Sharing Future Space Challenges

1
Sharing Future Space Challenges

• William D. Goran
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Engineer Research and Development Center
• APA Federal Planning Division Workshop
• April 2007, Philadelphia, PA

2
Planet EarthThe Challenges
resource consumption rising

• Consequences
• Resource Scarcity
• Degradation of Air, Land, Water
• Rising Costs
• Threat to Quality of Life
• Regional Relationships
• Impacts on Military Testing Training
• Threats to National Security

resource availability declining
3
The Threat Closer to HomeDiminished Capability
Development near Fort Bragg drop zone
Growth Around Fort Carson

• 45 million more acres of developed U.S. land
  expected by 2030

4
Changes Across the Landscape
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Water Consumption per Capita
1970
1970
2000
2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
Low High
5
Southeastern Forest Habitat Loss
Source United States Geological Survey
6
Fort Benning Critical Species Distribution
Red Cockaded Woodpecker
Gopher Tortoise
7
InitiativesMilitary Strategies Sharing Space
Army Compatible Use Buffers (ACUB)
Army Compatible Use Zones (ACUZ)
Installation Sustainability Plans (ISP)
Sustainable Ranges Program
Joint Land Use Studies (JLUS)
Marine Corps Base Encroachment Plans
Enabling Legislation
Military Operating Areas (MOAs)
Cross-Program/Strategy Objective Ensure
long-term military mission capability while
reducing resource requirements and wastes and
working with stakeholders and communities for a
shared sustainable future
8
Sustainability Planning Tools
Assess Sustainability

Conduct Trend Analyses
Avoid Problems


Project Future Changes
Quantify Mission Impacts

9
Whats NeededRegional Sustainability Planning

• Ongoing processes for collaborative planning
  across jurisdictions at multiple scales and
  levels
• Incorporate regional goals into local planning
  processes
• Tools empowering decision makers to mitigate
  negative consequences
• Balanced focus between the issues of today and
  tomorrows emerging issues

10
Department of Defense Protecting the American
Landscape

Presentation to the American Planning Association
Federal Planning Division Philadelphia, PA 12
April 2007
Nancy Natoli Land Conservation Planner Training
Support Division, U.S. Army Environmental Command
11
Purpose

• Describe the Department of Defense conservation
  partnerships that protect critical natural
  landscapes near military installations

12
Outline

• Explain the Department of Defenses compatible
  land use buffer authority to address encroachment
• Provide examples of cooperative partnerships that
  protect critical American farmlands and other
  natural landscapes near military installations

13
Context Presidents Imperative for Cooperative
Conservation

• August 2004 Executive Order on Cooperative
  Conservation
• August 2005 White House Conference on Cooperative
  Conservation in St. Louis
• Broaden cooperative conservation with state,
  tribal and local governments, communities,
  private for-profit and non-profit organizations,
  and private citizens
• Enhance and integrate public and private land
  stewardship
• Identify ideas for future conservation and
  environmental policies and initiatives
• Institutionalize cooperative conservation to
  enhance on-the-ground conservation results and
  progress

14
Context2004 Army Strategy for Environment

• Sustain the missionSecure the future
• Ensure soldiers have land, air and water required
  to maintain readiness now and into the future
• Sustainability connects todays actions to
  tomorrows through sound business and
  environmental practices
• Commits Army leadership to developing innovative
  methods to achieving goals

15
(No Transcript)
16
Military Compatible Land Use Buffer Authority

• Codified at 10 U.S.C. 2684a, Agreements to Limit
  Encroachments and Other Constraints on Military
  Training, Testing, and Operations
• Enacted by FY03 National Defense Authorization
  Act (NDAA) 2811 and amended by FY06 NDAA 2822
• Funded at Department of Defense level through
  Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative
  (REPI)
• Implemented through specific programs for each
  Service

17
10 U.S.C. 2684a Across DoD

• Excellent tool for avoiding or limiting
  encroachment and providing long-term
  sustainability of military ranges
• Army uses cooperative agreements for
  comprehensive proposal partner holds all
  interest in land
• Navy and Marines implement as real estate
  procedure for individual parcels and requires a
  recordable interest
• Air Force uses Air Installation Compatible Use
  Zone (AICUZ) program
• All agreements or transactions are with willing
  sellers only

18
Benefits

• Installation realizes greater training
  flexibility and reduced encroachment
• Partner gets financial support for land
  conservation, including endangered species and
  habitat protection, and other conservation uses
• Private landowners realize financial incentives
  and tax benefits while preserving land legacy and
  heritage for future generations

19
(No Transcript)
20
Fort AP Hill, VA
Objective
Protects important training areas and reduces the
risk of endangered species restrictions on Fort
AP Hill while securing the Rappahannock River
Riparian Area and open space (mostly farmland) in
central VA.
CA partners The Trust for Public Land, The
Nature Conservancy and The Conservation Fund
Other partners Virginia Outdoors Foundation, US
Fish and Wildlife Service, county, and the state
department of natural resources.
21
Cooperative Partnership Initiatives

• Ducks Unlimited (DU)
• U.S. Department of the Interior
• U.S. Fish Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

22
DoD Agricultural Partnerships

• Department of Defense Memorandum of Understanding
  (MOU) signed with National Resource Conservation
  Service on 8 November 2006 to promote
  cooperative conservation partnerships
• Assist private landowners in retaining productive
  and viable working lands
• Sustain agricultural productivity and
  environmental quality
• Support continued economic viability and military
  preparedness
• Support development of land management practices
  that meet state water quality objectives

Specific projects targeted in Southeastern US,
Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Hawaii,
Georgia, New York and Colorado
23
Army-Ducks Unlimited Partnership

• Signed Memorandum of Understanding July 2006
• Partnership Objective
• cooperatively develop, restore, enhance and
  preserve wetlands and waterfowl habitat,
  consistent with the ideals of the North American
  Waterfowl Management Plan and in support of ACUB
  program objectives
• Army-Ducks Unlimited partnership leverages
  resources to protect waterfowl habitats and
  American Soldiers
• Potential projects at several locations

24
Sample ACUB Partners

• The Nature Conservancy
• Trust for Public Lands
• The Conservation Fund
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Colorado Department of Transportation
• Great Outdoors Colorado
• Colorado Department of Natural Resources
• Florida Department of Environmental Protection
• Florida Forever
• Hawaii North Shore Community Land Trust
• Hawaii State Parks
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
• Parks and Trails Council of Minnesota
• Crow Wing County
• Fort Ripley Township
• Crow Wing Township
• Land Legacy, Inc.
• Department of Interior, National Park Service

• Commonwealth of Virginia
• Virginia Outdoors Foundation
• Harford Land Trust
• Kansas Land Trust
• Land Trust for Tennessee
• Minnesota Department of Transportation
• North Carolina Department of Transportation
• Kansas Conservation Commission
• City of Honolulu
• Office of Hawaiian Affairs
• State of Oklahoma
• Kamanche County Industrial Authority
• Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
• Harford County
• Florida Department of Environmental Protection
• Sandhills Area Land Trust

25
Sample Community Interaction Initiatives

• Cooperation with local developer of El Rancho
  subdivision to prevent incompatible development
  near Fort Carsons main impact area
• Hawaii Conservation Forum collaborative effort
  to launch Oahu Conservation Partnership that
  includes diverse organizations focused on common
  land protection objectives
• North Carolina Sandhills Conservation Partnership
  to protect regional habitat
• Virginia Conservation Forum outreach to launch
  partnerships in state with significant military
  locations for all Services and at critical
  juncture for land conservation efforts

26
Where We Are Going

• A comprehensive program for sustaining Army
  installations
• Includes a wide variety of land use planning
  tools
• Joint Land Use Studies (JLUS)
• Conservation Leases
• Land Swaps
• Partnerships with State and/or Federal Agencies
• Private Capital Investments
• Capitalizes on other Federal and State programs
  and funding sources
• Leverages partnerships with diverse
  Non-Government Organizations

27
Summary

• Land requirements for military training and
  testing are increasing
• Encroachment limits an installations ability to
  fully use installation lands for training and
  testing
• Military has variety of tools for installations
  and headquarters to work with partners to
  accomplish mutual goals and land protection and
  conservation

Ryder Ranch, Fort Sill ACUB buffer
Portabago Creek Parcel, Fort A.P. Hill ACUB
28
Sharing Future Space Analysis Tools

• Natalie R.D. Myers
• The Pertan Group
• Federal Planning Division Workshop
• April 2007, Philadelphia, PA

29
Sustainability Planning Tools

• The Regional Sustainability Analysis program
  seeks to define a path to a sustainable future
  for regions and the military installations within
  those regions.
• We need tools to inform regional sustainability
  planning within the context of working with
  communities and stakeholders.
• Based on a defined preferred future, we can then
  look backwards toward the present and highlight
  choices to make that future a reality.

30
Sustainability Planning Tools
IDENTIFY


MITIGATE
PREDICT


31
SIRRASustainable Installations Regional Resource
Assessment
https//ff.cecer.army.mil/ff/sirra.do
54 Indicators 300 Installations (all branches)
32
Species at Risk
0 species at risk per sq. mile Not Applicable 1
species at risk per sq. mile Not Applicable 2 or
more species at risk per sq. mile
33
SIRRA Housing Availability
SIRRA 2004
34
SIRRA Housing Affordability
SIRRA 2004
35
SIRRA Air Quality
SIRRA 2004
36
LUCA Historic Growth
Land Use Change Analysis
5-mile buffer around Fort Bragg, NC. Urban
Growth within buffer 22 1992 -2001 Army
average 26 1992-2001
37
Trending the Future

• Developing a picture of the future
• Defining where the region is headed.
• Using land use forecasting (LEAM).
• Assessing impacts from the forecast.

38
Regional Land Use Change
LEAMLand Use Evolution Impact Assessment Model
2000-2030 2.2 annual growth rate
Fort Benning, GA
39
in Fine Detail
www.leam.uiuc.edu www.leamgroup.com
40
External Changes Impacting the Military Mission
Potential Loss of Training Land Use, 2000-2030

• 1990- Benning supported 10,000 soldier training
  events/days
• 2000- Benning supported 13,000 soldier training
  events/days
• 2010- Benning is predicted to support 18,200
  soldier training events/days because the Armor
  School is moving to the base

Source LEAM tom
41
Habitat Fragmentation
Fort Benning Gopher Tortoise Habitat, 2000
Suitable Habitat Lost Suitable Habitat New
Development Existing Development Other
42
Habitat Fragmentation
Fort Benning Gopher Tortoise Habitat, 2030
Suitable Habitat Lost Suitable Habitat New
Development Existing Development Other
43
Legislative Actions Mitigation Guidance Program
Reviews Expert Opinions
http//ff.cecer.army.mil/ponds/home.htm
44
Strategic Sustainability Process
Current Trend
Current State
Revised End-States
Capacity
Preferred Future State
Policy or other Changes
Time
45
Impact Water Quality(Total Suspended
Particulates - 2000)
Fort Bragg, NC
Interstate Highway County Boundary Installation
Boundary TSP (mg/l) 0 - 50 50 70 70 90 90
110 gt 110
46
Impact Water Quality(Total Suspended
Particulates 2030)
Fort Bragg, NC
Interstate Highway County Boundary Installation
Boundary TSP (mg/l) 0 - 50 50 70 70 90 90
110 gt 110
47
Water Quantity Gap
Fort Bragg Sustainability Goal Reduce the
amount of water taken from the Little River by
70.
Gap 6.19 MGD from Baseline

Current 3.56 MGD
Baseline 8.84 MGD
Goal 2.65 MGD
48
Water Quantity Gap
Fayetteville Region -- No specific water use
reduction goals. Region to grow by over 100MGD
41 Growth in Res Comm/Ind
Trends indicate increasing regional water
consumption.
Graph illustrates projected water use for the
7-county region surrounding Fort Bragg given a
25.6 regional growth rate.
49
Sharing Future Space Tools
SIRRASustainable Installations Regional Resource
Assessment https//ff.cecer.army.mil/ff/sirra.do
LEAMLand Use Evolution and Impact Assessment
Model www.leam.uiuc.edu www.leamgroup.com PONDSP
roactive Options with Neighbors for Defense
Installations Sustainability http//ff.cecer.army.
mil/ponds/home.htm