future Development Potential

• Can the plan provide the greatest potential amount of development on Site M

(U) These criteria were used in the qualitative evaluation of the alternatives developed during the weeklong workshop and to narrow the options and identify the preferred plan for site M.

5. (U) Development Program

(U) The development program for Site M was provided as part of the initial scope of work for this project. Based on additional research, meetings with stakeholders and further workshop discussions, the following development program for Site M was established during the workshop:

(U//FOUO) High Performance Computer Center:

• 90,000 square feet (SF) of raised floor
• 315,000 SF footprint
• 630,000 gross SF
• 50 people
• 40 parking spaces
• 60 Megawatts (MW) Tech Power
• 105 MW Total Power

(U//FOUO) Operations Center:

• 531,000 gross SF
• 225,000 SF footprint
• 120,000 SF Operations Center
• Two – 178,000 SF mission support buildings (4 levels about grade – 1 basement level
• 55,000 SF of support services
• 1,375 people
• 1,100 parking spaces
• 50 MW total power
• 28 MW generator back-up

(U//FOUO) Recapitalization Building:

• 178,000 gross SF
• 35,600 SF footprint
• 4 floors above grade – 1 basement level
• 500 people
• 400 parking spaces
• 4 MW total power

(U//FOUO) Additional Administration Buildings:

• Up to 11 additional Administration Buildings with the same program as the Recap Building

6. (U) Initial Concepts

Figure 3-7: (U) Initial Concepts

(U) The initial concepts that were developed during the workshop were created to help develop a better understanding of how the development program could fit on the site and various approaches to site layout of the buildings, roads, parking and infrastructure requirements. These concepts are not intended to be fully detailed in addressing all the issues and requirements, but rather as a way to encourage discussion and review of the overall planning approaches. See Figure 3-7.

(U) Ten initial concepts were collectively developed as part of the workshop. The initial concepts illustrate a wide range of approaches to developing Site M. The initial concepts illustrate various layouts that can be grouped into the following themes:

• Linear building grouping of the Operations and Administration buildings running from east to west on the site as shown in Concepts 2, 6, 7 and 9.
• Linear building grouping of the Operations and Administration building running from north to south as shown in Concepts 1, 3 and 1.
• A clustered approach to development of the site, where buildings are clustered in small groups or as one large cluster as shown in Concepts 4, 5 and 8.

(U) In all cases, the location of the HPCC was determined to be best suited for the southern part of the site. The factors that led to this conclusion included the more significant amount of steep topography in the northern part of the site, the challenge of allowing road access and circulation across the entire site, the narrowness of the site in its the center, and the existing cemetery that needs to be maintained. Figure 3-8 provides an illustration of the alternative site locations considered for the HPCC.

Figure 3-8: (U) Alternative HPCC Locations

(U) The team presented these alternative concepts to the workshop participants, who reviewed the alternatives based on the evaluation criteria. Using a “green dot” exercise, where each participant was able to use green dots to vote on their preferred plans, the team was able to narrow down the potential alternative concepts from eleven to four concepts for further analysis.

7. (U) Refined Concepts

(U) The four preliminary concepts identified by workshop participants for further analysis and refinement are described and illustrated as follows:

Figure 3-9: (U) Preliminary Concept #1

(U) Concept #1 (Figure 3-9) shows a cluster of buildings near the center of the site, with parking structures on each side of the cluster. The Joint Operations Center (JOC) is in the middle of the cluster, with easy access to the adjacent administration buildings. There is a loop road around this cluster of buildings. The site layout allows for the northeast portion of the site to be protected, which maintains the existing drainage pattern that currently runs through this part of the site. This layout would also allow the buildings to be stepped down the hill, which helps reduce the amount of grading required.

Figure 3-10: (U) Preliminary Concept #2

(U) Concept #2 (Figure 3-10) creates a linear pattern of buildings from north to south on the site, with parking structures on each side of the linear group of buildings. The Operations center would be at the south end of the linear pattern, with views to the HPCC. The walking distance from some of the administration buildings would be slightly further than in some of the other concepts, due to the location at the end of the line of buildings. This concept also has a loop road around the linear arrangement of buildings. The buildings would be located at a similar elevation from north to south which, given the existing topography of the site, would require a significant amount of grading.

(U) Concept #3 (Figure 3-11) shows a cluster of buildings near a high point of the site, in the northwest portion of Site M, with parking structures on each side of the cluster of buildings. The Operations Center at the center of the cluster would have easy access to the adjacent administration buildings. A loop road would travel around the cluster of buildings. This layout protects and enhances the natural drainage running northwest to southeast through the site, minimizing grading requirements of the site.

Figure 3-11: (U) Preliminary Concept #3

(U) Concept #4 (Figure 3-12) creates a linear pattern of buildings from east to west on the site, with parking structures on the north side of this linear group of buildings. The Operations Center would be located at the center of the linear grouping of buildings, which is also the high point of the site. The walking distance from some of the administration buildings would be further in this scheme due to their location at the end of the line of buildings. As with the other concepts, a loop road encircles the linear arrangement of buildings. This concept maximizes the longer term potential development of the site by clustering the initial buildings into the northwest corner of the site. The location of the HPCC at the south would be further from the Operations Center on the north end of the site.

Figure 3-12: (U) Preliminary Concept #4

8. (U) Preferred Plan

The four preliminary alternatives were further refined down to two “Final” alternatives. Concept #1 was chosen as Final Alternative A and Concept #4 was selected as Final Alternative B.

(U) Each final alternative had key characteristics that distinguish them from each other. Final Alternative A (Figure 3-13) creates a distinct entrance with a view of the Operations Center as one approaches the site. This alternative allows for the continuation of Emory, Rockenbach and Samford Roads onto Site M. The site layout includes a centralized and interconnected Operations Center with support wings. It also retains the northeast portion of the site for open space and future growth.

Figure 3-13: (U) Final Alternative A

(U) Final Alternative B (Figure 3-14) locates the Operations Center near the high point of the site, in the northwest portion. The site design uses setbacks for parking to maximize development capacity of the site. There is a central green south of the Operations Center, with areas south of that set aside for future growth. The utilities in this layout would be located in a central location.

Figure 3-14: (U) Final Alternative B

(U) After further consideration and analysis, the workshop participants selected a variation of Final Alternative A as the recommended plan. Key advantages of this scheme include the Ops Center near the high point of the site, the distinct entrance into the site with a view of the Ops Center, and the use of setbacks for parking, which allows for maximum development capacity. The recommended plan, shown in Figure 3-15, also provides areas for future growth and allows utilities to be located in a central location to the future building complex

Figure 3-15: (U) Recommended Plan

4. (U) Area Development Plan

(U) This chapter of the report provides a detailed description of the Area Development Plan for Site M. This includes a description of each component plan comprising the ADP, including Land Use / Zoning, Parcel Plan, Site Layout, Urban Design, Site Development Program, Grading, Landscape, Demolition, Utilities, AT/FP, Circulation and Parking, and a Campus Greening Plan. Each section of the ADP includes a description of the component plan and supporting graphics. Following this section of the report, Chapter 5.0 provides the cost estimate for the proposed ADP for Site M.

Figure 4-1: (U) Site M Area Development Plan Context (for 11” x 17” version see Appendix)

(U) The ADP is illustrated below (Figure 4-1) in context with the existing NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus. The site layout including the buildings and roads have been intentionally designed to provide a seamless link to the existing campus while providing the appropriate level of security for future users. This layout has also been established to allow for future redevelopment of the 9800 area as proposed in the Ft. Meade CEMP. The continuation of the roads north and south of the 9800 area onto Site M would create a continuous development area that could eventually link Site M and the existing Ops Buildings 1, 2 and 3.

1. (U) Land Use and Zoning

(U) The Site M ADP is composed of four primary land uses:

• Operations
• HPCC
• Utilities
• Open Space / Conservation Area

(U) Two additional overlay zones are provided. One to accommodate future expansion of the Operations and HPCC areas. The other to provide a 400-foot perimeter setback that lies primarily over open space.

(U) The land use plan proposed for Site M establishes a development framework of land bays for each of these four uses. The land bays are defined by topography, cultural and environmental constraints, site access and roads, and AT/FP setbacks. Within these constraints, the largest land bay in the north central area of the site is designated Ops / Admin for its road access, its proximity and connectivity to Ops 1 to the west, for its prominent location on the high point of the site, and for its accommodation of multiple phases of Ops, Recapitalization Building, expansion and parking facilities. The two land bays flanking the new entry road are designated Ops / Admin Expansion for their proximity and orientation to the Ops / Admin across Loop Road A. The southern land bay is designated for HPCC and provides a stand-alone location and relatively flat land area suitable to accommodate the large building floor plate, its access and supporting utilities to the east and west, and expansion. The three smallest land bays on the north, east, and south are designated for utilities systems and facilities supporting Ops / Admin and HPCC.

(U) Figure 4-2 displays the proposed land uses for Site M.

Figure 4-2: (U) Site M Land Use

2. (U) Site M Parcels

(U) To support the overall site development and provide a plan for parcelization of Site M for the currently planned users and potential future users, a parcel plan has been development (see Figure 4-3). This plan identifies the 15 development parcels that are proposed for Site M. These parcels coincide with the Master Plan and provide a structure for the phased development of the site. Table 4-1 summarizes the list of parcels including the current planned use and the parcel acreage.

(U) The areas that are outside the parcels will are supporting to the building development. These areas include the roadways, parking, utilities, setbacks, and open space.

Table 4-1: (U) Site M Parcels

 

Figure 4-3: (U) Site M Parcels

7. (U) Site Layout

(U) The following sections detail the Site M ADP site plan, development program and site grading.

1. (U) Site Plan

(U) One of the key drivers for the Site M ADP concept is to establish a relationship with the existing NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus. This is primarily accomplished through the extension of three existing roads into Site M; Samford, Emory and Rockenbach. Rockenbach Road will be split at 3rd Cavalry Road and the western portion will extend into Site M south of the existing road alignment, forming a closed loop and connecting back to Emory Road (Loop Road A). Samford Road continues into Site M and connects to the new loop road from the south (Loop Road B). A new entry road, with a new VCP, connects to the loop road from the eastern portion of Rockenbach Road to the north.

(U) This strategy anticipates the planned relocation of the existing Child Development Center (CDC) and 9800 Area facilities thus expanding the developable area between Loop Roads A and B to the west and strengthening the relationship and connectivity between Site M and the existing NSA / Fort Meade Campus in the future.

(U) Within the loop road the development is phased by wings connected to a central circulation and service spine. At the core is the JOC (B4, B5, B6, and B7) centered on the spine opposite the intersection of the new entry road and Loop Road A. The Recapitalization Building is sited immediately to the west of the JOC. Extensions of the spine to the west and the east will link later phases to the JOC and Recapitalization Building. The open-ended courts between the wings alternately accommodate utility vaults and outdoor amenity areas. Building entrances and service /loading dock areas are located along the spine, initially adjacent to the JOC. A large open area to the southwest of the JOC provides space for outdoor events and recreation, as well as storm water management. Parking structures are located near the outer edges in order to maximize the development area and allow close proximity and connectivity between phases. Parking structure modules of 400 cars serve each phase of development.

(U) The land enclosed by the two loop roads creates the primary operations area and is adequate for the initial development program, including parking. The provision of structured parking allows area for expansion adjacent to the initial development. Additional areas for expansion are identified north of the loop road on either side of the new VCP entry road.

(U) The HPCC is located south of the operations area, across Loop Road B. Potential expansion area for the HPCC is located immediately to the southwest. To the east of the HPCC is the central utility plant for the operations area. Two new substations are located in the northwest and southwest corners of Site M.

Figure 4-4: (U) Site M Illustrative Site Plan

(U) A considerable amount of open area is preserved, largely due to culturally and environmental sensitive areas and the required 400-foot security setback. The site plan works with the existing terrain, facilitating and maintaining natural drainage and conserving existing forested areas where possible.

2. (U) Urban Design

(U) The building siting and massing are closely related to the landform and the road layout. The roads follow the gently sloping terrain between rows of street trees and light poles in front of planted slopes and berms. Buildings are revealed gradually around the bends in the roads. The JOC is located prominently facing the intersection of the New Entry Road and Loop Road A. By respecting a uniform AT/FP setback, the JOC and the adjacent Recapitalization Building and expansion buildings establish a strong presence on Loop Road A. At the same time, the overall impact of the building massing of the JOC and the flanking wings is mitigated by the curve of the road and the orientation of the shorter facades to the road. Conversely, the Ops / Admin Expansion to the north of Loop Road A orients the longer façades to face the road and the courtyards between the wings across the road. Similarly, a deeper landscape zone between Loop Road B and the JOC creates an attractive foreground and location for outdoor activities. Building heights range from one to two stories for HPCC and three to five stories for the JOC, Recapitalization Building, and Ops / Admin Expansion. Floor-to-floor heights are up to twenty feet or more depending upon program requirements, yielding overall building heights of eighty feet or more, not including roof parapets and penthouses.

(U) The proposed parking decks on-site are three to five levels and are planned as free-standing precast concrete structures which are built into slopes to reduce their apparent height.

Figure 4-5: (U) Site M Section View

3. (U) Development Program

(U) The development program for the Site M ADP is detailed in Table 4-2 below and Figure 4-6 on the facing page.

Table 4-2: (U) Site M Development Program

LABEL	DESCRIPTION	FOOTPRINT AREA (SF)	LEVELS	DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
B1	ADMIN BUILDING	37,645	4+BASEMENT	186,000 SF
B2	ADMIN BUILDING	37,645	4+BASEMENT	186,000 SF
B3	ADMIN BUILDING	37,645	4+BASEMENT	186,000 SF
B4	ADMIN BUILDING	37,645	4+BASEMENT	186,000 SF
B5	JOC	45,000	4+BASEMENT	204,000 SF
B6	ADMIN BUILDING	37,645	4+BASEMENT	186,000 SF
B7	ADMIN BUILDING	37,645	4+BASEMENT	186,000 SF
B8	ADMIN BUILDING	37,645	4+BASEMENT	186,000 SF
B9	ADMIN BUILDING	37,645	4+BASEMENT	186,000 SF
B10	RECAP BUILDING	29,085	4+BASEMENT	148,432 SF
B11	ADMIN BUILDING	37,645	4+BASEMENT	186,000 SF
B12	ADMIN BUILDING	37,645	4+BASEMENT	186,000 SF
B13	ADMIN BUILDING	37,645	4+BASEMENT	186,000 SF
B14	ADMIN BUILDING	37,645	4+BASEMENT	186,000 SF
H1	HPCC	315,000	2	630,000 SF
P1	PARKING GARAGE	33,750	5	400 SPACES
P2	PARKING GARAGE	33,750	5	400 SPACES
P3	PARKING GARAGE	33,750	5	400 SPACES
P4	PARKING GARAGE	33,750	5	400 SPACES
P5	PARKING GARAGE	93,000	5	1,377 SPACES
P6	PARKING GARAGE	33,750	5	400 SPACES
P7	PARKING GARAGE	33,750	5	400 SPACES
P8	PARKING GARAGE	33,750	5	400 SPACES
P9	PARKING GARAGE	33,750	5	400 SPACES
P10	PARKING GARAGE	33,750	5	400 SPACES
P11	PARKING LOT	22,394	–	50 SPACES
S1	SUBSTATION	78,012	–	–
S2	SUBSTATION	87,025	–	–
U1	WATER STORAGE TANK	5,026	–	–
U2	WATER STORAGE TANK	5,026	–	–
U3	COOLING TOWER AREA	30,999	–	–
U4	COOLLING TOWER EXPANSION AREA	23,250	–	–
U5	CHILLER PLANT	61,250	–	–
U6	CHILLER PLANT EXPANSION AREA	37,625	–	–
U7	RAINWATER CAPTURE TANK	6,875	–	–
U8	WATER STORAGE TANK	5,026	–	–
U9	WATER STORAGE TANK	5,026	–	–
U10	FUEL STORAGE AREA	5,572	–	–
U11	GENERATOR AREA	20,777	–	–

Figure 4-6: (U) Site M Development Program Key Map

4. (U) Site Grading

(U) The Site M topography, also shown in Figure 2-1 of the existing conditions section of this report, is marked by a high point in the northwest corner of Site M. Elevations generally cascade downward to the southeast portion of the site. There are two substantial ridges running north-south on both the western and eastern portions of Site M.

(U) The grading concept for Site M is to remove the hill top that creates the current high point of the site and use it as fill adjacent to the western North-South ridge. This will enable the creation of a single development pad, at an even elevation of approximately 200 feet, for the Operations Center inside the loop road. This grading concept yields a balanced site with the amount of cut approximately equal to the amount of fill (see Figure 4-7)

(U) The new VCP entry road will enter the site on the eastern north-south ridge and will meander westward, dropping in elevation before rising up again to meet the new loop road. Northwest of this intersection, a development pad will be graded at the same elevation as the operations area (200 feet) for the northwest substation and future operations expansion. To the southwest of this intersection, a development pad will be graded at a lower elevation (190 feet) for additional operations expansion including a lower tier for parking (170 feet).

(U) To the south of the operations area, across the loop road, a large development pad will be graded lower, at an even elevation of 190 feet. This will be the site for the HPCC and central utility plant.

(U) In the southwest corner of Site M, the second substation will be situated on a graded elevation of 190 feet. For a more detailed grading plan see the 11” x 17” included in the Appendix of this report.

Figure 4-7: (U) Site M Grading Plan

5. (U) Landscape

(U) A wide variety of landscape zones are proposed to create a cohesive campus and provide an attractive working environment. The zones vary in size from large landscaped setbacks totaling more than 80 acres, the 100-foot riparian buffer along the eastern boundary, and 12,775 linear feet (2.4 miles) of vehicular-oriented streetscape to a number of smaller pedestrian-oriented plazas and courtyards associated with building entrances and points of egress. The overall landscape character will be defined by preservation of significant groves of existing mature trees combined with new plantings of trees, shrubs, ground covers and herbaceous plants native and indigenous to the Patuxent River valley, which is located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Plants which naturally occur in the region are adapted to local soil, rainfall, and temperature conditions, are resistant to diseases and insects, and require less water, fertilizers, and pesticides to become established. Native and indigenous plant communities also provide wildlife habitat for local species.

(U) The landscape zones included in the Site M ADP are as follows:

(U) Forest Conservation / Reforestation Zone – Constituting primarily the 400-foot setback, within this zone existing groves of mature trees are to be conserved and enhanced by reforestation with native and indigenous deciduous hardwood trees and understory deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, ground covers, and herbaceous plants. Near its interface with the Riparian Buffer Zone, the Forest Conservation / Reforestation Zone should also incorporate storm water management facilities, such as bioswales and rain gardens, to collect, filter, and reduce the flow rate of storm water runoff and improve water quality.

(U) Riparian Buffer Zone – Located along the creek on the eastern boundary, plantings within this 100-foot buffer zone will consist of trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants, grasses, ferns and herbaceous emergents growing adjacent to and in the creek itself to filter surface runoff and contribute to improved water quality.

(U) Gateway Streetscape Zone – Located adjacent to roads, this zone includes 8-foot planted areas adjacent to the street edge planted with deciduous shade trees, a pedestrian path/jogging trail generally parallel to the roadway, and planted slopes and berms following the lay of the land.

(U) Landscape Median Zone – Located within roadways, landscape medians visually reduce the apparent width of rights-of-way, mitigate heat island effects with shade trees and other planting, and create safer zones for vehicle turning movements and pedestrian crossings.

(U) Surface Parking Zone – Parking lots will have 20-foot planted bioswales between parking bays to collect, filter, and reduce the flow rate of stormwater runoff.

Figure 4-8: (U) Site M Landscape Plan

(U) Courtyard Zone – Located in spaces between parking facilities and buildings and in spaces between buildings, courtyards include entrance walkways between parking and buildings and other required pedestrian connections along with plazas for outdoor sitting and gatherings. Associated planting areas will incorporate storm water management facilities, such as bioswales and rain gardens, to collect, filter, and reduce the flow rate of surface storm water runoff and improve water quality. Site furniture in courtyards may include benches, waste receptacles, outdoor lighting, directional signage, and flagpoles.

(U) Central Plaza Zone – This zone, located on the south side of the JOC, provides a central location for outdoor events, gatherings and passive enjoyment of the outdoors. The layout will include hard and permeable paving to accommodate pedestrians and required fire lane access. The layout will balance paved areas with planting areas to incorporate storm water management facilities, such as bioswales and rain gardens, to collect, filter, and reduce the flow rate of storm water runoff and improve water quality. Site furniture in the central plaza may include benches, waste receptacles, outdoor lighting, directional signage, and flagpoles.

(U) Passive Park Zone – This zone, which is found in proximity to buildings between the Gateway Streetscape Zone and buildings and the Forest Conservation / Reforestation Zone, will incorporate open lawn areas with shade trees to create space suitable for outdoor recreation, exercise, and enjoyment of the environment. This zone may also incorporate storm water management facilities, such as bioswales and rain gardens, to collect, filter, and reduce the flow rate of storm water runoff and improve water quality.

(U) Golf Recreation Zone – Located adjacent to the existing clubhouse, this zone will include a driving range and putting green surrounded by buffer planting of native and indigenous trees, shrubs, ground covers, and herbaceous plants to provide a natural landscape transition to the adjacent Forest Conservation / Reforestation Zone and Riparian Buffer Zone. Near its interface with the Riparian Buffer Zone, the Golf Recreation Zone should also incorporate storm water management facilities, such as bioswales and rain gardens, to collect, filter, and reduce the flow rate of storm water runoff and improve water quality.

(U) Figures 4-9 and 4-10 provide aerial views of the proposed landscape character prescribed by the Site M Area Development Plan.

Figure 4-9: (U) Aerial View of Proposed Site M

Figure 4-10: (U) Aerial View of Proposed JOC Building

6. (U) Demolition

(U) The majority of Site M is currently a golf course, therefore only a small number of buildings require demolition, along with the removal of associated road segments and parking areas.

(U) A portion of Zimborski Avenue, which leads to a cluster of golf course maintenance facilities from Mapes Road within Site M, will be removed and the golf course maintenance facilities will be demolished.

(U) Taylor Avenue and Kenyon Court, the current access to the golf course club house from Mapes Road, will be removed along with existing clubhouse parking areas. The clubhouse will remain, however, with a new parking area south of the clubhouse and west of the new fence line.

(U) On the western edge of the site, across from the CDC and VCP 4, the driveway and parking area will be removed and the building will be demolished.

(U) Several road segments on the periphery of Site M will need to be removed as well. The northern segment of O’Brien Road, between Loop Road A and Rockenbach Road will be removed eliminating the need for VCP 4 and the existing security checkpoint structures which will be demolished. Segments of both Rockenbach and 3rd Cavalry Roads will be removed north Loop Road and a new connection will be created linking Rockenbach Road directly to 3rd Cavalry Road. The eastern segment of Emory Road, connecting to O’Brien Road, will be removed as a new connection will be created between Emory Road and Loop Road B.

Figure 4-11: (U) Site M Demolition Plan

8. (U) Utilities

(U) Each of the major utilities required to support the planned development of Site M has been analyzed to determine a preferred master plan that provides a road map for integrating these utility systems into a coordinated infrastructure system that maximizes system reliability and supports growth and expansion, while maintaining cost efficiency.

(U//FOUO) Utility Easements

(U) A separate detailed study has been prepared in coordination with the ADP, the UAD includes a detailed analysis of existing conditions and proposed utility systems for all the major utility requirements at Site M. This information has been a key driver in developing the ADP to ensure there is adequate space through easements and provision of strategically located site areas/parcels for the development of utility infrastructure including water, wastewater, stormwater, electrical, natural gas, cooling and heating, and telecommunications. The UAD report includes detailed information on the analysis of loads, sizing of utilities, and location of the distribution lines, connections to buildings and space for additional growth.

(U) The result of the analysis and recommendations in the UAD has been the development of the overall utility plan (Figure 4-12). This plan illustrates the proposed utility easements along each side of the main roads and the location of three primary utility areas to support the site. The area in the north of Site M is the location for a substation and water tanks to support potable water requirements of the development. The second area is the central utility area located near the intersection of Loop A and B. This is planned to be the location for chillers, water storage for the chillers, back-up generators, rainwater capture tanks, and expansion space for these facilities. As described in the UAD, these utilities would primarily support the proposed Joint Operations Center and High Performance Computing Center.

(U) Finally the area in the south of Site M would support the location of another 150 MW substation. This would be the primary location for a substation to support the site; the north would be the secondary location depending on the future requirements for the site development.

(U) The easements have been established to meet both near term and future requirements for the site. As illustrated by the section shown in Figure 4-13, utilities would be placed both under the roads as well as in a portion of these easements. As currently proposed the utilities would occupy approximately 20 to 40 feet of the total 60 foot wide easement. This additional space will provide a significant space for future utility expansion within the easement. This easement also coincides with the required AT/FP setbacks from roads so therefore offers the most efficient use of this area to support underground utilities, stormwater management, and allow for appropriate landscape treatment that meets the AT/FP requirements.

Figure 4-12: (U) Site M Utility Corridor

(U//FOUO) Utility Corridor

(U//FOUO) Along with the utility easement a more detailed plan and section for the corridor has been developed Figure 4-13 This section is taken through the utility corridor near the south corner of Loop Road A looking north.

(U//FOUO) Utility Corridor Section

(U//FOUO) The utility corridor section is based off of a 60-foot wide road section from the ADP. This road section consists of a 12-foot median, with 24-foot, two-lane open-section roads on either side. Then, outboard of the road itself is a 13-foot grass area that may contain sidewalks and trees, before an 11-foot wide bioswale that contains and treats runoff from the road. This leaves 28 feet outboard of the bioswale on each side within the utility easement for future growth. This entire area falls within the AT/FP standoff distance of 82 feet from the road.

(U//FOUO) With the main utility corridor running as a loop along Loop Roads A and B, the majority of the buildings requiring utility connections will be inside that loop per the ADP. In the section shown in Figure 4-13, the left side would be the inside of this loop. The layout of the utility corridor attempts to minimize utility crossings, particularly of larger utilities, to get connections to the inside of the loop. With this in mind, utilities requiring fewer connections and larger utilities were pushed more towards the outside of the loop.

(U//FOUO) Typical Building Connection

(U//FOUO) In addition to the horizontal placement of utilities within the utility corridor, Figure 4-13 also shows a concept of the vertical relationship of the utilities to allow a typical connection to a building to be made to the utility corridor. Part of the concept is to allow a path at a shallower depth for utilities to cross perpendicularly over most other utilities. This provides for much easier future connections and expandability by minimizing the need to install future connections to the corridor at a significant depth and having to excavate below the existing utilities. However, to allow for this capability, certain utilities will need to be installed at a depth greater than their minimum required depth of cover.

Figure 4-13: (U) Utility Corridor Section

9. (U) Circulation and Parking

(U) Vehicular Network

(U) The proposed road network as illustrated in the ADP, is based on the concepts developed during the RPMP. The roads as proposed in the RPMP have been modified and simplified due to lower proposed population for Site M than previously identified, changes in program and overall Site M boundary. The proposed road network, as illustrated in Figure 4-14, shows three major roads being developed on Site M: the VCP Entry Road, Loop Road A and Loop Road B. The VCP Entry Road will primarily serve employees and visitors arriving to the site from Ft. Mead via Rockenbach Road and Route 175. The level of traffic through this entrance will be determined by the number of visitors and employees that have clearance to pass through Ft. Meade prior to entering NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus. Currently all employees and visitors can enter NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus without passing through a Ft. Meade gate.

(U) Loop Road A and Loop Road B provide direct connections to the existing roads on the NSA/CSS Ft. Mead Campus. Loop Road A is planned to connect with the realigned Rockenback Road at the north edge of the property. This road will provide the most direct access to VCP 1 and 2 entry gates. Loop Road B will provide direct connection to Emory Road to the north and Samford Road to the south. The southern connection provides the most direct connection with VCPs 5 and 6. These connections create a continuous loop through Site M, which will offer multiple access points to the site and the parking facilities. This multidirectional access provides peak hour traffic flow management and multiple exits as required for site evacuation.

(U) For the purposes of the ADP, all roads have been designed as 4 lane with a center turn lane / median, or 60 feet wide curb to curb as shown in Figure 4-14. This width of road would provide more than the necessary capacity at build out. A more detailed transportation study it is recommended to determine the need for all lanes or a if staged build out of the roads should be followed to meet Site M’s needs as development occurs.

(U) Visitor Control Points

(U) The new VCP, as shown in the ADP at the north edge of Site M, is proposed to offer up to four “reversible” lanes to meet any potential traffic requirement for the site. In addition the configuration of the entrance road has been designed to meet the AT/FP requirements for secure entrances such as this. The site plan allows for additional modification of this entrance as necessary to meet any additional requirements that may be identified for this site.

(U) Visitor Control Center

(U) The expansion of the NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus will require further analysis of the planned expansion of the VCC located near VCP 1. Based on previous studies, it appears this facility is near its operational capacity. The North Area Campus Plan identified development of a new VCC and recommended that any revisions to the parking and VCP 1, be monitored and studied as future Site M development occurs.

Figure 4-14: (U) Site M Circulation and Parking

(U) Intersections / Signalization

(U) The proposed intersections for Site M would be designed to meet all Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and State of Maryland standards and are listed below:

• O’Brien Road and Loop Road A
• O’Brien Road and Loop Road B / Mapes Road
• O’Brien Road and Loop Road B / Samford Road
• Loop Road A and Loop Road B
• Loop Road A and VCP Entrance

(U) These intersections have been designed to support either stop signs or signalization depending on the ultimate build out of the site. More detailed modeling will be required to determine if signalization is required at any of these intersections.

(U) Parking

(U) Parking is provided in a series of parking structures and lots along the Loop Roads, as shown in Figure 4-14. The two major structured parking areas, located along Loop Road B, consist of interlinked 400-car garages that could be built / phased with each new Administration Building. Each 400-car garage will serve the requirements of each 500-person building. A larger 1,377-car garage has been designed to meet the needs of future buildings. The specific design of each of these structures and the relationship of ramps and entrance points will need to be part of a more detailed design study for these facilities.

(U) Transit / Shuttle Service

(U) The campus bus route (Round Robin) is proposed to be expanded to serve Site M. The specific timing and route of the Round Robin service should be part of a separate study to determine actual requirements. The design of the roads as shown in the ADP allows for a number of stops to be placed along Loop Road A and Loop Road B. It is estimated that 2-3 stops along Loop Road A and 1-stop adjacent to the HPCC should be sufficient to meet the requirements for the build-out of Site M.

(U) Pedestrian Circulation

(U) The ADP includes construction of sidewalks / paths along one side of both Loop Road A and Loop Road B. Where necessary, space is available to construct sidewalks on both sides of the road and provide appropriate traffic control devices. Proposed sidewalks also link with internal pedestrian connections to the building entrances and plaza areas. The sidewalks are designed to provide continuous connections to the west connection with the existing campus network. To meet the long-term site capacity and provide a comfortable walking environment all sidewalks are proposed to be 6 feet wide.

Figure 4-15: (U) Site M Typical Street Section

10. (U) Green Campus Initiatives

(U) The NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus, including Site M, adheres to a number of environmental policies and regulations and is actively pursuing several green initiatives. These initiatives and policies include the following:

• Low Impact Development (LID)
• Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
• Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 – sets goals for increasing energy efficiency and availability of renewable energy
• Executive Order 13423 – Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management
• Executive Order 13514 – Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance
• Executive Order 13508 – Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration

The development of Site M will consider and incorporate the goals established in each of these initiatives and policies as appropriate for this Agency.

1. Summary of Green Campus Initiatives

The key green strategies that have been incorporated into the Site M Area Development Plan are discussed in the following sections and are shown in Figure 4-16. While much of the focus currently is on achieving LEED Silver for the buildings on Site M, there are also a number of other strategies that have been considered in preparing the plan. It also important to note that while LEED has been developed for a number of building types and most recently for Neighborhood Development, there is not a specific LEED system for a campus such as Site M so the strategy must involve both achieving LEED for New Construction along with addressing a number of site wide strategies that can help make Site M a model green Federal Campus, including the following:

• Use of reclaimed water to support the on-site chiller plant
• Pedestrian network that links the existing agency campus with Site M and provide linkages between buildings and the parking areas and transit stops
• Expansion of the shuttle service on campus, to other agency facilities and to nearby transit locations
• A majority of the planned parking would be located in garages with very limited surface parking supporting the HPCC and other campus service requirements.
• Extensive system of bioswales near buildings, parking garages and roads to treat run-off near the point of collection
• Extensive retention of open space, the site as currently planned retains over 35% as open space
• Forest conservation / reforestation, the areas located within the 400’ setbacks would retain the existing vegetation; in addition the master plan includes extensive opportunities for reforestation with street trees, and new planting areas around buildings. These plantings will need to respect the security requirements.
• Use of native and water efficient landscaping

Figure 4-16: (U) Site M Green Campus Initiatives

(U) In addition to these site strategies, the LEED building strategies would be considered during the design phase. These strategies would include topics such as energy conservation measures and systems, roof and window treatment, water use reduction, use of recycled or locally available materials, and indoor environmental quality.

(U) The following sections provide additional description of some of the key site measures.

2. (U) Stormwater Management

(U) Site M follows provisions of the Code of Maryland Regulations as they relate to stormwater management and the control of the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff resulting from new development. The regulations require that the release rate from newly developed areas not exceed the rate generated by the site under present conditions. Furthermore, all planned stormwater management structures are required to comply with the latest version of the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual. The Site M ADP includes best management practices to control runoff and erosion during construction. The building contractor is responsible for preparing a stormwater management plan and an erosion and sediment control plan for the approval of the NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus Environmental Division prior to submitting them to the MDE. All disturbed areas are required to be seeded or planted with native or indigenous species.

(U) The Site M ADP encourages Low Impact Development (LID) strategies if opportunities exist to reduce the life-cycle cost of the site’s stormwater infrastructure. Some examples of LID site design strategies include grading to encourage sheet flow and lengthen flow paths; maintaining natural drainage divides to keep flow paths dispersed; disconnecting impervious areas such as pavement and roofs from the storm drain network, allowing runoff to be conveyed over pervious areas instead (bioswales); preserving the naturally vegetated areas and soil types that slow runoff, filter out pollutants, and facilitate infiltration (biofiltration); directing runoff into or across vegetated areas to help filter runoff and encourage recharge; using rain barrels and cisterns, soil amendments, tree box filters, vegetated buffers, and vegetated (green) roofs.

(U) The Site M ADP recommends the use of vegetated roofs on all buildings and parking structures. The plan also calls for an extensive network of bioswales and bioretention areas, in addition to maintaining as many of the natural drainage divides as possible.

3. (U) Forest Conservation and Reforestation

(U) NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus voluntarily complies with the Maryland FCA. In keeping with the FCA standards and in lieu of performing a Forest Stand Delineation and Conservation Plan for individual projects, the campus requires that the equivalent of 20 percent of the project area be forested. Preservation of dominant trees and woodland areas may be credited towards FCA requirements. To the fullest extent, all mitigation shall occur within a project area; otherwise on other Fort Meade designated land, such as Forest Conservation Areas. Landscape tree planting areas can be credited as FCA mitigation areas, but these areas must be a minimum of 35 feet wide and cover a minimum of 0.25 acres (measured from the tree trunks). All forestation/reforestation plants shall be indigenous dominant native trees. Planting density shall be proportional to 120 caliper tree inches per acre (e.g. 96 @ 1.25 inches, 160 @ 0.75 inches, etc.) All forestation/reforestation plants shall be indigenous dominant native trees to allow existing forestland to grow naturally without hindrance.

(U) The Site M ADP sets aside a significant portion of the site for forest conservation and reforestation. The areas that fall within the mandatory 300 foot security setback, sensitive habitat or protected cultural sites have all been identified for reforestation and conservation. In addition, the northeastern portion of the site that falls outside of the proposed fence line will be reserved for reforestation and conservation. Figure 4-14 displays the areas at Site M identified for forest conservation and reforestation.

4. (U) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

(U) The LEED Rating System has proven to be a successful tool for quantifying the advantages associated with high performance building projects. However, not all of the credits may be achievable or recommended for Site M ADP projects due to site and security constraints. Once the Site M ADP process is complete, a more in-depth analysis should be conducted to evaluate the applicability of particular LEED credits. This analysis should be conducted early in the building design process, to ensure that environmental management features can be integrated in a cost-effective way to meet LEED requirements and the broader mission of the facility. Potential LEED categories and credits applicable to Site M are outlined on the following pages.
(U) Sustainable Sites

(U) This is the most applicable LEED credit category to the Site M ADP. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan is a prerequisite of this category and must conform to either the EPA Construction General Permit standards or local erosion and sedimentation control standards, whichever is more stringent. Such a plan is typically required as part of any construction project, as mentioned in the stormwater management section above, but is particularly important for the Site M projects given the close proximity of the building projects to water bodies that border the site.

(U) Beyond this prerequisite previously discussed, specific strategies related to the Sustainable Sites credits include:

• (U) Site Selection

(U) New projects on undeveloped land should not be built in wetlands or flood plains or within 50 feet of any open water body. Where possible, development should occur on previously developed land.

• (U) Community Connectivity

(U) Projects should be located within one-half mile of residential areas and basic services that will be needed by employees. These services include places of worship, grocery or convenience stores, restaurants, libraries, post offices, dry cleaners, and other services.

• (U) Alternative Transportation

(U) Expansion of bus routes to service new facilities at Site M will help reduce the need for automobiles on the NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus and encourage the use of public transit for commuting purposes.

(U) Incorporating preferred parking in new parking facilities for low-emitting, fuel-efficient vehicles, as well as car and van pools, will help reduce the impact of employees on local air quality, fuel consumption and will help to mitigate traffic congestion. The use of natural gas, hybrid, or other low emissions engines in all new Government-owned vehicles could be mandated.

• (U) Site Development

(U) The Site M ADP incorporates a high percentage of green space beyond the building footprint. Native and adaptive plantings will be used when feasible. Appropriate plantings will need to be specified as project details are defined. The 300-foot AT/FP setback area inside the Site M boundary can also be used to help achieve this credit requirement, as it is already planned for forest conservation and reforestation areas. Additional green space can also help to encourage stormwater infiltration.

(U) Green roofs can also be used to help achieve this credit. Green roofs have multiple advantages including minimizing heat island effect, providing added insulation for buildings, and helping to reduce stormwater runoff and improve stormwater runoff quality. NSAW must evaluate the costs and benefits of various roof options, including using roofs for alternative energy generation.

• (U) Stormwater Design

(U) As described in the stormwater management section, projects will be designed to control the quantity and quality of water being released. This can be done through a variety of techniques, mentioned previously, which are incorporated into the current master plan.

(U) Specifically, stormwater retention ponds have been included as a way to capture and filter runoff. Bioswales and rain gardens have also been incorporated to help channel runoff and filter water before it is released to ponds or offsite. Site M should evaluate the use of stormwater cisterns that would capture stormwater runoff and make it available for reuse onsite for irrigation purposes or as a substitute for potable water in toilets, urinals, or process water.

• (U) Heat-Island Effect

(U) The Site M ADP incorporates structured parking to meet ninety percent of the projected parking demand. Covering parking spaces helps to reduce the heat island impact of the project. In addition, site hardscape can be made of highly reflective material with a Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) value of at least 29, which would equate to light colored materials like new gray or white concrete. Site M can also incorporate open grid paving systems, which contribute to a reduction of the heat island effect and would have the added value of increasing stormwater infiltration. Shading paved surfaces with trees, solar panels, or other features can also help achieve this credit.

(U) Building roofing can be designed to minimize heat island effects. This can be accomplished through incorporation of white or light-colored roofs or through the use of green roofs.

• (U) Light Pollution Reduction

(U) Exterior lighting across the site should incorporate cutoffs, be directed downward, and be contained within the site boundary while meeting site safety requirements.

(U) Water Efficiency

(U) This credit category addresses project water use. The credits are focused on water used for landscaping, wastewater generated, and the efficiency of water fixtures. Except for the water efficient landscaping credits, other credits will be determined on a building-by-building basis. Specific strategies related to the Water Efficiency credits include:

• (U) Water-Efficient Landscaping

(U) The project should incorporate native or adaptive plant species wherever possible. This will help reduce the demand for associated with water for landscaping. High-efficiency irrigation systems should be specified where irrigation systems are needed. As noted previously, Site M should analyze the feasibility of using cisterns and stormwater retention ponds to store stormwater as a substitute for potable water in irrigation systems.

• (U) Innovative Wastewater Technologies

(U) Projects should consider the feasibility of innovative wastewater technologies that minimize the discharge of wastewater into sewers.

• (U) Water Use Reduction

(U) Projects should incorporate low-flow and no-flow water fixtures in buildings. This includes low-flow faucets, lavatories, shower heads, and toilets and could include no-flow urinals. Incorporation of these technologies will help reduce the overall project demand for water utility systems.

(U) Energy and Atmosphere

(U) This credit category addresses project energy efficiency and its impact on atmospheric conditions such as ozone depletion and global warming. It is one of the most challenging and most important for both LEED and Site M. With a high-energy demand projected for Site M, it is important to maximize energy efficiency to reduce operating costs. Renewable energy alternatives can also provide power to the site if regular power to the facility is interrupted.

(U) This credit category has three prerequisites that must be met to achieve LEED certification. They include minimum energy performance (including a 14-percent energy rating over an American Society of Heating, Refrigerating & Air Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE] baseline), fundamental commissioning, and fundamental refrigerant management. In addition to these prerequisites, specific strategies related to the Energy and Atmosphere credits include:

• (U) Energy-Efficient Building Systems

(U) The buildings included in the ADP are designed to provide daylighting. To the extent feasible, light shelves should be used that shade south-facing windows in summer months while bouncing light into the building. Installing daylight sensors can also help reduce energy use by dimming interior lights on sunny days. The implementation of these strategies is dependent on the ability for buildings to incorporate windows and maintain proper security levels.

(U) To help further reduce the carbon footprint and reduce energy bills, projects can incorporate an array of energy efficient building systems. These include:

• (U) Use of energy-efficient lighting fixtures
• (U) High-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems with variable speed motors, fans and pumps
• (U) Cogeneration systems that utilize waste heat from one system or process to power or heat other systems
• (U) Building highly insulated and efficient building envelopes
• (U) Centralized heating and cooling systems
• (U) Waste to energy facilities that will capture heat from burning of trash, including classified material, for use in power or heating systems
• (U) Onsite Renewable Energy and Green Power

(U) To help enhance the facility’s continuity of operations, projects should evaluate the feasibility of incorporating renewable energy systems throughout Site M. This could include the installation of photovoltaic systems and solar hot water heaters on rooftops or over parking structures. It could also involve the application of integrated solar photovoltaic cells on building facades. These systems are gaining momentum, and by the time the project is implemented, may present a viable option for power generation. Incorporation of renewable energy onsite will not only help to off-set rising energy bills, it may present opportunities to test and advance new energy technologies and eventually provide energy independence for the facility.

(U) Photovoltaic and wind alternatives could also be tested through pilot projects to evaluate their effectiveness. For example, the upper deck of one of the planned garages could serve as a test facility for solar-shaded parking or for vertical wind turbines.

• (U) Enhanced Commissioning and Refrigerant Management

(U) Projects should pursue enhanced building commissioning beyond the fundamental commissioning required for the LEED prerequisite. Building systems should be selected that incorporate refrigerants with low ozone depleting potential.

• (U) Measurement and Verification

(U) Projects should incorporate a plan to verify energy savings by developing and implementing a building systems measurement and verification plan. This will help identify savings from building efficiency features and help identify potential areas for future savings.

(U) Materials and Resources

(U) This credit category primarily addresses the use of building materials and the waste generated as a result of the construction process and building operations. There is one prerequisite in this category which focuses on the incorporation of convenient recycling facilities into the project for occupant use. All projects must be designed to accommodate recycling programs for (at a minimum) paper, cardboard, glass, plastics, and metals. Specific strategies related to the Materials and Resources credits include:

• (U) Recycled Materials

(U) Projects should incorporate materials with high recycled content. This helps reduce the demand for raw materials. Typically materials with high recycled content can include steel, ceiling panels, gypsum wallboard, and glass. The exact recycled content percentage of these materials will be determined based on the final building designs.

• (U) Local/Regional Materials

(U) Projects should utilize materials that are from local and regional sources; materials that are manufactured and harvested, extracted or processed within 500 miles of Site M. This encourages local markets and helps reduce the air pollutants and energy used to transport goods.

• (U) Certified Wood

(U) Projects should incorporate to the extent feasible certified wood that is permanently incorporated into building structures. Certified wood is wood that has been harvested from sustainable sources.

(U) Indoor Environmental Quality

(U) This credit category addresses the quality of indoor environments. In addition to a prerequisite for minimum indoor air quality performance, projects must also meet a prerequisite related to environmental tobacco smoke control. Although smoking is prohibited inside NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus buildings, the prerequisite also prohibits smoking within 25 feet of building entrances, air intakes and operable windows. Specific strategies related to the Indoor Air Quality credits include:

• (U) Low Emitting Materials

(U) Projects will incorporate materials that have low or no Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). These materials include paints and coatings, adhesives and sealants, and carpet systems. These products are widely available and do not represent a significant cost difference over more polluting alternatives. To the extent feasible, projects should also use composite wood products that are formaldehyde free.

• (U) Controllability of Systems

(U) Buildings should be designed to enable occupants to control heating and cooling settings to the extent feasible, and all employees will be able to control task lighting in their work areas. Controls for these parameters contribute to a more productive work environment.

5. (U) Site M Anti-Terrorism / Force Protection (AT/FP) Plan

1. (U) Introduction

(U) NSA/CSS Fort Meade occupies the northwestern corner of Fort George G Meade US Army Garrison. NSA/CSS operates at a higher level of clearance than does the Garrison, and is supported by a layered security protection strategy where the Garrison fence line protects the eastern border of the NSA compound which has its own security fence. NSA/CSS vehicle control points (VCPs) provide controlled access for employees, while the Visitor Control Center provides badges and access for escorted or cleared visitors. Site M, occupying a major portion of the Fort Meade golf course, will require that the existing NSA Perimeter Secure Anti-Terrorism (PSAT) fence be expanded to encircle the Site. NSA building setbacks are determined by applying UFC Medium Level of Protection coupled with classified blast criteria. A detailed blast analysis will be conducted as part of the building design.

(U) The objective of the AT/FP component is to develop a plan for protection of the proposed Site M development. This plan is based on the mandatory DoD minimum antiterrorism standards as well the specific requirements of NSA/CSS Ft. Meade. The plan provides overall guidance for development of the site as well as specific design strategies for key AT/FP components. A layered approach to security has been applied to ensure probability of detection with low false and nuisance alarm rates.

(U) The AT/FP plan builds on previous studies including the NSAW RPMP. The plan is based on the proposed ADP for Site M as well as the UAD and the specific plans for the USCYBERCOM Joint Operations Center (JOC) and Recapitalization buildings.

(U//FOUO) The general plan is to protect Site M at the “medium” level of protection as specified in the DoD standards for critical facilities; however, the exact level of protection required for each facility must be determined on a case by case basis according to a full risk and vulnerability assessment and the established design basis threat. The full list of applicable standards is included in the AT/FP Standards, Guidelines and Policies section of this report. These estimates are coordinated with the estimates that are included in the UAD and Recapitalization 1391 reports.

(U) The AT/FP Section of the report is organized as follows:

• (U) Current AT/FP Situation
• (U) Existing AT/FP Standards, Guidelines and Policies
• (U) Site M AT/FP
• (U) Phasing
• (U) Conclusion

2. (U) Current AT/FP Situation

(U//FOUO) Currently, Site M is located within the Ft. Meade fence and therefore follows the AT/FP requirements of Ft. Meade (See Figure 5-1). NSA/CSS Ft. Meade views Ft. Meade the same as any other external user and requires a similar setback from Ft. Meade. Screening of cars and people is required from all external gates onto NSA/CSS Ft. Meade. Development of Site M, will require expansion of the existing secure fence perimeter to encompass Site M and implementation of AT/FP standards, systems and guidelines that are consistent with the existing NSA/CSS Ft. Meade campus.

(U//FOUO) NSA/CSS Ft. Meade is accessed through one of six VCPs located around the NSA/CSS Ft. Meade campus. VCP 3, 4 and 5 are the nearest gates to Site M. As noted in the Site M PSAT Boundary Plan (See Figure 5-3), there is a new VCP planned for Site M on the north edge of the site providing access to Rockenbach Road. Only cleared personnel can drive their personal vehicles onto campus; otherwise visitors to the campus are required to be escorted. The only two facilities for screening visitors are the Visitor Control Center (VCC) located adjacent to VCP 1 and the Vehicle Cargo Inspection Facility (VCIF) located near VCP 5.

(U) The NSA/CSS Ft. Meade fence follows the exterior of the site and links into each of the VCP gates. In addition to the exterior fence, there are currently a number of internal fences, and pedestrian and vehicular gates that provide additional control and screening of visitors and employees on site. These internal fences provide additional security for individual facilities due to the lack of AT/FP setbacks from existing buildings.

Figure 5-1: (U) Site M Current AT/FP Conditions

3. (U) Existing AT/FP Standards, Guidelines and Policies

(U) A number of AT/FP standards, guidelines and policies have been used as the basis for the ADP and for the specific project planning, which include:

• (U) Intelligence Community Directives 700-708, especially ICD 705 Physical/Technical Security Standards and 708 Tempest
• (U) UFC 4-010-01 DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings, October 8 2003 & Change 1, January 22, 2007
• (U) UFC 4-021-02NF Security Engineering Electronic Security Systems, September 27, 2006 & Change 1, October 23, 2006
• (U) UFC 4-010-02 DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standoff Distances for Buildings, October 8, 2003 & Change 1, January 2007 (FOUO)
• (U) UFC 4-010-03 Security Engineering: Physical Security Measures for High-risk Personnel, February 8, 2011
• (U) UFC 4-020-01 DoD Security Engineering Facilities Planning Manual, September 11 2008
• (U) UFC 4-020-02 Security Engineering Facilities Design Manual
• (U) UFC 4-020-02FA Security Engineering: Concept Design, March 1, 2005 (FOUO)
• (U) UFC 4-020-03FA Security Engineering: Final Design, March 1 2005 (FOUO)
• (U) UFC 4-020-04A Electronic Security Systems: Security Engineering, March 1, 2005 & Change 2, September 22, 2009
• (U) UFC 4-021-02NF Security Engineering: Electronic Security Systems, September 2006 & Change 1, October 23, 2006
• (U) UFC 4-021-019 Mass Notification Systems, April 9, 2008 & Change 1, January 2010
• (U) UFC 4-022-01 Security Engineering: Entry Control Facilities / Access Control Points, May 25 2005
• (U) UFC 4-022-02 Selection and Application of Vehicle Barriers, June 8 2009 & Change 1 August 9 2010
• (U) UFC 4-022-03 Security Engineering: Fences, Gates and Guard Facilities June 14, 2007 (Pending Approval, Based on MIL-HDBK-1013/10 Design Guidelines for Security Fencing, Gates, Barriers, and Guard Facilities)
• (U) UFC 4-023-03 Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse, July 14, 2009 & Change 1, January 27, 2010
• (U) UFC 4-024-01 Procedures for Designing Airborne Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Protection for Buildings, February 4, 2005
• (U) UFC 3-340-02 Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions, December 5, 2008
• (U) USACE Standard 872-90

4. (U) Site M AT/FP

1. (U) Perimeter Secure Antiterrorism (PSAT) / Boundary

(U) The expansion of the existing PSAT fence to incorporate Site M into the overall NSA/CSS Ft. Meade secure area will include development of a new PSAT fence along the boundary of Site M with connections to the existing fence in the north along Rockenbach Road and in the south along O’Brien Road (See Figure 5-3).

(U//FOUO) The development of the PSAT fence will include demolition of a portion of the fence that runs along O’Brien Road from VCP 4 in the north to VCP 5 in the south. Construction of a new PSAT fence as part of the proposed modifications to Rockenbach Road would include relocation of a portion of the PSAT fence, as well as provision of an emergency VCP gate to provide an alternative exit route for employees and visitors in emergency. As illustrated in Figure 5-2, this fence will be located to provide appropriate security for this portion of the campus. More detailed design of the fence will occur during the design phase for the PSAT. Currently these modifications are planned as part of the JOC project.

(U) Key requirements for construction of the PSAT fence include:

• (U//FOUO) A clear zone of 20 feet on both the exterior and interior sides of the fence
• (U//FOUO) A patrol road along the interior side of the perimeter fence
• (U//FOUO) In order to facilitate vehicle travel along the patrol road, the fence line shall be sited so that grade along the fence is no greater than 10 percent and cross slope from the fence, and that the grade extending across the road is 2 percent.
• (U//FOUO) Grading from the edge of road to the interior limit of the 30 foot clear zone shall be 2 percent minimum, 3:1 maximum. Grading on the exterior side shall be 2 percent for a minimum of 10 feet from the fence and then 2 percent minimum, 3:1 maximum, for the remaining 10 feet of clear zone. If drainage swales are required along the fence line, they shall be placed outside of the clear zones. If the exterior area is a cut slope, then the 2 percent slope shall be maintained for the full 20 feet of clear zone and then the 3:1 slope up can begin.
• (U//FOUO) Special design consideration will be required where the fence crosses streams and drainage ditches.
• (U//FOUO) K-12 per DoS SD-STD-02.01 and conforming with minimum United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) Standard 872-90 and UFC 4-022-03 requirements;
• (U) Conform to minimum USACE Standard 872-90 and UFC 4-022-03 (MIL-HDBK-1013/10) requirements.

Figure 5-2: (U) Site M Proposed AT/FP Plan

Figure 5-3: (U) Site M PSAT Boundary

• (U//FOUO) Fence sensor system will be compatible with existing technology. Detection zones will be 100 feet maximum with zone control modules for at least every two zones mounted within 6 feet of the fence.
• (U//FOUO) Two-fixed position video surveillance cameras mounted on 30 foot tall poles will be located every 100 feet and 6 feet inside the fence.
• (U) One pan and tilt camera with zoom lens (PTZ) will be mounted per pole.
• (U) Additional exterior perimeter intrusion detection sensor technologies may be utilized where necessary at strategic locations to supplement the fence sensor and video surveillance cameras in order to ensure high probability of detection.
• (U//FOUO) Streams, storm drains, drainage ditches, culverts, utility pipes and duct banks or similar points along the perimeter will be monitored and access will be limited with fencing, welded steel grills or grating. A 100-foot setback from streams is recommended to reduce landscaping costs.
• (U//FOUO) Fiber optic communications and infrastructure with manholes will be placed every 500 feet to support cameras, fence sensor system control modules and other perimeter intrusion detection sensors.

(U//FOUO) Figure 5-4 provides a section illustrating the Site M Entry Road and alignment of the PSAT Fence. As shown in the graphic, the PSAT fence will have clear zones along both the interior and exterior of the fence. At this particular location, there would not need to be a patrol road since the entry road would provide appropriate areas to survey the fence. As the fence line continues south on Site M, beyond the Entry Road, a patrol road would be required along the interior of the fence. In addition, the PSAT fence is planned to be located outside the 100 foot buffer area required for the Midway Branch Stream. This buffer, and an additional 20-foot clear area, requires the fence to be a minimum of 120 feet from the stream. This distance would likely be refined during the detailed siting of the fence to address existing topography and vegetation. These refinements will need to be closely coordinated with the setback requirements for the facilities on Site M.

(U//FOUO) Where the new Site M VCP is planned, the PSAT fence would run along the southern side of the access road to the location of the proposed gate. In this area, the PSAT fence may need to be adjusted with respect to existing topography to minimize significant grading. At the planning stage, a potential for a more southerly route around the VCP may help address some of the topographic issues. Also since no buildings are planned near this portion of the site due to the existing drainage swale, the adjustment of the PSAT fence location would not impact future development potential.

(U//FOUO) Then the PSAT fence would continue to the west until it reaches the top of the slope of the existing Midway Branch. Along the eastern edge of Site M, the planned location of the PSAT fence is on the top of the slope adjacent to the Midway Branch. Along the southern edge of Site M, the PSAT fence would follow the proposed site boundary for Site M.

Figure 5-4: (U) Site M Fence Line Section

2. (U) Internal Fences

(U) It is anticipated that the additional internal fences will be constructed around sensitive facilities (Figure 5-3), such as the utility infrastructure and the HPCC. These fences will be designed and constructed to meet the following criteria:

• (U) Fence should be minimum 7 feet above grade with a top rail and barrier consisting of 2-foot outward facing outriggers supporting 3 strands of barbed wire or concertina wire and a bottom rail. Overall height should be at least 8 feet high and 10 feet would be preferable. Fence shall be fabricated as per USACE Standard 872-90 and/or UFC 4-022-03 (MIL-HDBK-1013/10).
• (U) Internal fencing provides an additional level of access control for individual facilities on campus by limiting access and providing confirm checkpoints.

3. (U) Site Access

(U) Access to Site M would occur from either Loop Road A, Loop Road B, or from the Entry Road. Once the proposed PSAT fence has been implemented around the boundary of Site M, Loop Road A and Loop Road B would provide access within the existing NSA/CSS Ft. Meade secure area. This would allow free flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic between the existing portion of the campus and Site M.

(U) The Entry Road would include a new Site M VCP (Figure 5-5). The design of the Site M VCP would incorporate the following features to meet the security requirements for NSA.

4. (U) Site M VCP Requirements:

• (U//FOUO) The guard house(s) and any other buildings located at the VCP shall be constructed to Level 4 criteria minimum.
• (U//FOUO) K12 rated active barriers will be installed to control access. The vehicle stopping system’s conceptual layout shall be in accordance with the protective design Center’s “Army Access control Points Standard Definative Design” dated December 2004. This system requires an increased vehicle stopping zone between the VCP and the barriers.
• (U//FOUO) A serpentine road will be incorporated into the access and egress for the new VCP to reduce the speed of incoming and exiting vehicles and to prevent any 90 degree head on collisions with the new PSAT fence.
• (U//FOUO) The infrastructure to support an under vehicle surveillance system (UVSS) and license plate recognition (LPR) technology will be deployed at each VCP.
• (U//FOUO) Uncleared visitors or those without advance authorization must wait at the VCC for an escort or they will be denied access.
• (U) Visitors will park in the visitor’s parking area located outside the perimeter fence.
• (U//FOUO) Authorized personnel will be granted access after presenting a valid picture badge. If authorized visitors require any escort, they will be processed at the VCC and will be held there until their host arrives to escort them to a facility within the Campus perimeter.
• (U) Routine deliveries will be manifested with the VCP before arrival.
• (U) All delivery vehicles will enter the facility through the VCIF, near VCP 5, and after an appropriate search, will enter the Campus through the VCIF, proceed directly to the loading dock, make deliveries, and then depart the area. All trucks are inspected at the VCIF for explosive and or toxic materials. Unscheduled deliveries will be verified with the receiving tenant activity. VCIF personnel will notify the receiving tenants by telephone if any vehicle is denied entry.
• (U) UPS, FedEx, etc. packages and mail will be scanned and inspected at the MPO.
• (U) Site Circulation / Emergency Egress

Figure 5-5: (U) Site M VCP

(U) Enlargement Plan for VCP 3 Area

5. (U) Realignment of Rockenbach Road

(U//FOUO) Figure 5-6 provides a more detailed view of the proposed realignment of Rockenbach Road and changes to VCP 3 and VCP 4. As described in the ADP, Loop Road A would connect directly to Rockenbach Road allowing easier circulation from VCP 1 to Site M. This realignment also includes creation of two separate roads along the north edge of Site M and NSA. These roads would be separated by a minimum of 45 feet to meet AT/FP requirements and allow for installation of the PSAT between them.

(U//FOUO) The following elements would be implemented:

• (U//FOUO) The Ft. Meade portion of Rockenbach Road would be disconnected from the NSA portion and the Ft. Meade portion of Rockenbach Road would be realigned and connected directly to 3rd Calvary Road. This change will require coordination with the Picerne Development Team since this area is now leased for Army housing by Picerne.
• (U//FOUO) Loop Road A would continue from Site M, parallel to Rockenbach Road until it connects into Rockenbach Road just to the north of the 9800 area.
• (U//FOUO) VCP 3 would be eliminated.
• (U//FOUO) VCP 4 would be retained and shifted north between Loop Road A and Rockenbach Road. This VCP would only serve as an evacuation egress for emergencies.
• (U//FOUO) The existing intersection of Rockenbach and Canine Roads would be realigned to create a through-movement from Canine Road to Rockenbach Road to Loop Road A, improving circulation from VCP 1 to Site M.

(U//FOUO) These changes were analyzed as part of the traffic analysis prepared in 2010 as a follow on study to the NSAW RPMP. Based on this study, this road configuration can support the internal traffic requirements of Site M. The traffic congestion issues that occur due to the growth of NSA are generally on the external roads that feed NSA. This study indicates that VCP 3 and VCP 4 are not required to serve Site M. It does indicate that the new VCP from Rockenbach Road to Site M will be an important component of serving these site requirements. In addition, this study identifies a number of internal upgrades to intersections and VCP gates to meet the future requirements for the overall campus. The Site M studies assume these upgrades will be implemented as the phased growth of NSA requires.

Figure 5-6: (U) Site M Fence Line, Rockenbach Road Realignment and VCP 4

6. (U) Building Setbacks / Hardening Requirements

The proposed Site M facilities will consist of a variety of structures with differing required levels of protection and AT/FP requirements. There will be occupied mission critical facilities including the JOC, Recapitalization building, a series of expansion buildings based on the Recapitalization building, and a central circulation spine connecting them. There will also be HPCC structures, Parking Structures, and VCPs.

(U) JOC, Recapitalization, Expansion Buildings, and Spine

(U//FOUO) UFC 4-010-01 DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings will apply for all of the Primary Gathering and Inhabited Buildings proposed at Site M. The site will be contained within a controlled perimeter. Table B-1 of UFC 4-010-01 sets forth minimum building standoffs from the controlled perimeter and another setback from parking or roadways within a controlled perimeter. All buildings meet these requirements. Risk and Threat analyses, dated August 5th, 2008, have been performed in accordance with DC PAM 190-51 Security for Unclassified Army Property (Sensitive and Nonsensitive) and TM 5-853-1 and they indicate that “additional protective measures above the minimum required by UFC 4-010-01 are needed to mitigate the threat.”

(U//FOUO) UFC 4-010-01 establishes standoff distance requirements for a large explosive weight outside the controlled perimeter and for smaller explosive weight located on a roadway or in a parking lot inside the controlled perimeter-based on the assumption that “large vehicle bombs will be detected and kept from entering the controlled perimeter.” NSA has established an increased standoff from the secure perimeter of 400 feet to meet the additional requirements therefore all structures on Site M will be located at least 400 feet from the perimeter fence as shown in Figure 5-7. This is consistent with Equation B-1, Figure B-1, and the support information listed in Appendix B, Section B-2 for conventional construction in the UFC 4-020-02FA Security Engineering: Concept Design (UFC 4-020-02FA addresses threats and levels of protection beyond the minimums covered in UFC 4-010-01). The standoff distance of 400 feet corresponds to the largest charge weight and the highest level of protection.

(U//FOUO) Security representatives from the site indicated that no additional setbacks from parking or roadways inside the secure perimeter are required for the proposed facilities. Although no elevated Level of Protection requirements for individual buildings on site were provided, the Risk and Threat analysis cited above is consistent with a Very High asset value rating in Table 2-2 Risk Level Matrix from DA PAM 190-51. This can be correlated to the higher levels of Asset Value in Table 3-28 Applicable Levels of Protection from UFC 4-020-01.

Figure 5-7: (U) Site M AT/FP Setbacks

Figure 5-8: (U) Site M AT/FP Setback Requirements

(U//FOUO) If Site M requires a high level of protection for any of the individual facilities, an increased standoff distance would be required from the parking or roadways inside the secure perimeter for the charge weight assumed to avoid detection at the secure perimeter (Explosive Weight II from Table B-1 of 4-010-01). Assuming that charge weight is no larger than the standard weight (Weight II) from UFC 4-010-01, the standoff distance would increase from the typical 82 feet, shown in Figure 5-8, to 147 feet or blast hardening would be required for portions of those facilities located within 147 feet of parking or roadways inside the secure perimeter.

(U//FOUO) To mitigate the potential for progressive collapse, all portions of the structures indicated above that are three or more stories will require additional structural measures as defined in UFC 4-023-03 Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse. The majority of the buildings will have Occupancy Categories of III or IV which require alternate path progressive collapse analysis at the full perimeter at all levels, tie force detailing within the structural slabs at each level, and enhanced local resistance for all perimeter first and second story columns.

(U//FOUO) HPCC

(U//FOUO) The computing center structures will be classified as low occupancy and will not be subject to UFC 4-023-03 progressive collapse mitigation requirements. However, the HPCC buildings will still be located at least 400 feet from the secure perimeter.

(U//FOUO) Parking Structures

(U//FOUO) The parking structures will be classified as low occupancy and will not be subject to UFC 4-010-01 standoff or blast requirements or to the UFC 4-023-03 progressive collapse mitigation requirements. However, all parking structures will be located far enough from any occupied structures that the parked cars contained in the garage will not encroach upon the Conventional or Minimum Standoff Distances for those facilities as required by UFC 4-010-01, Table B-1 and they will be located at least 400 feet from the secure perimeter.

(U//FOUO) Vehicle Control Points

(U//FOUO) The design of the VCP facilities will follow UFC 4-022-01 Security Engineering: Entry Control Facilities/Access Control Points. The Guard Facility Design Criteria Section 6-9.1 indicates that “since guard facilities are located in the immediate vicinity of the explosive threats they are trying to prevent from entering the installation, it is impractical and impossible to provide protection from the possible effects of an explosive device.” The structures at the Vehicle Control Points will not be hardened against blast and no minimum setback requirements apply. The Vehicle Control Points will be less than three stories so the provisions of UFC 4-023-03 Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse will not apply.

7. (U) Building Access

(U) The following guidelines should be incorporated into the design of building access features:

• (U) Each building will have one or more combined entrance and exit. Employees and escorted visitors will use these entrances/exits. All entrance and exit doors will be badge access-controlled with turnstiles. Note that this implies a vestibule area with manned observation by access-control personnel. Certain doors, that may be emergency egress exit-only, will be alarmed and may be provided with delayed egress devices (15-second delay) if allowed by the local Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).
• (U) Loading docks at campus buildings will be monitored for intrusion and any pedestrian entrances will have access control. Video surveillance will be provided to observe the interior of delivery vehicles, the dock itself and building entrances.
• (U) Any doors accessing the roof will be card access-controlled to and from the roof. An emergency ring-down telephone will be installed outside of the door should someone access the roof and somehow lose their card. This ring-down telephone will communicate with the NSAW Security Operations Command Center (SOCC). Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras will be installed to monitor any doors to the roof.
• (U) CCTV cameras will be installed to monitor the building entrances/exits, exit-only doors, and dock doors and also for general surveillance of the building perimeter grounds and areaways. CCTV cameras will be installed to monitor the interior areas of the dock.
• (U) Building Entrances: Entrance/exit lobbies will be staffed with security force personnel whenever the building is open. A metal detector will be provided for screening authorized visitors. An X-ray machine will be provided for the screening of visitor hand-carried items.
• (U) Electronic access control devices will include card readers, keypads, and biometric readers that meet the requirements for Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 12 (HSPD-12). An employee must present a valid access card and input a valid Personal Identification Number (PIN) or provide his fingerprint to gain entrance. Employees and visitors will utilize badges with a PIN to access through turnstiles at building entrances. For egress, proximity badges without a PIN will be used to exit through turnstiles.
• (U) No deliveries will be received in a building lobby (no UPS, FedEx, etc.).
• (U) CCTV cameras will be installed to monitor activity within the building entrance.
• (U//FOUO) Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) Areas: Access to these spaces shall be controlled with card readers and keypads and intrusion detection systems will be provided as required. These facilities will be designed and constructed according to ICD 705 and 708 TEMPEST requirements.

8. (U) Security System Infrastructure

(U) The following guidelines should be incorporated into the planning and design of security system infrastructure:

• (U//FOUO) Security System Infrastructure: A dedicated security system conduit, cable and network design is required. Infrastructure conduit with pull cords and back boxes to support all electronic security system components including CCTV, access control and intrusion detection system equipment will be provided. Appropriate optical fiber, copper cabling conduit and duct bank will be provided as required for both interior and exterior electronic security systems.
• U//FOUO) Conduit and Cable: Conduit and cabling infrastructure is required to support all intrusion detection sensors, automatic gates, barriers and bollards as well as all SCIF IDS, ACS and CCTV systems. Minimum of ū-inch conduit should be provided to each sensor zone or card reader from the local signal processing unit. Four conduit runs for the local signal processing unit to an intelligent field controller in an IDF closet minimum conduit size should be 1 inch. Interior surveillance cameras should receive one conduit, 1 inch minimum each, while exterior cameras should be provided with two 1.25 inch conduits. A minimum of 1-inch conduit will be provided to each sensor zone for the signal processing unit. Exterior surveillance cameras will receive two conduits, 1 inch minimum each. Conduit runs are required to a Site Security Center and may be aggregated into larger conduits over the length of the runs. Fiber optic communications and infrastructure with manholes every 500 feet to support cameras, fence sensor system control modules and other intrusion detection sensors will be provided.
• (U//FOUO) A Protected Distribution System (PDS) is required for exterior duct banks. Manholes will be locked down and monitored.
• (U//FOUO) Emergency Power: All security system power should be fed via emergency circuits from a back-up generator with minimum 20 hour run time and an Uninterruptible Power Supply with battery back-up providing at least four hours of run time. Power feeds from an emergency power source to support exterior systems will be spaced along the inner fence line as required.
• (U//FOUO) Surge Protections: Appropriate surge protection for all electronic security system and related communication equipment will be required.
• (U//FOUO) Grounding and bonding of all the security systems will be in accordance with the National Electric Safety Code (NESC).

9. (U) Site Landscape / Design

(U) Design of the protective elements related to the site and landscape treatment should seek to visually enhance and complement the design of the overall campus and the facilities. An Installation Design Guide was prepared in conjunction with the RPMP dated January 2009. This document provides additional design guidance for Site M standards.

(U) All landscaped areas around buildings, utility facilities, parking areas and along the roads will be maintained per the following criteria:

• (U) Lighting
  • (U) Provide a minimum of 1.0 foot candles at all building entrances and exits (inside and out). Provide a minimum of 1.0 foot candles throughout the parking and pedestrian areas. Metal Halide lighting is preferred in outdoor areas. Provide a minimum of 0.2 foot candles at all critical infrastructure room entrance doors where a CCTV camera is placed. For lighting requirements refer to UFC 3-530-01, “Design: Interior, Exterior Lighting and Controls” and the recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
• (U) Signage
  • (U) Install appropriate signage to notify persons approaching that the property is restricted (“No Trespassing” or as specified by the client) and that force many be used to deter potential intruders. Signage should be placed every 100 feet along the perimeter line. Final wording of signage will be determined during a detailed design phase.
• (U) Bollards
  • (U) K-12 rated hydraulic bollards with manual overrides or removable bollards will be utilized to prevent vehicular ramming of hazardous storage facilities or buildings where desired standoff distances cannot be achieved, and to protect pedestrians on sidewalks.
• (U) Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)
  • (U) Plantings (trees, bushes, etc.) shall not obstruct lines of sight for human or video surveillance of the perimeter, critical facilities, building entrances, roadways, walkways and parking areas. Landscaping will be limited within 10 meters (33 feet) of structures in order to deny concealment from observation of explosive devices 150 millimeters (6 inches) or greater in height. This does not preclude the placement of site furnishings or plantings around Campus buildings. It only requires conditions such that any explosive devices placed in that space be observable by security personnel and building occupants.
  • (U) Use of natural barriers such as berms, rocks or water features may be implemented to delay, deter or prevent access to buildings or other critical facilities such as hazardous material or fuel storage areas.
  • (U) No roadways or designated parking areas will be located within 10 meters (33 feet) of any structure. Buildings with a routine occupancy greater than 50 people will maintain a 25 meters (82 feet) buffer zone between the exterior walls of the building and onsite roadways and parking.
  • (U) In addition to these standards and guidelines, the following strategies should be considered when determining orientation of buildings on the site:
  • (U) Deny aggressors a clear “line of site” to the facility from on or off the installation where possible. Protect the facility against surveillance by locating the protected facility outside of the range or out of the view of vantage points.
  • (U) Protect against attack by selecting perimeter barriers to block sightlines such as obstruction screens, trees, and shrubs. The use of native, adaptive or drought tolerant plants has the added benefit of requiring minimal irrigation and ongoing maintenance. Non-critical structure or other natural or man-made elements can be used to block sight lines.
  • (U) Create defensible space by positioning facilities to permit building occupants and police to monitor adjacent areas.
  • (U) If roads are nearby, orient buildings so there are not sides parallel to vehicle approach routes.
  • (U) Design vehicular flow to minimize vehicle bomb threats and avoid high-speed approach into any critical or vulnerable area.
  • (U) Avoid locating the facility adjacent to higher terrain, which provides easy viewing of the facility from nearby non-military facilities.

10. (U) Construction Security Requirements for Development of Site M

(U//FOUO) Development of Site M will require the development of a more detailed Construction Security Plan (CSP) by the appropriate authorities overseeing site development. Prior to preparing this detailed plan, the following section has been developed to identify the physical requirements that should be planned for during the design and included in the cost estimates for Site M. These physical requirements fall into the following major categories:

(U//FOUO) Access Control

(U//FOUO) As described in the ADP and AT/FP documents, the plan for Site M is to implement the security fence in its ultimate location as part of the initial development of the site. This will allow the site to become part of the secured NSA compound so all construction will be able to occur within the secured site.

(U//FOUO) While this initial action will allow for implementation of security procedures that follow the typical procedures in construction and renovation of buildings within the existing complex, the scale and level of activity on Site M will require additional access control to be implemented.

(U//FOUO) A recommended strategy for securing Site M is to retain the existing PSAT fence line along O’Brien Road during the construction process. By retaining this fence, Site M will be within the overall NSA secured site and isolated from the existing site operations. This would enable construction activities on Site M to be managed separately from the existing site.

(U//FOUO) Temporary fencing will be established to secure portions of the site where planned facilities are to be constructed, as well as areas for storage of materials. In addition, depending on the final plans for verification of construction workers there may need to be a separate area where workers can pass through a security check point prior to entering the construction site. This issue will be further discussed in the section on Construction Worker Access.

(U//FOUO) A key component of access control will be the handling of private vehicles and provision for how on-site workers will be able to access the site. In accordance with current procedures at NSA, all private vehicles will be parked in a separate or remote location and a shuttle service will be provided between the remote parking area and the Site M Construction access point as necessary. Retaining the existing O’Brien Road fence line may enable some alternative approaches to handling construction employee access, parking and circulation.

(U//FOUO) On-site Security Facilities

(U//FOUO) It is anticipated that there will be on-site construction trailers for each project, along with the necessary guard booths or confirm stations. In addition, depending on the overall timing of the development and the implementation of the plans to expand the VCIF facility, there may need to be a facility on site to inspect construction equipment and materials prior to use on the site. This facility would need to be located in an appropriate location within or near Site M. The construction trailers will be located near the construction fencing and access control location for the construction areas.

(U//FOUO) On-site Materials and Equipment Storage

(U//FOUO) Separate location(s) within Site M should be established for storage of materials and equipment. Assuming that multiple contractors will be operating on site simultaneously to implement the three initial projects and associated site work, several locations would be identified and secured for these purposes.

(U//FOUO) Management of Construction Worker Access

(U//FOUO) Depending on the stage of construction, contractors will need varying levels of clearance. This will require a check point either at the remote parking location and / or on site to confirm status of each worker entering the site. These requirements will expand as projects move from construction of a building’s “warm-shell” to the interior fit-out of facilities. As noted in access control, these workers would not have direct access to their vehicles on the construction site and would therefore need to have a shuttle that runs on a regular schedule to return them to their vehicles as necessary. In addition, these workers may need access to food and beverages during the day for which a procedure would need to be established during the design process.

(U//FOUO) Future Development once the Site is Operating

(U//FOUO) Construction of future facilities within this secure environment will require adherence to existing NSA construction requirements. In addition to issues noted previously in this section, new construction will need to be properly separated and secured from existing / operating buildings. Since it is assumed that all buildings on site will be SCIF, then all buildings will need to be constructed with the appropriate measures to shield them from future adjacent development, and utility infrastructure will need to be designed to ensure future connections of new facilities can be implemented without violating any ongoing operational and security requirements.

11. (U//FOUO) AT/FP and Security Cost Estimates

(U//FOUO) Cost estimates for AT/FP elements have been included in the development of costs for the ADP and the supporting costs for the UAD, the JOC and Recapitalization 1391’s reports. These estimates include AT/FP costs in several categories to ensure these costs are properly accounted for within the overall cost estimates for each project and overall campus development.

(U//FOUO) The AT/FP costs fall into the following categories:

• (U//FOUO) Capital Costs:
  • (U//FOUO) AT/FP Elements including the PSAT, VCP, Confirm Stations and other internal features such as fence lines, and security infrastructure.
  • (U//FOUO) Construction Mark-up of 9 percent on all facilities to incorporate requirements for blast protection and progressive collapse.
• (U//FOUO) General Security Costs
  • (U//FOUO) The cost estimates include additional markups to address increased labor costs and additional material costs. These include the following:
  • (U//FOUO) Increased material costs of 10 percent for security measures required for materials inspection and processing.
  • (U//FOUO) Increased labor costs of 20 percent for productivity factor under screening and processing of workforce.

(U//FOUO) For detailed information on these costs please see the ADP, UAD, JOC 1391 and Recapitalization 1391 companion studies to this report.

5. (U) Phasing

(U) It is likely that Site M will be developed over a series of phases based on availability of funding. Phasing of AT/FP elements will need to be carefully planned as part of this phased development process.

(U) Based on the current plans, the PSAT fence would be built in its entirety as part of the JOC and HPCC buildings. If funding is limited and only one of these projects moves forward, it is recommended that the PSAT fence then be constructed in two phases – one encompassing the southern portion of the site and one encompassing the northern portion. The portion of the PSAT that would be constructed through the middle of the site between SATCOM and the Midway Branch, which is generally the narrowest portion of the site, would be planned as a temporary fence to be removed as part of the build-out of the remainder of the site.

(U) As future development occurs on the site, it is anticipated that temporary fencing would be constructed to limit access within the areas of construction of future buildings or other infrastructure elements. These interim fencing solutions could provide a longer-term solution if the ultimate construction of the PSAT is planned in phases rather than in its entirety during the initial phases of development. This issue will need to be addressed on a step-by-step basis depending on how funding for the site is obtained.

(U) The following provide some guidance on standards for interim and construction AT/FP.

• (U) Provide a temporary fence around construction areas to be relocated as the various phases are completed and replaced with new permanent fencing when appropriate. Or provide a permanent fence, if possible, to eliminate the need for a temporary solution;
• (U) Temporary fence should be a minimum of 7 feet above grade with top guards consisting of 2 foot outriggers supporting 3 strands of barbed wire or concertina wire and a bottom rail and fabricated as per USACE Standard 872‐90 and/or UFC 4‐022‐03 requirements UFC 4‐022‐03;
• (U) Video surveillance of the perimeter fence line and exterior grounds of the construction area;
• (U) Require advance credentialing and authorization of all seeking access to the facility;
• (U) Provide access control and vehicle inspections for contractors, visitors, deliveries, etc.

(U) The implementation of the AT/FP strategies for Site M will allow for a coordinated approach to developing a secure campus. If planned properly, these elements can be seamlessly incorporated into the overall campus and building design, limiting the need for future retrofitting of buildings or site features to incorporate additional elements. As noted in Chapter 4 and within this chapter, the site has been planned to incorporate all the appropriate setbacks, PSAT fencing, technologies and other landscape features to create a secure and attractive environment for employees and visitors.

6. (U) Cost Estimate

(U) The following section provides a summary of the cost estimates for the build out of Site M as described in the ADP report. These estimates are coordinated with the estimates that are included in the UAD, Recapitalization 1391 and USCYBERCOM Joint Operations Center (JOC) 1391. Specifically the following cost components are based on the estimates included in these separate studies:

• (U) Recapitalization Building and Administration Buildings B1, B2, B3, B4, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12
• (U) Joint Operations Building 1391 (B5)
• (U) Parking Garages (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8)
• (U) Site Utilities (water, wastewater, stormwater, electrical, natural gas, cooling and heating, telecommunications) (UAD)

(U) The following facility estimates are based on previous building costs provided by the Government:

• (U) HPCC Building (DD Form 1391 February 2011)

(U) A detailed list of assumptions that was used to develop these cost estimates is included in the Appendix of the report. These assumptions include mark-ups, escalation, security requirements, items not included such as hazardous material abatement, local fees, and furniture costs.

(U) The estimate includes a summary line item list of all the major components that would be part of the development of Site M. This summary has been created by a combination of detailed estimates for some specific components and pulling the total costs for other components from the UAD, Recapitalization and JOC 1391s. Detailed cost has been provided for the following components:

• (U) Administration Buildings B1, B2, B3, B4, B6, B7, B8, B9, B11, B12
• (U) ADP Sitework (full site development)
• (U) Parking Garage (P5)
• (U) Typical Parking Garage (P1, P2, P3, P4, P6, P7, P8)
• (U) Parking Lot (P11)
• (U) Spine Building

(U) Additional detailed costs can be found in the UAD as well as the DD Form 1391s for the USCYBERCOM JOC Building and Recapitalization Building.

Table 6-1: (U) Cost Estimate

Table 6-1: (U//FOUO)  Cost Estimate (Continued)

LOCATION	U/M	Quantity	Unit Cost	COST (000)
SUPPORTING FACILITIES (Continued)
Chilled Water Piping Site Distribution	LS	—	—	(9,670)
Rainwater Capture System	LS	—	—	(3,091)
Reclaimed Water System	LS	—	—	(14,662)
Water Site Distribution	LS	—	—	(17,560)
Waste Water Site Distribution	LS	—	—	(1,061)
Natural Gas Site Distribution	LS	—	—	(693)
Telecom	LS	—	—	(41,322)
Storm Water Site Distribution	LS	—	—	(5,669)
PSAT Fence	LS	—	—	(5,148)
Access & Service Roadways	LS	—	—	(18,935)
Sitework	LS	—	—	(12,192)
Site Landscaping	LS	—	—	(45,209)
Country Club Modifications	LS	—	—	(2,576)
LEED – Support Facilities @ 2%	LS	—	—	(696)
Antiterrorism/Force Protection	LS	—	—	(3,134)
BG&E Connection Fee	LS	—	—	(1,360)
Estimated Contract Cost				2,134,518
Contingency Percent	5.0 %			(106,726)
Subtotal				(2,241,244)
SIOH	5.7 %			(127,751)
Design Cost	4.0 %			(85,381)
H1 HPCC				(778,070)
Total Request				(3,232,445)

7. (U) Conclusion

(U) The Site M ADP provides a comprehensive yet flexible plan for the future development of Site M. This plan provides a more detailed and specific area development plan for Site M based on the overall framework as developed in the NSAW RPMP (December 2008). In addition, the ADP has been developed in coordination with the UAD (June 2011). All three documents – the NSAW RPMP, UAD and ADP along with the NSAW North Campus Plan (July 2009) – form the basis for the future Development of NSA/CSS Ft. Meade Campus.

(U) The ADP document as well as these others should be seen as “living documents” that can be amended as necessary to address future requirements or changes in mission. It is anticipated that future more detailed studies and development of the individual program elements will continue to be prepared in accordance with available funding and changing mission requirements. Future versions of this ADP could be prepared incorporating appendices that reference these additional more detailed studies, or changes to the plan or the ADP could be undertaken if changes are warranted. The intent of this ADP is to provide the overall framework major guidance for future development of this very important site based on all available information.

Share this: