CONSISTENCY GUIDE · The Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics,...

MA

ST

ER

PL

AN

INSTALLATION

CONSISTENCY GUIDE

NAVAL SHORE INFRASTRUCTURE

November 2013

DEVELOPMENTPLAN

VERSION 1.0

A FRAMEWORK

FINAL

The history of facilities master planning in the U.S. Navy dates back 188 years. In 1825, Secretary of the Navy Samuel Southard noted with alarm the rapidly deteriorating state of the nation’s Naval yards and recommended an urgent program of planning for their restoration.

While master planning got an early start in the Navy, it did not constitute a dedicated program until 1952, when the Master Shore Station Development Program was initiated.

Facilities planning became systematized in the Navy in 1960 when the Shore Facilities Planning and Programming System was instituted as a component of the Department of Defense’s well-known Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS).

“Evaluation of the Navy Master Planning Program” by Robert W. ForsythMay 1976

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.0 IDP Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Phase 1: Plan Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Phase 2: Collect Data and Develop a Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Phase 3: Analyze Existing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Phase 4: Analyze Capability Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Phase 5: Develop Alternative Courses of Action (COAs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Phase 6: Develop Preferred Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Phase 7: Plan Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.0 Product & Content Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.0 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Appendix A – IDP Standard Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Appendix B – Introducing iNSIPP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Appendix C – Strategic Guidance Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Appendix D – Typical Installation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Appendix E – Typical Off-installation Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Appendix F – Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

TOC 2 • INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE F INAL

Figures

Figure 1.1 IDP Planning Priorities ........................................................................................................ 2

Figure 1.2 The Scales of Shore Infrastructure Planning ...................................................................... 3

Figure 1.3 CNIC Shore Capability Areas .............................................................................................. 3

Figure 1.4 IDP Consistency Guide and Installation Master Planning UFC Focus Comparison

Diagram .............................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 1.5 iNSIPP Concept Diagram .................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2.1 Installation Development Plan (IDP) Planning Process Diagram ......................................... 7

Figure 2.2 IDP Process ........................................................................................................................ 9

Figure 2.3 Phase 1 Process Diagram ................................................................................................. 10

Figure 2.4 Strategic Guidance Sources ............................................................................................. 11

Figure 2.5 Phase 1 IDP Plan Components ......................................................................................... 11


Figure 2.7 Generalized Diagram of the Shore Facility Planning System ............................................. 13

Figure 2.8 iNFADS Descriptions ......................................................................................................... 13

Figure 2.9 EPG and IPL Description................................................................................................... 14

Figure 2.10 Vision Session Planning Drivers Example ......................................................................... 15

Figure 2.11 Vision Session Planning Priority Example ......................................................................... 15



Figure 2.14 Requirements and Assets by Shore Capability Area Summary from iNFADS Example ...... 17

Figure 2.15 FRES Description .............................................................................................................. 19

Figure 2.16 Screen Shot from FRES .................................................................................................... 20

Figure 2.17 Mission Dependency Index Description ............................................................................ 20

Figure 2.18 Capacity Planning Description .......................................................................................... 21

Figure 2.19 Phase 3 IDP Plan Components ........................................................................................ 21


Figure 2.21 Capability Gap Analysis Process Diagram ........................................................................ 23

Figure 2.22 Data import from FRES/iNFADS into MS Excel for use during the analysis phase. ............ 23



Figure 2.25 COA Alternative Solutions Continuum Diagram................................................................. 27

FINAL INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE • TOC 3

Figure 2.26 COA Development Process Diagram ................................................................................ 27



Figure 2.29 ADP Description ................................................................................................................ 31

Figure 2.30 Degree of Applicability of Master Planning Strategies to the CNIC Shore Capability

Areas ................................................................................................................................ 31



TOC 4 • INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE F INAL

FINAL INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE • 1

Effective long-term development and management of the Department of Defense’s buildings, land, and infrastructure resources requires a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to installation master planning that delivers consistent results. For Navy shore activities, planning is the process of providing for the efficient use and orderly development of real estate and facility resources in response to assigned missions, functions, and tasks.

An Installation Development Plan (IDP) is the official planning document that guides installation physical development activities. It conveys strategic, efficient and orderly development of the installation around specific mission requirements and incorporates flexibility to adapt to dynamic and changing conditions, such as unforeseen missions or events.

An IDP is a road map to achieving a vision, allowing planners to anticipate the future, prioritize infrastructure actions, reduce risk and improve business processes and policies through a collaborative process. The IDP, while guided by a vision and focused on mission excellence, is also developed to achieve plausible, feasible and implementable planning solutions influenced and guided by fiscal realities. The ideas, plans, direction and courses of action (COAs)provided by the IDP should provide the Installation Commanding Officer, Public Works and NAVFAC with a clear picture of development priorities and actions for the short, mid and long-term.

1.0 Introduction

The final product of the IDP upon completion of the master planning process and critical thinking presented in this Guide will be a strategic shore infrastructure development plan for a Navy installation. This plan will contain planning information, in text and graphic form, following a standard table of contents presented throughout this Guide and specifically shown in Appendix A.

Purpose of the Installation Development Plan (IDP) Consistency Guide

This IDP Consistency Guide (herein after Guide) specifically defines the Navy installation level next-generation planning process, methods, and outputs necessary to support the defense mission, promote quality of life, and enhance sustainability and environmental viability for each installation. This Guide is designed to promote consistency and standardization of common information among all IDPs and coordination among the IDP and other Shore Infrastructure Planning (SIP) products at the regional and global level. Through this Guide, installation planners will understand the necessary components for executing a strategic and long-range installation master plan that will guide the investment planning process.

“Department of Defense (DOD) military installations are invaluable national defense resources that must be planned and developed in a sustainable manner that supports current missions and preserves long-term military capabilities. Fundamental to the effectiveness and sustainability of our installations is the master planning process, which establishes a clear and principled long-range vision for the development of installations that support the Department’s defense mission and enrich the communities they serve.”

The Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Frank Kendall, May 28, 2013.

Nomenclature Rule

The term Installation Development Plan, or IDP, is the preferred phrase when referring to an installation master plan and is used throughout this guide. The IDP is a consolidated planning document that integrates strategic installation planning components such as installation-wide Vision Plan, Framework/Planning Districts, Future Development Plan, Infrastructure Network Plans, Development Program and Planning Standards. The IDP also includes plans that provide installation development information at a smaller scale for specific areas on an installation such an Area Development Plans (ADPs), Functional Plans, Site Development Plans, etc.

2 • INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE F INAL

Figure 1.1 IDP Planning Priorities

DOD Instruction 4165.70 (Real Property Management 6 April 2005) establishes the requirement for installation master plans. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 2-100-01 Installation Master Planning, 15 May 2012, sets forth minimum requirements and standards for master planning processes and products in accordance with the DOD instruction. This Guide recognizes these instructions and further defines and clarifies the specific inputs and outputs necessary to complete a successful IDP for the Navy. The Guide places intentional emphasis and focus on infrastructure planning requirements for mission first as the primary driver that should influence all IDP outcomes. Figure 1.1 illustrates the primary facility and infrastructure areas that IDPs should focus on.

Organization of the IDP Consistency Guide

This Guide provides a framework for developing an effective IDP and its use will ensure consistency across all IDP efforts and alignment with SIP goals and expectations. This Guide defines the methods of analysis and outputs for IDP products and is organized into three primary sections:

The Scales of Shore Infrastructure Planning

Shore Infrastructure Planning (SIP) is the umbrella under which separate but interdependent planning processes occur to produce global, regional, and installation-level plans, as illustrated in Figure 1.12. The SIP products vary in scale but are all designed to guide cost-effective infrastructure investments to meet mission requirements and shore facility infrastructure needs.

Global Shore Infrastructure Plans

(GSIP)

GSIPs translate the global, strategic view of the individual Warfare Enterprise/Provider’s operational mission requirements into current and future shore facility infrastructure requirements to achieve mission success. GSIPs are long-range (25 years+) planning documents that identify a vision, guiding principles, operational concepts, and strategic actions that drive shore facility infrastructure needs specific to a warfare or provider enterprise. The outputs of the GSIP provide Regions and Installations with the operational assessment of shore facility infrastructure which can then be combined with facility-level analyses undertaken via a Regional Integration Plan (RIP), including associated high-level operational courses of action (COAs), and an Installation Development Plan. A Shore Mission Integration Group (SMIG) prioritizes trade-offs among shore investments based on recommendations from the Enterprise/Providers.

1.0 Introduction – defines the purpose of the IDP, explains how the IDP fits within the SIP process, identifies applicable strategic guidance, and describes the organization of the Guide.

2.0 IDP Process – describes the objectives, inputs, methods, and outputs for each of the IDP process phases.

3.0 Product and Content Development – defines standards and requirements for IDP content to ensure compatibility with the iNSIPP.

IDP Context

The Naval Shore Establishment

The Naval Shore establishment provides support to the operating forces (known as “the Fleet”) in the form of: sustainable shore station facilities for the repair of machinery and electronics; communications centers; training areas and simulators; ship and aircraft repair; intelligence and meteorological support; storage areas for repair parts, fuel, and munitions; medical and dental facilities; delivers utilities and services for our nations global installations.

According to the Facility Readiness Evaluation System (FRES), the Naval Shore establishment includes 108,600 facilities totaling approximately 463 million square feet (SF) and a Plant Replacement Value (PRV) of over $190 billion. These resources are distributed across 70 installations worldwide and support a workforce of 633,000 active duty, reserve, and civilian personnel.

IDP Planning Priorities

• Mission• Mission Suppor t• Workplace• Workplace Suppor t• Housing• Quality of Life• Fitness/Recreation• Aesthetics


CNIC Shore Capability Areas

• Airfield Operations• Base Suppor t• Command,Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C5ISR)Operations • Depot / Intermediate /Operational • Maintenance Suppor t• Expeditionary Operations• Ordnance / Weapons Operations • Research, Development, Acquisition, Test & / Evaluation (RDAT&E)• Sailor and Family Suppor t• Supply Storage Suppor t• Training Suppor t• Utilities• Waterfront Operations

Figure 1.2 The Scales of Shore Infrastructure Planning

Figure 1.3 CNIC Shore Capability Areas

Regional Integration Plan (RIP)

RIPs address the relationship between the thirteen CNIC Shore Capability Areas (SCAs), as shown in Figure 1.3, into a comprehensive infrastructure plan at the regional level. A RIP integrates requirements, opportunities, and funding and defines COAs to address capability gaps identified in Warfare Enterprise/Provider GSIPs in addition to region priorities and infrastructure capability gaps. A RIP addresses total infrastructure requirements and informs investment decisions at all levels of the region, including Installation Development Plans. A Region Mission Integration Group (RMIG) identifies and prioritizes COAs as part of the RIP process.

Installation Development Plan (IDP)

In the past, the nomenclature of installation level planning has broadly included various types of distinct plans, such as Installation Master Plans, Installation Appearance Plans, Encroachment Action Plans, Cultural Resource Management Plans, etc. This Consistency Guide defines the phrase ‘Installation Development Plan’ as the primary and preferred phrase when referring to an installation master plan. In this manner, distinct plans that address topics such as appearance, capital improvements, anti-terrorism force protection, cultural resources, space management, etc., roll up as components of an IDP. An IDP provides a developmental path forward that incorporates known and projected mission requirements, developmental constraints and opportunities, and recommended COAs to achieve optimal use of lands, facilities, and resources in support of mission and installation performance. IDPs typically emphasize a 10-20 year planning horizon and provide specific

real property, capital improvement and resource management solutions at the installation level. IDPs implement GSIP and RIP priorities and guiding principles, and also serve as input into GSIP and RIP processes. Each step of the IDP process described in this Guide builds upon the previous step, providing a logical framework for a comprehensive planning effort. An IDP enables the Installation Commanding Officer (ICO) at each installation to make effective development decisions affecting their installation and the surrounding community.


Figure 1.4 IDP Consistency Guide and Installation Master Planning UFC Focus Comparison Diagram

Area Development Plans (ADP), or planning district plans, are considered components of an IDP and show both short-term and long-range development. The number of planning districts or ADPs within an installation is determined during the development of an installation-wide Vision and Framework Plan in Phase 2 of this IDP Guide. An ADP is a detailed plan for a defined district that illustrates the functional, physical, and human aspects of areas to be developed. ADPs describe constraints and opportunities, system studies, existing facility assessment, program requirements, and alternative analysis and specifically include an Illustrative Plan, Regulating Plan and Phasing Plan. These plans are developed at a different scale than the IDP. The scale of the ADP typically allows for more design and development detail at the area site level. The development standards developed for the IDP will guide the development of the ADPs.

Similarly, Functional Plans are considered components of an IDP and provide an in-depth analysis of shore facility infrastructure at the SCA level for a 10-20 year planning horizon. The need for a Functional Plan can be determined through a GSIP, RIP or IDP process.

Influential Policies

The Shore Infrastructure Planning process is informed by strategic guidance set forth by the DOD, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), the Enterprise/Provider, Congress, and the President. Applicable strategic guidance should be reviewed and incorporated into the IDP process to ensure consistency with established visions, goals, and criteria and to confirm an understanding of any impacts from current guidance on mission or shore facility infrastructure. A full listing of strategic guidence resources is provided in Appendix C.

IDP Relationship to Master Planning Guidance

The Guide is intended to represent the Navy’s official process for creating long-range master plans for Navy Installations. The Guide interprets and incorporates all major facility and infrastructure planning goals, objectives and planning principles of DOD and Navy master planning guidance currently in effect such as the UFC 2-100-01 Installation Master Planning, 2012 and as appropriate other guidance referenced herein. The IDP Table of Contents included in Appendix A identifies how the Master Planning UFC directly or indirectly is incorporated into this Guide. It should be clarified that the planning focus of this Guide is at the installation level whereas the planning focus of the UFC is at the ADP level. Figure 1.4 illustrates a comparison between the planning intent of both documents to include common planning strategies and principles.

• This Guide further clarifies and enhances the organization and content requirments for the IDPs in recognition on the Navy’s own unique planning processes.

• This Guide emphasizes the importance of mission requirements as the primary planning consideration and lens through which analysis, opportunities and constraints, COAs, and priorities will be validated.

• This Guide seeks to strengthen the importance and role of overall Vision and Installation-level planning. A fundamental tenant of this Guide is that the Installation Plan drives the ADPs and the IDP is more than the sum of all ADPs within an installation.


Figure 1.5 iNSIPP Concept Diagram

• This Guide incorporates the Integrated Shore Management concepts with a strong emphasis on coordination and alignment between global, regional, and installation level planning. This integration is reflected in the development of WCOAs as a key element of the IDP, and in consideration of requirements and capability gaps from the global/regional plans that will influence the IDP.

The Evolution of Navy Shore Infrastructure Planning

The Navy is transitioning its shore infrastructure planning processes and products from a static, paper document-centric delivery to a dynamic knowledge-centric electronic information-based enterprise. This transition will dramatically enhance the processes, productivity and decision outcomes for Navy leadership and the Navy Planning Community world-wide.

The intranet Navy Shore Infrastructure Planning Platform, or iNSIPP, is an online tool that provides a single consolidated resource for planning information across Global, Regional and Installation levels. Figure 1.5 illustrates the concept behind the iNSIPP as a key tool for the NAVFAC planning community. See Appendix B for more information regarding the iNSIPP. This Guide recognizes and reflects the product and content requirements that are part of the new web-enabled enterprise planning tool. The outputs from each phase of the IDP process described in this Guide are intended to be electronic and will be input into iNSIPP through the use of defined templates to ensure compatibility and consistency for all SIPs. The templates will be designed to facilitate roll-up of certain information to the regional and

global levels and allow for consistent data-mining for analytics across the installations. Through the iNSIPP tool, IDPs will become ‘living’ documents that can be directly updated and reviewed by section, parts, or as a whole plan, thereby maintaining a higher level of relevancy. Section 3 of this Guide more fully describes the iNSIPP content development

Installation, Planning District, and Area Definitions

Installation – an aggregation of contiguous or near contiguous, common mission suppor ting real proper ty holdings under the jurisdiction of the Depar tment of the Navy.

Planning District – an area within an installation that has defining characteristics such as geography, mission, land use, and building types that entail a unifying theme.

Area – an area within the installation and planning district with defining characteristics such as geography, mission, land use, and building types that entail a unifying theme.

Navy Planning Community + Leadership


Mission Focus - Shore Capability Areas

Airfield Operations

Expeditionary Operations

RDTA&E

Ordnance/ Weapons Operations

Base Support

Waterfront Operations

Training Support

Maintenance Support

Sailor and Family Support

Utilities


IDP Process

The IDP process defined in this Guide and illustrated in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 intentionally promotes an installation-wide philosophy to master planning. The process, comprehensive and iterative, relies upon a creative and implementable vision of the future state of the installation, analysis of data, and alternatives exploration to create an installation-wide development program that responds to mission priorities and meets current and future anticipated facility and infrastructure requirements. The evaluation and analysis performed as part of the IDP is both qualitative and quantitative. The outputs from an IDP should align with global and regional objectives and requirements defined in applicable GSIPs, RIPs and other strategic guidance documents.

2.0 IDP Process

Figure 2.1 Installation Development Plan (IDP) Planning Process Diagram

Prepare Combined Constraints & Opportunities Maps

Perform Analysis to Determine Gross Capability

Gaps (Requirements less Existing

Assets = Gross Gaps)

Collect & Inventory Relevant Data

Analyze Mission Requirements & Loading

Changes

Identify Key Planning Drivers, Principles & Business Rules

Define Installation Mission, Vision, Goals & Objectives

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4

Establish Key Investment Drivers

Develop Draft Investment Strategy

PHASE 5

ESTABLISH THE PLANNING BASELINE

NITC to certify, load, program,

test and ready for global launch

Analyze Facility Condition, Configuration, &

Capacity

Prepare Development Plan

PHASE 6

Review Strategic Guidance, Policies & Strategies

Assess Functional Relationships & Land Use

Compatibilities

Assess Compliance with Sustainability &

Environmental Mandates

Define Relevant DoD & Navy Initiatives

Determine Net Capability Gaps

(Gross gaps less Approved pipeline projects = Net Gaps)

Define COA Planning Actions

Traditional, Progressive, Aggressive

Prepare Supporting Plans

Prepare Investment Strategy, Priorities &

Capital Investment Plan

Prepare Phasing Plan

Plan Initiation

Collect Data & Develop Vision

Analyze Existing Data

Analyze Capability Gaps

Develop Alternative COAs

Develop Preferred Plan

PR

IMA

RY

TA

SK

S

Develop Concepts, Alternatives & Course of Actions (COAs ) to Rectify Priority Capability Gaps

• Real Property • Infrastructure • Facilities • Operations • Known Existing &

Future Projects • Mission Requirements • Current & Future

Personnel & Equipment Loading

• Existing Plans & Studies

• Adjacent Community Information

Assess Internal & External Encroachment

Identify & Rectify Data Gaps

Perform Site Visit & Interview Key Stakeholder to Assess

Existing Situation & to Identify Envisioned Changes

Identify Relevant Future Trends & Areas of Influence

Perform Impact Analysis, Risk Assessment & Gap

Prioritization

ANALYSIS PLAN STRATEGY & DEVELOPMENT

Kick Off Meeting

Plan Initiation & Management Plan

Analyze Infrastructure Condition, Configuration, &

Capacity

Analyze Transportation & Circulation Networks

Assess Access, Security & AT/FP

D E L I V E R A B L E S

Final Brief

Gap Analysis Review & Prioritization Meeting

Concept Workshop

Prepare Design Guidelines

Pre-Final Comments Meeting

Prepare & Submit Final Plan with Supporting Materials

Develop Preferred IDP

PH

AS

E

Prepare Prioritized Capability Gap Matrix

Identify Non-Facility Solutions

Identify Policy Change Recommendations

Data Review / Data Gap Meeting

IDP Vision Session

Installation Development Plan (IDP) Process

Intranet NAVY SHORE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING PLATFORM

IDP Consistency Guide | July 2013 | Working Draft

Version for FINAL Guide – for combined process only

PLAN EXECUTION

PHASE 7Plan

Execution


FEEDBACK LOOP

Concept Out Brief

Obtain IDP Approval

Concept Draft Pre-Final Final

Provide Annual Review of Development Plan

Enhance IDP Data by Executing Follow on Studies as Needed

Provide for a Comprehensive IDP

Update every 5 Years

Provide IDP Maintenance & Enhancements

This Phase is to be developed in future versions of the Guide.

The IDP development process recognizes that fulfilling mission requirements will remain the primary planning consideration and lens through which analysis, opportunities and constraints, COAs, and priorities will be validated. It also establishes the importance of a unified and long-term installation vision as the IDP foundation and upon which subsequent detailed district or area plans should be based. The IDP should be developed first to establish the vision and direction, followed by district or area development, followed by site or facility specific plans. All land use, development, and real estate actions on an installation shall conform to the IDP.

The core IDP methodology aligns with four primary steps beginning with establishing a planning baseline, followed by analysis, plan strategy and development, and ending with plan execution and feedback.

The IDP planning process shall include seven phases as shown in Figure 2.1. Outputs from each phase are designed to provide standard planning products and information across the Navy and to align with the requirements for transferring plan data seamlessly into the iNSIPP. The IDP Table of Contents is included in Appendix A for reference. Each phase is briefly summarized below and explained in more detail in the remainder of this section.


STEP 1: ESTABLISH THE PLANING BASELINEPhase 1 – Plan Initiation

• Clarify project approach and methodology, relevant stakeholders, and required government provided information, including strategic planning guidance and operational drivers.

• Conduct kick-off meeting.

Phase 2 – Collect Data and Develop a Vision

• Establish a baseline inventory for planning opportunity and constraints analyses, solicit input from stakeholders and site visits, define a vision, goals, and objectives for the installation and define planning district areas.

• Conduct data review and gaps meeting.

• Conduct vision session.

STEP 2: ANALYSIS Phase 3 – Analyze Existing Data

• Review installation and community reports and data, perform qualitative and quantitative analyses on existing conditions and develop site analysis summary that will form the basis for a draft framework plan.

Phase 4 – Analyze Capability Gaps

• Determine and document operational facility and infrastructure capability gaps.

• Conduct gap analysis review and prioritization meeting.

STEP 3: PLAN STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENTPhase 5 – Develop Alternative COAs

• Develop COAs to address infrastructure gaps, new mission requirements, RIP/GSIP guidance and other infrastructure change triggers. Evaluate COAs against defined risk factors and evaluation criteria.

• Conduct concept workshop.

• Conduct concept workshop outbrief.

Phase 6 – Develop Preferred Plan

• Define a preferred COA, and supporting plans, that best meets the installation vision, goals and objectives.

• Conduct pre-final brief.

• Conduct final brief.

STEP 4: IMPLEMENTATION Phase 7 – Plan Execution

• Advance the IDP through the approval and endorsement process and integrate it into iNSIPP.


The following sections more fully describe the IDP development process, sub-processes and resulting products. Each section contains information within the following areas:

• Objectives

• Inputs + Supporting Tools

• Methods

• Outputs

• List of IDP Components Aligned with Standard IDP Table of Contents

7

NOW 2035 Installation

Development Plan IDP IN

PUTS

Existing • Existing Land &

Facility Assets • Condition • Constraints • Opportunities Future • GSIP/RIP • Missions • Platforms • Initiatives • Developable Area • COAs

• Vision Plan • Illustrative Plan • Framework Plan • Land Use Plan • Regulating Plan • Circulation Plan • Green Infrastructure

Plan • Primary Utility

Networks • Future Development

Summary • Planning & Design

Standards • Infrastructure

Development Program

GUIDANCE

SUPPORT

OUTP

UTS

• Executive • DOD • DON • CNIC/NAVFAC

• UFCs • NAVFACINSTs • Consistency

Guides

People • NAVFAC • CNIC • Enterprise • Region/FEC • Contractors

Process • SFPS • UFC • IDP

Systems • iNFADS • FRES • EPG • iNSIPP

Figure 2.2 IDP Process


Objectives

A project kick-off meeting serves as an official initiation of the IDP planning process. A defined project management approach confirms expectations, communication protocols, and identifies key drivers to the IDP process so that an efficient and effective planning process is delivered from Phase 1 through Phase 7. Figure 2.3 illustrates the general process diagram for Phase 1.

Key Questions to Address during Phase 1

•What is the context of the “Installation”? Contiguous vs. non-contiguous sites?

•What is the approach and notional schedule for the project?

•Who are the core IDP stakeholder team members?

•What are the expectations of installation management?

•What is the installation’s core function(s)?

•What factors are driving mission growth? New mission(s), new platforms, new DOD/Navy initiatives, etc.

•Are there specific strategic guidance documents, policies, or business rules that have mission impact or shore infrastructure impacts?

•What current relevant information should the planning team collect?

•Who are the primary stakeholders that are critical to understanding current and future operations?

•Are there special areas or annexes to the main base to be considered?

Phase 1: Plan Initiation






Analyze Mission Requirements and Loading Changes






PHASE 5NITC to certify, load, program,



Capacity


PHASE 6



Compatibilities

Assess Compliance with Sustainability & Environmental

Mandates










Plan Initiation

Collect & Data and Develop Vision





Develop Concepts, Alternatives and Course of Actions (COAs ) to Rectify Priority Capability Gaps






Assess Internal and External Encroachment

Identify and Rectify Data Gaps





Prioritization

Kick Off Meeting



Capacity




35%

Final Brief


Concept Workshop









IDP Vision Session



Version for Guide

PHASE 7Plan

Execution

1009065


%

Concept Out Brief

Obtain IDP Approval






Provide IDP Maintenance and Enhancements

This Phase is to be developed at a later date.

Figure 2.3 Phase 1 Process Diagram

Inputs + Supporting Tools

The installation mission is the most important element affecting the future direction of base development. Assigned missions dictate functional requirements, associated facility and infrastructure needs, ideal functional relationships and influence the physical layout of the installation. Numerous data sources will provide meaningful input to the IDP process. Data inputs for Phase 1 should include previously completed Master Plans, Area Development Plans, Functional Plans, along with strategic-level guidance, such as GSIPs and RIPs, to provide an understanding of current installation planning strategies. The review and analysis of this information collected and provided by the Government Point of Contact will provide baseline information in support of the initiation and kick off of the project. Figure 2.4 lists potential strategic guidance sources that should be reviewed as part of Phase 1.

An IDP Kickoff brief should be provided to define the IDP planning team, full project scope, process, schedule, and deliverables. Included in the kickoff meeting should be an Installation Command Brief by the installation leadership to convey to the planning team the installation’s mission, vision, and goals, to communicate any known shortfalls in existing infrastructure components and to identify any planning expectations or desired results.

2.0 IDP Process


2.0 IDP Process

Figure 2.4 Strategic Guidance Sources

Figure 2.5 Phase 1 IDP Plan Components

Methods

A desktop review of strategic guidance, policies, and relevant initiatives should be undertaken to prepare for the Project Kickoff meeting. The Kickoff Meeting should be attended by personnel representing the mission and primary tenant commands as well as cross-functional disciplines such as planning, asset management, public works, environmental, security, community support, encroachment, exchanges and commissaries, fleet and family services, and housing. This approach will allow a broad-based understanding of the IDP approach, objectives, deliverables, and schedule.

A primary objective of the kickoff meeting is to gain an understanding of the current and future mission, goals and vision of the installation and to confirm key drivers of mission growth that will influence the IDP process and outputs. Discussion during the kickoff meeting should define key drivers affecting mission and installation growth, including established principles or business rules for operations. Specific stakeholders should be identified that will be critical to the process for the team to interview and who might participate in subsequent workshops. The kickoff meeting should include an installation windshield tour to reinforce an understanding of the mission and current planning and programming issues and opportunities on site. Follow-up meetings with key tenants might be necessary to gain a full understanding of their mission requirements, needs and future organizational construct that might influence the IDP.

The kickoff meeting is the appropriate time to initiate collection of government information, such as data, reports, studies and other resources. A data request list should be developed and provided prior to the kickoff that defines desired government provided information. This list will be reviewed at the kickoff meeting and points of contact for data collection will be identified. The data request list should be actively monitored and updated during Phase 1 and 2 of the IDP process. Outputs

Phase 1 outputs establish the IDP management approach for the complete planning process through documentation of the team organization and contact information, project approach and schedule, contact information of key stakeholders, a request list of government provided information (updated regularly), a kickoff meeting brief, and meeting minutes.

Each phase of the IDP process is designed to address content requirements of the Final Plan as the process is being executed. Inputs and supporting tools and methods are designed to allow for the generation of required content as defined in the full IDP Table of Contents (see Appendix A). Figure 2.5 identifies the required Phase 1 plan components, including the introduction and review of strategic guidance and operational drivers.

• Quadrennial Defense Review• The Undersecretary of Defense May 28, 2013 Memorandum on Installation Master Planning• CNO Guidance• SECNAV Goals• Shore Energy Execution Plan • NAVFAC Strategic Plan• Unified Facility Criteria (UFC): UFC 2-100-01 Installation Master Planning• UFC 3-201-01 Civil Engineering• Global Shore Infrastructure Plans• Regional Integration Plans • Installation Master Plans• Area Development Plans• Functional Plans

Primary Sources of Strategic Guidance for the IDP

(See Appendix C for complete listing)

Phase 1 IDP Plan Components

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Background 1.3 Vision/Mission 2.0 Strategic Planning Guidance and Operational Drivers 2.1 DoD and Navy Guidance 2.2 Installation Planning Initiatives 2.3 Operational Drivers 2.4 Planning Guiding Principles and Drivers 2.5 IDP Planning Assumptions

IDP Appendix Content• Kickoff Meeting Brief and Notes

(See Appendix A for full IDP Table of Contents)


Objectives

A baseline inventory of data and solutions to any defined data gaps enables thorough and subsequent analyses during all planning phases of the IDP process. Data provides a confident understanding of current conditions so that an optimal vision statement can be established defining the desired physical development end-state for the installation, including goals related long-term redevelopment and construction and specific objectives for how the goals can be achieved. A vision statement is developed through a collaborative process with stakeholders and decision-makers, reinforces strategic guidance, and expresses how the Installation Commander will satisfy future mission needs. Figure 2.6 illustrates the general process diagram for Phase 2.


•Does the planning team have all of the baseline information required to move forward?

•How will data gaps be addressed?

•What projects or initiatives are already planned or programmed?

•What natural, environmental or operational factors exist on site?

•What is the extent of existing infrastructure networks and their capacity?

•What community-based initiatives outside of the installation could support or hinder mission growth?

•Are there significant constraints or weaknesses that may impede realization of the vision?

•Are there any internal or external encroachment issues?

Phase 2: Collect Data and Develop a Vision







Changes






PHASE 5 NITC to certify, load, program,



Capacity


PHASE 6



Compatibilities












Plan Initiation


















Prioritization

Kick Off Meeting



Capacity




Final Brief


Concept Workshop









IDP Vision Session



PHASE 7 Plan

Execution


Concept Out Brief

Obtain IDP Approval









•What are potential development themes?

•What are the long-term vision and supporting goals, objectives and planning principles for the physical development of the installation?


A number of data inputs, from on-and-off installation sources, should be assembled to establish a baseline inventory of data and to allow for a thorough opportunities and constraints analysis. These data sources are managed, manipulated and maintained to provide a standardized data model and tool that results in consistency for mapping and analyses within the IDP process. Furthermore, input from stakeholders and site installation tours will greatly enhance the understanding of current conditions and provide first hand observations of challenges and opportunities. Navy systems and databases such as Internet Navy Facilities Assets Data Store (iNFADS), Facility Readiness Evaluation System (FRES), and Electronic Project Generator (EPG) provide authoritative asset information. NAVFACs GeoReadiness Centers provide the repository for all geodata and Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping.

Methods

On-Installation Data Collection Data should be collected as available and relevant to the installation. Digital installation data should be collected to document natural and manmade conditions, including land use, existing facilities, infrastructure systems, natural conditions, operations and impact areas, restricted areas, and specific mission requirements

2.0 IDP Process


2.0 IDP Process

to ensure a comprehensive understanding of existing physical conditions on site. Data layers from the GeoReadiness Center will allow the development of a comprehensive GIS database and enable detailed constraints and opportunities analyses. Typical installation data layers that should be considered are identified in Appendix D. Additional facility data, such as Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) files or three-dimensional models from applications such as SketchUp, may also be required for certain key buildings. In addition, data should be collected to understand base loading characteristics, including personnel working on the installation, personnel living off the installation, dependents, and retirees.

Installation planners should provide a complete list of project data for major Military Construction (MILCON), major renovation or recapitalization (i.e. SRM), Demolition, Operations and Maintenance (O&M), Military Family Housing (MFH), Non-appropriated Funds (NAF), retail, Exchange, Marine Corps Community Services (MCCS), Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA), Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR), energy and sustainability projects, real estate actions, public-private initiatives, and any privatized housing, lodging or utilities initiatives.

Facility data from the iNFADS and FRES should be collected for each facility to provide an accurate picture of current facility conditions and needs at both the installation level and at an individual facility level. Figure 2.7 shows a generalized diagram of the Shore Facility Planning System as described in the SFPS Guidebook. See Figures 2.8, 2.9 and 2.15 of definitions for iNFADS, EPG and FRES.

All relevant and recent studies, plans and reports should be collected during this phase for analysis during the next phase.

Off-Installation Data Collection

Regional or Installation Community Plans and Liaison Officers (CPLOs) as well as local, state and federal agencies can be contacted to identify relevant off-installation data, reports, and plans that may be helpful to the planning process. For example, data from adjacent local governments, such as projected population changes, land use proposals, transportation plans, and zoning data will provide a regional context and ensure an understanding of potential challenges or opportunities associated with compatibility. Typical off-installation data sources are identified in the Appendix E. Installation Site Visits and Stakeholder Interviews Installation site visits should be scheduled to coincide with stakeholder interviews to fully maximize installation staff resources.

Figure 2.7 Generalized Diagram of the Shore Facility Planning System

FRES

EPG

iNFADS

ACTIVITY

FACILITY

PLANNING

CAT CODE

MODULES

AEs

BFRs

FPDs

FacilityPlanningDocument

DD1391 DOCs

IPL

FacilityReadinessReports

9

Figure 2.8 iNFADS Descriptions

iNFADS iNFADS is the authoritative database on owned and leased real proper ty to meet the facilities inventory, planning and management information requirements of the Depar tment of the Navy (DON). Key planning components that feed critical information into iNFADS and associated real proper ty management systems include Basic Facility Requirements (BFRs), Asset Evaluations (AEs) and Facility Planning Documents (FPDs).

BFRBasic Facility Requirement (BFR) refers to the optimal shore base footprint, by category code, required in order to perform peacetime missions. BFRs are not based on contingencies. BFRs cover entire functional categories of use, such as administrative offices, general warehouses and public works shops. BFRs are based on an authorized five year projection of base loading information.

AEAsset Evalutaion (AE) is an assessment of an installation’s physical facility assets. This on site evaluation is used to update and verify data in the Facilities Module of iNFADS. The primary purpose of an AE is to validate key information on the real proper ty asset, including uses and functional adequacy. An AE is not a conditional inspection. Rather, it focuses on evaluating the functionality of a space and its suitability for a specific purpose.

FPDA Facility Planning Document (FPD) is prepared for each category code and tenant activity on an installation for which a requirement—through the BFR process—and asset utilization(s)—through the AE process—have been assigned. It is during the analysis, concepts, and proposals phase of the SFPS process that the FPD is used to show facility deficiencies/surpluses and the planning actions needed to resolve any identified deficiencies and/or surpluses.


96

Stakeholders, to include installation, regional, NAVFAC, CNIC, key tenants, and warfare enterprise personnel, input is a critical component of the IDP process. Installation points of contact (POCs) should assist in scheduling interviews and installation leadership should emphasize the need and importance for installation personnel staff participation in interviews for the IDP effort. Interview questionnaires tailored to the subject matter and interviewee can be provided in advance to assist in preparing for the discussion.

Stakeholders that should be interviewed include installation leadership, mission operators, tenants, civil engineering/planning/public works staff, environmental, natural and cultural resources staff, community support personnel, security and anti-terrorism personnel, military police, privatized housing and lodging partners, and private utility partners. Consultation may also be required with operators of specific buildings, land or infrastructure to better understand unique mission requirements or operational requirements and needs.

Installation Master Plan Vision Workshop

Establishing a long-term installation vision is a critical milestone in the IDP process. The vision will provide the foundation and direction needed to develop the COAs and preferred IDP; subsequent detailed district or area plans will be formulated to support the overall vision. A multi-day planning vision workshop will engage a diverse set of stakeholders in defining the desired end-state for the installation that maximizes existing resources and prioritizes mission requirements. Specific goals for future installation

development will provide guidance for later development of COAs and for the cross evaluation of different COAs. Goals should address broad functional and location considerations for future physical development rather than specific facilities or sites. The goals should also be responsive to the particular combination of natural, man-made, and operational conditions at the installation.

The vision workshop should involve installation leadership, mission operators, and key personnel involved in the stakeholder interviews. The workshop should be organized around a defined agenda that is bookended by an in-brief to define objectives and goals of the session and an outbrief that describes the draft vision and outcomes from the session.

Outputs

Phase 2 outputs include a comprehensive GIS database of information and supporting materials. Information from on-installation and off-installation sources, and input from stakeholder interviews and site visits is summarized for analysis in Phase 3. A comprehensive list of data sources is established along with identified data gaps and solutions.

The vision session results are summarized in a recap memorandum or brief. As part of the vision process, a draft planning district or framework plan should be developed to convey the functional and spatial context for long-term development based on mission requirements. The Framework Plan should represent the ideal arrangement of future functional land use areas, planning districts and otherwise defined areas which will accommodate both existing facility and program needs and long-

Figure 2.9 EPG and IPL Description

EPGElectronic Project Generator (EPG) is a web-based application used for the creation, storage, retrieval, review, approval, and submission of DD1391 documents for all MILCON projects. An EPG generated DD1391, with all fields completed, is required for a project to be considered for funding during program development. A project will be considered for the POM cycle only if the appropriate DD1391 for the project is linked to the iNFADS IPL module. The EPG/IPL is synchronized with iNFADS and updated on a daily basis with iNFADS data (e.g., MDI, condition rating, configuration rating, capacity rating, etc.). The IPL is synchronized daily with EPG.

IPLThe Integrated Priority List (IPL) is the application that installations and regions use to submit their MILCON, Special Projects and Unspecified Military Construction-MILCON (UMC-MCON) projects to CNIC. Projects only appear in the IPL after the installation has linked a DD1391 from EPG to the IPL.


Figure 2.10 Vision Session Planning Drivers Example

Key Planning Drivers and Planning ContinuumKey Planning Drivers and Planning Continuum

PROGRESSIVE AGGRESSIVESTATUS QUO

For each planning driver / change agent, a continuum exists that defines the planning approach extremes of that driver.

Enduring Installations

Asset Optimization

50% Streamlined/Efficient

Demo/Renovation/MILCON

Fully Integrated

Recapitalized & Vertical

PROGRESSIVE AGGRESSIVESTATUS QUO

Safety / ATFP

Encroachment

Environmental

Fort Mentality

Silos

Meet Requirements

Consolidate & Minimum Footprint

Pro-active Partners

Set the Standard

Training

Logistics

q

Modest Improvements

Make Do’s with Upgrades

Virtual, Real-Time, School House

Right Place, Right Size, Right Time

Policy

Op Tempo

Community Services

Internal DoD

Decrease

Status Quo

Regional Sphere of Influence

Increase

Outsourcedy

Professional Workforce

Team Integration

Status Quo

Stovepipes

Outsourced

Seamless

Initial Planning PrioritiesMaxMax MinMinDegree to which we pursue and execute solutions and investments

MaximumExtentPossible

MinimumExpected

LinkagesFunctional

Relationships Encroachment

1 2 3 4

Sustainability

• Physical• Technical• Internal• External

• Physical• Political• Functional• Internal

• Internal• External

• Energy• Water• High Perf. Bldg• Walkability

• Externaly

• Right Facilities

Figure 2.11 Vision Session Planning Priority Example


term development requirements. Development of the Framework Plan should consider installation scale and operational environments when determining potential districts. Planning districts within the Framework Plan could be defined based upon geographic features, key transportation systems, open space networks, existing land use patterns and boundaries or historic districts. The vision session should also develop, through a consensus-building process, planning drivers, goals, objectives and planning principles that help to define the vision. Figures 2.10 and 2.11 provide examples of planning driver and priorities graphics used in vision sessions. These principles

will be used to develop COAs and the Preferred Plan. The Preferred Plan will be assessed to determine its alignment with the vision and planning principles.

Outputs should align with the requirements for transferring plan data seamlessly into the intranet Navy Shore Infrastructure Planning Platform (iNSIPP). See Section 3.0 for iNSIPP content development standards. Figure 2.12 identifies the required Table of Contents sections that should be completed as part of Phase 2, including planning opportunities and constraints and the vision plan. See Appendix A for the full IDP Table of Contents.



3.0 Planning Opportunities and Constraints 3.1 Natural, Environment and Cultural Constraints 3.1.1 Topography 3.1.2 Hydrology 3.1.3 Geology/Soils 3.1.4 Vegetation 3.1.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 3.1.6 Historical and Archeological 3.1.7 Climate and Environmental Influences 3.2 Man-Made / Operational Constraints 3.2.1 AICUZ/RAICUZ 3.2.2 Existing Land Use 3.2.3 Ordinance Transportation and Storage 3.2.4 Small Arms Range Surface Danger Zones 3.2.5 AT/FP 3.2.6 Electromagnetic Areas 3.2.7 Enhanced Use Lease / PPV 3.2.8 Encroachment 3.3 Utilities 3.3.1 Energy – Conventional 3.3.2 Energy – Alternative 3.3.3 Fiber Optics / Cable 3.3.4 Storm Sewer 3.3.5 Waste Water 3.3.6 Water 3.4 Transportation/Circulation 3.4.1 Easement and Rights-of-Way 3.4.2 Circulation and Parking 3.4.3 Sidewalks, Trails 3.4.4 Airfield Runways / Aprons / Taxiways 3.4.5 Piers / Wharves 3.4.6 Other Paved Areas 3.4.7 Federal Transit Services 3.4.8 Troop Movement Corridors 5.1 Vision Plan 5.1.1 Vision Statement 5.1.2 Planning Goals and Objectives 5.1.3 Framework Plan – Districts/Areas

IDP Appendix Content• Stakeholder interview summary notes• Vision Session Recap• Constraints and Opportunities• Supporting Documentation



Phase 3: Analyze Existing Data

Objectives

The analysis of data collected during Phase 2 allows for a thorough understanding of the installation’s development opportunities, constraints, and overall capacity to rectify current infrastructure and facility capability gaps and to handle current and anticipated mission growth. The findings documented during Phase 3 should be compared to the vision and goals previously established to confirm alignment with the vision and feasibility of the goals and objectives. Data should be analyzed through an in-depth and integrated approach whereby data layers and information are assessed across the installation to form the basis for planning decisions. Figure 2.13 illustrates the general process diagram for Phase 3.


•What are the current condition, configuration and capacity of installation facilities?

•To what extent do facility assets and requirements differ (capacity)?

•What natural, environmental or operational conditions could positively or negatively impact existing and future facilities and infrastructure on the installation?

•Are there limitations within the existing utility, transportation and circulation networks?

•Do land use relationships reinforce functional compatibility and help minimize internal and external encroachment?

•Can future mission or personnel loading changes be accommodated?

•What efforts are being made to address sustainability and environmental mandates?

•What environmental impacts can be anticipated due to changing climatic conditions?

•What is the development capacity of the installation?

•How does the installation relate to and work with local communities?


The baseline inventory data assembled during Phase 2 provides the primary source of information for conducting analyses. Spatial data from on-installation and off-installation sources is compiled and consolidated in a compatible format using databases and GIS to allow for in-depth analysis of independent and interrelated variables.

Unless scoped otherwise, most if not all of the source information for analyses is provided by the installation or GeoReadniness Center and should be available, current and relevant. No in-depth analyses or engineering studies are required for high-level master plan considerations. Unless scoped otherwise, most if not all of the source information for analyses is provided by the installation and should be available, current and relevant. For the basic IDP, it is desirable that the following information is current and available to the extent possible.

• iNFADS data

• BFRs/AEs are current and in iNFADS

• Facility condition data

• Transportation analysis and plans

• Natural resources management plans

• Operational constraints data







Changes









Capacity


PHASE 6



Compatibilities












Plan Initiation


















Prioritization

Kick Off Meeting



Capacity




Final Brief


Concept Workshop









IDP Vision Session



PHASE 7 Plan

Execution


Concept Out Brief

Obtain IDP Approval









2.0 IDP Process


2.0 IDP Process

• Utilities condition and capacity data

• Sustainability analysis

• Project IPLs

• Consolidation Plans

• FPD Planning Actions

• Current COAs

Facility data from iNFADS and FRES will provide an understanding of facility performance and capability gaps related to condition through the Facility Condition Assessment Program (FCAP), capacity BFR, configuration and mission dependency index MDI (See Figure 2.14.) Information from these Navy systems will help to develop an operational assessment of critical shore infrastructure and a descriptive assessment of any shore infrastructure or facility receiving a yellow (poor) or red (failing) rating. Shore Facility Infrastructure Analysis findings and recommendations from RIPs and GSIPs will also provide input

and guidance into the installation existing situation assessment. Installation planners and information within the Electronic Project Generator (EPG) should provide information about existing project lists and documentation to assist in determining where short, mid and long-term planning gaps might exist.

Reports and direct input from base planners, energy managers and public works staff will provide an understanding of the installation’s current and planned efforts to reduce energy and water consumption, improve energy and water efficiency, reduce green house gas emissions, and integrate sustainable technologies into federal facilities.

Information contained on the following pages describes the series of data and maps to be created during this phase of developing the IDP.

Figure 2.14 Requirements and Assets by Shore Capability Area Summary from iNFADS Example

NWS yorktoWN master plan

fin

al |

july

200

9 |

for

offi

cial

use

on

ly

plaNNiNg aNalySiS section 2-14

Facilities requirements data used for this Master Plan are provided in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3. Facility assets and requirements are identified by Shore Capability Area in Table 2.2, and reflect the delta between gross assets minus requirements. Table 2.3 lists assets and requirements by major tenant.

Note that these tables rely on iNFADS data as of 1 April 2009. However, this information may be out-of-date and current requirements data may not yet be included in iNFADS. Basic facility requirements for NECE units were updated during the master planning process, as were a handful of various facilities throughout the station. But, a fence line-to-fence line BFR update and asset evaluation has not been completed and would

need to be addressed through subsequent analyses to ensure that iNFADS accurately reflects existing real property conditions at NWS yorktown.

As shown in Table 2.2, NWS yorktown has a 1.61 million square-foot deficit of required facilities. The largest deficits are in logistics & Supply, Intermediate/Depot level Maintenance, Sailor & Family Readiness, and Ordnance/Weapons Operations capability areas. Only C5ISR Operations show a surplus in assets.

2.4 FaCility rEqUirEMEnts

SHORE CaPaBiliTY aREa REQUiREMEnT(Sf)

aSSETS (GROSS)

aSSETS (inaD)

aSSETS (aDQ + SUB)

SURPlUS / DEfiCiT

Airfield Operations 442 442 192 250 0

Base Support 790,395 701,745 35,989 665,756 (88,650)

C5ISR Operations 12,927 17,869 0 17,869 4,942

Expeditionary Operations 29,013 18,930 0 18,930 (10,083)

Intermediate / Depot level Maintenance 980,513 786,898 0 786,898 (193,615)

logistics & Supply 3,751,179 2,795,389 4,745 2,790,644 (955,790)

Ordnance / Weapons Operations 1,547,523 1,449,017 18,006 1,431,011 (98,506)

RDAT&E 101,376 101,376 140 101,236 0

Sailor & Family Readiness 567,529 399,272 7,746 391,526 (168,257)

Training 75,033 61,247 11,840 49,407 (13,786)

Waterfront Operations 175,228 86,058 0 86,058 (89,170)

TOTal 8,031,158 6,418,243 78,658 6,339,585 (1,612,915)

Table 2.2: Requirements and Assets by Shore Capability Area

Source: iNFADS, 1 April 2009, and FRES, 8 April 2009.


Environmental Conditions – includes but is not limited to floodplains, wetlands, open space, green infrastructure and stormwater best management practices, storm surge areas, changing climatic conditions, restoration sites, soils, steep slopes, and rare, threatened, and endangered species (flora and fauna).

Cultural and Historical Resources – includes but is not limited to historic buildings, structures, landscape features, districts, and pre-historic, archeological sites, if any.

Functional Land Uses – includes existing land use patterns that have resulted from growth on the installation over time, as well as the current requirements of the installation. Interdependence among functional uses, especially those most important to the mission, should be identified. Existing functional relationships may differ from desired functional relationships.

Environmental Constraints

Figure 2.3

Naval Submarine Base New London Master Plan FINAL January 2010

SUBASE New London Master PlanExiStiNg CoNditioNS / ChAPtEr two 2-15

Historic/Cultural Resources

Figure 2.5



Existing Land Use

Figure 2.7



Utilities – includes but is not limited to networks associated with domestic hot water/potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, renewable energy (ground source heat pumps, wind, solar, biomass), stream, compressed air, and communications (fiber optic and telecommunications).

Utilities (Map 1)

Figure 2.10a

Compressed Air

ElectricitySteam

hot water

Naval Submarine Base New London Master Plan FINAL January 2010 ExiStiNg CoNditioNS / ChAPtEr two 2-29

Parking – includes an inventory of surface lot, on-street and structured parking supply, and an analysis of parking utilization based upon existing parking demand of current facilities and proposed facilities.

Tautog Ave

Thresher Ave

Scorpion Ave Shark Blvd

Wahoo Ave

Crystal Lake R

d

Route 12

Grayling Ave

Tang

Ave

Trout Ave

Golf Course

North Lake

Rock Lake

449

484

88

83

519

33

29

40

164

325

169

478

446

435534

564

485

20

89

17

533

493

84

107

448

427

460

518

462

561

83C

87

562

108

433

524

602

85

553

522

574

38

480

A112

492

488

434

430

429

499

456

439

571

141

455

474

532

86

592

520

451

159

152

560

120

106

436

135

461A

137

410

355

156

175 174

148

176

458468

157

C

168

428

79

Nautilus

173

160

110

476

76

A

558

77

181

153

523

166

465

B

569

A113

371

490

554

463

555

525

178

349347

348

521

350

Tank

549

529

340

559

526

397

528

543

500

556

454

PRI

445

495

282

393

530

520A

535

Tank

548

464

OT 12OT 13

281

550

235286

481

util

501

75

292

54H

Pump Sta

234

295

311

477

482

544

375

483

376

128

547546

elec

318

332

527

278

460

487

498

515

324

OWS1

385

441

351

A-86

352

473

SBD4

389

475

386

GPA

337

388

SBD

SBD3

SBD

Pier 6

Pier 17Pier 15

Pier 8

Pier 33Pier 32

Pier 12

Pier 10

Pier 2

Pier 31

Trito

n Av

e.

0 510 1,020255

Legend

Key Pedestrian Areas

Primary Route

Secondary RouteBase Shuttle System

Lower Base Express Loop

Upper Base Loop

!R Major Pickup Points

Primary Access

Gate

Gate 7

Gate 1/Main Gate

Gate 5/East Gate

Gate 3/North Gate

Gate 10

Gate 8

Gate 6

Gate 2

83

164

169

492

484

564

485

17

499

84

20

462

83C

87

108

152

85

120

141

553

156

38

168

110

476

76

455

86

159

135

137

148

79

160

77

554

107

521

Tank 500

54875

532

327332

527

498

324

469

471

475

One-Way Street

Pedestrian Network

Circulation and Parking

Figure 2.8



GeoReadiness mapping layers describes the Navy’s Geospatial Information and Services (GI&S) program for facilities, infrastructure, and environment. NAVFAC uses GI&S for planning, overlay constraints features such as endangered species habitat areas, wetlands, and explosive safety quanitity distance arcs together in GIS to develop large-area land use plans or to determine the optimal site for a single new facility. Engineers can quickly access facility information and work order requests by facility in the interactive map to better maintain and operate Navy facilities. Geospatial data are also fed to Computer Aided Dispatch systems to help Emergency Responders protect the Navy’s facilities and personnal. NAVFAC uses modern techniques like Global Positioning Systems (GPS), high-resolution satellite and aircraft imagery, LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging), and GIS to collect and perform geospatial analysis, and develop both digital and hardcopy maps. Each Navy Region has a GeoReadiness Center whose responsibilities are as follows:

• Regions single authoritative source of geospatial Information

• Provide overall coordination and acquisition of GIS data and resources

• Responsible for maintaining Common Installation Picture (CIP) data layers

• Insure that geospatial data holdings of the Navy Regions meet quality control standards for accuracy, currency, and compliance

• Provide GeoReadiness Services via Regional Shore Installation Management System (RSIMS)

• Enable program managers, activities, and tenant commands to view, repor t, analyze and update data

• Publish GIS data to the RSIMS Map Viewer (GRX)


Operational Conditions – includes but is not limited to Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ), Accident Potential Zones (APZs), Noise Contours, Anti-Terrorism Force Protection (AT/FP) requirements, Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) Arcs, Explosive Transportation Routes, Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance (HERO), People (HERP) and Fuels (HERF), and restricted areas, as applicable.

Operational Constraints

Figure 2.4



Future Development – includes on-going active, programmed, and un-programmed development projects (demolition and construction) that should be documented, mapped and factored into the asset assessment, condition analysis and the capacity analysis.

Developable Area – includes areas on the installation that could be developed. These areas are unconstrained by natural, environmental, and operational constraints. These areas also include infill opportunities that are either currently vacant or developable once planned demolition on these sites is completed.

Transportation – includes pedestrian networks (sidewalks and trails) and amenities, bicycle networks (on-street and off-street) and facilities, installation gates, primary and secondary roadways, airfield surface pavements, piers and wharves, installation bus / transit service existing and proposed routes, bus stops, regional transportation services, and documentation of alternative transport programs (telework, carpooling, etc.) and participation levels.

Tautog Ave

Thresher Ave

Scorpion Ave Shark Blvd

Wahoo Ave

Crystal Lake R

d

Route 12

Grayling Ave

Tang

Ave

Trout Ave

Golf Course

North Lake

Rock Lake

449

484

88

83

519

33

29

40

164

325

169

478

446

435534

564

485

20

89

17

533

493

84

107

448

427

460

518

462

561

83C

87

562

108

433

524

602

85

553

522

574

38

480

A112

492

488

434

430

429

499

456

439

571

141

455

474

532

86

592

520

451

159

152

560

120

106

436

135

461A

137

410

355

156

175 174

148

176

458468

157

C

168

428

79

Nautilus

173

160

110

476

76

A

558

77

181

153

523

166

465

B

569

A113

371

490

554

463

555

525

178

349347

348

521

350

Tank

549

529

340

559

526

397

528

543

500

556

454

PRI

445

495

282

393

530

520A

535

Tank

548

464

OT 12OT 13

281

550

235286

481

util

501

75

292

54H

Pump Sta

234

295

311

477

482

544

375

483

376

128

547546

elec

318

332

527

278

460

487

498

515

324

OWS1

385

441

351

A-86

352

473

SBD4

389

475

386

GPA

337

388

SBD

SBD3

SBD

Pier 6

Pier 17Pier 15

Pier 8

Pier 33Pier 32

Pier 12

Pier 10

Pier 2

Pier 31

Trito

n Av

e.

0 510 1,020255

Legend

Key Pedestrian Areas

Primary Route

Secondary RouteBase Shuttle System

Lower Base Express Loop

Upper Base Loop

!R Major Pickup Points

Primary Access

Gate

Gate 7

Gate 1/Main Gate

Gate 5/East Gate

Gate 3/North Gate

Gate 10

Gate 8

Gate 6

Gate 2

83

164

169

492

484

564

485

17

499

84

20

462

83C

87

108

152

85

120

141

553

156

38

168

110

476

76

455

86

159

135

137

148

79

160

77

554

107

521

Tank 500

54875

532

327332

527

498

324

469

471

475

One-Way Street

Pedestrian Network

Circulation and Parking

Figure 2.8



Map Title Line Two If Needed

Figure 4.X

Development Plan

Figure 4.5

Fitness CenterP925

waterfront operations Small Craft Facility

P402

Commissary (DECA)

Dive LockerP994

Fuel Cell Plant PXXX

Ship’s Complement P193

Golf/All hands Clubhouse

PXXX

NIoDEt PXXX

Mast/Antenna Maintenance

Facility P113

Inside Machine Shop P189

Production Management Facility P190

Submarine Learning Center hQ P478

Squadron hQ P858

BEQ P996

transient BQ PXXX

Indoor Small Arms range

P481

Damage Control trainer

PXXX

Chapel Addition

P125

torpedo/tomahawk Maintenance Facility

P989

MK48 torpedo MagazinesPhase 1 P848

Sub Group twoheadquarters P850

Future Building

Site

Fire Station P997

Security headquarters PXXX

Potential Enhanced Use Lease

Utility Enhanced Use Lease

Parking Garage

Pier 8replacementP194

Pier 32 replacementP898


MK48 torpedo Magazines

Phases 2 and 3 PXXX

FoodVendor PXXX

Submarine Bridge team Simulator P137

NSMrL Addition

rM001/002-07

NEX renovation/Consolidation

Flag/Senior Officer housing Area

Pier 33 replacement or Quay wall Berth


SUBASE New London Master PlandEvELoPMENt PLaN / ChAPtEr FoUr 4-13

MILCON Projects

Figure 5.1

Fitness CenterP925


P402

Commissary (DECA)

Dive LockerP994




PXXX

NIoDEt PXXX


Facility P113




Squadron hQ P858

BEQ P996

transient BQ PXXX


P481


Chapel Annex

P125


P989


Sub Group two headquarters P850

Future Building

Site

Fire Station P997



PXXX



Parking Garage


Phases 2 and 3 PXXX




FoodVendor PXXX

NSMrL Addition

rM001/002-07





SUBASE New London Master Plan

CaPitaL iMProvEMENtS PLaN / ChAPtEr FIVE 5-5

Figure 2.15 FRES Description

Facility Readiness Evaluation System (FRES) FRES is a decision support system designed to help all levels of decision makers objectively evaluate and monitor the quality and quantity of facilities. It presents facility readiness in terms familiar to the senior managers (F1-F4 readiness ratings) and includes calculated funding requirements to raise ratings to the next higher level(s). FRES provides a view of current facility readiness with drilldown to regions, installations, and facility level. Facility readiness is indicated by an Installation Figure of Merit (IFOM). The rating reflects the lowest of the condition, configuration or capacity rating.

Configuration ratings are a measurement of the facilities capability to support the component commands or mission with respect to functionality. Ratings are calculated in iNFADS and consider deficiency codes.

Condition ratings are evaluated based on physical condition of the facility as calculated by the Facility Condition Assessment Program (FCAP).

Capacity ratings indicate if there are sufficient facilities to meet the mission at a site or installation location. It is a percentage calculation of the sum of total assets compared to the total requirement. In FRES, capacity ratings are not available at the facility level.

90-100 Good condition and ability to suppor t current mission or function

80-89 Fair condition and ability to suppor t current mission or function

60-79 Poor condition and ability to suppor t current mission or function

0-59 Failing condition and ability to suppor t current mission or function


Figure 2.16 Screen Shot from FRESMethods

A first step in the analysis is to define the extent of the area and facilities of an installation that are to be studied in depth as some installations have non-contiguous areas. Installation plans, reports and supporting data along with community reports and studies should be reviewed and documented as part of the analysis.

A series of GIS maps should be developed to define the existing environmental and operational conditions and associated constraints. All mapping should follow standards as defined by the NAVFAC GeoReadiness Center. The specific types of information included in the analysis will be influenced by installation location. However, the mapping methodology should consider and show the regional context and conditions beyond the fenceline where applicable. The methodology should ensure a thorough understanding of the following elements.

Figure 2.17 Mission Dependency Index Description

Current facility and infrastructure assets should be analyzed to formulate a comprehensive assessment of existing installation facilities. A detailed review of FRES data and Installation Figure of Merit (IFOM) scores for each facility will provide an understanding of how each facility currently supports the mission. Data anomalies observed in iNFADS or FRES should be flagged and reviewed with installation planners during the analysis. Facilities that score as failing to support current mission or function or have a poor ability to support current mission or function should be easily identified. See Figure 2.16 for a basic screenshot from FRES for SUBASE New London.

Mission Dependency Index (MDI) data should also be reviewed to understand the relative importance of a facility in terms of mission criticality. MDI evaluates the impact and operational risk to the mission on a scale of 1 to 100 if the function provided by the infrastructure is interrupted or relocated. See Figure 2.17 for MDI description. It can be used to identify and evaluate physical security and vulnerability issues from a mission perspective and is an important consideration as part of the capability

100 Critical

85 Significant

70 Relevant

55 Moderate

40 Low

Mission Dependency Index (MDI)MDI is an Operational Risk Metric jointly developed, tested and validated by NAVFAC, USCG & US Army. All major Navy installations have been assessed and MDI scores have been uploaded to iNFADS. Refinement of this data continues to occur. MDI Scores range from 0 to 100, and are subdivided into five categories.


gaps analysis. MDI considers the ability to relocate or replace a facility against the timeframe of interruptability of the function.

The off-installation and on-installation analyses together identify those conditions which combine to delimit buildable areas for the installation. The developable areas of an installation exclude all portions of the installation having one or more site development limitations or constraints. From the Developable Area Map the installations development carrying capacity can be derived. Capacity planning in the context of identifying the maximum development capacity of an installation (including open space and redevelopment areas) which should be addressed as part of Phase 3 at the installation level. Carrying capacity is defined as the maximum capability of the installation to support designated functions or activities without seriously degrading function, activity, or assets of the installation or some portion thereof. See Figure 2.18 for more capacity planning information. Examples include the ability to support training at certain levels of intensity, or availability of utilities (water, sewer, electricity), to support a new activity, or the ability of the transportation network to carry levels of traffic safety and efficiently. Carrying capacity considerations should be integrated into the analysis in Phase 3 at the installation level; additional capacity planning considerations will be addressed in Phase 5 as part of COA considerations and in Phase 6, as part of the installation-wide development plan and any ADPs completed in support of the IDP.

Outputs

The analysis outputs should serve as input for completing an operational capability gap analysis in Phase 4 which will guide the development of COAs and the preferred plan. The outputs of this phase provide the foundation and background information that will support informed decision making as the IDP is developed. While much of this information will remain in the background it is important that the analysis is thorough, comprehensive and accurate to the extent possible.

Phase 3 outputs should clearly summarize existing installation site, facility and infrastructure conditions through supported text, and a series of detailed maps, charts, and graphics. The summaries should clearly convey why particular conditions are important in relation to the overall character of existing and future development of the installation. The number of maps will depend upon the complexity of resources present at each installation.

Key outputs include:

• Opportunities and Constraints Summary

• Network Summaries - Transportation and Key Utilities

• Developable Area Map

• Future Development Summary Map

Outputs should align with the requirements for transferring plan data seamlessly into the iNSIPP. See Section 3.0 for iNSIPP content development standards. Figure 2.19 identifies the required Table of Contents sections that should be completed as part of Phase 3. See Appendix A for the complete IDP Table of Contents.

Figure 2.18 Capacity Planning Description


Capacity Planning

Capacity planning allows planners to determine an installation’s maximum development capacity based on conformance to the installation’s planning vision, goals, and objectives without seriously degrading the environment, function, activity, or assets of the installation or some por tion thereof while remaining fiscally responsible. This is also referred to as carrying capacity. While existing and known shor t-term requirements and proposed mid to long-term planning actions need to be sited in the IDP, unconstrained proper ty needs to be reserved for unknown future requirements. This future growth area is shown on a Developable Area Map. The difference between the existing land/facilities and programmed projects over the FYDP as compared to the future build-out potential of an installation is described as its capacity. Capacity is shown on illustrative plans through the use of “notional buildings and/or areas” designated for “potential future growth.” A table should be provided on maps that identify how many square feet of facilities (by three digit DOD facility category code number) and the number of acres of other potential land within the relevant installation land use categories.

3.1.8 Natural/Environmental/Cultural Constraints Summary

3.2.9 Man-Made/Operational Constraints Summary 3.3.7 Utilities Summary 3.4.9 Transportation/Circulation Summary 3.5 Developable Area Map3.6 Sustainability Scorecard3.7 Facility Condition/Capacity/Configuration Matrix3.8 Future Development Summary Map3.9 Regional and Community Summary

IDP Appendix Content• GIS Mapping• Facility Condition Analysis Worksheets




Objectives

A comparison of current facility assets and known requirements, organized by Shore Capability Areas, will identify and prioritize significant facility and infrastructure capability gaps and will help determine how well existing facilities support required operational capabilities at the installation. Known and plausible planning change agents or triggers should be considered as well during this phase. Figure 2.20 illustrates the general process diagram for Phase 4.


•What are the installation’s key infrastructure and facility capability gaps (condition, capacity, and configuration)?

•What is the status and planning actions described in the BFRs and FPDs?

•What are the installations primary SCAs? How do they score?

•How will planned and programmed projects affect identified capability gaps?

•What are the installation’s future infrastructure and facility requirements? Planning change agents? Triggers?

•Does the installation have the facilities necessary to support the mission of each tenant?

•What key capability gaps have been identified at the region and enterprise level that flow down to the installation?


The capability gaps analysis takes data from Phase 3 a step further to isolate specific condition,

Phase 4: Analyze Capability Gaps







Changes









Capacity


PHASE 6



Compatibilities












Plan Initiation


















Prioritization

Kick Off Meeting



Capacity




Final Brief


Concept Workshop









IDP Vision Session



PHASE 7 Plan

Execution


Concept Out Brief

Obtain IDP Approval









configuration and capacity issues and gaps between current requirements, existing facilities, and in consideration of any programmed or planned pipeline projects (Integrated Priority Lists). The analysis will also be guided by identified gaps in current GSIP, RIP, and other regional or higher level guidance documents.

The analysis relies heavily upon data directly from Navy Shore Facilities Planning System (SFPS) electronic tools such as iNFADS, FRES and EPG as introduced in Phase 3. This data, embellished with relevant data derived from information collected during early phases, provides the information required to analyze the facility and infrastructure capability gaps - facilities needed to perform assigned missions; existing facilities and their condition, capacity and configuration; existing projects that have been identified to rectify known issues should be reviewed to determine if they are still relevant, need to be updated based on new information, deleted, or re-prioritized in the IPL.

Methods

The process for analyzing capability gaps should follow a standard process that will result in standard outputs that can be used in follow-on phases as well as rolled up for use at the Region and Global levels. A typical process is shown in Figure 2.21. This process identifies key gross capability gaps (all facility gaps identified as high MDI and IFOM ratings of yellow or red). Known projects that have been identified or have been further developed with DD1391 project documentation should be compared to the gross capability gaps. Gaps with projects that have been identified that address the facility or infrastructure issues are noted. This list is then filtered to identify capability

2.0 IDP Process


2.0 IDP Process

Capability Gap Analysis Process

2

Analyze Capacity, Condition, Configuration,

MDI - Defining GROSS Capability Gaps

CAPABILITY GAP ANALYSIS PROCESS

Identify Known Projects Projects: FYPD (IPL/EPG)

Do they rectify a capability gap?

IFOM Ratings from FRES

NET Infrastructure Capability Gaps Identified

Change Agents - Triggers

• Organizational Changes

• New Mission(s) • New Platform(s) • DoD / Navy

Initiatives • Change in Op

Tempo

Site Visits, Interviews,

Assess Existing Situation

Existing Installation

Planning Data

GOOD FAIR POOR FAILING

Prioritize Capability Gaps

Develop Courses of Action to Rectify Priority

Capability Gaps

• Detailed facility information from iNFADS

Figure 2.21 Capability Gap Analysis Process Diagram

Figure 2.22 Data import from FRES/iNFADS into MS Excel for use during the analysis phase. This data can then be drilled down to the facility level to identify the worst facilities with the highest MDI in order to prioritize potential planning actions.

gaps with no solution becoming the net capability gaps. The net capability gap list is modified to include plausible planning change agents and triggers. This new net capability gap list is then prepared for a prioritization exercise by core stakeholders.

A visual representation (See Figure 2.22) should be developed to clearly show a comparison of the condition, capacity, configuration and mission dependency index for installation facilities within the various shore capability areas. The information is presented using the FRES and iNFADS reporting system providing planners with IFOM ratings (condition, capacity, configuration), MDI, Q-ratings, backlog of restoration and modernization, facility utilization, PRV values, etc. all organized by shore capability, shore function and/or category code. The resulting analysis table is filtered, queried and sorted to provide a prioritized list of facilities that should be considered for action during the COA (Phase 5) and Preferred Plan (Phase 6) of the project. This analysis should be integrated with any planned or programmed projects that could alter the results due to current or short-term construction or demolition activities.

A risk assessment should be completed to understand which identified capability gaps have the greatest potential to negatively impact mission readiness. The risk assessment should consider how proposed solutions may improve condition, configuration or capacity ratings and address identified space deficiencies.

Major facility and infrastructure net capability gaps revealed through this process will form the basis for a Capability Gap Analysis Review

and Prioritization Meeting. The outcome of the meeting will guide the development of planning alternatives and COAs to address key mission critical capability gaps and to define potential solutions to include new construction, recapitalize, consolidation, dispose, pursuit of public/private ventures, etc.

The minimum meeting procedures and resulting outcomes should be as follows:

• Confirm capability gap analysis approach, process and results.

• Review and update the list of Gross (prior to applying known projects against gaps) Capability Gaps based on attendee feedback. If overrides are used, they must be fully documented.

• Confirm status of existing or known projects that address key capability gaps.

• Develop a list of operational or business process solutions to address appropriate capability gaps.

• Summarize list of Net Capability Gaps.

• Prioritize and gain consensus on Net Capability Gaps to be addressed during the COA Phase 5.


93 Figure 2.23 Phase 4 IDP Plan Components

Outputs

Outputs from Phase 4 should include the capability gap analysis of specific shore facility infrastructure requirements and priorities at the overall installation level needed to support current and future missions, promote sustainable operations, promote stewardship of the land, environment and culture, and to maintain and enhance a safe, healthy and high quality of life for current and future generations. Outputs from this phase should include:

• A summary of the facility and infrastructure capability gap analysis

• A list of known or existing projects identified to rectify gaps

• The identification of key change agents or triggers that could influence the planning process

• A list of operational or business process alternatives to consider for Phase 5

• Meeting notes from the Capability Gap Analysis Review and Prioritization Workshop. These will further document priority capability gaps and potential solutions to be considered during the COA development phase

Outputs should align with the requirements for transferring plan data seamlessly into iNSIPP. See Section 3.0 for iNSIPP content development standards. Figure 2.23 identifies the required Table of Contents sections that should be completed as part of Phase 4. See Appendix A for the full IDP Table of Contents.

PAX

97

��

��

��



4.1 Facility and Infrastructure Capability Gap Analysis

IDP Appendix Content• Capability Gap Analysis backup analysis and

supporting information • Capability Gap Analysis • Review and Prioritization Workshop Meeting

Notes



kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

HelicopterLanding

Pad

8

6

5

7

4

3

9

11

40210

12

14

111

110

211

112

107

507

114

101

108

105

102

411

113505

312

309

304

205

307

303

203301

209

409

207

214

103

210

305

404

508

408

302

509

405

206

406

407

510

403

313

213

202

314

410

212

412

204

201

104

208

215

506

109

308

15311A

310A

24

704

19

306B

306A

306C

26

34

513909

"C" STREET

"M" S

TREET

SECOND AVENUE

PATROL ROAD

"G" S

TREET

"O" S

TREET

ZERO AVENUE

FOURTH AVENUE

"E" STREET

"A" STREET

FIFTH AVENUE

FIRST AVENUE

BALL ROAD

"I" STREET

THIRD AVENUE

"K" STREET

SIXTH AVENUE

MC

GO

WAN

RO

AD

"L" TRACK

"H" TRACK

"Q" S

TREET

"J" TRACK

FOX ROAD

RICKETTS ROAD

VAN

PAT

TEN

DRI

VE

FIRST AVENUE

"E" STREET

"K" STREET

"J" TRACK

LegendInstallation Area

kj Installation Gates

Fence LineRoadsRailroadHelicopter Landing Pad

TenantsD27 DISAD31 DLAD32 DLA DRMOD36 DLA DSCD37 DAPSD39 DSADCN00023 NAVSUP SYSCOMN00104 NAVSUP WSSN00189 NAVSUP FLCN00367 NAVSUP BSCN3172A NAVSUP LOCN32414 NSA MechanicsburgN40085 NFEC MidlantN65538 NAVSEAHousing / MWRLCINMCIArmy Reserve

NSA Mechanicsburg / NSA Philadelphia / PNY Annex Master Plan

0 1,400 2,800700Feet

NSAMechanicsburg

Figure X-Tenant Utilization4


Objectives

Alternative COAs, or planning alternatives, depict potential solutions and physical development approaches for addressing capability gaps, an installation’s current capability gaps, future functional needs, operational mission requirements and investment priorities defined during previous phases. COAs will be unique to each installation and will be influenced by GSIP and RIP guidance, the installation vision, goals, principles, and analyses conducted as part of Phases two through four of the IDP process. COAs at the installation level could depict different physical arrangements of installation components through variation in land utilization or density levels, or they could be based upon broad development preferences (renovation or new construction) or themes (land use, circulation network, utilities). They may also define variations or modifications to existing policies or contemplate new policies. Installation leadership will evaluate which COAs, or components thereof, best fulfill solutions for current capability gaps and future mission requirements and align with the vision of the future state of the installation during an interactive concept workshop. Figure 2.24 illustrates the general process diagram for Phase 5.


•What are the key planning drivers and principles that must be addressed in each COA?

•To what degree does each COA address the installation’s vision, priorities, capability gaps, and mission requirements?

Phase 5: Develop Alternative Courses of Action (COAs)







Changes









Capacity


PHASE 6



Compatibilities












Plan Initiation


















Prioritization

Kick Off Meeting



Capacity




Final Brief


Concept Workshop









IDP Vision Session



PHASE 7 Plan

Execution


Concept Out Brief

Obtain IDP Approval









•Which COAs best express how an installation will make the most effective use of limited resources?

•What potential impacts do COAs have on the surrounding community?

•What are the advantages and disadvantages of each COA?

•What policy changes are needed to support the COAs?

•What rough order of magnitude (ROM) level of investment is associated with each COA?


The installation vision and goals should provide guideposts for the development of various COAs along with the Constraints Summaries, Developable Areas Summary, Land Use and Framework Plans, and Facility and Infrastructure Capability Gap Analysis. Direct input from the participants of the COA Concept Workshop held during this phase will provide a forum for evaluating the merits of different COAs. The development of COAs shall consider the planning strategies outlined in the Undersecretary of Defense May 28, 2013 Memorandum on Installation Master Planning. Tenants of form-based planning (primarily used for new construction in non-mission areas of the installation) may inform the development of COAs; however, the concept of form-based planning, which guides the scale and character of development, is best addressed at the Preferred Plan stage for ADPs only - or the facility site level versus at the installation COA scale.

2.0 IDP Process


2.0 IDP Process

3

Develop Courses of Action (COAs) to Rectify Priority Capability Gaps

COA DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

T

Apply Appropriate Planning Business Rules to Further Define and Guide the Theme and Resulting COAs

Develop Preferred COAs and Resulting Preferred Plan

Gap1

Gap2

Gap3

Gap4

Gap5

Gap6

Gap7

THEME A THEME B THEME C

Develop Courses of Action (COAs) to Rectify Priority Capability Gaps

P

A

T = Traditional P = Progressive A = Aggressive

A.1

A.2

A.3

C.1

C.2

C.3

B.1

B.2

B.3

Figure 2.25 COA Alternative Solutions Continuum Diagram

Traditional Approach Progressive Approach Aggressive Approach

LOW HIGHDegree of Transformation

LOW

HIG

HBe

nefit

/ V

alue

• Business as Usual• MILCON, SRM and

Demo executed project-by-project

• Investment approaches that are not integrated

• Divest excess, obsolete and devalued assets

• Focus on long-term commitment to program

• Integrate groups of projects to form “clusters” of “Centers of Excellence”

• Recap key mission assets

• Mission / Function consolidation

• Use innovative acquisition tools such as EUL, PPV

• Use energy innovations

• Consolidate and integrate processes and CONOPs

• Base-to-Base consolidations

• Leverage jointness• Change Policy

APT

Figure 2.26 COA Development Process Diagram

Methods

COAs should address existing and new mission requirements and identified capability gaps documented during prior analyses. Each COA should be evaluated against a set of established planning principles and criteria to allow a transparent comparison of ideas.

A sensitivity analysis of each COA will further allow an understanding of the how critical (i.e. level of dependence) each COA is to meeting current and future missions. Sensitivity analysis of a COA measures the degree of responsiveness a given COA has to meeeting a set of planning objectives focused on achieving mission. This could be expressed in terms of high, medium, or low.

The evaluation process of the COAs will be initiated during the Concept Workshop to determine which elements in each concept come closest to achieving installation’s priorities, capability gaps, and mission requirements. One COA may be selected as the most appropriate. However, it is more likely that the best elements of several COAs will be combined to form the Preferred COA or Plan as part of Phase 6. COAs should be developed to address the defined gaps along a continuum of possible solutions. As illustrated in Figure 2.25, the continuum of alternatives should look at traditional, progressive and aggressive potential solutions to solve a given planning issues or COA.

In today’s fiscally challenging and ever evolving business environment it is important for the planner to think beyond the traditional methods of executing projects. Figure 2.26 illustrates the COA development process utilizing themes and alternative solutions continuum methodology.

All COAs should be presented and discussed during an interactive COA Concept Workshop, or charrette with installation leadership and key stakeholders. The workshop should provide sufficient information to allow for the comparison of COAs and should lead to the identification of the Preferred Plan to be further developed in Phase 6.


Outputs

At this stage of the IDP process a Concept Submittal should be assembled that includes the outputs from Phases one through five of the process which correspond to sections 1.0 through 5.0 of the IDP Table of Contents. Figure 2.27 identifies the required Table of Contents sections that should be completed as part of Phase 5. See Appendix A for the full IDP Table of Contents. Outputs from each phase should align with the requirements for transferring plan data seamlessly into the iNSIPP.

In summary, the Concept submittal shall include a draft of the following sections:

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Strategic Planning Guidance and Operational Drivers

3.0 Planning Opportunities and Constraints

4.0 Planning Analysis and COA Priorities

5.0 Installation Development Plan (vision plan only)

Additional outputs should include meeting notes from the COA Concept Workshop and the preparation of an Outbrief documenting the outcome of the COAs Concept Workshop and identification of a Preferred COA or Plan. It should also be noted that with the deployment of iNSIPP all major COAs developed during the planning process will be captured and made available for review or use by installation and region planners in the future.


NAVY EXPEDITIONARY COMBAT ENTERPRISE GSIP DRAFT64

For Offi cial Use Only

Low

Med

ium

High

Easy Moderate Difficult

Bene

fit

Execution

Tier 2SweetSpot

Tier 1SweetSpot

Theme Type Course of Action Execution Benefit

HQ/Admin/Ops

T Execute existing projects Difficult Medium - High

P Right-size, share, multipurpose Moderate Medium - High

A Conduct highest and best use analysis Moderate – Difficult High

Maintenance


P Fully implement ESU for all ECH IV commands Moderate High

A Use outsourcing, JIT, reach-back Moderate – Difficult High

Storage

T Execute existing projects Difficult Medium

P Refine BFRs, SMG Analysis, Consolidated Distribution Easy Medium - High

A Refine TOA, form SMG, use more consolidated distribution, use JIT Moderate – Difficult High

Training


P Multipurpose and leveraged assets across units Easy Medium

A Consolidated training requirements Moderate – Difficult High

Waterfront Ops

T Construct/renovate berthing at NSA Bahrain Moderate High

P Partner for joint/shared berthing space and ancillary facilities Easy Medium - High

A Maximum build-out for full acquisition (Global) Difficult High

W-P S-P

T-P

H-P

M-P W-AW-T

T-T

S-T

H-T

Figure 5-13 Overall COAs Impact Analysis Summary

Table 5-8 COAs Impact Analysis Summary by Theme

5.2.6 Impact Analysis Summary

Figure 5-13 illustrates the consolidated impact analysis completed for each of the facility theme COAs described in the previous section. A summary of the impact analysis is also provided in Table 5-8.

LegendTheme: H = HQ/Admin/Ops M = Maintenance S = Storage T = Training W = Waterfront Ops COA: T = Traditional P = Progressive A = Aggressive

S-A

The results of the impact analysis indicates that the five COAs listed below are the most beneficial and have the easiest execution.

Tier 1 Recommendations:• Waterfront Ops - Progressive (W-P) Coordinate

with other tenants to share berthing and ancillary assets (lifting capabilities).

• Storage - Progressive (S-P) Refine BFRs to reduce storage requirement.

• Training - Progressive (T-P) Multipurpose and leverage training assets across units.

• Maintenance - Progressive (M-P) Fully implement ESU for all Echelon IV commands.

• HQ/Admin/Ops - Progressive (H-P) Right-size, share, multipurpose. Right-size office space requirements.

Tier 2 Recommendations:• HQ/Admin/Ops - Aggressive (H-A) Conduct

highest and best use analysis for Fleet Concentration Areas (JEB Little Creek Fort Story and NAVBASE Coronado).

• Storage - Aggressive (S-A) Refine/reduce TOA to reduce requirement.

• Training - Aggressive (T-A) Consolidated training requirements. Centrally manage and schedule training assets at the Echelon III level.

• Waterfront Ops - Progressive (W-T) Construct/renovate berthing.

fin

al |

july

200

9 |

for

offi

cial

use

on

ly

NWS yorktoWN master plan developmeNt plaN section 3-49

Preserve natural vegetation

Natural drainage

Rain garden

Amended soil

Grassy swale

Reduce hardscape

Porous pavement

Bioretention cell

materials and resources• – including the storage and collection of recyclables, building reuse, and the use of regionally extracted and manufactured building materials and products

indoor environmental Quality• – including enhanced indoor air quality, use low-emitting materials, and providing daylight and views for building occupants

innovation and design process• .

low impact development is the use of small scale storm water management controls that are placed at pollution sources to control the effects of urban runoff. lID measures are designed to filter pollutants, control peak runoff rates, and control runoff volume that enters receiving water and wetlands. When used in conjunction with proper site design and pollution prevention measures, lID becomes a powerful tool in protecting the environment. The DoN’s lID policy “…sets a goal of no net increase in storm water volume and sediment or nutrient loading from major renovation and construction projects.” The policy directs bases to consider lID in the design of all projects.

Legend

15 Naval Base 2035 Vision |

Alternative I

ExpansionExpansion

109

101

2186

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


4.2 Alternative Courses of Action4.3 Impact Analysis / Risk Assessment 4.4 Alignment with Stakeholder Strategic Guidance

IDP Appendix Content• Key COA Concepts Considered


FINAL INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE • 29 N A S JA C K S O N V I L L E M A S T E R P L A N

0 700 1400 2100SC ALE IN FE ET

DECEMBER 2009

100 Ops and Training

200 & 800 Public Works and Utilities

200 Maintenance and Production

400 Ammunition

400 Supply

500 Hospital and Medical

600 Administration

700 Housing/BEQ/Mess

700 MWR and Recreation

700 Other Community Support

Undeveloped

CATCODES

LEGEND

Gateways/Entrances

Pedestrian Crossing Concerns

Pedestrian/Automobile Con�ict Areas

Parking Concerns

Truck Route

Primary Street

Secondary Street

Tertiary Street

Obstructed View

Congested Route

SITE ANALYSIS F I G U R E 4 . 3 :


Objectives

The Preferred Plan represents the preferred COA to achieve optimum use of existing facilities, disposition of surplus facilities, and satisfaction of deficiencies in an effort to satisfy mission requirements. The Preferred Plan should enhance the installation mission and provide needed capacity and flexibility for future requirements. The Preferred Plan covers the entire installation and provides the basis for more detailed elements including area development plan(s), planning design standards, and capital investment programs that are part of the Final IDP deliverable. Figure 2.28 illustrates the gereral process diagram for Phase 6.


•Does the Preferred Plan support the installation vision and goals?

•Does the Preferred Plan meet all of the stated requirements?

•Does the Preferred Plan address the gaps identifies in Phase 4?

•What policy changes are needed to support the Preferred Plan?

•What rough order of magnitude (ROM) level of investment is associated with the Preferred Plan?

•What acquisition options are available to execute the projects and solutions identified in the Preferred Plan - MILCON? Special Projects? Other People’s Money (OPM)?

•What is the annual estimated average financial spend rate for each funding category for the installation over the past five years? Is it projected to change?

•Does the plan contain or implement sound planning principles and strategies such as those defined in Navy and DOD master planning guidance?

Phase 6: Develop Preferred Plan







Changes









Capacity


PHASE 6



Compatibilities












Plan Initiation


















Prioritization

Kick Off Meeting



Capacity




Final Brief


Concept Workshop









IDP Vision Session



PHASE 7 Plan

Execution


Concept Out Brief

Obtain IDP Approval









• Is the plan implementable and responsive to fiscal realities?


The Preferred Plan is derived from direction received from installation leadership and key stakeholders during the COA Concept Workshop. It responds to existing conditions and analyses findings from prior phases and addresses established priorities formulated during the COA development process.

Methods

Development of the Preferred Plan will occur through iterative refinement of preferred COA elements and founded on the desired planning principles and strategies defined previously. A review process will ensure the Preferred Plan addresses the necessary requirements of the IDP Table of Contents and is consistent with the requirements for transferring plan data seamlessly into iNSIPP. The Preferred Plan will focus on installation-wide components and will include ADPs (if applicable) for defined districts, which will be reflected through appropriately scaled outputs.

The Preferred Plan will be consistent with the installation vision, goals and objectives which will be reflected through installation-wide outputs like an illustrative, framework plan, land use plan, circulation and parking plan and utility network plan. Installation design standards will be addressed at the installation level in a diagrammatic form due to scale and should reference existing available approved design guidelines from Installation Appearance Plans (IAP) or Base Exterior Architecture Plans (BEAP).

2.0 IDP Process


2.0 IDP Process

Applicable ADPs will support the overall installation vision and goals and will provide a more detailed level of planning for a specific area or site. (See Figure 2.29.) While areas covered through an ADP may have a focused vision that requires specific planning goals and objectives for the area’s mission, alignment with the overall installation vision is retained. ADPs will include a similar list of outputs as the overall installation plan along with a regulating plan that guides specific construction and design standards that are relevant at a site-level scale.

The Development Program or Capital Investment Plan (CIP) will address all installation short, mid- and long-range recommendations to provide a comprehensive understanding of the overall development program and phasing plan. The CIP will integrate all ADP program summaries as well to ensure consistency at both the installation and area/site level.

Outputs

The Final Plan or IDP should focus first and foremost on providing land, infrastructure, and facilities to maintain or enhance the mission readiness of our nation’s warfighters and those that support them through efficient, innovative and fiscally responsive solutions. The IDP should be developed using sound and applicable planning strategies that reinforce the installations capability to support the warfighters defense mission, promote quality of life, and as stewards of the shore installation, enhance sustainability and environmental viability.

The following planning strategies should be used to the extent feasible and possible in crafting the IDP:

• Mission-focused Planning

• Program-based Planning

• Sustainable Planning

• Natural, Historic and Cultural Resource Management

• Healthy Community Planning

• Defensible and Safety Planning

• Capacity Planning

• District/Area Small Scale Form-based Planning

• Utilities Network Planning

• Circulation Network Planning

• Facility Planning and Design Standards

The application of these planning strategies will depend on the mission, functional requirements, location, and physical configuration of an installation and its associated planning districts. There may be installations in which several of these planning strategies are not appropriate or applicable. Figure 2.30 provides a notional matrix of the applicability of the various master planning strategies to the shore capability areas. Red indicates a high applicability, orange a medium applicability and yellow a low applicability.

KEY INSTALLATION MASTER PLANNING STRATEGIES Airf

ield

Ops

Base

Supp

ort

C5IS

RO

ps

Mai

nten

ance

Expe

ditio

nary

Ops

Ord

nanc

e/W

eapo

nsO

ps

RDTA

&E

Sailo

r/Fa

mily

Supp

ort

Trai

ning

Supp

ort

Util

ities

Wat

erfr

ontO

pera

tions

1 Mission-Focused Planning H M H H H H H M H M H2 Program-based Planning H M H H H H H M H M H3 Sustainable Planning L H M M M L M H L M L4 Natural, Historic and Cultural Resource Management L H L L L L L H M M L5 Healthy Community Planning L H L L L L L H L L L6 Defensible and Safety Planning H H H H H H H H H M H7 Capacity Planning H M H M H H H M H H H8 District/Area Small Scale Form-base Planning L M L L L L L M L L L9 Circulation Network Planning M H M M M M M H M L M

10 Utilities Network Planning M H M M M M M M M H M11 Facility Planning and Design Standards L H L L L L L H L L L

H High degree of applicabilityM Medium degree of applicabilityL Low degree of applicability

SHORE CAPABILITY AREAS

DEGREE OF APPLICABILITY TO INSTALLATION-WIDE MASTER PLANS - IDPs

Figure 2.29 ADP Description

Area Development Plan

The Installation Development Plan provides broad planning direction at a installation-wide high level. In contrast, the Area Development Plan (ADP) shows the proposed development of a planning district or geographic areas on an installation at a smaller scale illustrating proposed site development in finer detail. Usually, ADPs are holistic in scope, unified by function or architectural character. Some examples include an airfield, a waterfront, a sailor and family suppor t area, or an administrative area. Planning and design standards provided in the IDP, Installation Appearance Plan (IAP) or Base Exterior Architecture Plan (BEAP) should be used to guide proposed development. The ADP should show both shor t-term and long-range development. In all cases, the ADP presents much of its data through graphics. Each ADP will be described with an Illustrative Plan, Regulating Plan, and a Phasing Plan as appropriate.

Figure 2.30 Degree of Applicability of Master Planning Strategies to the CNIC Shore Capability Areas


1. Executive Summary This is a summary of the main proposals resulting from the IDP planning process. The intended audience is at the Flag Officer level, including Base Commanders, Tenant Commanders, Regional Commanders and other Navy leadership with interest in the development and long-term future of the installation. The format and length can vary as appropriate. Because of iNSIPP requirements affecting production of the IDP document itself, a desk-top published 8 ½’ x 11” brochure format can be helpful to graphically show the IDP as an attractive, stand-alone, printed piece. At a minimum, the Executive Summary should show the installation-wide Illustrative Plan, key ADPs as relevant, and a summary of the proposed development program for the installation.

2. Vision Plan The Vision Plan is a summary statement capturing the overall development vision for the base. This can be graphically illustrated or articulated as text (short and to the point) reflecting all input received in the visioning session conducted as Phase 2 of the IDP planning process. If desired, other components of the process can be combined under the Vision Plan to include but not limited to: opportunity and constraints mapping, a developable area map resulting from the constraints analysis, a framework plan for the installation, and a future development plan documenting existing planned projects at the installation as recorded in iNFADS or other relevant Navy databases.

3. Illustrative Plan The installation Illustrative Plan is the long-term development plan for the base showing all proposed physical improvements. The detail shown in this plan can vary depending on the scale of the installation. Ideally, all future buildings, runways and other aviation-related facilities, piers and waterfront facilities, training facilities and ranges, roads, parking, major landscape improvements and other physical development as relevant should be illustrated. A less detailed graphic illustration for larger installations can be appropriate with the area plans as the better scale for more detailed rendering(s). In some cases, illustrative plans will only be prepared for selected planning districts or areas within the installation where the scale or nature of the installation does not lend itself to a single drawing. In other cases, the individual area plans can be combined to create a single installation-wide Illustrative Plan. In all cases, the Illustrative Plan should reflect the documented installation vision and represent the preferred COA resulting from Phase 6 of the planning process.

4. Planning Districts/Areas Plans A Planning District or Area Plan is prepared for each district or area defined in the Installation Framework Plan produced during Phase 2 of the planning process. The Framework Plan divides the installation into discrete districts or areas (for the purposes of this Consistency Guide, these terms are

DEVELOPMENT PLAN / CHAPTER THREE 4NAVSTA Newport Facility Master Plan FINAL July 2008 DEVELOPMENT PLAN / CHAPTER THREENAVSTA Newport Facility Master Plan FINAL July 2008

Figure 3.6

Naval Station Newport

Illustrative Master Plan

Main Base (map 1 of 2)

Coasters Harbor Island & Coddington Point

Coasters HarborIsland

CoddingtonPoint

Centralized/Additional Parking

International Forum (P479)(Potential Incorporation of

Schonland Hall (Bldg 52)

Fitness Facility(P347)

Central Pedestrian Green Space/ Recreation

VIP StreetscapeImprovements

NWCRecap

Visitor Center/Pass & ID/NAVSTA Museum (P865)

NaturalizedBuffer Areas

VehicularBridge (P339) NHCNE

NSCS (P101V)

Administrative Facility/Post Offi ce(P466)

OTC Quarters(P451)

Training Pool(P370)

NEX Lodge Expansion(PXXX)

Galley Addition(P481)

OTC Quarters(P452)

Drill Hall Addition/Renovation (P480)

Pedestrian-onlyStreet

Naval Justice School Renovations (P455)

Transient BQ(P478)

SEA Renovations(P482)

Dental/MedicalClinic (P100V/P452)

Relocate NAPS HQ (P485) A/C 18 Classrooms (P489)

3-21

Regulation-sizeBaseball Field

PedestrianCampus

VIP StreetscapeImprovements

CSS (P104V)

Proposed for Excess

Gate 4 and NEX Parking Lot Improvements (P459)

Brett HallRenovation

PXXX

Bldg 1112 Renovation

(P101V)

NWC Recap

New Construction

Legend

Permanent Party BQ(P946)

Repairs to Bldg 346(P487)

ConstructRunning Trail

(P488)

1164

52

Potential Reuse of Bldg 1164

The key products that comprise the Final IDP, as defined in this Guide, and the IDP Table of Contents are described below:

110

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

114

VISION

2035


Chapter 2 Existing Conditions / 25 Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling Master Plan

Primary Circulation

Secondary Circulation

Tertiary Circulation

Gate Access

Marina AccessPlanned Streetcar Line

Proposed Streetcar Line

Bus Stop

CSX Rail Easement or Ownership

Installation Boundary

Metro Station South Capitol Street

I-295

§̈¦¦295

§̈¦¦295

§̈¦¦295

South Capitol Street

Defense Blvd.

DIA

Acc

ess

Rd.

Thom

as R

oad

Mitscher Road

Brookley Avenue

Chappie James Blvd.

Brookley Avenue

Mac

Dill

Blv

d.Tink

er S

treet

McC

hord

St.

Duncan Avenue

Luke AvenueCastle Avenue

Angell St.

Mal

colm

X A

ve.

P O T O M A C R I V E R

A N A C O S T I A R I V E R

HainsPoint

Fort McNair

Reagan National Airport

East Potomac

Park

PoplarPointSt. Elizabeths

Bellevue

NavalResearch

Laboratory

Firth Sterling Gate

Arnold Gate

SouthGate

NorthGate

To AnacostiaMetro

To Congress HeightsMetro

Metro Green Line CongressHeights

Anacostia

NavyYard

2000ft Walking Radius

N

NO

RTH

0 1250

NorthGate

Firth Sterling Gate

Arnold Gate

SouthGate

11th St. Bridge

DIAHMX-1

21

BX

Figure 2.7 Existing Access, Circulation and Transit

Figure 2 Future Land Use Plan for NAS Patuxent River LegendRestricted Area

Mission ComplexMission ClusterOpen Space / PreservationFamily & Bachelor HousingIndustrial ComplexUtilitiesStorageTown Center

AlCUZ and Airfield Safety Zones

Temporary LodgingRecreational Uses

Chesapeake Bay

Patuxent River

Research, Engineering, Ground Test &

Prototype Work Cluster

Tactical Center of Excellence

UAS Center of Excellence & Aircraft

Carrier Landing Systems

Atlantic Test Range

Rotary Wing Center of Excellence

& AVMI

Test Pilot School & Other RDAT&E

Patrol & Recon Center of

Excellence

ITT / Eng

Work Cluster

APZ I

Command / IPT

Admin / IPT

Base Support / Admin

Gate 3

Gate 2

Gate 1

11 Naval Base 2035 Vision |

interchangeable) based on geography, key transportation systems, existing land use patterns or other defined boundaries as agreed to by all parties involved in the process. The Area Development Plan (ADP) is a detailed illustrative plan for the districts that deserve this level of detail showing all proposed improvements as described above. Additional graphics, renderings, and ‘sketch-up’ perspective drawings can also be included as appropriate or desired by planning staff or base leadership.

5. Land Use Plan An installation-level Land Use Plan serves as the ‘zoning’ map for the installation. This plan depicts varying uses proposed on the installation (compared to existing land use prepared in Phase 3) providing recommended locations for all future development types. To encourage vertically and horizontally mixed uses or types of development (for example, combined administrative and personnel support functions and buildings), a ‘mixed use’ zone can be used in this plan. Otherwise, the plan designates where like uses should be located when considering future facility siting to encourage a logical, development pattern that avoids locating incompatible uses in close proximity.

6. Regulating Plan (ADPs only) A Regulating Plan provides information on the type, form and scale of buildings recommended for individual building parcels comprising the area development plan. This plan is typically done at the smaller, district or area scale because of the detailed site-specific information it contains. It also is more appropriate for certain districts or areas (e.g., base ‘town centers’, administrative or housing areas, training campuses, community/personnel support areas, etc.) and not as appropriate for others (e.g., airfields, waterfronts, ranges, ordnance storage areas, etc). The Regulating Plan can include build-to lines, minimum and maximum building heights, key entry locations, proposed use, parking and roadway configurations. This plan is typically an important building block in developing the proposed ADP described above. Its genesis comes from the ‘Form-Based Code’ methodology used in the civilian planning arena and a major focus of current planning guidance in UFC 2-100-01, Installation Master Planning.

7. Circulation and Parking Plan The Circulation and Parking Plan is a key network plan to show existing and proposed transportation systems on the installation. This plan can be done as a combined plan or separate plans for the different types of circulation comprising the transportation network: vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, as relevant, depending on the scale and level of detail desired. The entrance gates are another important feature, as well as links to the outside street network and sidewalk and pedestrian/bike paths, if any. For some installations, the parking areas should include parking numbers to account for all required parking where this is a particular issue. This plan can also link to recommended streetscape treatment included in the Installation Design Standards (or IAP or BEAP).

Construct Port Operations

Boat House /Laydown

ESPERANCE RD

SAIP

AN R

D

CORAL RD

MACASSAR RD

GE

LA R

D

TARAWA RD

BUR

MA

RD

ROAD T-5

LAKE

EAR

LE R

D

BLAN

DY

DR RO

AD

T-1

ROAD T-3

GR

EEN

DR

RO

AD

T-4RO

AD

T-6

MEM

OR

IAL

DR

SAIP

AN R

D

GELA RD

NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE MASTER PLAN

Legend

Installation Area

Existing Structure

Installation Roads

Railroad

Streams

ESQD Arc

Primary Growth Boundary

Regulating Plan

Building Frontage

Building Types

Administration

Industrial

Mixed-Use

Recreation

Key Entrances

Parking Areas

34

34

0 350 700 1,050175Feet

Figure 4.10Mainside Cantonment Area

Regulating Plan


8. Green Infrastructure Plan The Green Infrastructure Plan depicts all existing and proposed open space elements on the installation, including parks, wetlands, riparian corridors, water bodies and other natural features comprising the installations open space system. This plan can vary depending on the scale of the installation. The intent is to plan for open space areas that thread through developed areas forming ecological, social functions, or buffers to land uses requiring separation. Green infrastructure naturally manages stormwater, reduces flooding risk and improves water quality. In addition to identifying major green infrastructure elements at an installation-wide planning level, green infrastructure is an important concept at the more detailed planning level as well since it reflects a more sustainable development pattern where open spaces are integral parts of the installation plan, potentially enjoyed by installation residents and employees or serving to naturally manage and filter storm water, reducing risk to flooding and improving water quality, or to protect environmental habitat and promote other ecological benefits for the long-term.

9. Primary Utility Network Summary Plans Utility Plans are another important network plan that show existing and future utilities systems supporting all proposed development on the installation. Primary utilities include water, wastewater, storm sewer, electricity, natural gas, steam, compressed air, and telephone and cable systems. These plans should include transmission and distribution lines, as well as all structures that support these systems such as transformers, cell towers, power plants, dams, wells, treatment plants, and other utility-related facilities. In addition, the network plans should show all alternative energy facilities and sites such as solar farms, wind turbines, and any other renewable energy features. These plans can be prepared as combined or separate maps and depend on available data collected in Phase 3 of the planning process.

10. Sustainability Development Summary Plan The Sustainability Development Summary Plan describes the alternative energy and other sustainable facilities and programs that will be developed as part of the long-term installation development program. This section can vary in content and detail. In some cases, adaptive responses to climate change will be appropriate; in others, renewable energy facilities and systems are suitable to create a more sustainable installation. Many installations are moving towards ‘net-zero’ installation goals and all improvements, new energy sources, conservation programs and other means to achieve these goals should be described in this section of the IDP. Other sustainability targets or goals, such as Executive Order 13423, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance and other Federal mandates or regulations, should also be addressed. Referencing other existing sustainable plans or documents can also be appropriate since extensive work on this subject is done outside the context of master planning (for example, as engineering reports by the public works department).

33Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story (West)

Figure 20 Location of Existing Buildings with Packages Applied in Scenario 2

Table 25 Existing Building Energy Packages in Scenario 2

INT

EG

RA

TE

D S

US

TA

INA

BIL

ITY

PR

OG

RA

M

Existing Building Packages from Energy Core System Model

External Packages from Integration Model

No Change Package B Package C Package B + D Ext ECM 1 & 2 Ext ECM 2 Ext ECM 2 & 3 Ext ECM 3

Package Descriptions No Change ( left as Existing Condition)

High Efficiency T5 lighting fixtures (requires whole fixture replacement) including the provision of occupancy and lighting controls

Upgrade to high efficiency gas boiler plant on each building (where applicable) for space and hot water heating systems

High Efficiency T5 lighting fixtures (requires whole fixture replacement) including the provision of occupancy and lighting controls + Solar Hot Water

Retrofit building with condensing boiler + Implement Retro-Commissioning

Implement a Retro-Commissioning Program for the building

Implement a Retro-Commissioning Program for the building+ Upgrade to Ground Source Heat Pumps

Upgrade to Ground souce Heat pumps

# Facilities Applied* 229 8 10 19 4 10 5 2

GFA Affected 1,929,293 415,634 204,663 584,878 373,195 521,985 105,639 43,313

Energy Efficiency Improved

0.0% -8.3% -22.0% -15.8% -10.5% -14.0% -39.4% -11.0%

Additional Capital Cost $0 $2,878,277 $467,353 $3,742,885 $1,040,929 $260,566 $1,109,878 $105,411

Additional Annual Maintenance

$0 $55,695 $0 $52,501 $38,500 $20,444 -$6,160 -$1,045

Annual Utility Savings $0 -$57,736 -$75,010 -$111,255 -$123,318 -$121,696 -$52,666 -$3,173

Payback (yrs) 49.9 6.2 33.6 8.4 2.1 21.1 33.2

*See Technical Appendix for a complete list of the facilities with ECMs applied in Scenario 2.

Select Facility by ID CB310Freeform 124

Facility Name PHIBCB2 HQ.

Type OfficeGFA (sf) 33,420Occupancy 153Age 19Num Stories 2MDI 65Condition 85

Facility Status Improved (Energy+Water)108 ECM Package Applied Good - (Option C)

Reference Model 108-FECM Package Description Upgrade to high efficiency gas boiler

plant for space and hot water heating systems

Simulated PerformancePost ECM Electrical Usage 571,400Post ECM Natural Gas Usage 231,737Post ECM Steam Usage 0Post ECM Renewable Energy 0Expected Energy Efficiency 19%

Water Package Applied BestExpected Water Efficiency 26%

CBSB Participant yesHPSB Eligible no

ROM Sustainability Capital Cost $166,226ROM Utility Savings/Yr $14,429ROM Simple Payback (Yrs) 12

Override ECM Setting GFA # Fac0 0

Select ECM Package Better 584,878 19620,297 18

1,044,132 352,178,090 221

92,743 18207

Demolished 1.8%

Good

Baseline (No Change)

11.3%12.0%

42.0%External ECMs 20.2%

ECM Package % of Tot GFABest 0.0%

Better

Introduction Baseline Evaluation Mandates &

Development Program Core Systems GAMEBOARD Sustainability

ReportResults & Analysis

SSIM JEB Little Creek ‐ Fort Story (West) Sustainability Model

FACILITY REVIEW CONSOLE

Facility Map Update Map

Scenario Summary by Facility Scenario Summary by Package Cost Analysis

Facility Summary

Scenario Prioritization

Change ECM SettingRemove Override

ECM Package GFA % of Tot GFA # Fac

Best 0 0.0% 0

Better 584,878 11.3% 19

Good 620,297 12.0% 18

External ECMs 1,044,132 20.2% 35

Baseline (No Change) 2,178,090 42.0% 221

Demolished 92,743 1.8% 18


11. Future Development Summary Plan The Future Development Summary Plan shows the sequencing of all proposed development. It is preferably one map or drawing, installation-wide, which prioritizes future development projects and includes all district/area plan proposed development. A color-coded methodology could be used to depict the different phases of development in different increments, as relevant (e.g., short, mid and long-term). The planning timeframe can vary depending on the timeframe needed to execute the overall installation vision. This plan is a summary plan or map; more detailed phasing information is provided in the Development Program of the IDP (see below).

12. Installation-wide Planning and Design Standards Installation-wide Planning and Design Standards provide a basic set of guidelines to achieve the base vision and planning objectives. This section is intended to be brief and to the point; ideally an Installation Appearance Plan (IAP) or Base Exterior Architectural Plan (BEAP) is available and can be referenced for recommended guidelines for base development and aesthetics. The standards, at a minimum, should address building, streets and parking, and landscape standards. If these standards differ for different portions of the installation, then an overall summary will be appropriate and planning/design standards provided at the district/area scale.

13. Installation Development Program (Capital Investment Plan) The Installation Development Program is the same as the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in previous master planning terminology. This Development Program should list all programmed and unprogrammed projects included in the IDP (and all district/area plans). The Development Program should also include project numbers (if available), order of magnitude costs, timeframe for development (e.g., short, mid and long-term or proposed year if available), and funding sources. Demolition projects and their proposed timing should also be included. Funding program types include Military Construction(MILCON); Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization (SRM), and other special funding sources such as the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA), Navy Exchange (NEX), etc. In addition and as appropriate, Public-Private Venture (PPV) and Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) projects should also be included. The Developement Phasing Summary Plan graphically depicts the Installation Development Program, over time, from its current state to the final state shown on the Illustrative Plan.

14. Appendix The Appendix should include any supporting material used to develop the IDP. These should be presented as separate appendices with dividers and do not require special formatting unless desired.

Page 32/33 – Standards Example – from Earle Master Plan Draft PDFLabel:Earle Master Plan DRAFT FOR QA Aug27.pdf

70

MILCON Projects

Figure 5.1

Fitness CenterP925


P402

Commissary (DECA)

Dive LockerP994




PXXX

NIoDEt PXXX


Facility P113




Squadron hQ P858

BEQ P996

transient BQ PXXX


P481


Chapel Annex

P125


P989


Sub Group two headquarters P850

Future Building

Site

Fire Station P997



PXXX



Parking Garage


Phases 2 and 3 PXXX




FoodVendor PXXX

NSMrL Addition

rM001/002-07





SUBASE New London Master Plan

CaPitaL iMProvEMENtS PLaN / ChAPtEr FIVE 5-5

CHAPTER FOUR

STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN4-28

FINALNAVAL STATION ROTA OVERVIEW RSIP

4.2 Summary Projects ListThe following project summary tables list projects included in this RSIP and that support the Rota Re-Cap. Table 4-1 lists all projects grouped according to the geographic areas described in this chapter. Both the IMAP func-

tions and funding sources are also listed for each project in the table. Table 4-2 summarizes by funding sponsor the total project cost of the RSIP project recommendations included in the fi rst table. More detail on these projects is provided in Appendix A.8.

AREA SPONSOR PROJ NO PROJECT DESCRIPTION AREA

M2AREA

SFCOST($000)

AIR CNRE P-662 Air Operations Consolidation 10,594 114,050 $43,420

CNRE P-695 Construct Air Passenger Terminal/Ramp Expansion

5,644 60,763 $26,779

CNRE P-XXX Construct Airfi eld Perimeter Fencing N/A N/A $1,775

USAF P-661 Airfi eld Improvements N/A N/A $14,200

CNRE RX-XX Building 58 Seismic Rehabilitation N/A N/A $1,000

PORT CNRE P-551 Consolidated Port Ops Complex 2,411 25,952 $21,040

NATO CP-13 Pier One Extension N/A N/A $51,000

NATO CP-13 Construct New Pier 4 N/A N/A $46,410

NATO CP-13 Upgrade Pier 2 N/A N/A $23,800

NATO CP-13 Channel and Harbor Dredging N/A N/A $15,700

NATO CP-13 Pier 3 Repairs N/A N/A $12,400

NATO CP-13 Replacement of F-44 (JP-5) Pipeline N/A N/A $7,000

CNRE R21-01 Pier 1 Miscellaneous Repairs N/A N/A $5,300

CNRE RC8-04 Repair and Upgrade Harbor Water System

N/A N/A $800

CNRE M18-04 Access Channel Maintenance/Dredging

N/A N/A $750

CNRE C10-04 Pier 2 Saltwater Fire Suppression System

N/A N/A $513

CNRE C7-04 Pier 2 Sewage Collection N/A N/A $375

DLA RX-XX Recoat Piping and Valves on Pier 3 N/A N/A $228

DLA CX-XX Install Remote Control Units on Marine Loading Arms

N/A N/A $164

CORE CNRE P-648 Construct Consolidated Public Works Compound

9,058 97,513 $38,259

CNRE P-645 Consolidated Command Ops and Support Facility

7,076 76,176 $32,700

CNRE P-510 QOL-1 Operational Training Facilities

4,506 48,513 $19,880

CNRE P-XXX Building 8 Seismic Rehabilitation N/A N/A $1,700

NAFCON P-XXX QOL-2 Rec Mall 4,417 47,551 $14,518

NAFCON P-XXX Construct 3-Bay Car Wash Facility 287 3,088 $980

NEX/DeCA P-503 Construct Consol. NEX/Commissary Fac./NEX Mini Mart & Gas Sta.

18,323 197,259 $42,625

NEX P-XXX Expand Navy Lodge 1,115 12,000 $3,123

SOCOM P-802 Construct NSWU Operations Facility 6,967 75,000 $20,304

BUMED CX-XX Expand the Emergency Room 37 400 $200

CNRE RX-XX Building 55 Seismic Rehabilitation N/A N/A $5,600

Table 4-1 RSIP Summary Project List



Figure 2.31 identifies the required Table of Contents sections that should be completed as part of Phase 6. At this stage of the IDP process the Concept Submittal from Phase 5 will be revised through two subsequent and additional submittals at the Draft and Pre-Final completion levels. Comments received during each review cycle will be reviewed and reconciled satisfactorily before proceeding to the next level of submittal.

In summary, the Draft and Pre-Final submittals shall include all required information for sections one through five of the IDP TOC as noted below. The Executive Summary should not be completed until the Pre-Final submittal.

ES Executive Summary1.0 Introduction2.0 Strategic Planning Guidance and

Operational Drivers3.0 Planning Opportunities and Constraints4.0 Planning Analysis and COA

Priorities5.0 Installation Development Plan

In addition to the content sections noted for the Pre-Final, the Final submittal shall include supporting files and required source files as defined in the scope of work and the iNSIPP Content Guide (see Section 3.0). Outputs should align with the requirements for transferring plan data seamlessly into the iNSIPP.


ES Executive Summary5.2 Installation-wide Development Plan 5.2.1 Illustrative 5.2.2 Land Use Plan 5.2.3 Circulation and Parking Plan 5.2.4 Green Infrastructure 5.2.5 Primary Utility Plans 5.2.6 Sustainability Development 5.2.7 Installation Future Development Plan Summary5.3 Area Development Plans 5.3.1 Area A 5.3.2 Area B5.4 Installation Planning and Design Standards 5.4.1 Building Envelope Standards 5.4.2 Street Standards 5.4.3 Site Planning Guidelines 5.4.4 Landscape Standards 5.4.5 Signage/Wayfinding Guidelines 5.4.6 Sustainability Guidelines5.5 Installation Development Program (Capital Investment Plan) 5.5.1 Short-range Development Program 5.5.2 Mid-range Development Program 5.5.3 Long-range Development Program 5.5.4 Development Phasing Summary Plan



CHAPTER FOUR

STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN4-18

FINALNAVAL STATION ROTA OVERVIEW RSIP

Figure 4-19 Proposed Core Area Illustrative Plan

TelephoneExchange

CommandPersonnel Support

DetachmentCommand

Human Resources Offi ce

Command OpsHeadquarters

Community SupportFacility

Library/EducationFacility

Operational Training Facility Center

MWR Rec Mall(Theater/Bowling)

CORE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Chapel

Aquatic Center


Phase 7 is to be completed in the next version of the Guide.

Objective

The Installation Commanding Officer (ICO) of each installation is responsible for the preparation of the IDP. The ICO will ensure alignment with existing global and regional infrastructure plans and guidance. Key governance checks and balances will occur through the Shore-Mission Integration Group (SMIG), Region-Mission Integration Group (RMIG), and Installation Mission Integration Group (IMIG). The Regional Commander (RC) shall establish installation planning boards to review and endorse installation master plans, which shall be approved by the Regional Commander no less frequently than every 5 years. Figure 2.32 illustrates the general process diagram for Phase 7.

Governance

The roles and responsibilities for the SMIG and RMIG are described below.

SMIG Roles and Responsibilities

• SMIG will use Department of the Navy (DON) guidance, including CNO Sailing Directions and Guidance, DON Objectives, Naval Operations Concepts, Strategic Laydown decisions, and specific programmatic guidance to interpret the vision and inform the field. In this construct, “field” is defined as Regions, service providers, CNIC Warfare Enterprise Flag Officers (WEFOs) and Action Officers (WEAOs), and Enterprise BODs. This includes identification of priorities, establishment of guidance, and infrastructure-related deliberative decisions. The SMIG will dictate to RMIGs capability gaps

Phase 7: Plan Execution






Analyze Mission Requirements & Loading Changes






PHASE 5

ESTABLISH THE PLANNING BASELINE

NITC to certify, load, program,



Capacity


PHASE 6



Compatibilities

Assess Compliance with Sustainability & Environmental

Mandates










Plan Initiation






PR

IMA

RY

TA

SK

S













Prioritization

ANALYSIS PLAN STRATEGY & DEVELOPMENT

Kick Off Meeting



Capacity




Final Brief


Concept Workshop





PH

AS

E





IDP Vision Session

Installation Development Plan (IDP) Process



Version for FINAL Guide – for individual processes

PHASE 7Plan

Execution


FEEDBACK LOOP

Concept Out Brief

Obtain IDP Approval







This Phase is to be completed in the next version of the Guide.


that a particular Region is expected to address to support overall Navy mission.

• SMIG will endorse RMIG planning and priorities, redirecting them as required to integrate and balance higher priorities.

• SMIG will ensure Enterprise BOD concerns are considered and balance risk and requirements across all WE/P mission areas.

• SMIG will provide feedback to the Enterprise BODs, RMIGs, WEFOs, and CNIC programs on decisions, priorities and changes to Shore objectives.

RMIG Roles and Responsibilities

• Region RMIGs will integrate and prioritize installation requirements across a respective Region with inputs from stakeholders. RMIGs will evaluate capability gaps within their Regions and impact to other non-MILCON support products. RMIGs will evaluate any identified ‘available’ space and consolidation alternatives.

• RMIGs will oversee the development of Regional Integration Plans (RIP) and Regionally Integrated Mast Programs (RIMP). RIPs are envisioned as integrated and executable multi-year facility investment programs that include operational concept improvements that span beyond the FYDP. RIPs should assist in identifying critical capability gaps, addressing mission capability gaps and infrastructure requirements, and informing investment decisions at all levels within the Region to include Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM) funds, MILCON funds, Non-MILCON funds, Non-Appropriated Fund (NAF) projects, and other Alternative Funding Sources.

2.0 IDP Process


2.0 IDP Process

• Region RMIGs will conduct the enterprise level planning analysis within its domain.

• Global Shore Infrastructure Plans (GSIP) are envisioned to continue, however the format and deliverables are under review and are expected to change to include WEFO engagement based on capability gaps vice specific location desires. Key elements of the GSIP effort is to refresh and inform on capability gaps, now and in the foreseeable future (not specific location-centric).

• Periodicity of deliberations for the RMIG is envisioned to be at least quarterly. The expanded scope of the new RMIG process will require additional time and attention. Initial standup of RMIG governance and organizing a RIP will initially require meeting more often and probably an extended offsite effort.


80

Page 32/33 – Historic Structure Example – from Great Lakes Master Plan Final PDFLabel: Naval Station Great Lakes Historic Structures Example[ NAVSTA Great Lakes Master Plan 28 May 2010 FINAL.pdf ]


3.0 Product & Content Development

Introduction

As of the writing of this Guide, iNSIPP is under development and has not been deployed to the NAVFAC planning community for use. It is intended that all IDPs will be loaded into iNSIPP once the website becomes available. To this end, the following information will be helpful in preparing plans until iNSIPP is available.

The development of IDP content for posting to the iNSIPP website is generally no different than developing a hard copy plan. One of the main differences is the page layout, style sheet and hyperlinks. The page layout of the IDP is simplified in its web form. The web does not allow for the layout and configuration alternatives that a desktop publishing and production application like Adobe InDesign provides. The style for fonts, labels, tables, etc., will be controlled by the iNSIPP web style format. The web version of the IDP will contain hyperlinks to add functionality and improve the user experience.

In addition to the full IDP being published on the iNSIPP website, it is expected that the IDP Executive Summary will be prepared using an application like Adobe InDesign and made available in a brochure-style hardcopy and PDF format for use in communicating and demonstrating the key master planning elements and strategic investment strategies of the IDP to executive and flag-level leadership.

Preparing Content for Posting to the Intranet Navy Shore Infrastructure Planning Platform (iNSIPP) Web Site

Document Components

Text: Text is prepared using MS Word. Prepare the document as required by the subject being addressed followed by a grammar and spelling check using the word processors native functions. Have the text reviewed by internal subject matter experts if required.

Tip: Keep the text formatting to a minimum.

Images: Images include photographs, charts, diagrams, graphics, map images, etc. that support the subject being addressed. All images should be referenced in the body of the text immediately preceding the image.

File Format: Do not use JPG file formats since the file degrades with each save action. Use lossless image file formats such as PNG or GIF to retain the exact image quality of the source image. TIFF file format may be used if the lossless method of compression is used.

Image Size: Size the image to fit the desired size within the web page. The recommended standard size is as

follows:

• Full width: 700 pixels wide

• Half width: 350 pixels wide

• Quarter width: 175 pixels wide

Tip: It is highly recommended to keep multiple graphics on a page similar in height or width.

Tables: Tables present tabular information relevant to the plan. Tables should not be any wider than the size standards for images. The MS Excel source files for all tables should be located in the Tables folder. All tables should be referenced in the body of the text immediately preceding the table.


3 Appendix

the document. This is done by using the “Save As > Reduced Size PDF” function found under the “File” Adobe Acrobat menu. This reduced document will load faster and will require less storage space on the server.

Document Content Folders

Installation Name Exec Summary

Text Images Tables Maps Reference Docs

1.0 Introduction Text Images Tables Maps Reference Docs

2.0 Strategic Guidance Text Images Tables Maps Reference Docs

3.0 Stakeholder Guidance_Op Drivers Text Images Tables Maps Reference Docs

4.0 Capability Gap Analysis Text Images Tables Maps Reference Docs

5.0 Priorities_Impact Analysis Text Images Tables Maps Reference Docs

6.0 Acronyms Text

7.0 Appendices Reference Docs

Tip: Keep the table formatting clean and simple.

Maps: Maps of all types are contained within most planning documents. Map documents can include PDFs images and ArcGIS files. Users of the iNSIPP will typically be presented with three types of map file links – 1) graphic image of the map (follow the image standards), 2) a link to the PDF version of the map (follow the PDF standards), and 3) a link to the ArcGIS map service (this map will only launch if the user has a local version ArcGIS loaded)

Reference Docs: These are documents used to support the planning content. These include PDFs of DOD Instructions, Navy/NAVFAC Instructions, Installation Master Plans, Area Development Plans, Environmental Studies, etc. These documents are typically PDFs and should be reduced in size to the extent possible while maintaining the fidelity of the document. This is done by using the “Save As > Reduced Size PDF” function found under the “File” Adobe Acrobat menu. This reduced document will load faster and will require less storage space on the server.


Document Components

Document components should be stored in folders to help organize the data and to assist in posting to iNSIPP. The following folder structure is recommended for all plans:

3 Appendix

the document. This is done by using the “Save As > Reduced Size PDF” function found under the “File” Adobe Acrobat menu. This reduced document will load faster and will require less storage space on the server.


Installation Name Exec Summary

Text Images Tables Maps Reference Docs

1.0 Introduction Text Images Tables Maps Reference Docs

2.0 Strategic Guidance Text Images Tables Maps Reference Docs

3.0 Stakeholder Guidance_Op Drivers Text Images Tables Maps Reference Docs

4.0 Capability Gap Analysis Text Images Tables Maps Reference Docs

5.0 Priorities_Impact Analysis Text Images Tables Maps Reference Docs

6.0 Acronyms Text



Content File Size and Name Size Constraints

The file size of certain file types has been restricted in an effort to manage the web page loading time and the server storage space requirements for the full potential of iNSIPP. The following are those restrictions:

• File Name: <128 characters

• File Size: <50 megabytes

File Naming Conventions In order to provide for file organization and efficient file query functionality it is recommended that the following file naming convention be used: File/Document Name

Unique iNSIPP Web Formatting

Font Styles:

Captions: Captions for all content elements within the web document are generated based on the metadata provided in the document asset data form. Figures and tables will not receive numbers as in a typical hard copy document. Only the caption title will be displayed.

Page Layout: Single Column

Pagination: Web documents are continuous on the screen and therefore do not have page numbers.

In-line References: Do not put in-line document references to tables, charts, images, maps, etc. within the body of the text. All referenced objects should be located near the text that is describing them. For example: “See Table 3.12 for an illustration of the…” would become “See the COA Prioritization Table for an illustration of the …”

4 Appendix




File Name: <128 characters File Size: <50 megabytes

File Naming Conventions

In order to provide for file organization and efficient file query functionality it is recommended that the following file naming convention be used:

File/Document Name3 Parts – Location, Title, TypeExample: Guam Main Base Land Use Plan ImageLocations: SUBASE NLON, Guam, NS Coronado, etc. Document Types: Photo, Chart, Diagram, Map Image, PDF


Font Styles: 2.0 Page Title Page Title – System Generated (based on TOC)

SECTION TITLE Section Title – All Caps, Arial, Bold, 12pt, Navy blue

Body text Body Text – Arial, 11pt, Black

Subsection Title Subsection Title – Arial, 11pt, Bold, Underline, Navy blue

Sub Subsection Title Sub Subsection Title – Arial, Italic, 11pt, Navy blue


Page Layout:


In-line References: Do not put in-line document references to tables, charts, images, maps, etc. within the body of the text. All referenced objects should be located near the text that is

4 Appendix




File Name: <128 characters File Size: <50 megabytes

File Naming Conventions

In order to provide for file organization and efficient file query functionality it is recommended that the following file naming convention be used:

File/Document Name3 Parts – Location, Title, TypeExample: Guam Main Base Land Use Plan ImageLocations: SUBASE NLON, Guam, NS Coronado, etc. Document Types: Photo, Chart, Diagram, Map Image, PDF


Font Styles: 2.0 Page Title Page Title – System Generated (based on TOC)

SECTION TITLE Section Title – All Caps, Arial, Bold, 12pt, Navy blue

Body text Body Text – Arial, 11pt, Black

Subsection Title Subsection Title – Arial, 11pt, Bold, Underline, Navy blue

Sub Subsection Title Sub Subsection Title – Arial, Italic, 11pt, Navy blue


Page Layout:


In-line References: Do not put in-line document references to tables, charts, images, maps, etc. within the body of the text. All referenced objects should be located near the text that is


Page 44Label = iNSIPP Screen Example

101

What’s New in V2 :

FINAL INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE • APPENDIX TOC • 45

4.0 Appendix

Appendix A – IDP Standard Table of Contents

Appendix B – Introducing iNSIPP

Appendix C – Strategic Guidance Resources

Appendix D – Typical Installation Data

Appendix E – Typical Off-installation Data Sources

Appendix F – Acronyms


This page intentionally left blank.

FINAL INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE • APPENDIX A 47

Appendix A – IDP Standard Table of Contents

Installation Development Plan Consistency GuideIDP Standard Table of Contents

MUST HAVE NOTES

PLAN PHASE Corresponding UFC Section Reference

Direct (D) or Implied (I) Representation in

UFC

ES Executive SummaryHigh level summaries of sections 1‐4. Brief, tabular and use of info graphics where possible.

ES 1 Introduction and Purpose X 6ES 2 Installation Overview X 6 3‐5.1 DES 3 Vision/Mission X 6

ES.3.1 Vision Statement X 6 3‐5.3ES.3.2 Planning Goals and Objectives X 6 3‐5.4, 3‐5.5ES.3.3 Strategic Planning Guidance and Operational Drivers Summary X 6 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1.1, IES.3.4 Framework Plan ‐ Districts/Areas X 6 2‐7.1, 3‐5.8 D

ES 4 Planning Analysis Summary X 6ES.4.1 Facility and Infrastructure Gap Analysis X 6ES.4.2 Developable Areas Summary X 6 2‐6, 3‐5.7ES.4.3 Recommended Courses of Action (COAs) X 6ES.4.4 Impact Analysis/Risk Assessment X 6 2‐5.1, 2‐5.1.1 DES.4.4 Alignment with Stakeholder Strategic Guidance X 6

ES 5 Installation Development Plan X 6ES.5.1 Installation‐wide Development Plan X 6

ES.5.1.1 Illustrative X 6 3‐6.4.1 DES.5.1.2 Planning Districts/Framework Plan X 6 2‐7.1, 3‐5.8 DES.5.1.3 Land Use Plan X 6 3‐6.4.2ES.5.1.4 Sustainability Development X 6ES.5.1.5 Summary Future Development Plan X 6 3‐5.9 D

ES.5.2 Key Area Development Plan Summaries L 6ES 7 Installation Development Program (Capital Investment Plan) X 6 3‐8

ES.7.1 Short‐Range Development Program X 6 3‐8ES.7.2 Mid‐Range Development Program X 6 3‐8ES.7.3 Long‐Range Development Program X 6 3‐8ES.7.4 Development Phasing Plan X 6 3‐8

1.0 IntroductionOverview of IDP project, installation context, mission, and vision that guide the IDP recommendations.

1.1. Purpose X 11.1.1 Scope X 11.1.2 Methodology X 11.1.3 Schedule X 1

1.2. Background X 1 3‐5.11.2.1. Installation History X 1 3‐5.1 I1.2.2 Population/Demographics X 1 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1.2, 3‐5.6.2.2 D1.2.3 Infrastructure X 1 3‐5.6.1 D1.2.4 Current Primary Tenants X 1 3‐5.1 D1.2.5 Surrounding Community Context X 1 3‐5.6.2 D

1.3. Vision / Mission X 1 3‐5 D1.3.1 Overall Regional Vision / Mission X 1 3‐5.6.1.1 I1.3.2 Installation Vision / Mission X 1 3‐5.1, 3‐5.2, 3‐5.3 D

2.0 Strategic Planning Guidance and Operational DriversBrief descriptions of guidance and drivers that have an influence on the installation and would direct and support the IDP.

2.1 DoD and Navy Guidance X 1 3‐5.6.1.1 D2.1.1 Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Guidance X 1 3‐5.6.1.1 I2.1.2 CNIC Strategic Plan X 1 3‐5.6.1.1 I2.1.3 NAV 2030 X 1 3‐5.6.1.1 I2.1.4 Global Shore Infrastructure Plans (GSIP) X 1 3‐5.6.1.1 I2.1.5 Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan (RIP) X 1 3‐5.6.1.1 I2.1.6 Major Tenant Strategic Plans X 1 3‐5.6.1.1 I2.1.7 Other Relevant DOD/Navy Instructions X 1 3‐5.6.1.1 I

2.2 Installation Planning Initiatives X 1 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I2.3 Operational Drivers X 1/2 3‐5.1 I

2.3.1 New Platforms X 1/2 3‐5.1 I2.3.2 New Mission / Realignments X 1/2 3‐5.6.1.1 I2.3.3 GSIP Enterprise COAs X 1 3‐5.6.1.1 I2.3.4 RIP COAs X 1 3‐5.6.1.1 I

2.4 Planning Guiding Principles and Drivers X 1/22.5 IDP Planning Assumptions X 1/2

11/5/2013

1

APPENDIX A 48 • INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE F INAL


MUST HAVE NOTES



UFC

11/5/2013

3.0 Planning Opportunities and Contraints

3.1 Natural, Environmental and Cultural Constraints X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D

3.1.1 Topography (Steep Slopes) X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D

3.1.2 Hydrology (Wetlands) X 2 2‐2.16, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D

3.1.3 Geology / Soils X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D3.1.4 Vegetation X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D3.1.5 Threatened and Endangered Species X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D

3.1.6 Historical and Archeological X 2 2‐3.3, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D

3.1.7 Climate and Environmental Influences L 2 3‐5.6.2.3 D3.1.7.1 Climate Change L 2 3‐5.6.2.3 I

3.1.7.1.1 Stom Surge L 2 3‐5.6.2.3 I3.1.7.1.2 Sea Level Rise L 2 3‐5.6.2.3 I

3.1.7.1.3 Flood Plain L 2 2‐2.16, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D

3.1.7.2 Environmental Quality L 23.1.7.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions L 23.1.7.2.2 Contaminated Soils / IR L 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 I

3.1.8 Summary Natural/Environmental/Cultural Constraints X Map summarizing key contraints. 3 3‐5.6, 3‐5.6.1.3 D3.2 Man‐Made / Operational Constraints X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.1 D

3.2.1 AICUZ / RAICUZ / APZ X 2 3‐5.6.1 I3.2.2 Existing Land Use Plan / Land Use Controls X 2 3‐5.6.1 D3.2.3 Ordnance Transportation and Storage (ESQD) X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.1 I3.2.4 Small Arms Range Surface Danger Zones X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.1 I3.2.5 AT/FP X 2 2‐5.2 D3.2.6 Electromagnetic Areas X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.1 I3.2.7 Enhanced Use Lease / PPV X 2 3‐5.6.1 I3.2.8 Encroachment X 2 2‐3.2, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.2 I3.2.9 Summary Man‐Made/Operational Constraints X Map summarizing key contraints. 3 3‐5.6 D

3.3 Utility Networks L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 D3.3.1 Energy ‐ Conventional L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I

3.3.1.1 Electric L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.1.2 Natural Gas L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.1.3 Steam L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.1.4 Advanced Metering / Smart Energy Infrastructure L 2‐2.11.1, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I

3.3.2 Energy ‐ Alternative L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.2.2 Wind L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.2.3 Solar L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.2.4 Hydro L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.2.5 Geothermal /Ground Source L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.2.6 Biomass L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I

3.3.3 Fiber Optics/Cable L 2 2‐8.2, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 D3.3.3.1 Communications Networks (phone, data) L 2 2‐8.2, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 D3.3.3.2 Security L 2 2‐8.2, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I

3.3.4 Storm Sewer L 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I3.3.5 Waste Water L 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.6 Water L 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.7 Summary Utilities Network X Map(s) summarizing key contraints. 3 3‐5.6 D

3.4 Transportation/Circulation Networks X 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 D3.4.1 Easement and Rights‐of‐Way X 2 2‐2.6, 3‐5.6.1 I3.4.2 Circulation and Parking X 2 2‐6.1, 3‐5.6.1 D3.4.3 Sidewalks, Trails X 2 2‐4.1, 2‐4.2 D3.4.4 Airfield Runways / Aprons / Taxiways X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I3.4.5 Piers / Wharves X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I3.4.6 Other Paved Areas X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I3.4.7 Federal Transit Services X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I3.4.8 Troop Movement Corridors X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I3.4.9 Summary Transporation/Circulation Networks X Map(s) summarizing key contraints. 3 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 D

3.5 Developable Areas Map X 3 2‐6, 3‐5.7 D

3.6 Sustainability Scorecard L Status on meeting sustainability mandates2‐2.7, 2‐2.8, 2‐2.11, 2‐2.12, 2‐2.13, 2‐

2.14I

3.7 Facility Condition and Requirements X 2

3.7.1 Facility Condition, Configuration, Capacity Summary X

Info graphics summaries based on analyis of data from FRES and iNFADS. Requirements analyis is contained within the Capacity summary.

2 3‐5.6.1.1 I

3.7.2 Major Shore Capability Area Summaries XSummaries as appropriate for IDP directly from FRES/iNFADS data pull to complete 3.7.2.x.

2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I

3.7.2.1 Airfield Ops L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.2 Base Support L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.3 C5ISR Ops L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.4 Expeditionary Ops L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.5 Inter/Depot Level Maint L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.6 Logistics & Supply L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.7 Ordnance/Weapons Ops L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.8 RDAT&E L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.9 Sailor & Family Readiness L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.10 Training L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.11 Utilities L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.12Waterfront Ops L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I

3.8 Future Development Summary Map X Map of existing known projects. 2 3‐5.9 D3.9 Regional and Community X 2 3‐5.6.2 D

3.9.1 Context X 2 3‐5.6.2 D3.9.2 Transportation X 2 3‐5.6.2 D3.9.3 Utilities X 2 3‐5.6.2 D3.9.4 Green Infrastructure L 2 3‐5.6.2 I

2

FINAL INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE • APPENDIX A 49


MUST HAVE NOTES



UFC

11/5/2013

4.0 Planning Analysis and COA Priorities4.1 Facility and Infrastructure Capability Gap Analysis X 4 2‐11.1 I4.2 Alternative Courses of Action (COAs) X 5 3‐6.1.3, 3‐6.1.4 D4.3 Impact Analysis/Risk Assessment X 5 2‐5.1, 2‐5.1.1 D4.4 Alignment with Stakeholder Strategic Guidance X 5 3‐3 D

5.0 Installation Development Plan5.1 Vision Plan X 2 3‐5.3 D

5.1.1 Vision Statement X 2 3‐5.3 D5.1.2 Planning Goals and Objectives X 2 3‐5.4, 3‐5.5 D5.1.3 Framework Plan ‐ Districts/Areas X 2/3 2‐7.1, 3‐5.8 D

5.2 Installation‐wide Development Plan X 6 3‐6 D5.2.1 Illustrative X 6 2‐9.1, 3‐6.4.1 D5.2.2 Land Use Plan X Installation‐wide scale. 2/6 2‐9.2, 3‐6.4.2 I

5.2.3 Circulation and Parking Plan X Includes roads, major sidewalks, bikeways, etc. 6 2‐4.1, 2‐4.2, 3‐6.4.3, 3‐6.4.4 D

5.2.4 Green Infrastructure X Openspace, parks, wetlands, riparian corridors, water bodies. 6 3‐6.4.5 D

5.2.5 Primary Utility Plans X 6 3‐6.4.6 D

5.2.6 Sustainability Development X Brief analysis with appendix material as appropriate and available. 6 3‐6.4 I

5.2.7.1 Air Quality L 6 3‐6.4 I5.2.7.2 Energy Use L 6 3‐6.4 I5.2.7.3 Renewable Energy L 6 3‐6.4 I5.2.7.4 Water Quality/Quantity L 6 3‐6.4 I5.2.7.5 Waste Reduction ‐ Non HAZ L 6 3‐6.4 I

5.2.7 Installation Future Development Plan Summary XSummary of IDP execution sequencing of Existing and Proposed Projects shown on a map.

6 3‐5.9 D

5.3 Area Development Plans X As prioritized and available. These could be district plans as well. 6‐May 2‐9, 3‐6.1 D

5.3.1 Area A X 5/65.3.1.1 ADP A Mission and Vision X 5/65.3.1.2 ADP A Planning Goals and Objectives X 5/65.3.1.3 ADP A Site Analysis Summary X 5/6 3‐6.1.1 I5.3.1.4 ADP A COAs / Preferred COA X 5/6 3‐6.1.2, 3‐6.1.3, 3‐6.1.4 D5.3.1.5 ADP A Illustrative Plan X 5/6 2‐9.1, 3‐6.1.7 D5.3.1.6 ADP A Land Use / Regulating Plan X 5/6 2‐9.2, 3‐6.1.6 D5.3.1.7 ADP A Circulation and Parking Plan X 5/6 3‐3.4 D5.3.1.8 ADP A Sidewalk and Bikeway Plan X 5/6 2‐4.1, 2‐4.2 D

5.3.1.9 ADP A Future Development Plan Summary X Summary of ADP execution sequencing of existing and proposed projects.

5/6 3‐5.9 D

5.3.1.10 ADP A Development Program Summary X Short, Mid and Long‐Range Development Program. 5/6 3‐8.1 D

5.3.1.11 ADP A‐Specific Planning and Design Standards X 5/6 3‐7 D5.3.2 Area B…n L 5/6

5.4 Installation Planning and Design Standards XIDP should reference IAP, BEAP or other avail design guide; otherwise summary/diagramatic only or address as appropriate to conform to UFC.

3‐7 D

5.4.1 Building Envelope Standards X 6 2‐9.3, 3‐7.1 D5.4.2 Street Standards X 6 2‐9.4, 3‐7.2 D5.4.3 Site Planning Guidelines L 65.4.4 Landscape Standards X 6 2‐9.5, 3‐7.3 D5.4.5 Signage / Wayfinding Guidelines L 65.4.6 Sustainability Guidelines L 6

5.5 Installation Development Program (Capital Investment Plan) X 6 3‐8 D5.5.1 Short‐Range Development Program X 6 3‐8 D

5.5.1.1 Military Construction X 6 3‐8 D5.5.1.2 Special Projects/SRM X 6 3‐8 D5.5.1.3 Demolition X 6 3‐8 D5.5.1.4 Utilities/Energy X 6 3‐8 D5.5.1.5 PPV X 6 3‐8 D5.5.1.6 EUL X 6 3‐8 D

5.5.2 Mid‐Range Development Program X 6 3‐8 D5.5.3 Long‐Range Development Program X 6 3‐8 D5.5.4 Development Phasing Summary Plan X 6 3‐8 D

6.0 Acronymn List 6

7.0 Appencices 67.1 Known Project List X 3‐8.1.2

7.1.1 Military Construction X 3‐8.1.27.1.2 Special Projects X 3‐8.1.2

7.2 Proposed Studies List X 3‐8.1.27.3 Other Studies, Plans, Reports, etc. that support the IDP X

KEY:X

L

These major sections should be required for each IDP. The sub‐sections will vary based on the installation, scope of work, and avaiable information. Generally, all 1st, 2nd and 3rd level sections are mandatory. 4th level sections will vary based on the installation.

Provide as available. No in‐depth analysis is required for high level master plan input. Reference subject‐specific studies, plans, and supporting documentation where appropriate and available. Provide summary maps where possible. Provide summary text that describes critical issues that may have an impact on the development and execution of the IDP.

3


MUST HAVE NOTES



UFC

11/5/2013

3.0 Planning Opportunities and Contraints

3.1 Natural, Environmental and Cultural Constraints X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D

3.1.1 Topography (Steep Slopes) X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D

3.1.2 Hydrology (Wetlands) X 2 2‐2.16, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D

3.1.3 Geology / Soils X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D3.1.4 Vegetation X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D3.1.5 Threatened and Endangered Species X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D

3.1.6 Historical and Archeological X 2 2‐3.3, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D

3.1.7 Climate and Environmental Influences L 2 3‐5.6.2.3 D3.1.7.1 Climate Change L 2 3‐5.6.2.3 I

3.1.7.1.1 Stom Surge L 2 3‐5.6.2.3 I3.1.7.1.2 Sea Level Rise L 2 3‐5.6.2.3 I

3.1.7.1.3 Flood Plain L 2 2‐2.16, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 D

3.1.7.2 Environmental Quality L 23.1.7.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions L 23.1.7.2.2 Contaminated Soils / IR L 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2.3 I

3.1.8 Summary Natural/Environmental/Cultural Constraints X Map summarizing key contraints. 3 3‐5.6, 3‐5.6.1.3 D3.2 Man‐Made / Operational Constraints X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.1 D

3.2.1 AICUZ / RAICUZ / APZ X 2 3‐5.6.1 I3.2.2 Existing Land Use Plan / Land Use Controls X 2 3‐5.6.1 D3.2.3 Ordnance Transportation and Storage (ESQD) X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.1 I3.2.4 Small Arms Range Surface Danger Zones X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.1 I3.2.5 AT/FP X 2 2‐5.2 D3.2.6 Electromagnetic Areas X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.1 I3.2.7 Enhanced Use Lease / PPV X 2 3‐5.6.1 I3.2.8 Encroachment X 2 2‐3.2, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.2 I3.2.9 Summary Man‐Made/Operational Constraints X Map summarizing key contraints. 3 3‐5.6 D

3.3 Utility Networks L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 D3.3.1 Energy ‐ Conventional L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I

3.3.1.1 Electric L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.1.2 Natural Gas L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.1.3 Steam L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.1.4 Advanced Metering / Smart Energy Infrastructure L 2‐2.11.1, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I

3.3.2 Energy ‐ Alternative L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.2.2 Wind L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.2.3 Solar L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.2.4 Hydro L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.2.5 Geothermal /Ground Source L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.2.6 Biomass L 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I

3.3.3 Fiber Optics/Cable L 2 2‐8.2, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 D3.3.3.1 Communications Networks (phone, data) L 2 2‐8.2, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 D3.3.3.2 Security L 2 2‐8.2, 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I

3.3.4 Storm Sewer L 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I3.3.5 Waste Water L 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.6 Water L 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3, 3‐5.6.2 I3.3.7 Summary Utilities Network X Map(s) summarizing key contraints. 3 3‐5.6 D

3.4 Transportation/Circulation Networks X 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 D3.4.1 Easement and Rights‐of‐Way X 2 2‐2.6, 3‐5.6.1 I3.4.2 Circulation and Parking X 2 2‐6.1, 3‐5.6.1 D3.4.3 Sidewalks, Trails X 2 2‐4.1, 2‐4.2 D3.4.4 Airfield Runways / Aprons / Taxiways X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I3.4.5 Piers / Wharves X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I3.4.6 Other Paved Areas X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I3.4.7 Federal Transit Services X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I3.4.8 Troop Movement Corridors X 2 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 I3.4.9 Summary Transporation/Circulation Networks X Map(s) summarizing key contraints. 3 3‐5.6.1, 3‐5.6.1.3 D

3.5 Developable Areas Map X 3 2‐6, 3‐5.7 D

3.6 Sustainability Scorecard L Status on meeting sustainability mandates2‐2.7, 2‐2.8, 2‐2.11, 2‐2.12, 2‐2.13, 2‐

2.14I

3.7 Facility Condition and Requirements X 2

3.7.1 Facility Condition, Configuration, Capacity Summary X

Info graphics summaries based on analyis of data from FRES and iNFADS. Requirements analyis is contained within the Capacity summary.

2 3‐5.6.1.1 I

3.7.2 Major Shore Capability Area Summaries XSummaries as appropriate for IDP directly from FRES/iNFADS data pull to complete 3.7.2.x.

2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I

3.7.2.1 Airfield Ops L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.2 Base Support L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.3 C5ISR Ops L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.4 Expeditionary Ops L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.5 Inter/Depot Level Maint L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.6 Logistics & Supply L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.7 Ordnance/Weapons Ops L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.8 RDAT&E L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.9 Sailor & Family Readiness L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.10 Training L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.11 Utilities L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I3.7.2.12Waterfront Ops L 2 3‐5.1, 3‐5.6.1 I

3.8 Future Development Summary Map X Map of existing known projects. 2 3‐5.9 D3.9 Regional and Community X 2 3‐5.6.2 D

3.9.1 Context X 2 3‐5.6.2 D3.9.2 Transportation X 2 3‐5.6.2 D3.9.3 Utilities X 2 3‐5.6.2 D3.9.4 Green Infrastructure L 2 3‐5.6.2 I

2

FINAL INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE • APPENDIX B 51

Appendix B – Introducing iNSIPP

V2.0 iNSIPP Intranet Navy Shore Infrastructure Planning Platform

Introducing the Future of Navy Planning…

iNSIPP (intranet Navy Shore Infrastructure Planning Platform) is a prototype planning application sponsored by NAVFAC and developed by AECOM For additional information, contact : Tracy Wang, NAVFAC Atlantic, Asset Management ([email protected])

Draft Version 2, September 2013

Core iNSIPP Concepts

Centralization & Standardization

of Information

Smart & Connected

Content

Geo-Integrated Documents &

Smart Maps

Smart Dashboards

& Infographics

Vertical and Horizontal Data Flow

Automation

Role-based Workflows & Governance Framework

Integrate standard templates and Consistency Guides for planning products applicable to installation, regional and global scales

Incorporate content types such as text, maps, photos, graphics, tables and charts linked to ‘live’ datasets, searchable keywords, meta-data and auto-update capability

Embed live GRX maps within documents and discover geo-tagged documents from within maps

Integrate well designed executive, analytical and informational dashboards linked to current and relevant planning information

Facilitate seamless flow of information between installation, region and global scales horizontally and vertically with automated ‘roll-up’ ability

Provide an effective workflow and role-based framework for review, assignment and editing of planning documents

1 2 3

4 5 6

iNSIPP Value Proposition

iNSIPP utilizes the core principles to streamline the production of planning products and facilitate better, more responsive and mission-aligned decisions. By using a ‘live’ and connected on-line document paradigm, iNSIPP allows more frequent and focused updates to planning products - improving work efficiency, less time on data gathering and more time on analysis and COAs*.

iNSIPP seeks to provide a common knowledge platform for the Navy Planning Community, facilitating templates, guidance, data and tools towards developing high value planning outcomes that help shape shore platform, operations, BOS and sustainment decision making.

Data Production

Data Intelligence

*Course of Action

V2.0 iNSIPP Intranet Navy Shore Infrastructure Planning Platform

Introducing the Future of Navy Planning…

iNSIPP (intranet Navy Shore Infrastructure Planning Platform) is a prototype planning application sponsored by NAVFAC and developed by AECOM For additional information, contact : Tracy Wang, NAVFAC Atlantic, Asset Management ([email protected])

Draft Version 2, September 2013

Core iNSIPP Concepts

Centralization & Standardization

of Information

Smart & Connected

Content

Geo-Integrated Documents &

Smart Maps

Smart Dashboards

& Infographics

Vertical and Horizontal Data Flow

Automation

Role-based Workflows & Governance Framework

Integrate standard templates and Consistency Guides for planning products applicable to installation, regional and global scales

Incorporate content types such as text, maps, photos, graphics, tables and charts linked to ‘live’ datasets, searchable keywords, meta-data and auto-update capability

Embed live GRX maps within documents and discover geo-tagged documents from within maps

Integrate well designed executive, analytical and informational dashboards linked to current and relevant planning information

Facilitate seamless flow of information between installation, region and global scales horizontally and vertically with automated ‘roll-up’ ability

Provide an effective workflow and role-based framework for review, assignment and editing of planning documents

1 2 3

4 5 6

iNSIPP Value Proposition

iNSIPP utilizes the core principles to streamline the production of planning products and facilitate better, more responsive and mission-aligned decisions. By using a ‘live’ and connected on-line document paradigm, iNSIPP allows more frequent and focused updates to planning products - improving work efficiency, less time on data gathering and more time on analysis and COAs*.

iNSIPP seeks to provide a common knowledge platform for the Navy Planning Community, facilitating templates, guidance, data and tools towards developing high value planning outcomes that help shape shore platform, operations, BOS and sustainment decision making.

Data Production

Data Intelligence

*Course of Action

APPENDIX B 52 • INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE F INAL

21st Century Navy Planning: CNIC, NAVFAC and the Navy Asset Management business line are seeking to enhance our planning agility and productivity by enhancing our planning data transparency, processes and decision outcomes for all Navy planning stakeholders through an online tool - intranet Navy Shore Infrastructure Planning Platform (iNSIPP).

Envisioned as a one-stop resource for reviewing, generating and updating a variety of planning products across the installation, regional, and global scales, iNSIPP seeks to facilitate via the latest technologies, the 21st century paradigm of data-driven, highly relevant and responsive, knowledge-centric electronic planning for the Navy Enterprise.

iNSIPP is currently under development as a prototype and will be implemented under NAVFAC eTools as a module under the GRX application.

Navy Planning Community

Key iNSIPP Features:

• One-stop access to Navy Planning related information

• Standardized templates for Installation, Regional, and Global planning documents, maps and data

• Executive dashboards linked to enterprise information supporting planning efforts

• Rapid updates to “live” planning documents

• Integrated with GRX maps and data

• Integrated document and content management

• Role-based review and editing

• Integrated Course of Action (COA) database to track and align COAs at Installation, Region and GSIP levels.

• GIS-based toolsets for scenario planning and analysis

• Sustainability tracking tools

ASSET LIBRARY

FORUMS / TRAINING

GEOSPATIAL MAPPING iNSIPP

Navy Leadership

People

Process Technology

DOCUMENT ENGINE

DASHBOARDS

CPU

LIBRARY & TOOLS MODULE

FINAL INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE • APPENDIX C 53

Appendix C – Strategic Guidance Resources

• Unified Facility Criteria (UFC): UFC 2-100-01 Installation Master Planning, May 12, 2012

• Business Management System (BMS) B-2.2.1 Regional Shore Infrastructure Planning (RSIP), 18 September 2008

• Business Management System (BMS) B-2.2.2 Shore Infrastructure Planning (SIP) Visioning, 26 October 2007

• Business Management System (BMS) B-2.2.3 Global Shore Infrastructure Planning (GSIP), 15 October 2007

• Business Management System (BMS) B-2.2.8 Comprehensive Installation Master Plan, 20 October 2010

• Department of the Navy Correspondence Manual, SECNAV 5216.5

• DOD Instruction 4165.70, Real Property Management, 6 April 2005

• DOD Instruction 4170.11, Installation Energy Management, 11 December 2009

• MILCON/SP Warn Ord and scoring matrix

• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2003 with revisions 1 and 2 http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2003r1r2.htm

• NAVFACINST 11010.45 Various topics

• NAVFAC P-72 Department of the Navy Facility Category Codes

• NAVFAC P-78 Real property Inventory (RPI) Procedures Manual

• NAVFAC P-80.3 App E. Airfield Safety Clearances, Jan 82

• Navy Ashore Vision 2030 & 2035 (draft)

• NAVSEA OP 5, Volume 1, Ammunition and Explosives Safety (latest revision)

• Professional Services Guide (July 2004 Edition) https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page?_pageid=181,3458211&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

• Shore Facilities Planning System (SFPS) Guidebook, 09 October 2009

• The Undersecretary of Defense May 28, 2013 Memorandum on Installation Master Planning UFC 2-000-02AN Installation Master Planning (03-01-2005), http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_2_000_02an.pdf

• UFC 2-000-05N Facility Planning for Navy and Marine Corps Shore Installations (formerly known as P-80)

• UFC 3-210-10, Low Impact Development

• UFC 3-260-01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design

• UFC 4-101-01, DOD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards of Buildings

• Other Government documents, drawings and regulations:

- Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Standard for Department of Defense Facilities, http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/aba-standards-dod.cfm#blocks, (replaces UFAS and ADA)

- Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 438, December 2007

- Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 24 May 1977

- Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 24 May 1977

- Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, 24 January 2007

- Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, 5 October 2009

- National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 1 January 1970

- National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC, 470)

FINAL INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE • APPENDIX D 55

Appendix D - Typical Installation Data

Typical Government Furnished Information (GFI)

• Installation Organization Chart and Mission

• Installation population data (Base Loading)

• Installation phone book

• List of Tenants or Tenant Commands

• Where available; MOU’s for space provisions (tenant organizations)

• Where available; Inter/ Intra-service support agreements

• Current Capital Improvements Plan/Project list

• Current MCON Project Data Sheets/1391s

• Current BFR/iNFADS Data

• Updated/Recent Area Improvement Plans

• Existing Maintenance and Repair Projects

• GIS information and shape files

• Existing Facility Building floor plans and base mapping

• Where available; Recent Building/Facilities Assessment

• Where available; Pollution Prevention Plan

• Where available; Solid Waste Management Report

• Where available; Naval Installation Restoration Program Study

• Explosives data

• Hazardous Material storage facility listing

• Where available; Electromagnetic Radiation Survey data

• Where available; Energy Conservation Plan

• Available Utilities data: maps, owners, restrictions

GIS Data Layers

The GeoReadiness Center (GRC) is the single, authoritative source and distribution point for all geospatial facility data. The GRC houses the most current geospatial information and provides access to the comprehensive data set and analysis tools to Regional and DOD decision makers/managers, sponsored contractors, and other sponsored individuals via a secure government Internet site. GIS data deliverable specifications address file naming conventions, metadata, data collection procedures, QA/QC standards, and geodatabase requirements and shall be adhered to in the development of project mapping.

• Airfield Constraints

• AT/FP Restrictions

• Quantity-Distance Arcs (Munitions Safety)

• Noise Contours

• Safety Buffers (setbacks required)

• Former Firing Ranges and Impact Areas

• Impact Areas (dudded and non-dudded)

APPENDIX D 56 • INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE F INAL

• Chemical Storage/Pesticide Areas

• Topography

• Wetlands

• Threatened/Endangered Species Habitat

• Protected Natural/Cultural Areas or Protected Sites

• Floodplains

• Soil Restrictions

• Environmental Contamination

• Desirable and undesirable land use features off the installation

• Landfills

• Historic Districts

• Transportation Systems (roadways, sidewalks, trails, transit routes and stops)

• Open Space Systems

• Utility Systems

• Encroachment Areas

• Areas Proposed for Disposal/Deconstruction

• Pesticide-Sensitive Application Facilities and Areas

• Surface and Subsurface Hazardous Material Storage

• Existing Facility Assessment

• Future Development

• In/Out Grants

• Overall Real Estate boundaries (borders, easements, etc.)

• Access Control Points

• Open and Closed IRPs

• High Resolution Aerial Photography/ LIDAR Contour Mapping

FINAL INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE • APPENDIX E 57

Appendix E - Typical Off-installation Data Sources

• Federal Agencies, including the Census Bureau, National Weather Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.

• State and County Departments, including Highways and Transportation, Natural Resources and Conservation, Fish and Wildlife, Planning and Community Affairs, Housing, Public Health, Environmental Policy, State Historic Preservation Officers/Offices, etc.

• Local Government Offices, including City Hall, Public Works, Planning, Public Health, Parks and Recreation, School Districts, Fire and Police Departments, etc.

• Other Local Agencies, including Utilities and Power Companies, Chamber of Commerce, Regional Planning Agencies, etc.

FINAL INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE • APPENDIX F 59

Appendix F - Acronyms

Acronym Definition

ADP Area Development PlanAE Asset EvaluationAICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use ZoneAPZ Accident Potential ZoneAT/FP Anti-Terrorism Force ProtectionBEAP Base Exterior Architecture PlanBFR Basic Facility RequirementsC5ISR Command Control Communications Computers Combat Systems Intelligence Surveillance and ReconnaissanceCADD Computer Aided Design and DraftingCIP Capital Investment PlanCNIC Commander, Navy Installations CommandCNO Chief of Naval OperationsCO Commanding OfficerCOA Course of ActionCONOPS Concept of Operations CPLO Community Plans and Liaison OfficerDeCA Defense Commissary Agency DOD Department of DefenseDON Department of the NavyEAP Encroachment Action PlanEPG Electronic Project GeneratorESQD Explosive Safety Quantity DistanceEUL Enhanced Use LeasingFCAP Facility Condition Assessment Program FPD Facility Planning DocumentFRES Facility Readiness Evaluation SystemFYDP Fiscal Year Development ProgramGIF Graphics Interchange Format bitmap image file formatGIS Geographic Information System GRC GeoReadiness CenterGSIP Global Shore Infrastructure PlanHERF Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to FuelsHERO Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to OrdnanceHERP Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to PeopleIAP Installation Appearance PlanICO Installation Commanding Officer IDP Installation Development PlanIFOM Installation Figure of MeritIMIG Installation Mission Integration GroupiNFADS internet Navy Facility Assets Data StoreiNSIPP intranet Navy Shore Infrastructure Planning Platform (future)IPL Integrated Priority ListIR Installation Restoration LIDAR Light Detection and RangingMCCS Marine Corps Community ServicesMDI Mission Dependency Index

APPENDIX F 60 • INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY GUIDE F INAL

MFH Military Family HousingMILCON Military ConstructionMWR Morale Welfare and RecreationNAF Non-appropriated FundsNAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering CommandNAV2030 Navy Ashore Vision 2030NE Naval EnterpriseNEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969NEX Naval Exchange O&M Operations and MaintenanceOPM Other People’s MoneyPNG Portable Network Graphics bitmap image file formatPOC Point of ContactPOM Program Objective MemorandumPPV Public-Private VenturePRC Property Record CardPRV Plant Replacement ValueQDR Quadrennial Defense ReviewRDAT&E Research, Development, Acquisition, Test, & EvaluationRIMP Regional Integration Master Plan ProgramRIP Regional Integration Plan RMIG Regional Mission Integration GroupRSIP Regional Shore Infrastructure PlanSCA Shore Capability AreaSF Square FeetSFIM Shore Facility Investment ModelSFPS Shore Facilities Planning System SIP Shore Infrastructure PlanSME Subject Matter ExpertSMIG Shore Mission Integration GroupSP Special ProgramsSRM Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization TIFF Tagged Image File formatTOC Table of ContentsUFC Unified Facilities CriteriaUMC-MCON Unspecified Military Construction-MILCONWEFO Warfare Enterprise Flag Officer WEAO Warfare Enterprise Action Officer WE/P Warfare Enterprise/Provider

MA

ST

ER

PL

AN

CONSISTENCY GUIDE · The Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics,...

Documents

Transcript of CONSISTENCY GUIDE · The Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics,...