NCPC Plan Review

Overview

Established by Congress in 1924, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) is the federal government's central planning agency for the National Capital Region (NCR). Through planning, policymaking, and project review, NCPC protects and advances the federal government's interest in the NCR's development. The Commission provides overall planning guidance for federal land and buildings in the region by reviewing the design of federal and certain local projects, overseeing long-range planning for future development, and monitoring capital investment by federal agencies.

The 12-member Commission meets monthly (except August) to adopt, approve, or provide advice on plans and projects that impact the NCR. The Commission is supported by a staff of planners, architects, urban designers, landscape architects, and other professionals. Learn more about NCPC's staff and the Commission online.

NCPC's Legislative Authorities

NCPC is an establishment within the executive branch charged with oversight of the development of federal property in the NCR. Its fundamental authority derives from the National Capital Planning Act of 1952, as amended, including the Home Rule amendments. This legislation created the Commission as it exists today. While the National Capital Planning Act defines and authorizes NCPC's core mission, other authorities serve as the basis for additional Commission activities.

NCPC's activities include:

• Comprehensive Planning
• Plan and Project Review
• Capital Improvements
• District Zoning
• Land Acquisition and Disposition

The National Capital Region

A: The NCR includes properties located within the District of Columbia; Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties in Virginia; and all cities in Maryland or Virginia in the geographic area inside the boundaries of the NCR of the combined area of the counties listed such as the Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Rockville. As noted above, NCPC is charged with oversight of the development of federal property within the NCR.

Q: My agency manages a facility(s) on federally owned land in the environs of Maryland or Virginia. What improvements qualify for review by NCPC?

A: NCPC's review is required for different types of projects on federal land in the environs of Maryland and Virginia. This includes building, site, and park projects; master plans; projects on land in Maryland purchased with Capper-Cramton funds; commemorative works on land administered by the National Park Service or the General Services Administration within the District of Columbia and a select portion of land along the Potomac River in Virginia (in yellow on map); and antenna or telecommunication infrastructure installations.

Building, site, and park projects are the types of projects most often submitted to NCPC for review. While there are several types of projects in this category, the submission process and guidelines are the same. Examples of projects in this category include: 1) building construction or renovation, with or without site improvements, 2) site improvements such as grading, landscaping, and street and road construction or improvements, and 3) perimeter security.

A: NCPC, through planning, policymaking, and plan review, defines and protects both federal interests and broader national interests in the region's development as the seat of the federal government. NCPC's review is important because local and state governments do not have the authority to review development on federal land. One of NCPC's primary functions is to review development projects and master plans in the NCR for consistency with the Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital. NCPC aims to improve projects through a collaborative process, encourage coordination among agencies, and provide opportunities for public input. Engaging the public and stakeholders is part of all projects and work that NCPC does and is a crucial part of its mission as a public planning agency. The Commission is often called upon to be a cross-agency convener for federal and District agencies.

A: The Commission has approval authority for projects on federal land in Washington, DC; projects on District land within the Central Area; projects on land purchased with Capper-Cramton funds; commemorative works located in the District and on a select portion of land along the Potomac River in Virginia administered by the National Park Service or General Services Administration; and transfers of jurisdiction in Washington, DC between federal agencies, a federal agency and a District agency, and District agencies.

The Commission has advisory authority for master plans for federal property in the NCR; projects on federal land in those portions of Maryland and Virginia within the NCR; and projects on District land in Washington, DC outside of the Central Area.

A: Submission materials generally consist of an application form, a project report, and any available National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation required for the project. NCPC's Submission Guidelines describe the Commission's statutory authority, the content of submissions, submission stages, and the overall coordination and review process of NCPC's project review. Agencies that are subject to plan and project review must submit development proposals in accordance with the process laid out in the guidelines. Visit our website to learn more and download a copy of NCPC's Submission Guidelines.

A: The Commission typically meets on the first Thursday of each month, except for August. Submission deadlines for most projects fall approximately 35 days before Commission meetings. Some projects need 90 days for review. These include:

• Master plans
• Projects not on an approved master plan and requiring referral to state or local authorities
• Technically complex proposals
• Projects requiring additional time to gather public input

A: When you are ready to submit your project for review, contact the NCPC Project Officer assigned to your agency and request a link to the online submission portal. The portal allows you to upload all project documents, including any necessary NHPA or NEPA documentation. All documents submitted to NCPC should be accessible and adhere to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended in 1998 (29 U.S.C. § 794 (d)).

A: Yes. NCPC recognizes that some federal properties have enhanced security needs. As such, NCPC's submission requirements offer flexibility to meet the needs of individual agencies and protect information that is designated by the applicant as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Contact the NCPC Project Officer for more information, and refer to NCPC's Resource Guide for CUI Master Plans.

A: While there are unique requirements for individual project types, the review process generally follows four basic steps. Each step is designed to provide NCPC staff and the Commission with increasingly detailed information as the project and any related NEPA and NHPA Section 106 analyses progress. Understanding NCPC's submission process and completing timely submissions are important to avoiding costly delays and revisions later in the project's design. Refer to NCPC's Submission Guidelines for more information about the unique submission requirements based on your individual project type.

A: For facilities located in the environs of Maryland and Virginia, NCPC Project Officers (PO) are assigned to facilities according to the agency that manages the facility's improvements, also referred to as the applicant agency. In cases where an applicant agency manages several projects in multiple locations, the PO assignments are subdivided by locality. Refer to the enclosed chart for the current PO assignments and contact information. PO assignments for facilities located in the District are made on a rolling basis. If you have any questions about who to reach out to, contact info@ncpc.gov or call (202) 482-7200.

NCPC Project Officer Contacts for Maryland and Virginia Facilities (by Applicant Agency)

To contact the NCPC Project Officer assigned to your agency, please visit the Urban Design and Plan Review section of NCPC's About the Staff webpage.

Review of Projects on Lands Acquired Under theCapper-Cramton Act

Overview

The Capper-Cramton Act (CCA) of 1930 (46 Stat. 482) was enacted for the acquisition, establishment, and development of the George Washington Memorial Parkway and stream valley parks in Maryland and Virginia to create a comprehensive park, parkway, and playground system in the National Capital. ^[1] In addition to authorizing funding for acquisition, the act granted the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, now the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), review authority to approve any Capper-Cramton park development or management plan in order to ensure the protection and preservation of the region’s valuable watersheds and parklands.

Subsequent amendments to the Capper-Cramton Act ^[2] allocated funds for the acquisition and extension of this park and parkway system in Maryland and Virginia. Title to lands acquired with such funds or lands donated to the United States as Capper Cramton land is vested in the state in which it is located. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) utilized Capper-Cramton funds to protect stream valleys in parts of Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. Similarly, the District of Columbia used federal funds to develop recreation centers, playgrounds, and park systems. There is no evidence that Virginia utilized Capper-Cramton funds to acquire stream valley parks under the CCA. Today, over 10,000 acres of Capper-Cramton land have been established and preserved as a result of the act. This guide is not a regulatory document.

Capper-Cramton Land

Based on the terms of the act as amended in 1946 and 1952, in Maryland and Virginia, Capper-Cramton lands consist of lands designated by the act and acquired with federal funds. Capper-Cramton lands also include lands in Maryland donated to the United States with the intention that they be added to lands previously acquired. Capper-Cramton lands do not include designated lands never acquired with federal funds or lands directly donated to any of the governing jurisdictions listed in the act, such as the M-NCPPC, even if such lands are located inside of the “taking lines” in stream valleys.

Capper Cramton lands include the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Virginia, (not shown on the map), Rock Creek Park, Anacostia watershed stream valleys, including the Anacostia River, Indian Creek, Paint Branch, Little Paint Branch, the Northwest Branch, and Sligo Creek. Other stream valley acquisitions include Cabin John Creek, Little Falls Branch, Willet Run, and Oxon Run.

Lands acquired in Washington with CCA funds are not considered Capper-Cramton lands. Instead, in accordance with the 1924 Act, as amended, the CCA placed District parks under the jurisdiction of either the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army or, if developed for playground purposes, the District of Columbia Commissioners. In 1933 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6166 which subsequently transferred jurisdiction of the lands under the jurisdiction of the Chief Engineer to the National Park Service (NPS). Thus, NPS exercises authority over District parklands acquired with Capper-Cramton funds. NCPC reviews these federal lands under its National Capital Planning Act authority.

NCPC Authority of Capper-Cramton Lands

NCPC’s authority on Capper-Cramton lands derives from the CCA, as amended, and the contractual terms and conditions of mandated agreements entered into between NCPC and the designated park authority in Maryland or Virginia. For the reason stated above, NCPC possesses no authority over District land acquired with Capper-Cramton funds. Furthermore, since there is no evidence of Capper-Cramton lands in Virginia, NCPC never entered into an agreement with any Virginia park authority.

The amended act authorized NCPC to approve the development of Capper-Cramton lands in Maryland. It also called for agreements between NCPC and M-NCPPC to flesh out the financial, development, and management terms for the lands.

NCPC and M-NCPPC entered into an agreement on November 19, 1931, with later amendments.^[3] This agreement was approved by the President of the United States,^[4] the Governor of the State of Maryland, the President of the Board of County Commissioners of Montgomery County, and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Montgomery County.^[5] Section 5 of the agreement requires title to lands acquired with Capper-Cramton funds to vest in the State of Maryland; prohibits in whole or in part, the conveyance, sale, lease, exchange or use or development of lands acquired with Capper-Cramton funds for other than park purposes; and requires Capper-Cramton lands to be developed in accordance with plans approved by NCPC.

NCPC has fairly consistently interpreted “park purposes” to mean projects that provide public benefits such as improving the water quality of streams, along with improving park accessibility and park resources. Examples include restoring wetlands and meadow areas in a stream valley park, stormwater management, improvements to park access and the trail network, and additions of or improvements to more active recreational uses such as playgrounds. NCPC’s review will also look to guidance from the federal Park & Open Space Element, which also includes several policies related to projects on Capper-Cramton land.

NCPC's longstanding practice to treat Maryland Capper-Cramton applications as approval of development plans implies a Capper-Cramton park development plan is not static but can change over time at which point a new development plan must be submitted to NCPC for approval.

The Review Process

The NCPC review process for projects on Capper Cramton land is not unlike the review process for building, site, and park projects in the region. The specific submission process is discussed in detail in NCPC’s Submission Guidelines. The review process generally follows four basic steps:

C.U.I.

Master Plans with Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Overview

Master plans are comprehensive in nature and as a result, it can be challenging for federal agencies to identify what information is necessary to provide for NCPC’s review. This is particularly true when each agency has its own master plan criteria to follow and when that criteria is considered Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) ^[1]. The purpose of this resource guide is to provide additional guidance to federal agencies for integrating their master planning processes with NCPC’s master plan review, to avoid unnecessary CUI in master plans, and to summarize NCPC’s policy for managing that information when it is necessary.

The Purpose and Role of Federal Master Plans

A master plan is a comprehensive development proposal for a campus or installation with more than one building, structure, or activity, either existing or proposed. In general, it serves as a roadmap for the future physical expansion of a federal installation or campus and foundation for long-term investment, typically over a 20-year planning horizon. A master plan considers mission needs, new or changing activities, workforce and visitor projections, and facility conditions. It identifies land uses; architectural styles, development massing and form; street networks; amount of parking; pedestrian and bicycle facilities; stormwater management; and an approach to landscape design. It also analyzes impacts to visual, environmental, cultural, and historic resources.

NCPC reviews master plans to ensure the orderly development of the National Capital Region in a way that supports the mission of each installation while respecting and coordinating with the surrounding communities and other federal agencies. Master plans have an important role in NCPC’s review of individual site and building development projects on federal installations and campuses. NCPC uses master plans to understand the potential impacts of those projects on and off-site, and how each project advances the vision for the installation or campus.

Federal Master Planning Processes

NCPC derives its review authority for review of federal and District campus developments and federal military installations from the National Capital Planning Act. NCPC reviews master plans for consistency with the policies contained in the Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Such policies guide land use, building layout and massing, transportation, the protection of environmental resources, and historic preservation. NCPC's Submission Guidelines describe the specific content that federal agencies should include in their master plans to facilitate the Commission's review in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan policies.

Master Plan Submission Content for Controlled Unclassified Information

NCPC recognizes that federal installations and campuses have enhanced security needs. As such, NCPC’s submission requirements offer flexibility to meet the needs of individual agencies and protect information that is designated as CUI. NCPC has divided its standard master plan content into three categories designed to reduce the amount of CUI and superfluous information in federal master plans for the Commission’s review and streamline the review process for the submitting agency. The following paragraphs summarize these three categories.

1) Necessary Content

Necessary Content is essential to NCPC’s review of master plans. It forms the primary structure of a master plan and identifies the connection between future projects, programming, and the goals of the installation or campus. Without the Necessary Content, individual project development plans on an installation or campus are difficult for the Commission to analyze because there is not enough context to understand how the individual project fits into the master plan or what potential impacts the project will have on and off the site. Necessary Content in master plans submitted to NCPC includes:

• General street and block patterns
• General land uses
• Building footprints/massing
• Transportation networks
• Tree removal and mitigation/regrowth areas
• Stormwater management networks
• Open space/recreational networks

2) Desirable Content

Desirable Content is not required for master plans submitted to NCPC, but it is recommended to support the Commission’s review and strengthen their understanding of the spatial and visual characteristics of a plan. For example, street cross-sections are Desirable Content that communicate the dimensional relationship of street and block patterns. Desirable Content for master plans submitted to NCPC includes:

• Design standards (architectural standards, street furniture, parking lot standards, etc.)
• Street cross-sections
• Planning districts

3) Unnecessary Content

Unnecessary Content is information that is not needed to support the Commission’s understanding of the master plan and is not needed to ensure consistency with the Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, Unnecessary Content often corresponds with content considered CUI by the submitting agency. As such, it should not be included with any submission to NCPC. Unnecessary Content for master plans submitted to NCPC includes:

• Specific user missions or building uses
• Detailed information on airfield operations, training, weapon systems
• Interior building configurations
• Underground utilities or other below-ground systems
• Specific security set-back dimensions

NCPC CUI Policies

In certain cases, the submitting agency may determine that Necessary or Desirable Content is considered CUI. When this happens, NCPC has the following policies in place for managing the master plan:

• The master plan is only reviewed by the NCPC Project Officer, Plan Review Director, the Executive Director, the General Counsel, the Commission Secretary, and the Commission in a closed Executive Session.
• All hard copies of the master plan are stored in a locked drawer and electronic files are stored only on the Project Officer’s secure laptop.
• The staff report and presentation for public dissemination has all CUI information removed, with more general information substituted.
• After review, all hardcopies are destroyed, and all electronic files are deleted from the Project Officer’s laptop.

Alternatively, applicants may require the contractor to prepare two versions of the master plan – one “complete version” (with CUI) and one “public version” (without CUI). CUI can be redacted on a “line-by-line” basis or located in Appendix sections. In this strategy, only the “public version” would be shared in the staff report and at the Commission’s regular public meeting.

Review of Projects on District Land

Overview

Review ofForeign Missions in Washington

Overview

Review of Foreign Missions on Private Land

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

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

Review of Foreign Missions on Federal Land

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

International Chancery Center

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

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

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

Foreign Missions Center

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

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

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

Review of Amendments to theHighway Plan

Overview

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

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

Highway Plan Amendments

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

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

NCPC Review of Highway Plan Amendments

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

Memorial Site Selection & Design Review

Overview

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

Commemorative Works Act

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

Agency Roles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memorials and Museums Master Plan

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

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

Commemorative Works: Site Selection and Design Review Process

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

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

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

Project Initiation

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

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

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

Eisenhower Memorial

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

National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission Site Selection Review

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

Concept Review of Site Selection

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

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

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

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

Memorial Design Development

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

Concept Review of Commemorative Design

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

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

Design Development and Environmental Compliance

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

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

Revised Concept Review

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

Preliminary Review of Site Selection and Commemorative Design

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

National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission Commemorative Design Consultation

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

Final Environmental Compliance

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

Final Review of Site Selection and Commemorative Design

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

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

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

NPS/GSA Permit Process

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

Review of Projects with theMetropolitan Washington Airports Authority

Overview

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

MWAA Memorandum of Understanding

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

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

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

NCPC Review Interest

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

Environmental and Historic Preservation Compliance

Overview

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

National Environmental Policy Act

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

NCPC’s Role in the NEPA Process

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

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

Public Involvement in NEPA

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

National Historic Preservation Act

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

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

NCPC’S role in the NHPA Process

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

In meeting its Section 106 obligations, NCPC reviews building exteriors, and in some limited instances, interior components which necessitate exterior changes. This is based on the legal rationale of independent utility, which requires NCPC to consider whether interior and exterior components have separate and distinct functionality, or whether they only work together. NCPC’s interior review is limited to only those areas or components directly related to an exterior change. NCPC will determine the extent of interior review and consultation in coordination with the applicant agency. For more information, see the memorandum prepared by NCPC in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

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

Local Historic Districts and Landmarks

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

NEPA and NHPA alignment with project submission stages

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

Integration of NEPA and NHPA

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

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

NEPA and Section 106 Process Overview

Limited Review of Development onPrivate Land in Washington

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naval Observatory (Subtitle D)

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

Independence Avenue Sub Area (Subtitle I)

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

Southeast Federal Center (Subtitle K)

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

Capitol Gateway (Subtitle K)

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

Union Station North Zone (Subtitle K)

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

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

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

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

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

Stormwater Management

Overview

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

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

Legislation and NCPC Authorities

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

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

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

The Clean Water Act

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

Local Stormwater Management Regulations

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

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

Tree Preservation and Replacement

Overview

Replacing Trees for Long-Term Success

As described above, trees are a valuable resource for a variety of reasons. In many cases, especially on federal land in the National Capital Region, development seeks multiple alternatives to plan and design around existing trees so that as few trees as possible are disturbed. Yet in some cases, the only way to produce a viable project is to eliminate the trees on the parcel in question.

The planning and design process implements tree removal mitigation methods that are driven by the policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. NCPC’s tree preservation and replacement policies address preservation and replacement of both individual trees and forests. The method to replace individual trees is based on a formula developed by Arlington County to quantify the number of replacement trees based on the existing tree’s size, species rating, and condition rating. For forests, the replacement method is a ratio based on the number of acres removed.

In regard to replanting, the size of the new tree is based on its type (e.g.; shade, evergreen, ornamental, etc.). The Comprehensive Plan policies recommend a minimum caliper size of 2.5 inches for new shade trees, 1.5 inches for ornamental trees, and a minimum six-foot height for evergreen and multi-stem trees. While trees of this size are easier to transplant, the ease of transport is not the main reason to plant smaller trees. They also will acclimate to the new site sooner than a larger tree would and will generally be healthier over their lifetime.

In addition, the nursery industry typically grows trees to be sold in certain size intervals. For trees more than seven-feet in height at the time of planting (such as shade trees), the most common sizes found in nurseries are 1 to 2.5-inch caliper, 3 to 4-inch caliper, and 4 to 6-inch caliper. Once the trees reach these sizes, their roots are balled and burlapped so the tree is ready to be transported to the development site for planting. A tree over a 6-inch caliper may have more difficulty reestablishing itself at a new site, resulting in additional maintenance to help the tree succeed. Sometimes even with the additional maintenance larger trees may not fully recover from the initial “shock” from being transplanted. Therefore, at the outset, planting several smaller trees on the same site where the mature tree was removed can cumulatively replace the canopy area that the mature tree was providing. The long-term result will be a net increase in the canopy area on that site as those smaller trees mature. As noted above, since these smaller trees will acclimate more easily than a large tree would, the odds of achieving this long-term benefit are increased.

This is not to say that transplanting trees larger than 6 inches is impossible. Whether the large tree is transplanted from a nursery specializing in growing large trees, another location on-site, or a location off-site, there are many factors to consider. The current and proposed location of the tree, as well as the soil conditions, available light, water, and the amount of the critical root zone that can be retained should all be considered. The critical root zone (or CRZ) is essentially a circle on the ground that corresponds to the dripline of the tree. It is usually 18 to 24-inches deep and contains the tree’s most important roots for absorbing water and nutrients. Retention of the CRZ is a significant factor in the tree’s establishment after it is transplanted. Another essential consideration for transplanting trees is aftercare maintenance. As discussed above, large trees have a harder time acclimating to a new site than smaller trees. Activities such as frequent watering, misting, mulching, and follow-up visits should be outlined in a maintenance manual prepared by an arborist or qualified tree care professional, and carefully followed to facilitate the tree’s ability to get reestablished in a new location.

What Does the Comprehensive Plan say about Tree Preservation and Replacement?

The federal government should:

1. Preserve and protect existing trees, especially individual trees, stands, and forests of healthy, native or non-invasive species. Account for existing trees early in the planning and design processes when development occurs to maximize preservation and incorporate the natural landscape into the design. In addition:

1. Trees 31.85-inches in diameter (100 inches in circumference) or greater may not be removed, unless:
   1. Removal is critical to accomplishing the mission of the agency and planning/design alternatives that would preserve such tree(s) have been explored and determined incapable of accommodating program requirements, or
   2. The tree(s) are considered invasive, hazardous, or high risk per an Arborist’s evaluation.
2. All possible considerations should be taken to preserve and protect trees in areas determined to be critical to the health of tidal waters, tidal wetlands, and tributary streams of the Chesapeake Bay or Potomac River watersheds, and on sites with old growth forests and/or with significant ecosystems.

1. Transplant or replace existing tree(s) when they are impacted by development and preservation is not feasible, according to the following procedures:

1. Transplant healthy, native, or non-invasive tree(s) where practicable. Consult an Arborist and consider the following factors when determining if transplanting is appropriate:
   1. Tree species, size, and condition
   2. Historic or cultural significance of the tree (e.g., “legacy tree or legacy vegetation” or those that contribute to historic city plans and cultural landscapes)
   3. Current location of the tree(s) compared with the proposed location of the tree(s) (e.g., urban condition vs. open field; shade vs. sun)
   4. Soil quality at the current and proposed locations (e.g., sandy loam vs. silty clay; availability of organic matter)
   5. Percent of critical root area that can be retained
   6. Maintenance of tree(s) after transplanting
2. Replace tree(s) when they require removal. Replacement tree(s) should increase biodiversity, be native species or non-invasive species ^[1], and have a mature canopy spread equivalent to, or greater than, the tree(s) removed. Replacement tree(s) should be planted at a minimum caliper size of 2.5 inches for shade trees, 1.5 inches for ornamental trees, and six-foot height for multi-stem and evergreen trees.

Replace trees according to the following procedures:

1. Tree(s) less than 10-inches in diameter: Replace one tree for every one tree removed (1:1)
2. Tree(s) 10-inches in diameter or greater: Tree Diameter (in inches) x Species Rating (as percentage) x Condition Rating (as percentage) = Score
Tree(s) are replaced at the following rates, based on the Score:
• 1 - 4.9 = one tree
• 5 - 9.9 = two trees
• 10 - 14.9 = three trees
• 15 - 19.9 = four trees
• 20 - 24.5 = five trees
• 25 + = six trees
Example: The replacement formula and score for a 25-inch diameter tree, with a Species Rating of 60% and Condition Rating of 75% is: 25 x .60 x .75 = 11.25. The resulting score of 11.25 equates to three trees planted to replace the 25-inch tree.
3. Forests and Stands of Trees: Plant 1 acre minimum for every 1 acre removed. Consult with federal and local stakeholders to determine the appropriate density, mixture, and size of replacement plantings.

3. Locate replacement or transplanted tree(s), in order of preference, on:
   1. The project site (e.g., within or adjacent to the limits of disturbance)
   2. The property where the project site is located
   3. Another site within the agency’s jurisdiction (authority) only if the preferred locations cannot accommodate the replacement trees without overcrowding, or
   4. A combination of the above locations.
4. Ensure the amount of planting soil volume is consistent with current industry best practices. Consult with federal and local stakeholders to determine the appropriate standards based on the type of tree (e.g., shade tree, ornamental, evergreen, etc.) and location (e.g., above structure, on-grade, etc.).
5. Protect tree(s) to be preserved in accordance with the most current edition of ANSI-A300 ^[2], Part 5. Transplant, install, and maintain trees also in accordance with the most current edition of ANSI-A300, and specify replacement trees in accordance with the most current edition of ANSI-Z60.1. ^[3]

1. Conserve tree canopy coverage and enhance the environmental quality of the National Capital Region by preserving existing trees, replacing trees where they have died, and transplanting or replacing trees where they require removal due to development. Tree preservation, transplant, and replacement should adhere to the provided herein to prevent a net loss of tree canopy in the development area.

Key Definitions

Aff orestation: The establishment of forest or planting of trees on an area that was not previously forested.

ANSI-A300: The American National Standards Institute; ANSI-300 standards are generally accepted industry standards for tree care practices.

ANSI-Z60.1: The American Standard for Nursery Stock as produced by American Horticulture Industry Association (formerly American Nursery & Landscape Association) accredited by the American National Standards Institute; ANSI-Z60.1 is a standardized system of sizing and describing plants to facilitate trade in nursery stock.

Arborist: A professional certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), or registered with the American Society for Consulting Arborists (ASCA).

Caliper: Refers to the tree trunk measurement (diameter) of nursery stock trees at 6 to 12 inches above the soil surface.

Condition Rating: A value from 0 to 100 rated in accordance with the 9th Edition of the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) Guide to Plant Appraisal. The value assigned indicates the observed condition of a tree according to factors such as wounds, decay, storm damage, or insect or disease damage.

Healthy: A tree with a condition rating of “Fair,” “Good,” or “Excellent” in accordance with the 9th Edition of the Council for Tree and Landscape Appraisal (CTLA) Guide to Plant Appraisal.

Invasive Species: Alien or exotic plant species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health.

Native Species: A plant species that occurs in a particular place without human intervention. For projects in the National Capital Region, “native” refers to plant species that are native to the Mid-Atlantic region.

Non-invasive Species: Naturally reproducing, non-native plants that do not invade areas dominated by native vegetation.

Oldgrowth Forest: As defined by the U.S. Forest Service, oldgrowth forests are ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes that may include tree size, accumulations of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers, species composition, and ecosystem function.

Diameter: Refers to the diameter of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. In cases where a tree is growing on ground that slopes, the measurement should be taken 4.5 ft from the ground on the upper side of the slope.

Forest: A biological community dominated by extensive tree cover and other woody plants, frequently consisting of stands of trees that are often characterized based on species, age, and size class.

Forester: A professional certified by the Society of American Foresters (SAF), or registered with the forester licensing board in the jurisdiction in which the service is provided.

Forest Stand Delineation (FSD): A plan that identifies existing forest cover and environmental features on a proposed development site. A FSD plan includes an accurate depiction of the forest species, composition, age, condition, location, acreage, and areas of natural regrowth that exist on a property.

Hazardous Tree: A tree that has a structural defect that makes it likely to fail in whole or in part.

High Risk Tree: The potential for a tree or one of its parts to fail and, in so doing, injure people or damage proper.

Reforestation: The process of planting (or otherwise regenerating) and establishing a desired forest community on a given site.

Species Rating: A value from 1 to 100 rated in accordance with the Mid-Atlantic Tree Species Rating Guide published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Mid-Atlantic Chapter. The value assigned to a species is according to factors such as longevity, growth habit, durability, and appropriateness to the growing zone. Where the value offers a range (e.g.; Willow Oak 80 – 90), the average rating from the range should be used with the tree replacement formula in FE.G.2 (b).

Stand: An easily defined group of trees of sufficiently uniform species composition, age, size class, and condition and can be managed as a single unit.

Review of Projects from theWashington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Overview

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

WMATA Compact

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

NCPC Review Interest

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

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

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