Indian Head Joint Land Use Study (JLUS)
Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Meeting
Subject:
Date:
Time:
Location:
Attendees:
Indian Head JLUS Meeting Minutes
19 February 2015
1:00 – 3:00 p.m.
Conference Room, Charles County Government Building, La Plata, MD
Dennis Chappell (Indian Head Defense Alliance), Michael Fix (Indian Head
Defense Alliance), Jeff Bossart (NSASP Environmental Director), Tom Evans
(MD Department of Business and Economic Development), Lynne Wheeler
(Conservancy of Charles County), Marcia Keeth (Charles County Economic
Development), Betsy Burian (Charles County Chamber of Commerce), Vince
Hungerford (WCCBA), Rich Tenga (OEA), Jeron Hayes (NSASP Public Affairs
Office), Steve Duboyce (US Navy – NDW), Gary Hodge (Regional Policy
Advisors – Town of Indian Head), Edith Hoschar (RMC), Lindsay Tempinson
(RMC), Amy Blessinger (Charles County PGM – Planning), Chris Jakubiak
(Jakubiak & Associates, Inc.).
Public Attendees: No members of the public attended.
Purpose
Discuss preliminary findings, compatibility issues, recommended compatibility strategies
and implementation plans, stakeholder interviews, and public outreach.
Summary
Welcome/Introductions
JLUS Project Manager Amy Blessinger welcomed attendees, noted that the public forum
was held, and discussed the plan ahead. Edith Hoschar provided an overview of the
agenda. The TAG received three draft documents for review prior to the meeting: public
feedback report, policy summary, and compatibility factor review.
Public Forum
Lindsay Tempinson provided a summary of the public forum that was held on January 28,
2015.
 More than 70 people were in attendance, including members of the TAG. During the
public forum, a brochure was distributed along with several maps and a discussion
sheet. Gary Hodge requested that the remaining maps be added to the website.
 A presentation was given and attendees were then asked to discuss their concerns with
those at their table before opening the floor to questions and comments.
 Comments received included concerns with the development in the Stump Neck area,
water quality and fisheries of Mattawoman Creek and the Potomac River, transparency
of information, and interest in the redevelopment of the Town of Indian Head.
1

Edith Hoschar then reported on the feedback received from the online stakeholder
survey. Respondents were interested in redevelopment and growth of the Town of
Indian Head, as well as contracting and business opportunities.
Existing Policies and Regulations
Chris Jakubiak presented a summary of existing policies, plans, and regulations:
 According to the draft 2015 Charles County Comprehensive Plan, the area west of
Myrtle Grove and south of Mattawoman Creek is generally designated for conservation
with a very limited amount of low density residential development allowed. This is
generally compatible with NSF Indian Head operations.
 Land area near Stump Neck Annex is identified as Septic Tier III, which does allow the
possibility of some limited large lot subdivision development equivalent to a base
density of 1 house per 3 acres.
 The marina at Sweden Point is an area the County identified for waterfront-related
development, and it is specifically mentioned in the draft County Comprehensive Plan
as part of the County’s policy to promote targeting public access to the water. However,
a member of the TAG noted that this is on state park land and development other than
for its use as a marina is unlikely. This should be investigated further and clarified.
Amy Blessinger stated that while this is identified in the draft Comprehensive Plan, the
focus of County policy for waterfront development is actually on other areas.
 A military review area, similar to the one identified in the Blossom Point JLUS, could
help address concerns with the encroachment of land development.
 Clarifications were noted regarding terminology and it was emphasized that it is
important to use the correct terminology in the report and public materials. However,
it is important to accurately reflect the concerns expressed by the public and other
stakeholders.
 The zoning in the areas near the installation is comprised of mostly Agricultural
Conservation (AC) and Resource Conservation (RC).
o A map was displayed showing the zoning for the County as well as the Town. A
question was raised regarding how many acres are in the County and the acreage of
certain zoning areas. It was noted that the RC district is a sending area for
Transferable Development Rights—that is, development rights could be sent from
the areas nearest the installation to areas in the County designated for development.
Clarification: Both the AC and RC districts are sending areas for Transferable
Development Rights.
o Charles County has a highway overlay zone intended to protect and improve the
visual appearance of major County roadways. This applies to Route 210.
o The Critical Area also extends around the shorelines. Most Critical Area lands in the
vicinity of the base are designated as Resource Conservation Zone (RCZ), which is
the most restrictive of the Critical Area classifications. While community or
individual boat slips and piers are allowed, RCZ directs that the land remain in a
relatively undisturbed natural state.
2


o Lynne Wheeler inquired about the possibility of using Readiness and Environmental
Protection Integration (REPI) Program funds in some areas, and noted that she
hears noise where she lives that has been much worse in the last four months. It
was stated that this could be related to the lack of leaves on the trees and/or the
weather. Steve Duboyce confirmed there is REPI money allocated for properties
near NSF Indian Head.
o It was also noted that Charles County land use plan map and zoning maps indicate
that the installation grounds have a County zoning district. Amy Blessinger noted
that this could be a mistake, because the zoning would not/should not apply to a
federal facility. This would be investigated further and as needed the map would be
revised.
The Town of Indian Head Comprehensive Plan was also reviewed.
o It was found that there was no direct mention of compatibility with NSF Indian
Head. However, Chris Jakubiak stated that the Town and installation grew up
together and there may not have been a need.
o The Town also has a focus on developing a pedestrian-friendly streetscape along
Route 210, but there is no mention of transports of hazardous materials and
explosives to and from NSF Indian Head.
 All transportation must comply with DOT regulations. It was mentioned by a
committee member that NSF Indian Head policies regarding transport are over
and beyond current DOT regulations.
 It was noted that a lot of transport occurs at night.
o Noise contours are not delineated on local planning maps.
o The Danger Zone is also not referenced in Town plans. It was noted that this would
apply to the County as well.
 The installation conducts most of its operations that would involve range
clearance Monday through Thursday.
 Increasing public information regarding Navy operations and distributing this
information to places such as at Smallwood State Park could be beneficial.
 Jeff Bossart noted that the actual danger zone is a smaller area.
Betsy Burian noted that there was a time when worrying about some of these issues
was not necessary, but with future development it is important to tighten up and clarify
some of the policies.
JLUS Compatibility Issues
Edith Hoschar then presented a summary of information regarding findings on the JLUS
compatibility factors.
 It was noted there were no incompatibilities found regarding frequency spectrum,
natural factors, and height restrictions.
 Land Restrictions
o During interviews and the public forum, concerns were raised with high-density
growth near Stump Neck Annex. It was noted that the growth as related to the
3


Stump Neck area is not high density. There is a swath near Stump Neck Annex
designated as Septic Tier III.
o Revitalization efforts in NSF Indian Head could lead to encroachment; however,
most support redevelopment and no major compatibility issues were identified.
o It was noted that these concerns may not fall under land restrictions, because they
are not actually restricting land but more so the absence of land restrictions.
o An environmental constraints map was shown depicting protected areas.
 It was suggested the name be changed to protected lands as the content shown
on the map generally references a variety of protective measures on
environmental resource lands.
 Steve Duboyce inquired if all the easements restricted development. Several
easements are Maryland Environmental Trust and agricultural easements that
would restrict development.
Noise
o While there is currently no noise hotline, there are plans to develop a method to
communicate when noise-producing operations will be occurring, either through a
noise hotline or a website.
o Findings show that NSF Indian Head rarely receives noise complaints. There were
some concerns regarding the Goddard Power Plant, but this will no longer be an
issue.
o The County and state have real estate disclosures but people do not always
remember receiving these.
o No detonations are done at Mainside.
o It was noted that on previous maps depicting the noise contours, the contours
extended further.
o A map of the noise contours, including those from Marine Corps Base Quantico and
Blossom Point, was discussed.
o It was suggested that a note be placed on the map to clarify that the noise impact
area associated with Quantico be referred to specifically as “airfield noise.”
o It was suggested that text in the report be used to explain the noise map.
Community Growth
o Growth near Stump Neck Annex could potentially be an issue. Redevelopment of
the Town of Indian Head did not appear to pose any incompatibility concerns.
o Concerns were raised during interviews regarding the impact growth would have
on transports to and from NSF Indian Head.
o There was a discussion about whether it was appropriate to include the airport land
use study and Indian Head Science and Technology Park in the JLUS.
 These are contentious issues. The developments are not adjacent to the base
and do not appear to present any land use compatibility issues. Due to their
distance, it was suggested that they be excluded from the study or
reworded/briefly mentioned as items considered in the study, but determined
not to be a compatibility issue.
4
Including these may create confusion and controversy and perhaps it was a
mistake to allow these early in the study. Growth at the airport would not
impact the installation.
 It was also noted that part of the vision for the Tech Park is to provide
contracting and manufacturing opportunities related to the installation. Some
felt that the Tech Park would also pull focus from Town revitalization.
 A member of TAG represents the airport.
 It was also noted that there is no specific mention of Chapman State Park even
though it is closer to the installation, though it is shown on the project team’s
mapping.
Endangered Species and Critical Habitat
o Mattawoman Creek is known for its biological importance and as a sport fishery.
 Feedback from stakeholders has suggested that increased development has
caused the decline of the waters.
o There are also eagle nests in the vicinity.
o The installation completed a shoreline restoration project, adding 12 acres of
property to the installation.
Water, Water Quality, and Wetlands Protections
o Aquifer draw down is a concern and has required NSF Indian Head, as well as the
Town, to construct deeper wells.
o A lot of the water used on NSF Indian Head is taken from the river. Conversion to
natural gas will also decrease water consumption on base.
o There are several boards and plans that address water issues, and the County has an
agreement with WSSC that allows it to draw water from the Potomac River.
Historic, Scenic, and Cultural Resources and Viewshed Protection
o The golf course is a historic landmark. There are cost and security issues with
reopening.
o There are more than 200 historical landmarks and buildings at Mainside. In
addition, there are archeological sites on Stump Neck Annex.
Unexploded Ordnance and Munitions
o Operations are conducted to dispose of ordnance and munitions, as well as testing
explosive materials.
o Burning is conducted at the end of Mainside and is an insignificant source of
emissions.
Marine Resources
o There was discussion about coordination of fishing tournaments with the Town and
NSF Indian Head.
 It was stated that NSF Indian Head usually hears about them when the
tournament sponsors seek volunteers.
 Fishing League Worldwide (FLW) is one of many sponsors.
 It was suggested that the Smallwood State Park may need to issue a permit, so
they may have knowledge about when these will occur.






5




Energy Compatibility and Availability
o The power plant is being replaced.
o Alternative energy development (such as wind turbines and solar energy) does not
appear to be as much of an issue as with other installations.
Security
o The installation is surrounded by water and there are concerns about trespassing.
The Danger Zone is cleared prior to detonations at Stump Neck Annex.
o There is a safe separation distance between the Town and the installation.
o It was noted by a member of the TAG that the Town of Indian Head would like to
develop a river boardwalk.
 There were questions on how close this would be to the installation and if it
would pose any security risk.
 It was noted that there would be no water access.
 The project has already received permission from the Critical Area Commission.
Current and Planned Range Operations
o Explosive safety arcs extend over Mattawoman Creek but not private property.
These consider the worst case scenario.
Impact from Blast Impulses
o Most detonations occur at Range 3, Stump Neck Annex and larger explosives are
taken to Blossom Point. These blasts could have some noise and vibration impacts
on the surrounding community.
Conflicts and Opportunities
Edith Hoschar then presented information regarding conflicts and opportunities identified.
 There are no obvious, direct, or serious land use conflicts.
 Existing land use and planning documents are generally compatible.
 Operations on base are generally buffered from the Town.
 There are opportunities for increased planning and communications in relation to:
o Revitalization of the Town of Indian Head
o Rt. 210 corridor planning and development along the highway to benefit both Town
and NSF Indian Head. It was noted that the actual highway improvements are
conducted by the State Highway Administration, but within municipal limits the
Town of Indian Head regulates land use development. The State would need to be a
partner in such a planning effort.
o Recreational use of adjacent waters
o Land conservation programs
Preliminary Recommendations
Edith Hoschar presented preliminary findings regarding recommended compatibility
strategies and implementation plans.
 Recommendations include the establishment of a JLUS working group to help
implement strategies outlined in the study.
6




A MOU between the Town, NSF Indian Head, NSWC IHEODTED, and Charles County.
o A member of the TAG suggested that NSWC IHEODTED be removed as it is a tenant
organization.
o Explore other cooperative efforts, such as management of water systems and WWTP
and future of the golf course.
o Coordinate with surrounding marinas and boat ramps.
Recommendations regarding public outreach include a Joint Land Use
brochure/website, military outreach, distributed information to boaters and other
recreational users of the surrounding area, and update existing website and public
outreach information.
Some recommendations regarding business and economic development included:
o Development of Military Affairs Committee on the Chamber of Commerce, which the
representative from the Charles County Chamber of Commerce, Betsy Burian, noted
that they were working towards.
o Establish a Town economic development working group.
Recommendations also included coordination of and collaboration in the planning
process and development review procedures between the Town, County, and NSF
Indian Head, as well as addressing compatibility in Town and County planning
documents especially in relation to the potential development of lands zoned RC and AC
within the noise contours. Specific items were discussed briefly, including:
o Facilitating transfer of development rights out of areas near the facility as a means
to expand the area protected from development through agricultural and other land
conservation easements.
o A zoning overlay may be something to consider, which could involve a MOU
between the County and NSF Indian Head wherein the County would notify NSF
Indian Head when subdivisions or other major development activities were
proposed within a designated area.
o REPI is a tool that can be used to protect lands.
7
Next Steps
Develop Implementation Plan: An Implementation Plan showing time frames and
responsible parties will be developed. Edith Hoschar also provided an example of the
Implementation Matrix, which would include the following categories: Interagency
Coordination, Public Outreach, Business and Economic Development, Local Government
Regulation, Military Planning, and Land Conservation Efforts.
Upcoming Meetings: The Policy Committee meeting will be held on February 26, 2015 (has
since been changed to Friday, March 13 at 1:00 pm in the County Government Building
Conference Room) – Feb. 26 meeting was cancelled due to weather). The second public
forum is scheduled for Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 6:30 pm at the Indian Head Pavilion.
Additional TAG and PC meetings are scheduled for April and May as follows:
TAG meeting: Friday, April 17 at 10:00 am
PC meeting: Friday, April 24 at 10:00 am
TAG meeting: Thursday, May 14 at 10:00 am
PC meeting: Thursday, May 21 at 1:00 pm
All TAG and PC meetings will be held in the County Government Building Conference Room.
Actions









Post additional maps from the public forum on JLUS website.
Investigate Sweden Point as targeted waterfront development.
Ensure information is clear and accurate; choose words carefully.
Identify number of acres in Charles County and get a breakdown of zoning by
acreage/percentage.
Resolve County land use and zoning maps of the installation. Update map accordingly.
Clarify what is meant by high density growth.
Change name of environmental constraints map to protected lands. Determine the
types of easements and if these restrict development.
Identify if previous maps depicted noise contours differently.
Update public feedback report, policy summary, and compatibility factor review
accordingly, including feedback from Policy Committee. Redistribute to members for
review and comment.
8