Frequently Asked QuestionS

Q. Why is the Navy building a new Recreational Vehicle (RV) park?

A. Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) has identified a need to construct a new RV Park at Naval Support Activity (NSA) Annapolis. The existing RV Park at NSA Annapolis does not meet the requirements of modern RVs, does not meet Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) requirements, is not large enough to meet the demand for RV/camping facilities in the region, and does not have sufficient space to accommodate additional RV pads. The new facility would allow MWR to meet the important mission of serving our military families at NSA Annapolis.

Q. What level of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis is being completed for this Proposed Action?

A. The Navy is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the NEPA, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations and Navy regulations for implementing the NEPA. The EA will analyze the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating a new RV Park at NSA Annapolis to support the MWR mission.

Q. What is the Proposed Action?

A. The MWR program proposes to construct a new RV Park at NSA Annapolis. The RV Park would include the following:

• Approximately 35-50 new concrete RV pads that would be approximately 40 feet by 20 feet with an adjacent car pad

• At least four RV sites would meet the ABA-compliance guidelines

• Electrical service and freeze-proof hose water and sewer connections

• An ABA-accessible Comfort Station with a laundry facility and family style unisex cabana-style rooms that each hold a shower, sink, and toilet; vending machines; Wi-Fi; and an enclosed dumpster and recycling pad

• Water and sewer infrastructure and other utilities would be provided to the site as necessary

• Natural surroundings, such as trees and shrubs, would be preserved to the maximum extent possible and additional trees would be planted

Q. How large is the RV Park?

A. Approximately 35-50 new concrete RV pads that would be approximately 40 feet by 20 feet with an adjacent car pad. The RV Park would be approximately 3-4.5 acres.

Q. How many alternatives are being analyzed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) and where are they located?

A. Two action alternatives and the No Action Alternative are being analyzed in the EA. The two action alternatives are located at: Alternative 1 - Greenbury Point at Possum Point and Alternative 2 - North Severn Complex at Beach Road. The Proposed Action would not be implemented via the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action; however, the No Action Alternative is carried forward for analysis in the EA to establish a comparative baseline for analysis.

Q. Did the Navy consider any other areas to build?

A. Four other alternatives were considered but will not be carried forward for analysis in the EA. These alternatives are listed below:
1. Expanding the Existing Navy Getaways Campground
2. Construction of a New RV Park at Gage Road
3. Construct New RV Park adjacent to the Nature Center on Greenbury Point
4. Construct New RV Park on the Upper or Lower Yards

Q. What Agency consultation is required for cultural resources?

A. The Navy completes Section 106 consultations with the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800. In 2020, the Navy completed Section 106 consultation with the SHPO for the construction of an RV Park at Possum Point. Concurrence from SHPO for no adverse effect to historic properties was received. Continued consultation with the SHPO for the Proposed Action will be completed.

Q. What is the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) The ABA is the first federal law to address access to the built environment.

A. Passed by Congress in 1968, it ensures access to many federally funded facilities to this day. The ABA greatly informed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and its requirements for access to facilities in the private and state and local government sectors.

Q. How long has the Navy been planning the RV Park?

A. The proposed RV Park and associated facilities were outlined in the 2018 NSA Annapolis Installation Development Plan and associated Greenbury Point Area Development Plan. The RV Park assists in the goal of increasing the availability of morale, welfare, and recreational opportunities in the area.

Q. Who can reserve a space at the RV Park?

A. The RV Park serves authorized patrons including active duty service members, DoD civilians, dependents, and retirees.

Q. What would happen to the existing RV park?

A. The existing RV Park would continue to be used for RVs that do not require the larger pads and modernized facility features, and for visitors who do not require ABA accessibility. Q. What are the operating hours of the RV Park? A. RV Parks are utilized 24/7. Normal check-in would be with Recreation Lodging between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Late check-ins are accommodated and coordinated prior to arrival.

Q. Would an RV Park meet the goals identified in the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP)?

A. NSA Annapolis has developed and implemented an INRMP. One of the stated goals of the INRMP is to provide outdoor recreational opportunities for station personnel, their dependents and guests within the constraints of the installation mission and capability of the natural resources. The INRMP further defines recreational opportunities to be consumptive or non-consumptive outdoor recreation. Non-consumptive outdoor recreation includes but is not limited to primitive and RV camping. An example of camping facilities located at NSA Annapolis includes primitive and RV campsites.

Q. When will the RV park construction begin?

A. Project was approved by Congress in December of 2023. Request for Proposals (RFPs) will go out upon the completion of the EA, approximately in January of 2025 with project awarded no later than December of 2025. The project is a Design/Build, so plans are not required prior to the RFP. An actual construction start date is unknown at this time.

Q. Will the construction of an RV Park impact the Greenbury Point trails?

A. No, the RV Park would not impact the existing nature trails or the Tower Access Roads.

Q. Will appropriated funds (taxpayer dollars) be used to construct and operate the RV Park?

A. No

Q. Where will the proceeds go?

A. Profits from the RV Park would remain in the MWR fund to support our sailors locally and contribute to future re-capitalization projects.

Q. Will the EA assess cumulative impacts associated with other future projects (i.e. a golf course) on Greenbury Point?

A. The EA will include an analysis of the cumulative impacts associated with other officially proposed projects. However, a proposal for a new golf course on Greenbury Point is not under consideration by NSA Annapolis. Any proposed future action(s) on Greenbury Point, not included in the analysis for the RV Park EA, will undergo review in compliance with all applicable environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Q: What is the status of the land exchange?
A: The Record of Decision (ROD) has been signed completing the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements. There are still some regulatory approvals required and final negotiations before closing. We expect to close on the agreement sometime early 2024.

Q:  Why is the Navy pursuing negotiations to acquire land next to the Navy Yard? 
A:  The Navy is having discussions with a developer regarding the acquisition of approximately six acres of land at the Southeast Federal Center adjacent to the northwest area of the WNY. Acquiring the land would enable the Navy to address security vulnerabilities and help protect Navy facilities from encroachment and development incompatible with the Navy’s mission. 
 
Q:  What are the security vulnerabilities/concerns? Why is preventing incompatible development so important to the Navy?
A:  The proposed high-rise residential development could subject critical Navy facilities to eavesdropping. Moreover, Tingey Street is a publicly accessible road along the Navy Yard perimeter, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic would increase as development progresses.
 
Q:  Is the Navy acquiring this land because of anti-terrorism/force protection matters? 
A:  Yes, the Navy is negotiating to acquire the development rights to improve the existing FP posture of the WNY and help protect Navy facilities from encroachment and development that is incompatible with the Navy’s mission. 
 
Q:  Why wasn't security a problem up until now?
A:  Security concerns have evolved over time and the Navy has become more aware of the cyber threat and the potential for electronic surveillance/espionage.  Acquisition of the land would allow the Navy to control potential future reuse of the land, thus mitigating security concerns. Current developer plans are for a high-rise residential development that poses a significant security risk.
 
Q:  Other buildings in the vicinity have sightlines and visibility into the Navy Yard.  Do they also have the potential for visual/electronic surveillance?  Is this acquisition the first of a larger Navy land grab?
A:  The safety and security of our workforce and infrastructure are always our top priorities. Since the land is available and underdeveloped, acquiring the “E” parcels will address specific security concerns. A land exchange (which is one option the Navy is considering) would allow the Navy to leverage the value of underutilized property by exchanging it for parcels that will enhance security at the WNY.
 
Q:  Is the Navy also considering acquiring parcels west of the power plant (bldg. 116 and 118)?
A:  No, these facilities are not critically vulnerable to eavesdropping or surveillance.  
 
Q: Why can’t the Navy forgo acquiring land and just restrict cars from using Tingey Street?  
A:  The Navy does not own Tingey Street. Tingey Street, a publicly accessible street, is the only street that connects The Yards into the “E” parcel area. Only restricting vehicles on Tingey Street will not solve the encroachment concerns that would exist if a developer constructs high-rise residential buildings.   
 
Q:  Didn’t the Navy own the property a number of years ago? If so, why did they give it up?
A:  Yes, at one time, the Navy owned this particular property. In 1963, the Navy ceded approximately 60 acres (the western portion of the WNY), which was considered excess land at the time, to the General Services Administration (GSA). In accordance with the Southeast Federal Center (SEFC) Public-Private Development Act of 2000, GSA sold development rights to a private developer. 
 
Q:  If the Federal Government already owns this property, why isn't it transferred to the Navy?  Does the SEFC Development Act restrict the Navy from acquiring this property?
A:  GSA owns the property; however, GSA sold the development rights to a developer and entered into a development agreement and therefore cannot transfer the property to the Navy unless the developer is compensated for the development rights.
 
Q:  How much will this cost the Navy? 
A:  In accordance with the ongoing NEPA process, we are currently exploring options to acquire the property, either through a land exchange or acquisition of development rights.  A land exchange would minimize out-of-pocket costs for the Navy. A final decision will be contingent upon the completion of NEPA and associated regulatory consultations. 
 
Q:  Could the Navy consider eminent domain?
A:  The Navy cannot currently use this approach because the Federal Government already owns the property (held by GSA).  If the developer were to obtain ownership of the land, the Federal Government would be able to consider exercising eminent domain; however, the Navy would still have to compensate the developer for the fair market value of the property.     
 
Q:  Is the Navy planning to use this property for additional parking?
A:  Parking is not intended to be the primary use.  However, some parking may be associated with the eventual development of the property. Impacts of any proposed parking will be identified and analyzed in the NEPA process.  
 
Q:  Is the Navy planning to use this property to build a new National Museum of the U.S. Navy?
A: A new museum is one option the Navy is exploring for the land’s use; however, any development option is contingent upon completion of NEPA and associated regulatory consultations.
 
Q:  The argument for land acquisition is for security, but yet if the Navy proposes building a Museum, that allows public access. Why is that not a security concern?
A:  The orientation and massing of a museum or any Navy construction project can be done in a manner that provides the Navy the required buffer and setback to mitigate security concerns. Additionally, the Navy would maintain an interest in the museum (ownership of the land), allowing restrictive control and limited access to vulnerable areas.  At a minimum, a proposed museum would apply the security design and procedures similar to those of the Smithsonian museums.
 
Q: If the Navy were to acquire the land and control Tingey Street, how will people access a Museum and Building 202/parcel E1? 
A:  A Museum would be outside the Navy Yard fence line to ensure public accessibility.  The Navy would work with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the National Capital Planning Commission, The District Department of Transportation, and other regulators to facilitate public access.
 
Q:  Would a museum fulfill the intent of the SEFC Public-Private Development Act of 2000? 
A: The Department of the Navy and the GSA agree that it would meet the intention of the Southeast Federal Center (SEFC) Public-Private Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-407). The Act provided GSA the authority to enter into public-private partnerships to transform the SEFC into a vibrant hub of mixed-use development. 
 
Q: If negotiations aren't complete how does the Navy have confidence that it can acquire the land?
A:  We remain optimistic. The Navy is in early conversations with the developer. They expressed a willingness to continue a dialogue to strike a deal. The Navy will not sign any legally binding agreements before the completion of NEPA and associated regulatory consultations. 
 
Q:  Is Building 74 listed on the National Register of Historic Places? 
A:  Building 74 represents the industrial architecture that populated the former Navy Yard and contributes to the Washington Navy Yard Historic District, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) provides resources eligible for NRHP listing with the same protections as those listed on the NRHP. The Navy will include Building 74 in the NHPA Section 106 Consultation being conducted in concert with the WNY land acquisition NEPA analysis. 
 
Q:  If a land swap occurs, wouldn’t this create a security concern at the SE corner of the Navy Yard?
A:  The Navy does not intend to solve one security concern by creating another. Reviewing and improving the AT/FP posture of the WNY is an ongoing effort that requires consistent re-evaluation and prioritization. - We are working with all Washington Navy Yard tenants to ensure their security requirements will be met if a land swap occurs.
 
Q:  What is the value of the SEFC parcels?
A:  Navy is not authorized to share the value of appraisals because it is considered sensitive procurement information.