Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Joint Land Use Study ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Joint Land Use Study Kick-off Meeting January 16, 2014.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Joint Land Use Study ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Joint Land Use Study Kick-off Meeting January 16, 2014."— Presentation transcript:

1 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Joint Land Use Study ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Joint Land Use Study Kick-off Meeting January 16, 2014

2 Agenda Welcome / Introductions Overview of Joint Land Use Study Lessons Learned Public Involvement JLUS Approach Compatibility Issues Exercise Next Steps Overview of Tiger Team Visit Q & A discussion Adjourn

3 Project Team Project Manager Karen Holt BRAC Manager, APG-CSSC Regional BRAC Office Matrix Design Group Mike Hrapla Project Manager Celeste Werner, AICP Deputy Project Manager

4 Welcome / Introductions Partners  Harford County, MD  Cecil County, MD  Kent County, MD  City of Aberdeen, MD  City of Havre de Grace, MD  Aberdeen Proving Ground Committees  Executive Committee  Advisory Committee  Technical Working Groups (as needed) Consultant Team  Matrix Design Group

5 Matrix Team

6 Unmatched JLUS Experience

7 Committee Roles Public Officials Local / County Other Agencies Military Representatives Participants Responsibilities Sponsor Harford County Executive Committee Policy Direction Study Oversight Monitoring Report Adoption Advisory Committee Technical Issues Alternatives Report Development Recommendations Coordination Accountability Grant Management Financial Contribution Planning Staff Engineering Staff Technical Specialists Special Interests

8 Overview of Joint Land Use Studies What is a JLUS?  A federally funded program to promote cooperation administered by DOD/OEA  A proactive approach to achieve a balance between sustaining missions at Aberdeen Proving Ground and the economic development viability of neighboring communities  A preventative measure to discourage incompatible development Initiated in 1985 by the Office of Economic Adjustment, (DOD). Over 105 JLUSs have been completed nationally. Initiated in 1985 by the Office of Economic Adjustment, (DOD). Over 105 JLUSs have been completed nationally.

9 JLUS Objectives Community  Protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents / maintain quality of life  Manage development in the vicinity of military installations that would interfere with the continued operations of these facilities  Protect opportunities for new growth in an economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable manner  Maintain the economic vitality of the community / region Military  Protect the health, safety, and welfare of the military and civilian personnel living and working at or near the military installation  Safeguard the ability of the installation to achieve its mission, maintain military readiness, and support national defense objectives

10 Lessons Learned  Committees need to be inclusive  Need communication and information exchange to occur between EC members and AC members  Time is required for information review and policy development  Process needs to be a collaborative  Need to assess and measure willingness to implement actions early  Ongoing communications need to be developed throughout the process

11 Public Involvement Critical Goal – create a community-based plan / approach that builds consensus and obtains buy-in from varied interests Purpose – obtain buy-in from all stakeholders and provide public affairs guidance and support Public Outreach Plan – living documents

12 Public Involvement Campaign JLUS Public Materials and Updates  JLUS Overview / Standard Compatibility Factors  Strategy Toolbox  JLUS Executive Summary Public Meeting Notifications  Press Releases  Post Card / E-blast Notifications  Workshop Flyers Project Website Public Review Period  Draft JLUS public comment period

13 Public Involvement Public Workshops - 4  Workshop #1Project overview - Compatibility factors - Issue identification  Workshop #2Draft issue findings - Future growth trends - Military mission operations  Workshop #3Issue refinement - Existing policies and regulations as strategies  Workshop #4 Solutions and strategies Community Visioning Session  Problems, Conditions, Goals, Approaches Public Hearings - 3  Public Hearing #1Draft JLUS  Public Hearing #2Final JLUS

14 JLUS Approach Address compatibility issues of concern to local jurisdictions, agencies, the public, and the military, such as:  Coordination and Communication  Compatible Land Use  Noise  Competition for Land / Sea Space  Light and Glare  Threatened and Endangered Species  Roadway Capacity Develop location specific areas of concern for each type of compatibility issues: Use Military Influence Planning District as basis for identifying specific military areas of concern and developing appropriate planning policies.

15 JLUS Approach Goal is to link the issues to the geographic areas  Identify areas by specific compatibility issuesand concerns  Narrow focus to areas where the issues exist  Minimize areas that require controls or policies  Link solution types and tools to specific areas Develop an implementation strategy for preventing and mitigating encroachment  Recommendations will involve local jurisdictions, state and federal agencies, private organizations, and / or military  Tie recommendations to specific military areas of concern

16 Key Milestones in JLUS Development  Data Collection  Tiger Team / Stakeholder Interviews  Identification of Compatibility Issues  Community Profile  Military Profile  Assessment of Existing Compatibility Tools  Assessment of Compatibility Issues  Recommended Implementation Plan

17 Preliminary Study Area Study area extends across the Chesapeake Bay due to:  Noise / Vibration and Noise Contours  Ranges / Testing and Operational Areas  Urban Growth and Development Figure courtesy of the Department of the Army, BRAC EIS

18 Assessment of Compatibility Issues Matrix utilizes a set of 24 Compatibility Factors to guide investigation and evaluation Slide # 18 * Assessment will include both current missions and potential future missions

19 How to respond to survey questions? Presenter will announce polling is open. Press the number / letter that corresponds to the answer you wish to select. Change your mind? Just select / click your desired response. Your last selection will be tallied. You will see the results as responders select their answer. Slide # 19

20 Where do you live? A.City of Aberdeen B.City of Havre de Grace C.Unincorporated Harford County D.Cecil County E.Kent County F.Aberdeen Proving Ground G.Other

21 How long have you lived in that location? A.< 2 yrs B.2 – 5 yrs C.6 – 10 yrs D.11 – 20 yrs E.> 20 yrs

22 If you had a question, concern, or complaint regarding APG or its operations, would you know who to contact and how? A.Yes B.No C.No need to contact

23 Have you coordinated with APG in the last 12 months concerning a project or activity? A.Yes B.No C.No need to coordinate

24 Have you contacted APG in the last 12 months regarding an issue or a complaint? A.Yes B.No C.No need to contact

25 Do you think that your community maintains good relations / has a good relationship with APG? A.Yes B.No C.I don’t know

26 Compatibility Factors 1. Interagency Coordination / Communication Interagency coordination relates to the level of interaction on compatibility issues among military installations, jurisdictions, land and resource management agencies, and conservation authorities.

27 Which land use type or type of development do you think presents the biggest concern relative to incompatibility with APG mission? A.Residential B.Commercial C.Industrial D.Agricultural E.Habitat / Conservation Area F.Other G.None of the above H.All the above

28 Which type of military activity occurring at APG do you think presents the biggest concern relative to incompatibility with community goals and objectives? A.Ordnance firing B.Vehicle testing C.Munitions storage D.Aviation operations E.Private development on APG F.Other

29 Compatibility Factors 2. Land Use The basis of land use planning relates to the government’s role in protecting the public’s health, safety, and welfare. County and local jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans, growth policy, and zoning ordinances can be the most effective tools for avoiding, or resolving, land use compatibility issues.

30 How concerned are you about the potential for safety incidents (i.e. aircraft mishaps, explosions, chemical, etc.) to occur as a result of military operations at APG? A.Extremely B.Somewhat C.Not really D.Not at all

31 Compatibility Factors 3. Safety Zones Safety Zones are areas in which development should be more restrictive, in terms of use and concentrations of people, due to the higher risks to public safety. Issues to consider include aircraft accident potential zones, weapons firing range safety zones, and explosive safety zones.

32 Do you feel it is necessary for LOCAL governments to ensure citizens are protected from actions that occurred on or are occurring on APG? A.Yes B.No C.I don’t know

33 Are you aware of the need and what height limitations for development are around airfields and heliports to help reduce aircraft accidents? A.Yes B.No C.I don’t know

34 Compatibility Factors 4. Vertical Obstructions Vertical obstructions are created by buildings, trees, structures, or other features that may encroach into the navigable airspace used for military operations. These can present a safety hazard to both the public and military personnel and potentially impact military readiness.

35 Do you think housing availability (quantity, quality, affordable) is an issue for APG / local communities? A.Yes B.No C.I don’t know

36 If you thought housing availability / quantity was an issue, what type of accommodations do you think are most needed? A.Affordable/ workforce housing B.Apartments / rental units C.Hotel / short-term stay D.High-end / luxury housing E.Other housing type

37 Compatibility Factors 5.Local Housing Availability Local housing availability addresses the supply and demand for housing in the region, the competition for shelter that may result from changes in the number of military personnel, and the supply of military family housing provided by the installation.

38 Compatibility Factors 6. Infrastructure Extensions This factor covers the extension or provision of infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, etc.) in the vicinity of the installation. However, enhanced or expanded infrastructure could also encourage growth into areas near the installation that might not be compatible with current or future missions.

39 Compatibility Factors Anti-Terrorism / Force Protection Anti-Terrorism / Force Protection (AT / FP) relates to the safety of personnel, facilities, and information on an installation from outside threats. Methods to protect the installation and its supportive facilities can impact off-installation uses. Photo courtesy of the Baltimore Sun

40 Do you think noise from APG operations is a nuisance to the community? A.Yes B.Yes, but only occasionally C.Not now, but maybe in the future D.No E.I don’t know

41 If you think noise is a nuisance, in what location do you experience the greatest annoyance? A.City of Aberdeen B.City of Havre de Grace C.Unincorporated Harford County D.Cecil County E.Kent County F.Aberdeen Proving Ground G.Other

42 If you think noise is a nuisance, what days / times do you experience the greatest annoyance? A.Weekday at work B.Weekday at home C.Weekday night D.Weekend during the day E.Weekend during the night F.Day / time varies

43 Compatibility Factors Noise More simply stated, sound is what we hear. As sounds reach unwanted levels, this is referred to as noise. The central issue of noise is the impact, or perceived impact, on people, animals (wild and domestic), and general land use compatibility. Exposure to high noise levels can have a significant impact on human activity, health, and safety.

44 Do you think vibration from APG operations is a nuisance to the community? A.Yes B.Yes, but only occasionally C.Not now, but maybe in the future D.No E.I don’t know

45 If you think vibration is a nuisance, in what location do you experience the greatest annoyance? A.City of Aberdeen B.City of Havre de Grace C.Unincorporated Harford County D.Cecil County E.Kent County F.Aberdeen Proving Ground G.Other

46 Compatibility Factors 9. Vibration Vibration is an oscillation or motion that alternates in opposite directions and may occur as a result of an impact, explosion, noise, mechanical operation, or other change in the environment. Vibration may be caused by military and/or civilian activities.

47 Do you think smoke from APG operations prescribed burn activities is a nuisance to the community? A.Yes B.Yes, but only occasionally C.Not now, but maybe in the future D.No E.I don’t know

48 If you think that smoke is a nuisance, in what location do you experience the greatest annoyance? A.City of Aberdeen B.City of Havre de Grace C.Unincorporated Harford County D.Cecil County E.Kent County F.Aberdeen Proving Ground G.Other

49 Compatibility Factors 10. Dust / Smoke / Steam Dust (and smoke) can be created by fire (controlled burns, agricultural burning), ground disturbance (agricultural operations, grading), industrial activities, or other similar processes. Dust, smoke and steam becomes a compatibility issue if sufficient in quantity to impact flight operations (such as reduced visibility or equipment damage).

50 Compatibility Factors 11. Light and Glare Light sources from commercial, industrial, recreational, and residential uses at night can cause excessive glare and illumination, which can impact the use of military night vision devices and air operations. Conversely, high intensity light sources generated from a military area (such as ramp lighting) may have a negative impact on the adjacent community.

51 Are you concerned about alternative energy development in the region? Like waste to energy or energy recovery facilities? A.Yes B.No C.I don’t know

52 Compatibility Factors 12. Energy Development Development of energy sources, including alternative energy sources (such as solar, wind, or biofuels) could pose compatibility issues related to glare (solar energy), vertical obstruction (wind generation), or water quality / quantity.

53 Are you aware of, do you have a concern about, or do you experience problems with radio or electromagnetic frequencies from APG operations? A.Yes B.No C.I don’t know

54 Compatibility Factors 14. Frequency Impedance / Interference Frequency spectrum impedance and interference refers to the interruption of electronic signals by a structure (impedance) or the inability to distribute / receive a particular frequency because of similar frequency competition (interference).

55 Compatibility Factors 15. Public Trespassing This factor addresses public trespassing, either purposeful or unintentional, onto a military installation. The potential for trespassing increases when public use areas are in close proximity to the installation.

56 Do you think that natural resources management (wetlands, critical area, threatened / endangered species) impacts APG operations? A.Yes B.No C.I don’t know

57 Do you think that APG operations negatively impact natural resources (wetlands, critical area, threatened / endangered species)? A.Yes B.No C.I don’t know

58 Compatibility Factors 19. Sensitive Biological Resources Sensitive biological resources include federal and state listed species (threatened and endangered species) and the habitats they exist in or utilize. These resources may also include areas such as wetlands and migratory corridors that are critical to the overall ecosystem. The presence of sensitive biological resources may require special development considerations and should be included early in the planning process.

59 Compatibility Factors 20. Marine Environments Regulatory or permit requirements protecting Marine and ocean resources can cumulatively affect the military’s ability to conduct operations, training exercises, or testing in a water- based environment.

60 If you have been boating on or around the Chesapeake Bay, have you ever been asked to leave an area by APG personnel or otherwise had to change your plans on the water due to APG operations? A.Yes B.No

61 Compatibility Factors 22. Land, Air, and Sea Space The military manages or uses land, air, and sea space to accomplish testing, training, and operational missions. These resources must be available and of a sufficient size, cohesiveness, and quality to accommodate effective training and testing. Competition for these shared resources can impact future growth in operations for all users.

62 Do you feel that the recent BRAC growth at APG has subjected the community to significant transportation impacts? A.Yes B.No C.I don’t know

63 If yes, do you think that current and planned improvements to be made to the local transportation network will relieve the impacts felt from the BRAC growth? A.Yes B.No C.I don’t know

64 Compatibility Factors 24. Roadway Capacity Roadway Capacity relates to the ability of existing freeways, highways, arterials, and other local roads to provide adequate mobility and access between military installations and their surrounding communities.

65 Next Steps  Kick off data collect effort and provide information  Finalize Public Outreach Approach  Determine Preliminary Compatibility Issues  Prepare and Schedule TIGER Team Visit

66 Tiger Team Visit Week long effort - Date TBD  Field data collection  Field interviews of agencies and stakeholders  Aberdeen Proving Ground – Aberdeen Area and Edgewood Area tours and mission briefings  Multiple teams to disperse throughout region

67 Questions Q & A Discussion

68 JLUS Work Plan Phase 1  Data Collection – Data / information request Phase 2  Tiger Team Visit – Interviews / data collection Phase 3  Identify and assess Compatibility Issues Phase 4  Review and assess current processes and tools Phase 5  Determine geographical areas of concern Phase 6  Develop appropriate strategies and tools

69 JLUS Work Plan Development of Recommendations  Collaborate on strategies and tools  Refine compatibility areas of concern  Develop Draft Report  Public Review and Comment Period  Finalize appropriate strategies and tools  Develop Final Report  Report Acceptance and Adoption Processes

70 Areas of Compatibility

71 Compatibility Factors 13. Air Quality Air quality is defined by numerous components that are regulated at the federal and state level. For compatibility, the primary concerns are pollutants that limit visibility, such as particulates, ozone, and potential non-attainment of air quality standards that may limit future changes in operations at the installation.

72 Compatibility Factors 16. Cultural Resources Cultural resources may halt development, apply development constraints, or require special access by Native American tribes, other groups, or governmental regulatory authorities.

73 Compatibility Factors 17. Legislative Initiatives Legislative initiatives are federal, state, or local laws and regulations that may have a direct or indirect effect on a military installation to conduct its current or future mission. They can also constrain development potential in areas surrounding the installation.

74 Compatibility Factors 18. Water Quality / Quantity Water quality / quantity concerns include the assurance that adequate water supplies of good quality are available for use by the installation and surrounding communities as the area develops.

75 Compatibility Factors 21. Scarce Natural Resources Pressure to gain access to valuable natural resources (such as oil, natural gas, and minerals) located on military installations, within military training areas, or on public lands historically used for military operations can impact land utilization and military operations.

76 Compatibility Factors 23. Frequency Spectrum Capacity In a defined area, the frequency spectrum is limited. Frequency spectrum capacity is critical for maintaining existing and future missions and communications on installations. This is also addressed from the standpoint of consumer electronics.

77 Introductions Mike Hrapla Project Manager Celeste Werner, AICP Deputy Project Manager Jeanette Studley Task Lead – Land Use Analysis Rick Rust, AICP Technical Manager

78 Executive Committee Voting members:  Harford County, MD  Cecil County, MD  Kent County, MD  City of Aberdeen, MD  City of Havre de Grace, MD Ex-officio – non-voting member:  Aberdeen Proving Ground Responsibilities: Policy Direction Study Oversight Monitoring Report Adoption

79 Advisory Committee (TBD) Membership should represent:  Planning Directors (5)  Maryland Governor Representative  Economic Development Directors  Chamber of Commerce Directors  Aberdeen Proving Ground  RDT&E Experts  Natural Resource Managers / Maryland Department of Environment / US Fish & Wildlife  Maryland Department of Transportation  Utility Service Providers  APG Public Affairs Office Responsibilities: Technical Issues Alternatives Report Development Recommendations


Download ppt "ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Joint Land Use Study ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Joint Land Use Study Kick-off Meeting January 16, 2014."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google