Compatible Use & Sustainability A Draft Customizable Briefing for Addressing Encroachment Surrounding Military Facilities Prepared by the ECOS and DoD SUSTAINABILITY WORKGROUPLAST UPDATE 5 AUGUST 2005
Compatible Use & Sustainability: An Introduction • What are the issues?- What is encroachment? - Why is encroachment a challenge? - What is sustainability? - What does success look like? - Challenges to success • What are successful options? • What is the return on investment? • How are we addressing the issue? • What can I learn from our experience? • What can I do about it?
What is encroachment? “Encroachment” stems from the need to share scarce resources. It is the cumulative impact of pressures placed on military installations and ranges and the surrounding communities and environmental controls resulting from: growing development and urbanization around military facilities a lack of joint land use planning increasing requirements/challenges competition for air, land, water, energy, radio frequency spectrum, and other resources
Why is encroachment a challenge? A healthy, active base translates into jobs and revenues for local governments and their economies Military training operations can have a significant impact on the environment (groundwater, air quality, etc.) Mission viability – DoD’s ability to provide realistic combat training – is threatened by encroachment
What is sustainability? Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainability from a community perspective: Ensuring the long-term maintenance of a community’s quality of life and economic viability. Sustainability from a state perspective:Acting as a responsible steward of the environment to meet the needs of the present without sacrificing resource availability and quality for future generations. Sustainability from a military perspective:Simultaneously meeting current as well as future mission requirements worldwide, safeguarding human health, improving quality of life, and enhancing the natural environment.
What does success look like? Mission WIN Military (Facility) Compliance State/Federal (Laws and Regs) Natural Resources & Environment WIN Community Quality of Life WIN Local Communities (Land Use) Sustainability A win/win/win situation balances the interests of all three stakeholders
Some Factors that Affect Installation and Community Sustainability
What is the return on investment to local governments and community groups? A healthy, viable installation provides myriad economic benefits to its host community • An installation that is able to perform its mission remains a viable installation for defense purposes • A healthy, active base translates into jobs and revenues for local governments and their economies • Local governments share a common interest with the Department of Defense in sustaining the environment
What is the return on investment to states? Partnership and coordination are integral to the preservation of our environment • States and localities share a common interest with the Department of Defense in sustaining the environment • Military training operations can have a significant impact on the environment (groundwater, air quality, etc.) • Shared air sheds, water sheds, aquifers, eco-systems, dictate the need for collaboration
What is the return on investment to the military? Primary Mission: to defend the United States – its people, its land and its heritage • Survivability and success on the battlefield are critically linked to realistic, live training on military installations. A nation at war requires its military installations to provide trained and tested Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines • Meeting mission requirements requires safeguarding natural systems on which we depend • Mission viability is threatened by encroachment
How are we addressing the issue?(State Legislative Action) In recent years, states have begun to pass legislation that aims to minimize encroachment and build compatible uses of air, land and water resources around military installations. Most commonly introduced and enacted approaches include some variation on six specific themes. 1.) Creation of “buffer zones” areas around military installations through third-party, state or local property acquisitions or conservation easements. 2.) Requirements that communities and local / state governments consult with installation commanders on land use activities around military installations.
How are we addressing the issue?(State Legislative Action) 3.) Requirements that communities near military installations consider land use planning and commercial development / zoning requirements that are compatible with the operations and missions of neighboring installations. 4.) Requirement that implementation of zoning, land use, and noise and nuisance regulations are consistent with the operations and mission at the neighboring military installation. 5.) Requirements that local communities perform an impact assessment of land use activities and commercial and residential development or growth on military installations and the operations or mission at the military installation before developing.
How are we addressing the issue?(State Legislative Action) 6.) Creation of military advisory boards, commissions, committees, composed of state and local officials, military liaisons, and other stakeholders to facilitate discussion and craft policy as regards abating encroachment challenges around military installations, including those bodies with “anti-BRAC” responsibilities.
Common threads that lead to success A sense of shared responsibility, participation and investment… among county/state governments, communities and the military… for the environment, the economy and the military.
What can I learn from our experience?Case Study #1 – Northwest Florida Greenway Partnership • Involved Eglin AFB, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, The Nature Conservancy, and Okaloosa Economic Development Council • Includes a swath of land and air between Eglin and Apalachicola National Forest • Provides Eglin AFB with an encroachment buffer from incompatible development • Protects lands that will sustain the high biodiversity of the region • Links protected natural resource areas • Promotes the sustainability of the military mission in Northwest Florida to meet national defense testing, operational and training requirements • Preserves water resources and provides recreation • Strengthens the regional economy • More information: www.dep.state.fl/us
What can I learn from our experience?Case Study #2 – Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC • Involved Beaufort County, the Department of Defense/Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, and The Trust For Public Land • Allowed the county to buy development rights to the property, with half the cost reimbursed by DoD • Protects 69 acres next to Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort from being developed and encroaching on the air station’s mission • Ensures compatible land use with requirements for the land to be used for conservation--including farming, passive recreational use, and grazing • Strengthens the collaborative relationship between the county and the Air Station for the long term • More information: www.beaufortmec.com/
What can I learn from our experience?Case Study #3 – Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC • Formed the Onslow Bight Conservation Forum to address regional conservation issues. A major goal: sustain land use compatible with the military mission • Forum includes Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, The Nature Conservancy, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina Coastal Federation, North Carolina Coastal Land Trust, Endangered Species Coalition and others • Forum fostered partnerships between participants to acquire conservation parcels that meet shared objectives • Acquired 2500 acres in 2003 next to Camp Lejeune. Many other acquisitions are planned in the vicinity of Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point • More information: www.fws.gov/southeast/grants/Onslowbight.html
What can I learn from our experience?Case Study #4 – Sustainable Fort Lewis, WA • Involves Fort Lewis and surrounding regional stakeholders, including Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, The Nature Conservancy, Nisqually Indian Tribe, US Green Building Council, among others • Provides Fort Lewis and the community with 25-year goals to safeguard human health, improve the quality of life and enhance the natural environment • Ensures long-term sustainability of the Fort Lewis mission and overall environmental health of the installation • Reduces traffic-related air emissions, recovers listed and candidate species, reduces potable water consumption, and makes other gains • Educates military leaders on the concept of sustainability and how it applies to military installations • Encourages residents and the regional workforce to make sustainable choices, e.g. participating in vanpools to reduce traffic congestion, buying locally to reduce the amount of transportation required • More information: www.lewis.army.mil/publicworks/
What can I learn from our experience?Case Study #5 – Community Initiatives Team, Luke AFB • Involves members of the community with staff of the Luke Air Force Base, AZ, 56th Fighter Wing Commander • Addresses zoning and development issues that affect the 56th Fighter Wing’s mission, ensuring its long-term mission sustainability • Interacts with local governments, Arizona state legislature, Governor’s office, and Arizona congressional delegation • Works with communities to lower density of developments surrounding base noise contours • Fosters trust, openness and communication between Luke AFB and local governments • Promotes compatible land use in areas critical to Luke AFB’s mission • More information: www.luke.af.mil/urbandevelopment/default.htm
What can I learn from our experience?Case Study #6 – Fort Bragg/Pope AFB Regional Land Use Advisory Council • Regional Land Use Advisory Council – including local, county and municipal representatives – established in November 2000 • Fort Bragg/Pope Air Force Base Joint Land Use Study prepared in May 2003 • Fort Bragg/Pope developed a six-county GIS database to assist in land use decisions • The Nature Conservancy purchased land development rights along Fort Bragg boundary • Cumberland County adopted process to lease development rights from property owners • Hoke County adopted a new land use plan that embraces the Joint Land Use Study pattern • More information: www.bragg.army.mil/sustainability/Success.htm
What can I learn from our experience?Case Study #7 – Burlington County, NJ, Buffer Zone • Involved Burlington County, Fort Dix, McGuire Air Force Base, and the Federal Farmland Protection Program • $200,000 grant under the Federal Farmland Protection Program helped the County acquire farmland preservation easements from farm owners • Benefited residents and enhanced military installations’ readiness and training capability by reducing incompatible development that would conflict with military air traffic and other activities • Served as a tool for the County’s goal to preserve more than 40,000 acres of farmland • Preserved about 12,000 acres of farmland, forests and parkland in six NJ municipalities • Combined grant funds with County and State funds to acquire easements on properties that would otherwise not be preserved because of lack of funding • More information: www.dix.army.mil/
What can I learn from our experience?Case Study #8 – Virginia Regional Environmental Management System (VREMS) • Involves DoD facilities, other federal agencies, cities and counties, private companies, and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality • Growing from a pilot project at the Defense Supply Center in Richmond, sponsored by DoD and the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and initiated through a cooperative agreement with the Global Environment and Technology Foundation, into a state-wide forum • Recognizes that environmental impacts extend beyond property fence lines and that meaningful actions to address the impacts need to do the same • Uses Environmental Management Systems as a common language to identify stakeholders and collaborate on reducing environmental impacts, strengthening mission readiness of all participants, and facilitating awareness • Focusing now on voluntary air emission reduction strategies with actions ranging from quantifying footprints and measuring improvements to working on State Implementation Plan writing groups • More information: Jimmy.Parrish@dla.mil
What can I learn from our experience?Case Study #9 – NJ Municipal Land Use Legislation • Legislation signed by the Governor and effective March 2005 • Requires developers to provide notice to military facility commanders if their proposed development is within 3,000 feet of a military facility in NJ • Requires notice to a military facility affected by a change in a NJ zoning district • Establishes a communication procedure for each State department, agency or commission to notify the military facility prior to finalizing any plan that would impact land within 3,000 feet of the facility • Affords better communication between State and local entities and military facility commanders • Senate Bill 2207 and companion Assembly Bill 3706 passed unanimously in both houses in February 2005 • More information: www.njleg.state.nj.us
What can I learn from our experience?Case Study #10 – North Carolina & South Carolina Legislation • NC SB 1161 requires county commissioners and city councils to notify installation commanders in changes to zoning maps or permitted land uses located 5 miles or less from the boundary of a military base. Bill received unanimous support in both chambers of the NC General Assembly • SB 1161 signed by Governor in July 2004. More information: www.ncleg.net/ • SC HB 4482 ensures that development in areas near federal military installations is conducted in a coordinated manner that takes into account and provides a voice for federal military interests in planning and zoning decisions by local governments. The installation commander is to be notified at least 30 days prior to any public hearing with respect to each proposed land use or zoning decision involving land that is located within a federal military overlay zone, within 3000 feet of any federal military installation, or within the 3000 foot Clear Zone & Accident Potential Zones defined by Installation Compatible Use Zones • HB 4482 signed by Governor in October 2004. More information: www.scstatehouse.net/
What can I learn from our experience?Case Study #11 – Virginia Land Use Legislation • Virginia HB 714 signed by the Governor and effective April 2004 • Requires planning commissions in the commonwealth to give 10-days advance notice to military installation commanders before any hearings on proposed changes in use to parcels of land within 3,000 feet of installations • Also requires planning commissions to invite comments or recommendations from military commanders on proposed changes • Requires that comprehensive plans and accompanying maps include the location of military bases, military airports and their adjacent safety areas • More information: http://legis.state.va.us/
What can I do about it? • Learn more about compatible use and sustainability issues in your community • Contact local planning/zoning boards and participate in community decisions • Spread the word/expand the circle • Contact your Military Component Regional Environmental Office for assistance in identifying and enacting model solutions in your state/community surrounding your military facility • Initiate or participate in a facility-specific sustainability forum
What can I do about it? Contact Your Regional Environmental Office