Installation/Community Land Use Planning: Engaging,

Strategizing, and Implementing

Workshop AgendaTime Item Speaker

1:00 PM Welcome & Introductions Nancy Natoli

1:10 PM Compatible Use Partnering I Steve Bonner

1:40 PM Planning, Zoning, & Market-Based Processes

Rich Engel

2:10 PM Compatible Use Partnering II Steve Bonner

2:50 PM Break

3:00 PM Leadership Discussion: What Compatible Land Use Really Means

Nancy Natoli

3:55 PM Wrap Ups Steve Bonner/John Armbrust

Training Slides Provided by:

2013 ADC INSTALLATION INNOVATION FORUM | PAGE 5

Compatible Use Partnering I:

The Fundamentals

January 15, 2013

Steve Bonner

SONRI, Inc.

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?

2013 ADC INSTALLATION INNOVATION FORUM | PAGE 18

Planning, Zoning, and Market-Based Processes for Promoting Military-Compatible Land Uses

January 15, 2013

Richard A. Engel

Marstel-Day, LLC

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

19Marstel-Day, LLC

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

20Marstel-Day, LLC

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

21Marstel-Day, LLC

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

22Marstel-Day, LLC

USING PLANNING AND ZONING PROCESSESTO MAINTAIN COMPATIBLE LAND USES

Marstel-Day, LLC 23

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

24Marstel-Day, LLC

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

25Marstel-Day, LLC

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

26Marstel-Day, LLC

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

27Marstel-Day, LLC

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

28Marstel-Day, LLC

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 29

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 30

2013 ADC INSTALLATION INNOVATION FORUM | PAGE 31

Compatible Use Partnering II:

The Nuts and Bolts

January 15, 2013

Steve Bonner

SONRI, Inc.

Land Ownership Motivations

– Why do people own land?

• Agriculture• Inheritance• Speculation• Conservation• Land management ethic

32

Landowner Partnership Participation Motivations

• Financial• Philanthropy• Community conscience• Community leadership• Future land use

influence/control• Adjacent land use

influence/control• Patriotism

33

Property Rights

– Landowners are Partners– Eminent Domain and

“Takings”

34

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

35

Measuring Partner Capacity• Government entities

– Authority– Budget– Staff– Political will

• NGOs– Budget– Staff– Local reputation– Board commitment

36

Measuring Partner Interest

• Factors that may influence interest

• Gauging government entity interest

• Gauging NGO interest• Characteristics for secondary

partners

37

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

38

Engage Technical Assistance

• Federal agencies (including OSD)• State agencies• Colleges & universities• Consultants• WHY?

39

Initial Meetings • Local government(s)• Local land trust(s)• Business group(s)• Civic organizations• State & federal

local/regional offices

40

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

41

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 apply42

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?

43

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

44

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

45

46

REPI/compatible use vs. “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

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

47

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)

48

Case Study – Navy Whiting Field

• Missions and encroachment

– Fixed-wing training– Rotary-wing training

• 12 outlying fields in Florida & Alabama

49

Project Overview

• Joint Land Use Study• Encroachment Control Plan• Conservation Forum• REPI application• Implementation

50

Partner Roles and Motivations

• Santa Rosa County• The Nature Conservancy• State of Florida• US Navy

51

Landowner Motivations

• Economic benefit– Alabama – depressed land values– Florida – development boom– Adjacent land-use influence

• Conservation• Patriotism

52

Keys to Success

• Excellent mission impact communication• Multi-organization partnership• Good identification of multiple objectives and benefits• Excellent leverage of funding• Strong after-action outreach setting stage for future

success

53

2013 ADC INSTALLATION INNOVATION FORUM | PAGE 54

Leadership Discussion:

What Works

January 15, 2013

Nancy Natoli

DUSD(I&E)

Moderator:

Nancy Natoli, Program Director, Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Installations and Environment

Participants:

• Brigadier General Theresa Carter, Commander, Joint Base San Antonio

• Lieutenant General (ret.) Gordon Fornell, Chairman, Mid-Bay Bridge Authority

• Dan Choike, Vice President of Critical Infrastructure Development, Technology Associates

• Sal Nodjomian, Executive Vice President, Matrix Design Group

2013 ADC INSTALLATION INNOVATION FORUM | PAGE 56

Wrapping Up:Engaging, Strategizing, & Implementing

January 15, 2013

John Armbrust

State of Kansas

Key Training Takeaways

– Communication – the critical element for both communities and military installations is listening to each other’s goals and concerns

– Ongoing engagement – invest the time and resources necessary to maintain it

– Because Services can't and shouldn't buy all the compatible land use they need, REPI is a great tool to seek mutual positive benefits

– Use all the tools, including land use controls– A well run, transparent process sets the stage for more

success57