Installation/Community Land Use Planning: Engaging, Strategizing, and Implementing

2. Installation/Community Land Use Planning: Engaging, Strategizing, and Implementing

3. Workshop Agenda

4. Training Slides Provided by:

5. Compatible Use Partnering I: The Fundamentals Steve Bonner SONRI, Inc. January 15, 2013

6. Context – The Need for Partnering • Need to move beyond “Traditional” public service partners • Encroachment as a threat to Mission • Emerging Energy Needs • Infrastructure Growth • Budget and Resource Concerns

7. Military Stakeholders • Mission Commanders • Base Commanders • Range Managers • Airspace Managers • Civil Engineers • Planners • Natural Resource Managers

8. DoD Compatible Land Use Programs • OEA Programs • Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) • BRAC Growth Program • Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI) • Compatible land use projects based upon mutual beneficial interests with willing landowners • Focus: producing greater outcomes than we could produce alone • Mission-driven, but also sensitive to landowner and partner needs • Regional Partnering Initiatives (SERPPAS, WRP) • Education and Outreach (Primer series) • AICUZ/RAICUZ • Service Installation Planning Requirements • Comprehensive Planning • Natural & Cultural Resource Planning • Encroachment Planning

9. What is “partnering”? • Partnership = shared goals, responsibilities, costs, and rewards • Purposes of partnerships in the land use planning context • Partners may have varying roles in the process • Primary Partners • Secondary Partners

10. Partner Types: Local Government • County government • City Government • Quasi-governmental local agencies

11. Partner Types: State Government • State Agencies • Environmental • Natural resources • Transportation • Parks/cultural • Land offices (west of the Mississippi) • Agricultural • Military Planning Commissions

12. Partner Types: State Government • State-chartered Agencies • Growth Management/Local Redevelopment Authorities • Conservation funding organizations • Metropolitan Planning Organizations • Councils of Government (some chartered, some not) • River Authorities • Special districts • Colleges & Universities

13. Partner Types: Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) • Chambers of Commerce • Economic Development Councils • Land Use Advocacy • Land Trusts and Conservation • Private colleges & universities

14. Partner Types: Federal Agencies • US Department of Agriculture (USDA) • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) • US Forest Service (USFS) • Resource Conservation & Development Councils (RC&Ds) • USDOI • US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) • Ecological Services • Refuge System • National Park Service (NPS) • Rivers, Trails & Conservation Assistance • Park System • Other • Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) • Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • Other (BIA, USGS)

15. Partner Types: Federal Agencies (cont.) • US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) • US Department of Transportation (DOT)

16. Partner Types: Landowners • Critical Stakeholders • Encroachment : A two-way street • Multiple potential roles • Relationships are Key

17. Case Study – Mather AFB • Missions and Encroachment • Operational • Navigator Training • Installation and Encroachment • Natural resources • Local development • Local political attitudes • Installation responses • Result: BRAC Round 1 – Questions?

18. Planning, Zoning, and Market-Based Processes for Promoting Military-Compatible Land Uses Richard A. Engel Marstel-Day, LLC January 15, 2013

19. TRAINING PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW • To explain why local planning and zoning processes are key to successful military-compatible land use planning • Land use planning is a right reserved to the states and delegated to local governments • The federal government has very limited authority to regulate it • e.g., the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act • Successful relationships between military installations and local governments depend on understanding each other’s goals, objectives, and concerns • Planning & zoning processes translate these goals and objectives into organized, enforceable processes • They provide a means for landowners, developers, citizens’ groups, and conservation organizations to provide their input Marstel-Day, LLC

20. WHY CAN’T DOD ENFORCE ITS OWN LAND USE POLICIES AND RESTRICTIONS? • DoD can’t afford – and shouldn’t have – the primary responsibility for enforcing military-compatible land uses • The military services cannot afford to purchase all of the real estate interests they need to protect their military missions • Fee simple purchases remove land from local tax rolls • Local officials have the best knowledge of their communities to develop these planning processes • Military installations and local communities rely on military-compatible land use planning processes to support the entire community and the local economy and to protect sensitive land and natural resources Marstel-Day, LLC

21. FEDERAL AND DOD LAND ACQUISITION AND LAND USE AUTHORITIES • Direct acquisition, by voluntary sale or by eminent domain • Requires DoD to offer full fair market value (FMV) to landowners • Military services can use current year operations and maintenance (O&M) funds if the cost is $750,000 or less • Projects over $750K go through a multi-year military construction programming and budgeting process; very limited funding • DoD conservation partnering process – the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI) • Requires willing sellers, willing non-federal conservation partners (with funds) and military service O&M funds to execute projects • Partners have flexibility in negotiating terms with landowners, and their work is based on trust established within their communities Marstel-Day, LLC

22. UNDERSTANDING THE SCOPE OF MILITARY MISSIONS • Military installations’ missions often extend far beyond their base boundaries to include offbase military training routes (MTRs), special use airspace, and remote ranges • MTRs can cover 100,000-400,000 acres, crossing multiple counties and even state lines • (In)compatible land uses vary depending on the mission • Tall structures, high-intensity lighting, electronic interference, and high population density can adversely affect some missions • “Working lands” (farming and forestry), recreational land, and light industrial uses are generally military-compatible land uses • Dialogue between installation staff and local community planners can help define mission-compatible land uses and avoid conflicts Marstel-Day, LLC

23. USING PLANNING AND ZONING PROCESSESTO MAINTAIN COMPATIBLE LAND USES Marstel-Day, LLC

24. WHY LOCAL PLANNING & ZONING ARE THE PRIMARY COMPATIBLE LAND USE TOOLS • They are state-chartered, legally-enforceable processes with the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions • Local officials are the established POCs for landowners, developers, and citizens to discuss land use issues • Both privately and in public forums • Local governments have the means to protect military installations - and their economic base - to promote military-compatible economic development, and to preserve ecologically-valuable land and natural habitat Marstel-Day, LLC

25. IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATIONS, COORDINATION, AND COOPERATION • These three factors are critical to developing successful military-compatible land use strategies • Communications of military mission requirements and local land use goals is essential to begin the compatible land use planning process • Coordination of comprehensive plans, capital improvement plans, AICUZ plans, and JLUS recommendations helps to promote a shared military-compatible land use strategy • Cooperation, by inviting military officials to participate in local land use planning forums and local officials to participate in installation master planning processes, helps to maintain productive working relationships Marstel-Day, LLC

26. MARKET-BASED COMPATIBLE LAND USE MECHANISMS • Market-based processes can help maintain economically-viable military-compatible land uses • Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs can transfer real estate from “sending areas” around military bases to “receiving areas” where potential incompatible land uses can be avoided • Cluster zoning can be used to avoid incompatible land uses in AICUZ accident potential zones and noise zones • Large tracts of ecologically-suitable land can be used for wetlands mitigation banks or conservation banks • Forest owners can sell carbon offset credits to obtain an additional income stream • Federal charitable tax deductions and state conservation tax credits (where available) can encourage landowners to conserve their land Marstel-Day, LLC

27. THE ROLE OF REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCIES AND STATE GOVERNMENTS • Military installations create regional economic impacts and their operations are affected by regional factors such as transportation and utility networks and water supplies • Participating in regional planning processes can help ensure that military installations’ needs and impacts are fully considered • State governments can assist military-compatible land use planning through development notification statutes and by participating in state-level and regional land and resource conservation programs • e.g., the Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability and the Western Regional Partnership Marstel-Day, LLC

28. INCLUDE DEVELOPERS IN COMPATIBLELAND USE DISCUSSIONS • Successful military-compatible land use planning must include a clear role for developers • To understand what types of development are acceptable, and where, within the military mission footprint of an installation • To minimize potential land use and political conflicts • Developers provide buildings, housing, jobs, and tax revenue that local communities need to provide the schools, services and amenities their residents want • Including military personnel and their families • Planning and zoning processes play a critical role in identifying the goals of military installations and developers and in helping them to understand each other’s positions Marstel-Day, LLC

29. CONCLUSION • Local planning and zoning processes, supported by regional planning agencies and state statutes and programs, are the primary tools for developing and maintaining military-compatible land uses • Military installations need to define their mission requirements to local officials to incorporate them into planning processes and documents • Working together, military installations and local officials can develop mutually-supportive working relationships Marstel-Day, LLC

30. DOD COMPATIBLE LAND USE PLANNING PRIMERS • A wide range of primers for installation commanders and local communities is available on the DoD Sustainable Ranges Initiative website, www.denix.osd.mil/sri • “Commander’s Guide to Community Involvement” • “Working with Local Governments” • “Working with Regional Councils” • “Partner’s Guide to the Department of Defense’s Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative” • Click “Tools and Training”, then “Primers” to access these and other compatible land use documents Marstel-Day, LLC

31. Compatible Use Partnering II: The Nuts and Bolts Steve Bonner SONRI, Inc. January 15, 2013

32. Land Ownership Motivations • Why do people own land? • Agriculture • Inheritance • Speculation • Conservation • Land management ethic

33. Landowner Partnership Participation Motivations • Financial • Philanthropy • Community conscience • Community leadership • Future land use influence/control • Adjacent land use influence/control • Patriotism

34. Property Rights • Landowners are Partners • Eminent Domain and “Takings”

35. Understanding Partner Motivations and Needs vis a vis Land Use • Compatible use partnerships = multiple objectives and multiple tools • Organizations bring differing authorities, missions, goals, capabilities, restraints and tools to the partnership • Understanding partner organizations is key to building the long lasting relationships needed to truly protect DoD missions • Fundamental differences in language, attitudes, and approach between NGOs and governmental entities • “Why should we partner with the military?” • Partners need to understand what DoD is trying to accomplish • Partners need to see how their mission(s) fit with ours • Partners need to see what they will get back from the partnership

36. Measuring Partner Capacity • Government entities • Authority • Budget • Staff • Political will • NGOs • Budget • Staff • Local reputation • Board commitment

37. Measuring Partner Interest • Factors that may influence interest • Gauging government entity interest • Gauging NGO interest • Characteristics for secondary partners

38. Installation Leadership: A Long-term Commitment • Staff time (CPLOs & other staff) • Budget • Multi-level community engagement • Honest & realistic assessment of mission needs & LIMFACS • Identify goals of a compatible use partnership in terms of mission needs • Honest communication of mission needs to partner(s) & public

39. Engage Technical Assistance • Federal agencies (including OSD) • State agencies • Colleges & universities • Consultants • WHY?

40. Initial Meetings • Local government(s) • Local land trust(s) • Business group(s) • Civic organizations • State & federal local/regional offices

41. Making Contact With Partners • Land Trusts • Civic and business groups • State and federal agency offices in your area • No substitute for ongoing, regular contact and relationship building

42. Convene Informational Forum(s) • Opinion leaders • Jurisdictional leaders • NGO leaders • Federal/state/regional agency representatives • Open to public but no legal requirement for major public advertising • Not a FACA process • State “sunshine laws” may apply

43. Engage Partners • Give potential partners “ownership” in the process • Vision statement • Charter (optional) • Meeting hosting • Partner interest briefings • Assess partner interest & engagement • Which partner(s) commit the most pre-implementation resources (staff time, due diligence, GIS, etc.)? • Which partner(s) express an understanding of the benefits of the program to their organization? • Which partner(s) talk about the program with others?

44. Engage Partners (cont.) • Set goals for the compatible use partnership • Mission protection goals • Partner goals • Set realistic timelines for achieving goals • Define partner roles • Identify Primary Partner(s) • Identify Secondary Partner(s) • Identify specific actions needed • Task responsible parties to accomplish those actions • Identify resources needed

45. Engage Partners (cont.) • Seek necessary formal commitments from jurisdictions who are partners • Funding levels • Policy/ordinance/legislative changes required • Resource commitments • Interagency contractual documents • Submit project(s) to higher headquarters for coordination, approval, and funding

46. REPI/compatible usevs. “traditional” land acquisition • NOT a NEPA/CERCLA driven process • Funding source: O&M vs. MILCON • NOTE: remember direct acquisition below $750k can also use O&M • Authorities • Environmental compliance • Higher headquarters oversight • Congressional oversight

47. Compatible Use Partnering: Keys to Success • Solid definition of the mission-driven need • Importance of the mission to national security • Impact of encroachment on mission • Commitment of installation leadership • Long-term investment and engagement • Understanding nexus between mission and infrastructure • Support for staff • Understanding the partner’s motivations and needs • Partner mission • Partner capacity • Political considerations

48. Compatible Use Partnering Keys to Success (cont.) • Identify multiple benefits for multiple partners • Mission protection is your focus, not your partners’ • Leverage multiple funding sources and spread risk • Balance between multiple funding sources and timely execution • Seek to produce results that are greater than those either partner could achieve alone • Transparent process • Open, honest communications with partner(s) and the public • Use of media to announce and celebrate successful milestones • Share limelight with partner(s)

49. Case Study – Navy Whiting Field • Missions and encroachment • Fixed-wing training • Rotary-wing training • 12 outlying fields in Florida & Alabama

50. Project Overview • Joint Land Use Study • Encroachment Control Plan • Conservation Forum • REPI application • Implementation