State Policy Options in Sustaining Military Installations · State Policy Options in Sustaining Military Installations . PreParing for Duty State Policy Options in Sustaining Military

PreParing for Duty

State Policy Options in Sustaining Military Installations

PreParing for Duty State Policy Options in Sustaining Military Installations

By Alice Wheet and Jennifer Schultz

With Support from the U.S. Department of Defense

William T. PoundExecutive Director

7700 East First PlaceDenver, Colorado 80230

(303) 364-7700

444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 624-5400

www.ncsl.org

October 2013

Printed on recycled paper.© 2013 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved.

ISBN 978-1-58024-707-8

The National Conference of State Legislatures is the bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the states, commonwealths and territories.

NCSL provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues and is an effective and respected advocate for the interests of the states in the American federal system. Its objectives are:

• Toimprovethequalityandeffectivenessofstatelegislatures.

• Topromotepolicyinnovationandcommunicationamongstatelegislatures.

• Toensurestatelegislaturesastrong,cohesivevoiceinthefederalsystem.

The Conference operates from offices in Denver, Colo., and Washington, D.C.

National Conference of State Legislatures | iii

Preparing for Duty: State Policy Options in Sustaining Military Installations

Contents

List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................v

Dedication ..................................................................................................................................................................vi

Key Acronyms .............................................................................................................................................................vi

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................1

Military Installations in the States ................................................................................................................................1

The Military’s Evolving Context ...................................................................................................................................3

Federal Defense Cuts and Effects on States ...............................................................................................................3

Base Realignment and Closure .................................................................................................................................3

State Role in Managing Military Operations ................................................................................................................4

Encroachment and Compatible Land Use ....................................................................................................................5

Effects on Military Missions .....................................................................................................................................5

ConsequencesforSurroundingCommunities ..........................................................................................................6

Importance of Action ...................................................................................................................................................6

Federal Roles ............................................................................................................................................................6

State Roles ................................................................................................................................................................7

NCSL Task Force on Military and Veterans Affairs ...............................................................................................7

State Policy Options .....................................................................................................................................................8

Military Advisory Bodies ..........................................................................................................................................8

Case Study: Maryland Military Installation Council ..............................................................................................9

Case Study: Florida Defense Support Task Force .................................................................................................10

Commanders’ Councils ..........................................................................................................................................11

Funding Programs to Preserve or Enhance the Value of Military Installations .........................................................11

Grant Programs ..................................................................................................................................................12

Zone Programs ...................................................................................................................................................12

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................................13

Land Use Planning .................................................................................................................................................13

Enhanced Communication and Notification ......................................................................................................13

Incorporating Military Installations into Local Land Use Plans ..........................................................................14

RequiringCompatibleLandUse ........................................................................................................................15

Protecting Land Near Military Bases through Formal Designation .....................................................................16

National Conference of State Legislatures | iv


Land Conservation .................................................................................................................................................17

Purchasing Land or Development Rights ...........................................................................................................17

Exchanging Land................................................................................................................................................18

Conservation Easements .....................................................................................................................................19

Reducing Light Pollution .......................................................................................................................................19

Limiting Noise Impacts from Military Activities on Surrounding Communities .....................................................20

Real Estate Disclosure ............................................................................................................................................21

Other Comprehensive State Policies .......................................................................................................................21

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................22

Appendices

A. State Agencies and Military Installations ...............................................................................................................23

B. Adjutants General Terms and Qualifications .........................................................................................................34

C. State Military Advisory Bodies ..............................................................................................................................44

D. State Grant Programs to Preserve or Enhance the Value of Installations ................................................................47

E. State Land Use Planning and Conservation Laws ..................................................................................................50

Notes .........................................................................................................................................................................52

List of Figures

1. Military Presence – Number of Military Installations ...............................................................................................1

2. Military Advisory Bodies by Means of Authorization................................................................................................8

3. Funding Programs to Preserve or Enhance the Value of Military Installations .........................................................11

4. Enhanced Communication and Notification Laws .................................................................................................14

5.LandUsePlanningandCompatibleLandUseRequirements .................................................................................15

6. Military Land Conservation Laws ..........................................................................................................................18

7. Laws to Reduce Light Pollution ..............................................................................................................................20

National Conference of State Legislatures | v


Acknowledgments

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) first and foremost thanks the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) for the support that made this report possible, and its continued relationship with NCSL to provide information to state legislatures about issues affecting military installations and surrounding communities.

The authors also wish to thank members of the NCSL Task Force on Military and Veterans Affairs, who provided valuable insight and information that contributed to the content of this report. Created in 2009, the task force exists to examine issues that affect military-community relations and the health and well-being of veterans. We also thank these state legislators and legislative staff for their dedicated work throughout the years to explore a broad range of state policy issues related to the ever-growing challenges facing today’s military installations, personnel, veterans and their dependents.

We extend our gratitude to the many other experts who provided interviews and quotes and offered unique insights into policy developments in the states. Too numerous to name here, the contributions of these military officials, state agency officials, and other state legislators and legislative staff vastly strengthened the final report.

The report also benefited immensely from the continuous contributions and suggestions provided to NCSL from its partners that are working on military installation sustainability issues nationwide. Jaime Uss Simon, program manager for the Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources’ Military Sustainability Program—supporting DoD’s Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (REPI) program—and Michael Behm, senior vice president of Stateside Associates and vice president of the NCSL Foundation for State Legislatures, have provided valuable support and expertise on the wide range of NCSL’s military research and activities of the task force. Also notable, Gary Willis and Cyrena Eitler of the DoD Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) have collaborated with NCSL to help members of the task force remain current on defense program changes and options available to states. NCSL is grateful for their careful review of this report.

Finally, thanks go to NCSL staff who helped with research, review and editing of this report. We thank research analyst Mindy Bridges for offering her expertise on land conservation. We also thank research analyst Jocelyn Durkay for her assistance in the early stages of research and writing. Environment, Energy and Transportation group director Jim Reed and senior policy specialist Brooke Oleen provided valuable guidance and expertise during the entire research, writing and publication process.

National Conference of State Legislatures | vi


Dedication

NCSL expresses sorrow and offers condolences for the untimely passing of DUSD I&E program director Nancy Natoli. As program director of the REPI program, Ms. Natoli worked passionately and tirelessly to support state and local efforts to preserve compatible land uses and sustain wildlife habitat near military bases. She strongly supported the work of the NCSL Task Force on Military and Veterans Affairs, and is greatly missed. This report is dedicated to her memory.

Key AcronymsBRAC Base Realignment and Closure

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DoD U.S. Department of Defense

DUSD I&E Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Installations and Environment

JLUS Joint Land Use Study

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NCSL National Conference of State Legislatures

OEA Office of Economic Adjustment

REPI Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration

VA U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

National Conference of State Legislatures | 1


Introduction

At least 1.2 million people currently are serving in the U.S. armed forces, more than 23 million are veterans and more than 250 military installations exist in 47 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico. U.S. military opera-tions touch every state in some way, and state legislatures are playing an increasingly substantial role in military issues.

Military installations—which may also be referred to as bases, camps, posts, stations, yards or centers—are facilities that sustain the presence of U.S. forces at home and abroad.1 Installations located within the United States and their surrounding environments are used to support, train, develop and deploy troops as well as to support maintenance and deployment of weapon systems to meet the nation’s military needs. Installations ensure both productive combat forces and a decent quality of life for military service members and families by providing safe environments, including suitable housing, health care, child care and on-base education. These components of daily living are connected to the quality and condition of military base buildings, facilities, workforces and associated environments. State legislatures have an important role in managing relations between existing military installations and surrounding communities, especially in regard to issues related to military base or mission change, growing local development and incompatible land uses that may threaten the future viability of the military presence.

This report—produced by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) with support from the U.S. Depart-ment of Defense (DoD)—aims to provide state legislatures with an overview of state responsibilities and related policy options concerning military affairs and state and local relationships with military installations. The report is a synthesis of original, in-depth legal and legislative research; interviews with state legislators, legislative staff and other key state of-ficials; and other research. The focus throughout the report is on state-level activities—especially those created through statute, regulation or legislation—to ensure a suitable environment for military installations to carry out their missions and sustain the presence of U.S. forces at home and abroad.

Military Installations in the StatesAll but three states (Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont) have military installations located within their boundaries (Figure 1). The states with the most installations are California (30 installations), Florida (16 installations), Geor-gia (10 installations), Maryland (10 installa-tions), Texas (17 installations) and Virginia (20 installations).2 In addition, of the 1.2 million active duty personnel stationed in the United States in 2011, almost half were located in five states (California, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia).3 (Appendix A contains a 50-state matrix with installation and popula-tion facts for each state).

Military installations located in the states pro-vide more than the traditional role of train-ing troops and protecting national security.

1-23-56-910-1920-300

Figure 1. Military Presence – Number of Military Installations

Source: NCSL, 2013.

DC

Puerto Rico

U.S. Virgin IslandsGuamNorthern Mariana Islands

American Samoa



Military bases can directly and indirectly create employment opportunities and other economic activity. In addition to employing active duty personnel, military contracting provides jobs in a variety of sectors, while service members and their families support local communities by purchasing goods and services. Pensions and other benefits also provide retirees and dependents with a reliable source of income.4 A 2008 study commissioned by the Arizona Department of Commerce noted that “military operations . . . represent a substantial and valuable industry in the [s]tate that should be recognized and listed among the [s]tate’s most important sources of economic activity.”5 When reflecting on the 2013 Texas legislative session, Representative Dan Flynn (R)—chair of the House Select Committee on Transpar-ency in State Government Operations, senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee and co-chair of the NCSL Task Force on Military and Veterans Affairs—commented that, “[sustaining] military installations. . . was vitally important because of their large economic impact as a source of jobs, security and their interdependence with the communities that surround them.”6

A number of states have commissioned economic impact studies to measure direct and indirect effects of military pres-ence on a state’s economy.7 Impacts include salaries and benefits paid to military employees and retirees, contracts, other military spending and business activity supported by military operations. In addition, some studies include Tricare (the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) health care program for military veterans), other military health care expenditures and military impact aid, which is funding for local schools to offset the enrollment of children of military personnel assigned to the state.

Most of these studies have concluded that military bases support a large number of civilian jobs and economic output. For example, in Massachusetts in FY 2011, military installations employed 14,645 active, reserve and guard military and civilian personnel, while more than 31,900 other jobs were supported by spending on daily operations, construction and contracts of the installations, as well as spending by military and civilian personnel.8 In Oklahoma, the total military payroll was greater than $3 billion in FY 2010, accounting for nearly 5 percent of total wage and salary disbursements in the state.9 A 2004 study by the Washington Office of Financial Management found that sales by Washington companies to local military bases totaled $528 million per year. Forty-four of these companies derive all their business from military bases, and 30 others get more than half of their business from the bases.10



The Military’s Evolving ContextThe economic benefits created by military installations are susceptible to changes at both the federal and local levels. While states previously have had the pleasure of working to accommodate military installations in a period of military expansionandgrowth,recenteventssuchasthedrawdownoftroopsinIraqandAfghanistan,federalbudgetcuts,andpotential future rounds of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program have left both state and federal offi-cials with a significant degree of uncertainty regarding the future role and sustainability of military installations. These broader trends have been a driving force behind some states’ decisions to commission studies of military presence and to define what activity and infrastructure exists in the state in order to defend their installations and plan for any future growth or restructuring.11

Federal Defense Cuts and Effects on StatesInAugust2011,CongresspassedtheBudgetControlAct,whichcontainedprovisionsknownas“sequestration.”Oneintent of the law was to reduce the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion over nine years, which—if another deficit reduction agreement could not be made—would be accomplished by indiscriminate cuts to defense and non-defense discretionary spending. Because Congress failed to reach an alternative deficit reduction agreement in the fall of 2012, $85 billion in sequestrationcutsforFY2013beganMarch1,2013,splitevenlybetweendefenseandnondefensespending.12

WhiledealingwithambiguityoversequestrationandwhetherCongresswouldpassacontinuingresolution(CR—acontinuation of current funding levels) for FY 2014, DoD officials have made a number of deep cuts to programs and implemented civilian employee furloughs and hiring freezes. The vagueness of future funding for defense programs has hamperedthemilitary’slong-termplanningforcontractsspendingandacquisitions.Italsoaffectsinstallations’abilityto train soldiers and maintain readiness (a term used by the military community to describe the preparedness of troops for combat).13

Although cuts in defense spending are indirect, they are likely to affect state economies, especially in states that have many military bases and personnel or otherwise rely heavily on defense expenditures. In the Spring 2013 NCSL State Budget Update, states overwhelmingly reported that defense-related furloughs, layoffs and other personnel issues were a source of great concern because they are likely to directly affect state revenues. “For example, Hawaii officials noted that wage reductions to defense and contract personnel will result in a loss of business activity and related tax collections.”14 States also reported concern about reductions to defense-related industries and procurement. Other potential impacts include the ability of the National Guard to mobilize in a timely fashion (reported by Mississippi and Pennsylvania) and the fact that states would need to use own-source funds to offset defense spending reductions (reported by Idaho and Montana).15

Base Realignment and Closure Another risk to military presence for states to consider is the federal Base Realignment and Closure process, a principal method used by DoD to reduce excess infrastructure and realign—to add to or remove a significant number of person-nel from—bases to meet changes in the size or structure of its forces.16 State economies can suffer if bases close but, on the other hand, state economies are likely to gain where military personnel are transferred. When a base is closed or realigned to relocate missions, operations and training to other bases, the reduction in military activity can lead to a con-siderable loss of jobs and tax revenue, which may cause states and communities to identify and implement strategies to stimulate new economic activity. When a base closes, communities also must decide how to repurpose or redevelop the area.17 Conversely, a realignment that increases military operations and adds personnel to a base—referred to by DoD as “mission growth”—can generate additional economic activity, but can also strain public infrastructure when it becomes necessary to accommodate the population growth caused by military personnel and their families.18



The current BRAC process dates to 1988, when a congressional measure supported by the Reagan administration called for an independent bipartisan commission that would create BRAC recommendations aimed at improving military capability.19 Under the measure, a list of base closures and realignments would be approved or rejected by both the presi-dentandCongress.TheDefenseBaseClosureandRealignmentActof1990amendedthelawtorequireDoDtoprovidean initial base closure list from which the independent panel would begin its selection process.

Althoughprocedureshavechanged,the1990law,assubsequentlyamended,hasgovernedtheBRACprocesssinceitsenactment. BRAC rounds were completed in 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995 and 2005 under its provisions; the 2005 BRAC round ended in 2011.20 BRAC 2005 made an unprecedented amount of changes, totaling 22 major closures and 33 major realignments. The changes were estimated to save $35.6 billion, although a 2012 GAO report estimates that cost savings will not be fully realized until 2018.21 In March 2012, the deputy under secretary of defense (Installations and Environment) testified in a congressional hearing that BRAC 2005 reduced capacity by 3 percent, leaving roughly 20 percentexcesscapacitybasedon2004estimates.DoDrequestedtwomoreroundsofBRACfor2013and2015basedon these conclusions.22

While a proposal for a BRAC round was included in DoD’s FY 2013 budget, it was not approved by Congress, and federal lawmakers have already expressed hesitation to approve the politically unpopular process in 2015. However, DoD officials have reportedly expressed the intent to use other administrative means to downsize domestic military facilities in order to maintain fiscal solvency.23

State Role in Managing Military Operations Whilestatesmustbeconstantlyawareofchangesatthefederallevel,theyalsohaveauniqueroleinmilitaryadministra-tion. As a function of the executive branch, state military departments are used to maintain a reserve of state troops that alsotrainatfederalinstallations.TheNationalGuard,auniquestate-basedmilitaryforce,issharedbystatesandthefed-eral government. Representing 38 percent of the total U.S. military force structure with more than 458,000 personnel, states can access their state-based National Guard for either a state purpose or for a combined state and federal purpose.24 Unlike the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine and Coast Guard active duty and reserves—which are federal military forces completely managed by the federal government—a state National Guard can be activated and deployed as authorized in the state constitution and statutes, using state funds.25

In more than half the states and territories, the state military department is responsible for the state’s emergency manage-ment functions and for administering DoD funding and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants.26 Governors, as commanders-in-chief, can activate and deploy the National Guard in response to state and local emergencies such as floods,earthquakes,wildfiresandothernaturaldisasters,orinresponsetoman-madeemergencies,includingriotsorterrorist attacks.27

The governor delegates authority for carrying out state active-duty missions to the adjutant general. As the head of the state military department, the adjutant general also acts as the governor’s designated homeland security advisor in many cases.28 Adjutants general usually serve a term concurrent with the term of the appointing governor and typically are the seniormilitaryofficialinthestateorterritory,althoughspecifictermsandqualificationsaresetbythelegislatureandvary by state.29(AppendixBcontainsstate-by-statedetailsonadjutantgeneraltermsandqualifications.)Theadjutantgeneral can call state National Guard members to state active duty and assign tasks as permitted by state law.30



Encroachment and Compatible Land UseGiven all the benefits and close connections of military installations to the states, states may wish to protect military bases by ensuring a suitable environment for their preservation. DoD relies on access to land, airspace, sea space and frequencyspectrum(oflight,soundandtelecommunications)toprovideitsforcesarealistictrainingenvironmentthatwill prepare them to face combat and complex missions around the globe.31 For this reason, many military installations were strategically built in relatively isolated locations, surrounded by agricultural or other undeveloped land, which al-lowedaccommodationofevolvingmissionrequirementswith few constraints.32

Following World War II, however, both people and businesses began moving closer to installations to take advantage of job opportunities and to provide the goods and services needed to support the installations’ operations.33 As communities developed, they increasingly grew closer to once-isolated military installations, challenging the military’s access to valu-able resources and leading to conflicts over competing land uses. According to a June 2002 GAO report, 80 percent of military installations were located in areas that were growing faster than the national average.34

The term “encroachment” is used to describe the cumulative effect of incompatible development near military installa-tions and the expansion of military operations into civilian areas. Encroachment can take many forms. From DoD’s per-spective, activities in surrounding communities can, for example, restrict use of military training areas, present obstacles tolow-flyingaircraft,interferewithnighttrainingthroughlightpollutionanddegradecommunicationfrequencies.35 On the other hand, military operations can create intense noise in nearby communities, threaten public safety, contami-nate the environment, endanger protected species, and stress public infrastructure and services.36 These potentially com-peting interests can jeopardize the military’s ability to carry out its mission and could lead to closure of an installation, a likely unfavorable result for both parties.

Effects on Military MissionsThe guiding principle behind military readiness is the idea that forces need to train as they fight. It is not surprising, then, that training ranges are one of the most valued assets in preparing military forces for their missions.37 Training ranges encompass all the terrain, land cover and climate conditions that military personnel and weapon systems may encounter during deployment: deserts, mountains, coastal areas, urban areas, swamps, forests, plains and water.38 These realistic ranges enable development of tactics and allow for weapons system testing, leading to increased combat surviv-ability and success.39

Maintaining the capacity of military installations is vital to the preservation of national security. However, civilian en-croachment on military bases and associated training ranges, and on the access corridors that connect them, is making it difficult for the military to operate effectively.40 DoD recognizes encroachment as a serious and growing problem for the sustainability of its domestic military installations.41 The agency has identified several encroachment issues that affect or have the potential to affect military training and readiness. These include:

• Airspace and land restrictions,• Airborne noise,• Urban growth,• Spectrum encroachment,• Endangered species and critical habitat,42

• Air,• Water,• Cultural resources, • Unexploded weapons and munitions,• Marine resources, • Energy compatibility and availability,



• Security, and• Climate change and natural factors.43

Wheneverpossible,themilitaryworksaroundtheseissuesbymodifyingthetrainingtiming,tempo,locationandequip-ment.44 For example, the military may limit night-time artillery practice to reduce noise or change flight paths to reduce the risk of accidents over residential areas. However, these “workarounds” are becoming increasingly difficult and costly, which has contributed to elimination of training activities in many locations.

Consequences for Surrounding Communities In addition to civilian development moving closer to military installations, installations may grow in terms of the size of forces,theintensityandfrequencyoftrainingexercises,ortheacreageoftheproperty.45 Changes to operations at instal-lations can create significant challenges for communities that previously had coexisted with their military neighbors for years.

As much as local residents value the economic benefits of having a military installation in their community, they also may be concerned about the negative effects of military operations, including noise, accidents, contamination, and stress on public infrastructure and services. Noise and safety concerns have long been recognized as an encroachment of the military on nearby communities.46 For example, low flying military aircraft create the potential for both noise and ac-cidents during take-off, landing and training exercises.47 Likewise, ground-training exercises, such as artillery fire and bomb tests, generate impact noise that can adversely affect nearby residents. Contamination of the air and public water supply is another concern of residents who live in close proximity to a military installation. Water pollution can occur when contaminants from explosives or other toxic chemicals on military lands end up in streams or seep into under-groundaquifers.48Smokeanddustgeneratedbyaircraftandotherequipmentalsocandegradeairqualitywellbeyondthe borders of military land. Finally, when a military installation grows, local communities may be faced with increased stress on public infrastructure and services, including transportation, health systems, wastewater treatment, housing and schools.49

Importance of ActionThe effects of encroachment on both military installations and surrounding communities will almost certainly become more serious if left unattended. Ultimately, military installations may be forced to close if unchecked growth compro-mises training exercises beyond sustainable levels. While many federal agencies and programs provide assistance to states and installations that are working to maintain readiness, the responsibility for managing community growth and devel-opment rests with state and local governments that exercise land use authority.

Federal RolesIn recent years, DoD has become increasingly concerned about the effects of encroachment on its ability to maintain readiness, and has implemented a variety of programs to help states, installations and surrounding communities address and manage these effects. Working with communities since 1961, the Department of Defense Office of Economic Ad-justment (OEA) has helped communities in all 50 states and major U.S. territories develop comprehensive strategies to adjust to defense industry cutbacks, base closures, force structure realignments, base expansion, and incompatibilities between military operations and local development.50 OEA is the only DoD entity that provides funding to states and localities to undertake compatible land use planning through the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) program.51 Created in 1985, the program provides both federal grant funds and technical assistance to bring communities and the military together to study and recommend land use policies designed to balance community and military needs and to make



changes that allow an installation’s mission to continue. Through the JLUS program, state and local governments have developedtools,techniquesandcollaborativeeffortsthathaveprovensuccessfulforcommunitiestominimizeincom-patible civilian development near military operations.52 A broad overview of these community tools and strategies is provided in the Practical Guide to Compatible Civilian Development Near Military Installations, a resource document pro-duced by OEA for state and local governments.53 OEA also provides other grants in the form of “economic adjustment assistance related to establishment, expansion, realignment, or closure of a military base.” 54

TheReadinessandEnvironmentalProtectionIntegration(REPI)isauniqueprogramcreatedbythe2003NationalDefense Authorization Act that authorizes DoD to partner with states, local governments and nongovernmental orga-nizationssuchasprivateconservationgroups.REPIallowsthesestakeholderstosharecostsofacquiringconservationeasements and other land interests to create buffer areas around military installations while simultaneously preserving wildlife habitats where the military tests and trains.55 REPI received a $54 million congressional appropriation in FY 2012, $33 million of which was used directly to support land projects.56 State and local funding and contributions from private sources such as the Nature Conservancy also pay for land transactions. Approximately 270,000 acres at 66 loca-tions in 24 states have been protected under this program.57

State RolesEven though military installations are federally owned and operated, state legislatures can help to minimize conflict be-tween bases and communities. An increasing number of state legislatures have recognized the importance of preventing encroachment and incompatible land uses. In addition to sustaining the mission and operations of military installations to prepare troops for combat, states have recognized that active military bases also can help sustain neighboring com-munities, local economies, and critical animal and plant habitats. Legislation enacted during the past several years has aimed to protect not only the missions of military installations, but also the well-being of surrounding communities.

NCSL Task Force on Military and Veterans Affairs. Auniquetaskforceofstatelegislatorsandlegislativestaffwascreated in 2009 to examine these and other issues that affect both military-community relations and the health and well-being of veterans. The NCSL Task Force on Military and Veterans Affairs, which currently includes more than 50 members representing 25 states, is a function of the NCSL Executive Committee that meets several times each year to study military and veterans’ issues of great importance to states. Members of the task force, as well as outside partners, frequentlynotetheimportanceoftheNCSLTaskForceonMilitaryandVeteransAffairsasanimportantvehicletoenable state legislators to competently and knowledgeably take up these issues in their home states by introducing and enacting legislation.58 According to Representative Tim Moore (R), “[Kentucky] is honored to be the home of both Fort Knox and Fort Campbell, as well as servicemen and women from every branch of the Armed Forces. NCSL and its Task Force have been instrumental in offering initiatives to keep this tremendous partnership vibrant and mutually beneficial.”59

The task force has developed policy resolutions that have been passed by NCSL’s various committees—which NCSL uses in its Washington, D.C.-based office to represent the cohesive voice of the states in the federal system—on a range of issues of relevance to DoD and its concern of encroachment. These include resolutions to support a funding increase for REPI; clarify and support the use of DoD matching funds; support a permanent tax deduction for conservation ease-ments; and support the federal Farmland Protection Program. The task force also has co-published a number of reports and primers on military installation sustainability issues and has hosted installation and range tours at bases around the country to raise awareness among state legislators about these issues.



State Policy OptionsThe remaining sections of this report cover a wide range of policy options that state legislatures might consider to sup-port military-community cooperation and to address encroachment and compatible land use issues, as well as other ef-fects due to changes to military installations, such as BRAC. Many of these options have been examined in great depth by the NCSL Task Force on Military and Veterans Affairs, while others have been considered by a significant number of states across the country. When possible, perspectives of bill sponsors, legislative staff, or other key state officials or stakeholders are included.

Military Advisory BodiesOne of the most comprehensive policy options for ensuring the long-term viability of a state’s defense communities is tocreateamilitaryadvisorybodytoexaminetheuniqueneedsofmilitarycommunitiesandprovideinformationtothegovernor and state legislature on ways to assist and strengthen them.60 At least 32 states and Guam currently have mili-tary advisory bodies, often in the form of a commission, council or task force (see Figure 2 and Appendix C). The vast majority of these groups were created in the past decade, 19 through legislation and 13 by executive order (another seven were authorized by unknown means). Some are permanently housed within an agency of the administration, while oth-ers are temporary, created prior to a federal BRAC round. Minimizing the effects of encroachment around military bases is a priority for many of these advisory bodies because the extent of encroachment is a key factor in BRAC decisions.61

Military advisory bodies can perform a number of functions. Most often, advisory bodies serve as a liaison between the legis-lature, military installations and surround-ing communities and are tasked with iden-tifyingtheconsequencesofencroachmentand making recommendations for future legislative action. Advisory bodies also can review current policies, assist defense com-munities with programs that strengthen their relationship with nearby installations, conduct studies to support military activi-ties, and disburse public funds for projects related to the preservation of military in-stallations.

The number of members on a military ad-visory body varies widely, from six to 38 members. Most include both voting and

non-voting (or ex-officio) members. Military advisory groups are composed of a broad range of stakeholders, including state legislators, the lieutenant governor, the adjutant general, heads of relevant state agencies, city and county officials, local business leaders, and active duty or retired military officials. Members not specifically named in the legislation or executive order are appointed and often serve a set term.

Figure 2. Military Advisory Bodies by Means of Authorization

Source: NCSL, 2013.

StatuteExecutive OrderBothUnknown

DC

Puerto Rico


American Samoa



Case Study: Maryland Military Installation CouncilThe Maryland General Assembly formally established the Military Installation Strategic Planning Council in 2003 to protect the state’s military installations from closure during the 2005 BRAC round.62 Restruc-tured in 2006 as the Maryland Military Installation Council, it is comprised of at least 30 members, in-cluding state legislators, cabinet secretaries, community representatives and the presidents of military base advocacy groups, who serve four-year terms.63 The council is tasked with identifying public infrastructure and other community support necessary to improve mission efficiencies of military installations and expand their presence in the state.64 It also attempts to minimize the effects of encroachment and enhance the long-term potential of military installations by reviewing and recommending state and community actions to address the problem and examining the actions of other jurisdictions.65 In addition, the council works to enhance the economic value of military installations to the state by seeking opportunities for collaboration among military contractors, state and local government officials, academic institutions and military depart-ments.66 The council annually reports its findings and recommendations to the governor and the General Assembly.67

According to Brigadier General Mike Hayes, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.) and the council’s executive direc-tor, its members now are focused on “working with our installations to mitigate the impact of severe DoD budget cuts, activities that include fostering partnerships that can assist commanders while concurrently providing opportunities for Maryland-based companies.”68 The council also is completing a second military economic impact analysis that Hayes expects will reveal more than $50 billion per year in economic activity, despite drawdowns in some areas.69

Subcabinet on Base Realignment and Closure. In 2007, the Maryland General Assembly established the Subcabinet on Base Realignment and Closure to prepare for and accommodate incoming residents and jobs as a result of changes made during the 2005 BRAC round.70 Specifically, the subcabinet was respon-sible for coordinating initiatives aimed at improving workforce readiness, education, business development, health care, community infrastructure, workforce housing, environmental stewardship and transportation.71 The subcabinet also reviewed the recommendations of the Maryland Military Installation Council and ad-vised the governor and General Assembly on methods to strengthen state support of military installations.72 The 11-member subcabinet included the lieutenant governor, who served as chair, and the cabinet-level secretaries of 10 state agencies.73 Authorization for the subcabinet expired on Dec. 31, 2011.74

From 2007 to 2011, the subcabinet implemented a number of innovative programs to address the chal-lenges and opportunities brought about by the 2005 BRAC decisions. In all, the state invested more than $3.5 billion in programs that offered down-payment and closing assistance on homes for families affected by BRAC, improved roadways and other public infrastructure, provided grants to higher education institu-tions and helped small business owners take advantage of federal resources.75 The subcabinet also developed a method to prioritize transportation needs, allowing the state to pursue short-term, lower-cost projects immediately,whilesimultaneouslyadvancinglonger-term,higher-costprojectsthatrequireadditionaltimeto implement.76 In addition, the subcabinet advanced legislation creating the BRAC Revitalization and Incentive Zone Program that provides local governments with financial support for infrastructure projects in BRAC-affected communities.77



Case Study: Florida Defense Support Task ForceThe Florida Legislature created the Defense Support Task Force in 2011 with a defined mission to:

• Make recommendations to preserve and protect military installations;

• Support the state’s position in research and development related to or arising out of military mis-sions and contracting; and

• Improve the state’s military-friendly environment for service members, military dependents, mili-tary retirees and businesses that bring military and base-related jobs to the state.78

The 13 task force members are appointed by the governor, Senate president and speaker of the House of Representatives.79 The governor has designated the lieutenant governor as the 13th member and his rep-resentative on the task force. All appointed members represent defense-related industries or communities that host military installations.80 The task force received appropriations of $5 million and $2 million for FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13, respectively, to preserve and promote the state’s military installations and missions.81

According to the most recent strategic plan, the task force intends to complete projects over the next few years that are tailored to the needs of each installation, many of which involve taking measures to prevent future encroachment based on recommendations created by a private consulting firm.82 For example, the task force intends to advocate for the purchase of land immediately adjacent to MacDill Air Force Base, establish a system to enhance air space management at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, and complete implementation of a JLUS to ensure that merging commercial and military activities around Panama City can each meet their objectives.83 In the long term, the task force plans to identify areas where state action could encourage sustainability of military installations, expand state support for military families and veterans, and strengthen defense-related working relationships with a number of state agencies.84 At the federal level, the task force has contracted with a consulting firm specializing in the BRAC process to advocate on behalf of Florida’s military installations.85 Each initiative outlined in the strategic plan bolsters the governor’s vision that Florida will continue to be the most military-friendly state in the nation.86



Commanders’ CouncilsCommanders’ councils—comprised of the commanders of military installations in a state or region—have proven useful in strengthening military, state and community relationships.87 They provide a central source of information for state government and local communities and serve as a forum to exchange ideas on policies that affect the military and mis-sion readiness. Commanders’ councils exist in four states—Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and Texas.88

The North Carolina Commanders’ Council was established in 2008 to serve as DoD’s primary contact with the state.89 The council works with the state to address the challenges facing military installations and military service members and their families. The council has recognized that the various effects of encroachment pose a significant challenge for the military and the state as a whole. Specifically, the council is concerned about incompatible development, restrictions on theuseofairspaceandcoastalareas,andradiofrequencydisturbances.In2012,GovernorBeverlyEavesPerduesignedan executive order directing the secretary of each cabinet agency to designate a military affairs awareness coordinator to keep abreast of commanders’ council activities and inform them of any agency initiatives that might affect military operations.90

The Texas Commanders’ Council operates in much the same way. Formally established by the Legislature in June 2013, the council plays a vital role in facilitating intergovernmental dialogue between all branches of service and the state of Texas.91ThelawrequiresmembersoftheTexasMilitaryPreparednessCommissiontomeetwiththecommanders’council at least once each year to discuss the challenges facing military installations and to develop innovative solutions to improve the military climate in the state. Senator Leticia Van de Putte (D)—sponsor of the legislation, chair of the Texas Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs and Military Installations, and co-chair of the NCSL Task Force on Military and Veterans Affairs—expects the council to focus its attention in the coming months on the effects of force reductions, sequestrationandthenextBRACroundthatisexpectedtobeginin2015.92

Funding Programs to Preserve or Enhance the Value of Military InstallationsAnother option for states that wish to take a proactive role in securing the future of their military installations is to establish a program that provides funding or financing to defense communities for projects that preserve or enhance the value of installations. These programs typically support projects for infrastructure improvements, job creation and retention,landacquisitionandimprovementstopublicservices.Grantsorloansalsomaybeusedtoconductstudiesordevelop plans in support of a proposed project, as well as to match federal funding. In most cases, funding comes from general appropriations or bond sales. Eleven states—Alaska, Arizona, Califor-nia, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah—have some type of grant or loan program in place (see Figure 3 and Appendix D).93 Several states also have made one-time appropriations to prepare for or minimize the effects of BRAC decisions.

Grant Programs. Florida and Texas have established the most wide-ranging programs, offering financial assistance to defense communities for projects that not only stimulate the local economy, but also generate significant benefits for nearby bases. The Florida Legislature es-tablished both the Defense Reinvestment

Figure 3. Funding Programs to Preserve or Enhance the Value of Military Installations

Source: NCSL, 2013.

Programs to fund or finance projects to enhance the value of military installations

DC

Puerto Rico


American Samoa



Grant Program and the Defense Infrastructure Grant Program in 1999.94 Both programs are administered by Enterprise Florida Inc., the principal economic development organization for the state, and award grants to local governments with a military installation that could be adversely affected by federal actions. The Reinvestment Grant Program supports community-based activities that protect existing military installations, diversify the economy of a defense-dependent community, and develop plans for reusing closed or realigned installations.95

Along the same lines, Florida’s Defense Infrastructure Grant Program supports infrastructure projects deemed to have a beneficial effect on the value of installations within the state. Infrastructure projects funded under the program include those related to encroachment, transportation, utilities, communications, housing, environment and security. No limit is set for the amount of any grant awarded, although a matching contribution from the county or local community may be required.ForFY2012-13,thestateawarded11DefenseReinvestmentGrantsandeightDefenseInfrastructureGrantsfor a combined total of nearly $2.5 million, varying in amounts between $40,000 and $200,000.96

In Texas, the Defense Economic Adjustment Assistance Grant Program and the Texas Military Value Revolving Loan Fund provide financial support to communities that have been or may be affected by military installation closure or realignment. The Defense Economic Adjustment Assistance Grant Program, a job creation program created in 1997, is designed to assist defense communities that are responding to or recovering from a reduction or termination of defense contracts.97 The program was expanded in 2005 to help communities that have been positively affected with new or ex-panded military missions as a result of the BRAC process.98 Adversely affected communities can use funding to purchase DoD property, initiate new construction and infrastructure projects, or rehabilitate facilities in support of job creating projects and opportunities.99 Funds also can be awarded to junior colleges and state technical schools for purchase or leaseofcapitalequipmenttoretraindisplaceddefenseworkers.100

Individual grant amounts range from $50,000 to $2 million. As of FY 2012, more than $32.4 million in grants had been awarded to more than 20 defense communities.101 One recipient, the TexAmericas Center in Texarkana, Texas, received funding in 2011 for electric and water infrastructure upgrades at the Red River Army Depot, a major tactical vehicle repair and inspection facility.102 In the same year, funding allowed the Texas State Technical College in Harlingen to partner with Del Mar College in Corpus Christi to develop engineering labs at the former Naval Station Ingleside that would provide training for displaced workers.103

A second program, the Texas Military Value Revolving Loan Fund, was created in 2003 to provide a low-cost source of financing to eligible defense communities for projects designed to enhance the value of a nearby installation, minimize the negative effects of a BRAC decision, and accommodate new or expanded military missions resulting from a BRAC decision.104 State funding is obtained through sale of general obligation bonds. As of FY 2012, more than $49 million in loans had been allocated to defense-dependent communities for a variety of projects; the minimum loan amount is $1 million.105

Zone Programs. Four states—Alaska, Georgia, Maryland and Texas—have taken a somewhat different approach, creat-ing “military zones” to extend state and federal incentives to enterprises that support the state’s military presence.106 For example, the Alaska Legislature passed a measure in 2012 creating “military facility zones” that offer low-cost loans and tax credits to municipalities and private businesses for initiatives that make it cheaper or easier for military installations to operate.107 Representative Steve Thompson (R), who sponsored the legislation, believes that “military facility zones will help Alaska’s bases become more efficient and better able to effectively perform their missions, strengthening the case against realignment or closure of its bases.108 In addition, says Thompson, the zones will “clearly demonstrate the state’s continuing and substantive support for the armed services, and help defend against the negative impacts on Alaska’s re-gional economies and military facilities.”109 Financing for projects within military facility zones is provided by the Alaska Industrial Development and Housing Authority, the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation and other available sources.



Maryland has had a similar program since 2008. The BRAC Revitalization and Incentive Zone Program provides lo-cal governments with financial assistance for public infrastructure projects in well-defined areas that expect significant growth as a result of BRAC decisions.110 Of the seven currently designated BRAC zones, the largest encompasses the City of Aberdeen.111 With funding from the BRAC Zone Program, the city will undertake projects to improve transportation infrastructure, school facilities, water and wastewater services, and public parks.

Zone programs also can support economic development projects after a base has closed. In Texas, for example, the zone program in place since 1988 provides various incentives to economically distressed communities to encourage private investment and job creation.112InJune2013,theLegislatureamendedthelawtoautomaticallyqualifyareasinsidetheboundaries of a defense base development authority for designation as an enterprise zone.113 Defense base development authorities are created by a local resolution to repurpose the assets of a former military installation for the economic benefit of surrounding communities.114 Designating these areas as enterprise zones allows defense base development authoritiestoapplyforstatesalesandusetaxrefundsonqualifiedexpenditures.115 “When a military base closes, the whole community suffers significantly from lost jobs and the federal monies that will be lost,” says Representative José Menéndez (D), sponsor of the legislation and chairman of the House Committee on Defense and Veterans Affairs.116 “Thestatelegislaturemustbecreativewithprovidinguniquebusinessincentivessuchastaxexemptionsandredevelop-ment enterprise authority. Economic recovery following a base closure will only happen if the state legislators are open to innovative measures that will give the new base authorities the tools needed to attract new commercial enterprises to fill the void.”117 Representative Menéndez also authored legislation in 2013 relating to taxation of personal property and application of certain contracting laws within a defense base development authority.118

Appropriations. In addition to these programs, several states have made a one-time appropriation to prepare for BRAC or help communities with the after effects of a BRAC decision. At least five states—Alaska, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri and South Carolina—have taken this action in the past two years.119 The South Carolina Military Base Task Force, for example, distributed $50,000 in March 2013 to each of the state’s four military communities to support on-going base preservation efforts.120 The Missouri General Assembly also enacted legislation in 2013, allocating $300,000 to analyze the effects of the state’s military installations on the nation’s military readiness and economy.121 Legislators in Massachusetts currently are considering a $177 million bond bill backed by the governor to develop and fund projects to reduce energy operating costs and enhance energy security at each of the state’s military installations.122 The money would be borrowed over five years, and installations would have flexibility in deciding where and how it would be spent.123

Land Use PlanningThrough land use planning, the military can be assured that its operations will not be jeopardized, while communities can continue to benefit from the jobs and business opportunities that the military provides. Although neighborhood and commercial development and land use planning occur mainly at the local level, the state legislature sets a framework in most states for how local entities carry out land use planning processes.

Enhanced Communication and NotificationOne method states can use to help mitigate unwanted development conflicts near military installations is to include all involved parties in the planning process. Many states have promoted compatible development by giving the military the opportunity to participate in local land use planning, which helps local officials understand the effects of incompatible developmentonqualityoflifeincommunitiesandonmilitaryoperations.Sixteenstatesrequirecommunicationwithor notification to military installations about land use changes (see Figure 4 and Appendix E). This formalized process can strengthen lines of communication and help avoid any unintentional conflicts. Methods for including the mili-taryinlocallanduseplanningincludecreatingorexpandingproceduralrequirementstoprovidemilitaryinstallations



with notice of proposed land use changes; creating a mechanism for the military to make comments on proposed land use changes and offer guidelines for the con-tent of such comments; and allowing for military representation on state or local zoning boards.

In Arizona, the Legislature enacted a mea-sure requiring local governments withinthe vicinity of a military airport to con-sult with, advise and provide the military airports an opportunity to comment on land use surrounding the installation.124 In 2012, the Florida Legislature clarified its community planning statute to specify that a commanding officer’s comments must be based on appropriate data and analyses, and that the local government must consider those comments and ac-

companying data as they relate to the strategic mission of the base, public safety, and the economic vitality associated with the base’s operations. Further, the bill created the Florida Defense Reinvestment Grant Program, in part to work with defense-dependent communities on strategies to help communities support the missions of military installations.125

TheNorthCarolinaGeneralAssemblypasseda2013lawthatrequireslocalgovernmentstoprovidewrittennoticeofproposed changes to a zoning ordinance to the commander of the military base not less than 10 days nor more than 25 days before a public hearing if the change would affect the permitted uses of land located within five miles of a military base. If the military provides comments or analysis regarding the ordinance’s compatibility with military operations at the base, the board of commissioners must consider the comments and analysis before making a final determination on the ordinance.126 Representative Rick Glazier (D), sponsor of the legislation, says that House Bill 254 will “help safe-guard land adjacent to military bases by maintaining military mission capacity of the bases in those nearby areas and enhancing communication of planned land use development in those areas between local governments and bases.”127

In Texas, a community near a military installation must seek comments and analysis from defense base authorities if the community determines that a proposed ordinance, rule or plan may affect a military base, exercise or training activities. If a community includes a municipality with a population of more than 110,000, is located in a county with a popula-tion of less than 135,000 and has not adopted airport zoning regulations, the community must notify the defense base authorities of any proposed ordinance change and its compatibility with base operations within eight miles of a base.128

Incorporating Military Installations into Local Land Use Plans States delegate to local governments the responsibility to formulate and implement land use planning documents and zoning regulations. “Comprehensive plans,” also known as general plans or master plans, are the foundation for local land use planning and, as such, serve as a blueprint for the growth and development of a community over time.129 In most cases, a comprehensive plan consists of diagrams or maps illustrating the location of existing land uses, as well as written text outlining development goals for a range of uses such as housing, transportation, utilities and recreation.130 Whileplanningoccursatthelocallevel,statesplayaroleindirectingtheplanningprocess.Moststatesrequirelocalgov-ernments to complete a comprehensive plan, although some are more prescriptive than others in regard to its content.

Figure 4. Enhanced Communication and Notification Laws

Source: NCSL, 2013.

Law requires communication with military installations about land use changes

DC

Puerto Rico


American Samoa



Local planning and zoning ordinances can be used to resolve land use issues near military bases, and state legislatures can requirethatlandsnearboundariesoftheseareasbesetasideonlyforcompatibleuses.Elevenstates—Arizona,Califor-nia,Colorado,Florida,Kansas,Kentucky,Nevada,SouthCarolina,Texas,VirginiaandWisconsin—requireorencour-age municipalities to anticipate future growth patterns near military installations and include policies or guidelines to account for this growth in their comprehensive plans (see Figure 5 and Appendix E).131 This type of proactive land use planning can help channel new growth into appropriate areas, enhance communication with nearby military installa-tions and, most important, preserve and enhance the viability of each installation.

Legislatures in California and Kentucky recognized the need for more consistent land use planning around military installationsintheearly2000s.Statutesinbothstatesrequirelocalgovernmentstoconsidertheeffectsoffuturegrowthon military activities in their local planning documents and place an emphasis on obtaining information from military authorities to accurately determine the needs of each installation.132 Consultation between municipalities and military commandauthoritiescanaddressquestionsofinstallationexpansion,environmentalimpact,installationsafetyandis-sues relating to airspace use.133FloridaandNevadarequiresimilarinformationincomprehensiveplans,mandatingthatlocal governments include criteria for achieving compatible land use in areas near a military installation, taking into account its stated mission.134 Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin are less descriptive in theirrequirementsforcomprehensiveplans,yetstillencouragesomeconsiderationofinstallationneeds.135

Texas has taken a somewhat different approach, authorizing defense communities—through a constitutional amend-ment—torequestfinancialassistancefromarevolvingloanfundtoprepareastrategicimpactplanthatsetsforththecommunities’ long-term goals and development proposals.136 One objective of the plan is to control the negative effects of future growth on military installations and their training exercises. Each strategic impact plan must include, among otherrequirements,detailedinformationaboutcurrentandfuturelandusesthatmayaffectinstallationactivities,ananalysis of the base’s forecasted needs for open space areas and, if needed, language creating airspace buffer zones between the base and the community. Once a defense community has prepared a strategic impact plan, the law encourages it to develop a planning manual based on the proposals contained in the plan. The manual must contain guidelines for com-munity planning and development and should be prepared with input from military installation authorities.137

Requiring Compatible Land UseStatelegislaturesalsocanrequirelocalgov-ernments to restrict or prohibit incompat-ible development around installations and military airports. At least eight states—Ar-kansas, Arizona, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Washington—have such laws (see Figure 5 and Appendix E).138

Most compatible land use laws address the importance of preventing certain land uses near military airports. For example, Ar-kansaspassedalawin1995requiringcer-tain municipalities to enact an ordinance restricting or prohibiting future uses on property within five miles of the city limits that might be hazardous to aircraft opera-tion.139 Specifically, the law aims to limit air, light and electrical emissions—as well

Figure 5. Land Use Planning and Compatible Land Use Requirements

Source: NCSL, 2013.

Law requires or encour-ages incorporation of military installations in local land use plans

Law requires compatible land use around military installations

DC

Puerto Rico


American SamoaBoth



asusesthatexposepeopletoexcessivenoise,usesthatwouldattractbirdsorwaterfowl,andthosethatwouldrequirestructures to be built within 10 feet of an airport. Minimal residential development is allowed, but is limited to single-family use on tracts of one or more acres. All ordinances must be consistent with the most current recommendations made by the U.S. Air Force in its Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study. Oklahoma passed an almost identical law in 2001, except that its provisions are not mandatory for local governments.140 Similarly, Missouri and South Dakota authorize a municipality to adopt zoning regulations around military airports to prevent creation of a military airport hazard,definedasanystructurethatobstructstheairspacerequiredfortakingoff,landingorflightofmilitaryaircraftorthatinterfereswithsystemsusedfortrackingoracquiringdata.141 Regulations may specify the land uses permitted and regulate the type, density and height of structures in the area.142

Other states have taken a broader approach, encouraging compatible land use development around all military facili-ties. According to legislation enacted in 2004, Washington has made it a priority to protect the land surrounding mili-tary installations from incompatible development. The law states that “a comprehensive plan, amendment to a plan, a development regulation or amendment to a development regulation, should not allow development in the vicinity of amilitaryinstallationthatisincompatiblewiththeinstallation’sabilitytocarryoutitsmissionrequirements.”143 The North Carolina General Assembly enacted similar legislation in June 2013. Under the Military Lands Protection Act, no municipality is permitted to authorize construction of a tall building or structure in any area surrounding a major military installation unless otherwise certified by the Building Code Council.144 The law instructs the council to deny applications for certification where construction of the building would encroach upon the mission, training or opera-tions of an installation and result in a detriment to continued military presence in the state.145 The law also allows for civil penalties and prohibits providing certain utility services to any building constructed in violation of the law.146 Representative John Bell (R), sponsor of the legislation, believes that House Bill 433 “provides a uniform state process to protect bases from closure.”147

Still other options exist for encouraging compatible land use. Under the County Air Corridor Protection Act, Illinois grants any county with a U.S. Air Force installation of a certain size the authority to control the use of land around the airport to protect the safety of the community. The county’s authority is limited to the area designated in the Air Instal-lation Compatible Use Zone Study adopted by the Air Force. If the municipality approves a land use that is incompat-iblewiththeAirForcestudy,thelawgivesthecountytheoptiontouseeminentdomaintoacquiretheaffectedland.148

Protecting Land Near Military Bases through Formal DesignationSeveral states have existing statutory authority to assign an elevated status to certain types of land in planning documents and to create additional procedures for developing those types of land. Development within these “areas of critical state concern” is monitored by state agencies and local governments to ensure that each proposed use is compatible with the land’suniquetraits.149 Most lands protected as areas of critical state concern are environmentally sensitive regions such as wetlands,aquaticpreservesandwildernessareas.150 One of the earliest and largest areas designated as an area of concern is the Adirondack Park in New York, which encompasses more than 6 million acres of public and private land.151 Other states with statutes designating environmentally sensitive regions as areas of concern include California, Florida, Geor-gia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Vermont and Wyoming.152 Some of these states—such as California, Florida and Minnesota—also protect areas with historic, archaeological or aesthetic significance.153

To prevent uncontrolled development, military bases and operating areas can be recognized as critical areas, and state legislaturescanrequirethatlandsnearboundariesoftheseareasbesetasideonlyforcompatibleuses.Whilethestatu-tory framework for such a designation is already in place in many states, only two have enacted legislation to include military installations in types of land protected as a critical area: Kansas in 2010 and Montana in 2011.154 Under Kan-sas law, areas located either wholly or partially within defined military zones are designated as “state areas of interest” vital to national security and the economic well-being of the state.155Thelawrequiresrepresentativesofmilitaryinstal-lations and municipalities to meet at least annually to determine whether any portion of the state area of interest can



be classified as a “critical area,” defined as any area where future use is determined jointly between the military instal-lation and the municipality. Critical areas should be managed to reduce potential conflicts due to competing uses.156 Representative Tom Sloan (R), sponsor of the legislation, notes that, “Most civilians do not willfully compromise the trainingcapabilitiesofmilitarybases,butfrequentlyarenotknowledgeableaboutwhatcivilianactionswillcompro-mise training missions. Similarly, the military do not intend to cause problems for their civilian neighbors. House Bill 2445 clearly helps both sides by establishing areas that are important to the military and notifying prospective buyers of property that military activities may produce noise, dust and other nuisances.”157

Montana’s law allows municipalities to designate “military affected areas,” which encompass land used for military pur-poses and land near an installation that is directly affected by military activities.158 “Senate Bill 417 was enacted to em-power local governments to work with military officials to adopt land use policies regarding military activities to ensure public safety, viability of our valuable military missions and allow future growth as we protect our nation from existing, new and potential threats,” says Senator Edward Buttrey (R), sponsor of the legislation and chair of the Senate Local Government Committee.159 The Montana law also establishes a permit system for all land use changes within military affected areas and prevents granting permits for incompatible uses.160 Several counties have designated military affected areas in the past two years. According to Senator Buttrey, Cascade County, as well as most of the counties in central Montana, have enacted policies to minimize encroachment at various Minuteman-III missile silos.161 Fort William Henry Harrison in Helena, Mont., also may benefit from the law as officials work to protect National Guard facilities from encroachment.

Land ConservationFacilitatingacquisitionoflandaroundamilitaryinstallationcanhelptopreservelandsontheperimeterofinstallations,which can buffer military training and testing operations from residential development and other incompatible uses. Open space also maintains habitat for threatened and endangered species. States can create buffer areas by purchasing land or development rights to land, exchanging land, and creating a conservation easement with specific development restrictions.

Purchasing Land or Development RightsOne way states can support creation of buffer areas is to establish a statewide program that provides funding for pur-chase of land or development rights in the vicinity of military installations that are struggling with encroachment. At least Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia currently have such funding programs (see Figure 6 and Appendix E).162 States commonly have funded or financed these programs through appropriations, dedicated lottery revenues and bonds. Many state programs that help to purchase land also provide funding to purchase development rights, which can be much less costly. By purchasing development rights, states can preserve farms and ranches, while restricting the land fromincompatibleuses.Inadditiontothesepermanentacquisitionprograms,manystatesalsohavefundedone-timeland purchases to buffer military installations against encroachment.

Lawmakers in Florida recognize that the state’s land conservation plans often overlap with the military’s need to protect resources to ensure the sustainability of military missions. The Florida Forever Act, enacted in 2001, provides funding to stateagenciesandlocalgovernmentsforacquisitionofconservationlands,someofwhichserveasabufferaroundmilitaryinstallations.163 Funds distributed from the Florida Forever Trust Fund support restoration and protection of the state’s diverse ecosystems and landscapes and also provide habitat for imperiled species. Since its inception, the Florida Forever Programhasacquiredmorethan683,000acres;themostrecentacquisitionis1,578acresaroundCampBlandingJointTraining Center.164 The Florida Department of Military Affairs will manage the land around Camp Blanding as a natu-ral forested area, not only providing numerous environmental benefits, but also preventing future encroachment in the



vicinity of a major military training area.165 The Legislature appropriated $10 million to the program for FY 2013-14 and another $10 million for projects that minimize encroachment around military installations.166 Flor-ida also passed a law in June 2013 to authorize acquisitionof non-conser-vation lands to buffer military instal-lations from encroachment.167 Lands may either be purchased outright or secured through other means, includ-ing conservation easements.

Similarly, North Carolina provides funding to acquire conservationlands. Created in 1996, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund

awards grants to local governments, state agencies and conservation groups to help fund projects that restore degraded waters, protect unpolluted waters and contribute toward a network of riparian greenways.168 Awards also are made for landacquisitionprojectsaroundmilitarybases.Morethan$1billionhasbeengrantedtofundnearly1,400projectssince 1996.169 In 2012, the fund awarded nearly $2.3 million for five military projects that are intended to support com-patible uses through land conservation around the Piney Island Bombing Range, Fort Bragg, Cherry Point Air Station and Camp Lejeune.170

TheimpetusforVirginia’s landacquisitionprogramcameinresponsetotheBRACCommission’s2005recommen-dation to move Oceana Naval Air Station out of Virginia Beach because the city had allowed too much development under flight paths.171ThestateenactedalawshortlythereaftertorequirealllocalitieswithaU.SNavyMasterJetBaseto establish programs to purchase incompatible use property and prohibit new development deemed incompatible with air operations in certain defined zones.172

Exchanging LandAside from purchasing land, states can permit land exchanges to prevent further encroachment. In its 2012 session, the Arizona Legislature passed a measure to give the state flexibility over use of state trust lands (see Figure 6 and Appendix E). (“State trust lands”—10.9 million acres in Arizona—were granted at the time of statehood and are intended to pro-duce revenue for various public institutions.) The measure revised the process to review, evaluate and approve proposed exchanges of state trust lands for other public lands for certain purposes, one of which is preservation and protection of military facilities in the state.173 Proposed exchanges are subject to two land appraisals and an analysis of the financial impact of the exchange on each county, city, town and school district in which the lands are located, as well as the physi-calandnaturalresourceimpactsoftheexchangeonthelocalcommunity.Thelawalsorequirestwopublichearingsforeach proposed exchange and approval from voters in a general election. The law became effective in November 2012 aftervotersapprovedarequiredamendmenttothestateconstitutionauthorizinglandexchanges.174 Arizona is currently the only state with this type of law for military lands.

Purchase Land or Development RightsExchange LandConservation Easements

Puerto Rico


American Samoa

DC

Figure 6. Military Land Conservation Laws

Source: NCSL, 2013.



Conservation EasementsConservation easements—defined as voluntary, legal agreements between a landowner and a government agency or other entity that define the use of land in order to protect its conservation values—also can be used to protect land around military installations. Lands protected through a conservation easement can include scenic vistas, wildlife habi-tat, farmland, watershed areas and historic sites. Millions of acres of private land in the United States have been protected through conservation easements.175

A conservation easement can be an attractive option for a landowner who wishes to protect his or her land for future generations without giving up private ownership. Easements also offer great flexibility, tailoring restrictions to the needs ofindividuallandownersandtheuniquefeaturesoftheproperty.Aneasementtoprotectthehabitatofanendangeredspecies, for example, might prohibit all new development, while an easement protecting farmland would likely permit continued farming and construction of additional agricultural structures.176 Landowners also can benefit financially from a conservation easement through federal and state tax credits designed to compensate landowners who choose to donate an easement, rather than sell it.177

All states except North Dakota have laws that enable creation of conservation easements.178 Enabling legislation typically describes the methods of creation and duration of the easement and establishes procedures for public review, registration, amendment and termination. Most states allow any federal, state or local government body to hold easements.179 Non-governmental entities, such as land trusts and other nonprofit conservation organizations, also are permitted to hold easements. Most easements remain with the property even if it is sold or passed to heirs, thus binding the original owner andallsubsequentownerstoeasementconditions.180 The entity that holds the easement is responsible for monitoring and enforcing its terms.

At least 10 states—California, Colorado, Florida, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Wyo-ming—have funding programs to help state agencies and local governments purchase conservation easements (see Fig-ure 6 and Appendix E).181 Florida is currently the only state to tie purchase of conservation easements to protection of military installations. The Florida Forever Act, described above, encourages purchase of conservation easements in addition to outright purchase of property, largely because of the easement’s lower cost to the public and ability to allow private landowners to retain ownership.182 The law dedicates 3.5 percent of money in the Florida Forever Trust Fund foracquisitionofagriculturallandsthroughconservationeasementsandsimilarinstruments.Thestatehaspurchasednumerousconservationeasementsduringthepastdecade,mostrecentlyinJune2013whenthestateacquireda20,850acre easement for property adjacent to Eglin Air Force Base, the largest in the country.183 The land will continue to be owned and managed by a private citizen; under terms of the easement, however, it will not be developed.

Reducing Light PollutionAs people move closer to military installations, commercial and residential lighting can interfere with nighttime military training exercises. So-called “light pollution” impairs night vision training and reduces training effectiveness. Providing natural nighttime training conditions helps troops develop confidence in nighttime operations, improves overall opera-tional capabilities and ultimately minimizes casualties. It also is generally understood that excessive light pollution drains energy resources, disrupts wildlife and eclipses the nighttime sky from view.

Statelegislatureshaveenactedanumberofpolicies—commonlyreferredtoas“darkskies”requirements—inrecentyearsto mitigate the effects of light pollution, both on and off military installations. The most common dark skies legislation requiresinstallationofshieldedlightfixturesthatemitlightonlydownward.Thisappliesmostoftentobuildingsandotherfacilitiesthatusestateresources.Otherlawsrequireuseoflow-glareorlow-wattagelightingorregulatetheamountof time certain lighting can be used. Laws in 15 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico currently mandate or provide incentives to minimize light pollution (see Figure 7).184 In addition, seven states have considered light pollution



bills in the past five years.185 Municipalities in several states also have been active on the issue, adopting light pollution regulations as part of their zoning codes.186

Most dark skies legislation has been enacted to promote energy conserva-tion, public safety and aesthetic inter-ests, and to protect wildlife and astro-nomical research capabilities.187 Texas is the only state with a law specifically aimed at reducing light pollution around military installations. In 2007, the Texas Legislature amended an ex-isting law to allow certain counties to regulate use of outdoor lighting within five miles of a military installation.188 County regulations must be designed to protect against interference with military training activities, which can be accomplished by: requiring a per-mit for installing certain types of light-ing; prohibiting use of particular light-

ingfixtures;establishingrequirementsforshieldingoutdoorlighting;orregulatingtimesofdaywhencertaintypesoflighting may be used.189 In 2011, Missouri lawmakers considered, but did not pass, the Night Sky Protection Act, which would have reduced the amount of light emitted into the night sky in designated military training areas and would haverequiredthestateAirConservationCommissiontodevelopvoluntaryguidelinestoachievespecifiedstandardsby2050.190 A similar bill was considered in Kansas in 2009.191

Limiting Noise Impacts from Military Activities on Surrounding CommunitiesCommunitiesadjacenttomilitarybasesfrequentlyexperiencehighlevelsofnoisefrommilitaryactivitiesthatcanaffectresidents’health,welfareandqualityoflife.Aircraftflights,ordnancedetonations,combatengineeringdemolitionsandartillery use are a few of the activities that can disrupt daily life in the vicinity of a military installation.192 States can minimizetheeffectsofnoiseonsurroundingcommunitiesbyrequiringthatnewdevelopmentsadheretoprescribedsoundattenuationstandards.Thesestandardsoftenrequireuseofsoundproofingtechniques,suchasbuildingthickerwalls or using additional insulation, to reduce the intensity of exterior noise.

AnArizonalawenactedin1996requiresmunicipalitiesthathaveterritoryinthevicinityofamilitaryairporttoinsti-tute sound attenuation standards for newly constructed residential houses and certain public buildings.193 In 2004, the Legislature extended the scope of the law to include ancillary military facilities at Luke Air Force Base and Yuma Marine Corps Air Station.194Virginiaenactedsimilarlegislationin2005,allowingmunicipalitiestoadoptregulationsrequiringuse of “acoustical treatment measures” for residential buildings in areas affected by above-average noise levels due to their proximity to a military airport.195 In establishing the regulations, a locality may adopt one or more noise overlay zones as an amendment to its zoning map and may establish various measures to be installed within each zone, depending on the severity of aircraft noise.196

Figure 7. Laws to Reduce Light Pollution

Source: NCSL, 2013.

Law to reduce light pollution

DC

Puerto Rico


American Samoa



Real Estate DisclosureAnother way to discourage encroachment is to ensure that buyers or renters of property located near a military installa-tionareawareoftheassociatedrisksandpotentialeffectsonqualityoflifecausedbyhighnoiseandtrainingaccidents.Disclosures of this nature can serve as a valuable deterrent to incompatible development. Arizona, Kansas and Maryland lawsrequireorencouragerealestatedisclosuresinmilitaryareas.197 Lawmakers in Colorado, Nevada and North Caro-lina, have considered such bills in the past five years.198

Arizonalawrequiresasellerofresidentialpropertylocatednearamilitaryairportorancillarymilitaryfacilitytoprovidea written disclosure to the buyer before transferring title.199Inaddition,a2001Arizonalawrequiresownersofpropertylocated within defined “high noise and accident potential zones” to notify potential buyers, renters or lessees that the propertyislocatedinthezoneandissubjecttocertainrequirementsunderthelaw.200Thestatealsorequiresthistypeofdisclosure on land under military training routes and restricted air space.201 To facilitate this process, the state real estate department and affected municipalities maintain a registry of information containing maps of military flight operations and a list of contact people who are familiar with flight operations at each airport.202

In2010,theKansasLegislatureenactedacomprehensivemeasurethatrequiresmunicipalitiestoconsideradoptingamandatorydisclosurerequirementforanypropertywithindefinedareasthatwouldinformbuyersofthepotentialfornoise, smoke, dust, light and electromagnetic interference generated by normal military operations.203

Other Comprehensive State PoliciesTwo laws enacted recently in California and Hawaii comprehensively address sustainability of military bases and com-munities by directly engaging the states in a relationship with the military.204The2012Californialawrequiresstateagencies that implement energy and environmental laws to consider the DoD’s energy security goals and opportuni-ties to leverage combined funding authorities to advance clean energy innovation and mitigate climate change risks.205 Senator Fran Pavley (D), sponsor of the legislation, notes that, “As California and the DoD are two of the largest energy users in the world, with a combined annual energy expenditure of more than $100 billion, they play a key role in enhancing energy security and speeding the transition to a clean energy economy.”206

TheHawaiilaw,alsopassedin2012,requiresthegovernortoenterintoamemorandumofunderstanding(MOU)with DoD to solidify its cooperative relationship. The MOU aims to address 10 major areas:

• Retaining or expanding military bases;

• Limiting development of surrounding areas to ensure compatible land use;

• Increasing access to affordable housing near bases for military personnel and their families;

• Offering recreational programs and activities for military personnel and their families;

• Identifying civil obligations that may be postponed for military personnel who face active deployment;

• Supporting families who are experiencing deployment;



• Providing employment training for military personnel;

• Examining the feasibility of granting credit for military experience toward civilian professional or occupational licensing;

• Encouraging businesses to hire military spouses; and

• Promoting awareness and appreciation of military operations in the state.207

AccordingtoRepresentativeAquino(D),“Byformallyestablishingtherolesandresponsibilitiesforcollaborativeef-forts to preserve and encourage military operations in Hawaii, the MOU provides a blueprint for a beneficial future relationship between Hawaii and the military.”208

ConclusionAs DoD continues to reorganize its infrastructure to become more efficient and adjust to a changing national security environment, state-level proactive strategies will become even more critical to the sustainability of military operations and defense communities. This report is intended to provide state legislatures with an overview of state responsibilities and related policy options to strengthen the relationship between bases and surrounding communities, and to ensure a suitable environment for military installations. No single solution exists to mitigate the effects of base changes or prevent encroachment; however, states may wish to consider the options presented in this report in tandem with state and local views about land use, economic development, private property rights or other issues of concern. With these strategies in mind, states can work to secure the future of their military installations and ensure that communities continue to benefit from the jobs and business opportunities the military provides.



Appendix A. State Agencies and Military InstallationsState/ Jurisdiction

Agency Military Installations Active Duty Population

(2011 DoD Data)

Reserve and National

Guard Total

(2009 Census Data)

Name Number Names

Alabama Alabama State Mili-tary Department; Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs (ADVA)

5 Anniston Army Depot 8,452 22,099

Fort Rucker

Maxwell Air Force Base and Gunter Annex

Redstone Arsenal

USAREC Montgomery Battalion

Alaska Alaska Department of Military and Veterans’ Affairs (DMVA)

5 Eielson Air Force Base 21,624 4,747

Fort Greely

Fort Wainwright

Fort Wainwright Soldier and Family Assistance Center

Joint Base Elmendorf - Richardson

Arizona Arizona Department of Emergency and Mili-tary Affairs (DEMA); Arizona Department of Veterans’ Services (ADVS)

6 Fort Huachuca 21,072 13,728

USAREC Phoenix Battalion

Yuma Proving Ground

Davis-Monthan Air Force Base

Luke Air Force Base

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma

Arkansas Arkansas Mili-tary Department; Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs (ADVA)

2 Pine Bluff Arsenal 5,516 13,051

Little Rock Air Force Base





(2011 DoD Data)


Guard Total

(2009 Census Data)

Name Number Names

California California Mili-tary Department; California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet)

30 Camp Parks 161,864 57,792

Fort Hunter Liggett

Fort Irwin

Presidio of Monterey

USAREC Fresno Battalion

USAREC Los Angeles Battalion

USAREC Sacramento Battalion

USAREC Southern California Battalion

Beale Air Force Base

Edwards Air Force Base

Los Angeles Air Force Base

March Air Force Base

Travis Air Force Base

Vandenberg Air Force Base

Camp Pendleton

Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow

Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego

Marine Corps Air Station Miramar

Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center

Twentynine Palms

Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake

Naval Air Facility El Centro

Naval Air Station Lemoore

Naval Base Coronado

Naval Base Point Loma

Naval Base San Diego

Naval Base Ventura County

Naval Postgraduate School

Fort Carson

DefenseDistributionDepotSanJoaquin





(2011 DoD Data)


Guard Total

(2009 Census Data)

Name Number Names

Colorado Colorado Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA)

6 Fort Carson Soldier and Family Assistance Center

39,004 12,491

USAREC Denver Battalion

Buckley Air Force Base

Peterson Air Force Base

Schriever Air Force Base

U.S. Air Force Academy

Connecticut Connecticut Mili-tary Department; Connecticut Depart-ment of Veterans’ Af-fairs (CTDVA)

1 Naval Submarine Base New London 5,724 6,369

Delaware Delaware Department of Military Affairs; Delaware Commis-sion of Veterans Affairs (DCVA) (under De-partment of State)

1 Dover Air Force Base 3,612 4,881

Florida Florida Department of Military Affairs (DMA); Florida Department of Veterans’ Affairs (FDVA)

16 USAREC Jacksonville Battalion 58,974 34,653

USAREC Miami Battalion

USAREC Tampa Battalion

USSOUTHCOM/U.S. Army Garrison Miami

Eglin Air Force Base

Hurlburt Air Force Base

MacDill Air Force Base

Patrick Air Force Base

Tyndall Air Force Base

Naval Air Station Jacksonville

Naval Air Station Key West

Naval Air Station Pensacola

Naval Air Station Whiting Field

Naval Station Mayport

Naval Support Activity Orlando

Naval Support Activity Panama City





(2011 DoD Data)


Guard Total

(2009 Census Data)

Name Number Names

Georgia Georgia Department of Defense (Ga. DoD); Georgia Department of Veterans Service (GDVS)

10 Fort Benning 74,468 29,358

Fort Gordon

Fort Stewart

Hunter Army Airfield

U.S. Army Cadet Command 6th Brigade

USAREC, Atlanta Battalion

Moody Air Force Base

Robins Air Force Base

Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany

Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay

Hawaii Hawaii Department of Defense (Hawaii DOD); Hawaii Office of Veterans Services (OVS) (under Depart-ment of Defense)

3 Schofield Barracks/Fort Shafter 48,682 9,276

Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam

Marine Corps Base Hawaii

Idaho Idaho Military Depart-ment; Idaho Division of Veterans Services (IDVS)

1 Mountain Home Air Force Base 3,678 5,892

Illinois Illinois Depart-ment of Military Affairs (IDMA); Illinois Department of Veterans’ Affairs (IDVA)

6 HQ USMEPCOM North Chicago 18,333 25,084

Rock Island Arsenal

U.S. Army Cadet Command 3rd Brigade

USAREC Chicago Battalion

Scott Air Force Base

Naval Station Great Lakes

Indiana Military Department of Indiana; Indiana Department of Veterans Affairs (IDVA)

1 USAREC Indianapolis Battalion 803 21,073

Iowa Iowa Department of Public Defense (DPD); Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs (IDVA)

0 N/A 222 12,390

Kansas Kansas Adjutant General’s Department; Kansas Commission on Veterans’ Affairs (KCVA)

3 Fort Leavenworth 26,176 11,479

Fort Riley

McConnell Air Force Base





(2011 DoD Data)


Guard Total

(2009 Census Data)

Name Number Names

Kentucky Kentucky Department of Military Affairs; Kentucky Department of Veterans Affairs (KDVA)

7 Fort Campbell 44,421 13,126

Fort Campbell Soldier and Family Assis-tance Center

Fort Knox

U.S. Army Cadet Command 1st Brigade


U.S.ArmyCadetCommandHeadquarters

USAREC Medical Recruiting Brigade

Louisiana Louisiana Military Department; Louisiana Department of Veteran Affairs (LDVA)

4 Fort Polk 17,266 18,011

USAREC Baton Rouge Battalion

Barksdale Air Force Base

Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans

Maine Maine Department of Defense, Veterans, and Emergency Manage-ment (DVEM)

2 USAREC New England Battalion 191 4,153

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

Maryland Maryland Mili-tary Department; Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs (MDVA)

10 Aberdeen Proving Ground 27,343 16,000

Fort Detrick

Fort George G. Meade

USAREC Baltimore Battalion

Joint Base Andrews - Naval Air Facility Washington

Naval Air Station Patuxent River

Naval Support Activity Bethesda, Home of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Naval Support Facility Indian Head

Navy Fort Meade

U.S. Naval Academy

Massachusetts Massachusetts National Guard; Massachusetts Department of Veterans’ Services (DVS)

3 Fort Devens 2,094 15,335

Hanscom Air Force Base

Westover Air Reserve Base

Michigan Michigan Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA)

3 U.S. Army Garrison - Detroit Arsenal 963 17,618

USAREC Great Lakes Battalion

Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center





(2011 DoD Data)


Guard Total

(2009 Census Data)

Name Number Names

Minnesota Minnesota Depart-ment of Military Affairs (DMA); Minnesota Depart-ment of Veterans Affairs (MDVA)

2 USAREC Minneapolis Battalion 604 19,256

Minn.-St. Paul Air Reserve Station

Mississippi Mississippi Military De-partment; Mississippi State Veterans Affairs Board (MSVAB)

5 Columbus Air Force Base 13,388 17,332

Keesler Air Force Base

Naval Air Station Meridian

Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport

Stennis Space Center

Missouri Missouri Office of the Adjutant General (un-der the Department of Public Safety); Missouri Veterans Commission (MVC) (under the Department of Public Safety)

3 Fort Leonard Wood 15,878 23,769

USAREC Kansas City Battalion

Whiteman Air Force Base

Montana Montana Department of Military Affairs (DMA); Montana Vet-erans Affairs Division (under the Department of Military Affairs)

1 Malmstrom Air Force Base 3,224 4,748

Nebraska Nebraska Military Department; Nebraska Department of Veterans’ Affairs (NDVA)

1 Offutt Air Force Base 6,000 7,498

Nevada Nevada Military Department; Nevada Department of Veterans Services (NDVS)

3 Creech Air Force Base 11,177 6,087

Nellis Air Force Base

Naval Air Station Fallon

New Hampshire New Hampshire Adju-tant General’s Depart-ment; New Hampshire State Office of Veterans Services

0 N/A 1,052 4,251





(2011 DoD Data)


Guard Total

(2009 Census Data)

Name Number Names

New Jersey New Jersey Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMAVA)

6 Fort Dix Soldier and Family Assistance Center

5,972 17,312

Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst

Picatinny Arsenal

U.S. Army Cadet Command 2nd Brigade

USAREC Mid-Atlantic Battalion

Naval Weapons Station Earle

New Mexico New Mexico Depart-ment of Military Affairs; New Mexico Depart-ment of Veterans’ Services (NMDVS)

4 U.S. Army Garrison White Sands Missile Range

12,740 5,199

Cannon Air Force Base

Holloman Air Force Base

Kirtland Air Force Base

New York New York State Divi-sion of Military and Naval Affairs (DMNA); New York State Divi-sion of Veterans’ Affairs (NYSDVA)

9 Fort Drum 24,496 30,362

Fort Drum Solder and Family Assistance Center

Fort Hamilton

USAREC Albany Battalion

USAREC New York City Battalion

USAREC Syracuse Battalion

U.S. Military Academy at West Point

West Point Soldier and Family Assistance Center

Naval Support Activity Saratoga Springs

North Carolina North Carolina Na-tional Guard (NCNG); North Carolina Divi-sion of Veterans Affairs (NCDVA) (under the Department of Admin-istration)

9 Fort Bragg 106,689 22,542

Fort Bragg Soldier and Family Assistance Center


USAREC Raleigh Battalion

Pope Army Airfield

Seymour Johnson Air Force Base

Camp Lejeune

Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point

Marine Corps Air Station New River

North Dakota North Dakota National Guard (NDNG); North Dakota Department of Veterans Affairs (ND-DVA)

2 Grand Forks Air Force Base 6,808 4,669

Minot Air Force Base





(2011 DoD Data)


Guard Total

(2009 Census Data)

Name Number Names

Ohio Ohio Adjutant Gen-eral’s Department; Ohio Department of Veterans Services (ODVS)

4 USAREC Cleveland Battalion 6,659 28,523

USAREC Columbus Battalion

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

Defense Supply Center Columbus

Oklahoma Oklahoma Mili-tary Department; Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs (ODVA)

6 Fort Sill 22,408 15,640

McAlester Army Ammunition Plant

USAREC Oklahoma City Battalion

Altus Air Force Base

Tinker Air Force Base

Vance Air Force Base

Oregon Oregon Military Department (OMD); Oregon Department of Veterans’ Affairs (ODVA)

1 USAREC Portland Battalion 438 10,470

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Depart-ment of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA)

5 Carlisle Barracks 2,326 32,397

Tobyhanna Army Depot

USAREC Harrisburg Battalion

Pittsburgh IAP Air Reserve Station

DefenseLogisticsAgencyatSusquehanna

Rhode Island Rhode Island National Guard (RING); Rhode Island Division of Vet-erans Affairs (under the Department of Human Services)

1 Naval Station Newport 2,536 4,438

South Carolina South Carolina Military Department; South Carolina Office of Veterans’ Affairs (SCOVA) (under the Governor’s Office of Executive Policy and Programs)

6 Fort Jackson 35,916 19,102

USAREC Columbia Battalion

Joint Base Charleston

Shaw Air Force Base

Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort

Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island

South Dakota South Dakota Depart-ment of the Military; South Dakota Depart-ment of Veterans Affairs (SDDVA)

1 Ellsworth Air Force Base 3,616 4,982





(2011 DoD Data)


Guard Total

(2009 Census Data)

Name Number Names

Tennessee Tennessee Mili-tary Department; Tennessee Department of Veterans Affairs (TDVA)

3 USAREC Nashville Battalion 2,213 20,606

Arnold Air Force Base

Naval Support Activity Mid-South

Texas Texas Adjutant Gen-eral’s Department; Texas Veterans Commission (TVC)

17 Fort Bliss 131,121 56,367

Fort Bliss Soldier and Family Assistance Center

Fort Hood

Joint Base San Antonio

Red River Army Depot


USAREC 5th Medical Recruiting Battalion

USAREC Dallas Battalion

USAREC Houston Battalion

USAREC San Antonio Battalion

Dyess Air Force Base

Goodfellow Air Force Base

Laughlin Air Force Base

Sheppard Air Force Base

Naval Air Station Corpus Christi

Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth

Naval Air Station Kingsville

Utah Utah National Guard; Utah Department of Veterans Affairs

3 Dugway Proving Ground 4,102 11,999

USAREC Salt Lake City Battalion

Hill Air Force Base

Vermont Vermont Mili-tary Department; Vermont Department of Veterans Affairs

0 N/A 89 3,952





(2011 DoD Data)


Guard Total

(2009 Census Data)

Name Number Names

Virginia Virginia Department of Military Affairs (DMA); Virginia Department of Veterans Services (DVS)

20 Fort Belvoir 125,418 25,109

Fort Lee

Fort Myer

Joint Base Langley-Eustis

Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story

Henderson Hall (Joint Base Myer-Hender-son Hall)

MARFORCOM Camp Allen and MCSF Regiment

Marine Corp Base Quantico

TESTING Major 2012

Naval Air Station Oceana

Naval Air Station Oceana Dam Neck An-nex

Naval Support Activity Northwest Annex

Naval Station Norfolk

Naval Support Facility Dahlgren (NSA South Potomac)

Naval Weapons Station Yorktown

Newport News Shipyard

Norfolk Naval Shipyard Portsmouth

Surface Combat Systems Center Wallops Island

Defense Supply Center Richmond

DLA McNamara HQC

Washington Washington Military Department; Washing-ton Department of Vet-eran Affairs (WDVA)

8 U.S. Army Cadet Command 8th Brigade 65,453 19,470

Fort Lewis (Joint Base Lewis-McChord)

USAREC Seattle Battalion

Fairchild Air Force Base

McChord Field

Naval Air Station Whidbey Island

Naval Base Kitsap

Naval Station Everett





(2011 DoD Data)


Guard Total

(2009 Census Data)

Name Number Names

West Virginia West Virginia De-partment of Military Affairs and Public Safety (DMAPS); West Virginia Department of Veterans Assistance (WVDVA)

2 USAREC Beckley Battalion 359 9,303

Naval Information Operations Command Sugar Grove

Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs; Wisconsin Depart-ment of Veterans Affairs (WDVA)

2 Fort McCoy 492 15,833

USAREC Milwaukee Battalion

Wyoming Wyoming Military Department; Wyoming Veterans Commission (under Military Depart-ment)

1 F.E. Warren Air Force Base 3,163 3,218

District of Columbia

D.C. Mayor’s Office of Veterans’ Affairs (OVA)

4 Pentagon - Army 9,009 6,378

Joint Base Anacostia - Bolling

Naval District Washington (Washington Navy Yard)

Pentagon - Air Force

American Samoa Office of Veterans Affairs

0 None None None

Guam Department of Military Affairs; Veteran’s Affairs Office

3 U.S. Naval Base Guam Unknown Unknown

Andersen Air Force Base

Joint Region Marianas

Northern Mariana Islands

Office of Military Liaison and Veteran’s Affairs

0 None None None

Puerto Rico Unknown 1 Fort Buchanan Unknown Unknown

U.S. Virgin Islands

Unknown 0 None None None

Sources: U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), Military Installations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. DoD, n.d.), www.militaryinstal-lations.dod.mil/ (U.S. Coast Guard stations not included); U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy), 2011 Demographics Profile of the Military Community (Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. DoD, 2012); U.S. Census Bureau, Military Personnel and Expenditures (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009), www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/national_security_veterans_affairs/military_personnel_and_expenditures.html.



Appendix B. Adjutants General Terms and QualificationsState/ Jurisdiction

Statutory Citation Length of Term Qualifications

Alabama Ala. Code §31-2-58 Pleasure of the gov-ernor

Appointed from among active officers of the Alabama National Guard. An eligible candidate must have at least six years of service in the Na-tional Guard with at least two years spent in the line. The candidate also must have served as a commissioned officer in the National Guard for at least four years.

Alaska Alaska Stat. §§26.05.160 and 26.05.210

Pleasure of the gov-ernor

In appointing the adjutant general, the governor may give preference to a person who has served at least five years in the Alaska Army National Guard or the Alaska Air National Guard. An eligible candidate must be a citizen of the state and must be a federally recognized general-grade officer in the Alaska National Guard or an of-ficerwhohasthequalificationstogainfederalrecognition as a general-grade officer either in active status or in retirement status eligible for reappointment as a general-grade officer.

Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §26-101


An eligible candidate must be a U.S. citizen and a resident of the state. The candidate also must have served at least five of the past 10 years in the Arizona National Guard. At the time of the appointment,thepersonmusthavequalifica-tionsrequiredbyDoDfortheadjutantgeneraland must attain federal recognition in a grade not less than brigadier general no later than one year after the appointment.

Arkansas Ark. Stat. Ann. §§12-61-105 through 12-61-107


An eligible candidate must be a U.S. citizen, a resident of the state and: 1) an officer in the active militia with not less than seven succes-sive years of service immediately preceding his appointment; or 2) have been in service in the active militia of the state as a commissioned officer for a period of 15 years, eight of which were as a field grade officer or general officer, or both; or 3) held the rank of a field grade officer in the active militia and, as such, been called into federal service and commanded a unit during such service.

California Cal. Military & Veterans Code §§160 through 190

Pleasure of the governor, or until the successor is appointed andhasqualified

An eligible candidate must have at least 10 years of commissioned service in the National Guard. The candidate also must have spent at least four of those years as a field grade officer in the California National Guard within 10 years of the date of appointment and an additional mini-mum of four years in command of army or air troops at battalion level or higher or four years as a staff officer at brigade level or higher.





Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §28-3-105


An eligible candidate must be a commissioned officer of the Colorado National Guard at the time of appointment with at least five years of service in the National Guard and no less than 10 total years of service in the state or federal armed forces. The candidate also must have at-tained the grade of lieutenant colonel or higher with federal recognition at least one year prior to the appointment as adjutant general.

Connecticut Conn. Gen. Stat. §27-19 Four years from the first day of July and until a successor is appointedandquali-fied, or until age 64, whichever comes first

An eligible candidate must have at least 15 years of commissioned service in the U.S. armed forces and must have obtained the rank of lieutenant colonel or higher in the Army, Marine Corps or Air Force, or the rank of commander or higher in the Navy or Coast Guard. The candidate can-not be older than age 63.

Delaware Del. Code Ann. tit. 20, §122


An eligible candidate must have served as a commissioned officer of the Delaware National Guard or the U.S. armed forces.

Florida Fla. Stat. §250.10 Pleasure of the gov-ernor

An eligible candidate must be a federally rec-ognized officer of the Florida National Guard, who has served in the Florida National Guard for the preceding five years and attained the rank of colonel or higher. Any appointment by the governor is subject to confirmation by the senate.

Georgia Ga. Code §38-2-150 Concurrent with and at the pleasure of the appointing governor

An eligible candidate must be between the ages of 30 and 65. The candidate also must hold or haveheldrankoffieldgradeortheequivalentin the organized militia of the state, in the U.S. armed forces or in a reserve component thereof and must have served at least five years in one or more of such services at the time of the appoint-ment.

Hawaii Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§121-7 and 26-31

Concurrent with the appointing governor, unless removed by the governor with the advice and consent of the senate

An eligible candidate must hold or have held a commission of at least a field grade officer, federallyrecognizedassuch,oritsequivalentinthe national guard, state defense force, or other branch of the armed forces of this or any other U.S. state or territory, or in the U.S. armed forces or a reserve component thereof. The can-didate also must have served as a commissioned officer in one or more of the armed services for at least 10 years.

Idaho Idaho Code §46-111 Concurrent with and at the pleasure of the appointing governor

An eligible candidate must be a federally recog-nized member of the national guard and have served at least six years as a commissioned officer in the national guard of Idaho and attained the rank of colonel or above.





Illinois Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 20, §1805/14 and ch. 20, §1805/16

Two years An eligible candidate must have had 10 or more years of active commissioned service in a component of the U.S. armed forces, the active Illinois Army National Guard or active Illinois Air National Guard, and have attained the grade ofcolonelorlieutenantcolonel,ortheequiva-lent thereof.

Indiana Ind. Code §10-16-2-6 Concurrent with the appointing governor

The adjutant general must hold the rank of not less than brigadier general.

Iowa Iowa Code §29A.11 Four years at the plea-sure of the governor

At the time of appointment, an eligible candi-date must be a federally recognized commis-sioned officer in the U.S. Army or Air Force, the Army or Air National Guard, the U.S. Army or Air National Guard or the U.S. Army or Air Force reserve who has reached at least the grade of colonel and who is or is eligible to be federally recognized at the next higher rank.

Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §48-203 Pleasure of the gover-nor appointing them and until successors are appointed and confirmed

An eligible candidate must have served at least five years as a commissioned officer in the Kansas National Guard and must have been an officer in the U.S. armed forces.

Kentucky Ky. Rev. Stat. §36.110 Concurrent with and at the pleasure of the appointing governor

An eligible candidate must have attained the grade prescribed by the U.S. DoD, as detailed by the governor.

Louisiana La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §29:10

Four years or until the appointment and qualificationofasuc-cessor; and shall not be dismissed except for just cause

An eligible candidate must be a citizen of the state for at least 15 years and must be appointed from active federally recognized officers of the Louisiana National Guard who have had at least seven years of federally recognized commissioned service in the Louisiana National Guard and have attained the federally recognized rank of colonel.

Maine Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 37-B, §3 and 37-B, §107


An eligible candidate must have attained the federally recognized rank of colonel in the Maine National Guard and meet the criteria for federal recognition as a general officer for either the U.S. Army National Guard or the U.S. Air National Guard as prescribed by federal service regula-tions. Appointment by the governor is subject to review by the joint standing committee of the Legislature with jurisdiction over veterans’ affairs and confirmation by the Legislature.





Maryland Md. Public Safety Code Ann. §13-301

Concurrent with the term of the appoint-ing governor

At the time of appointment, an eligible candi-date must have at least two years of commis-sioned field grade service in the National Guard, have attained at least the rank of colonel and meettherequirementsforfederalrecognitionatthe rank of major general. The adjutant general is appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the senate.

Massachusetts Mass. Gen. Laws. Ann. ch. 33, §15

Concurrent with the term of the appoint-ing governor or until age 65, unless removed prior to that time by resignation, disability or for cause by a court-martial legally convened for that purpose

An eligible candidate must have federal recogni-tion in an organization or unit of the Massachu-setts National Guard, Army or Air. The candi-date also must have been a commissioned officer in the Massachusetts National Guard, Army or Air, for a period of not less than five years and have attained, while serving therein, or in the U.S. National Guard a grade not lower than that of lieutenant colonel.

Michigan Mich. Comp. Laws §§32.700 through 32.710

Pleasure of the gov-ernor or until age 64, unless sooner relieved

An eligible candidate must have served as an of-ficer of field or general grade in the state military establishment for at least five years before ap-pointment.

Minnesota Minn. Stat. §190.07 Seven years An eligible candidate must be a staff officer, who at the time of appointment is a commissioned officer of the Minnesota National Guard, with at least 10 years of military service in the Minneso-ta National Guard or the U.S. armed forces s. At least three of the 10 years must have been spent as a commissioned field officer.

Mississippi Miss. Code Ann. §33-3-7 Four-year term con-current with the term of the appointing governor

An eligible candidate must have attained at least the rank of colonel and be eligible to receive federal recognition upon his or her appointment. The candidate also must have served at least seven years in the U.S. armed forces of, either in active federal service or as a member of a reserve component, with at least three years of such service in the Mississippi National Guard. At least five years of such service must have been as a commissioned officer.

Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §41.140 Concurrent with the term of the appoint-ing governor

An eligible candidate must have at least 10 years of military service as a commissioned officer with the military forces of the state, or the United States, or in any or all of such services combined, five years of the service being in field grade.





Montana Mont. Code Ann. §§2-15-1201 and 2-15-1202


An eligible candidate must: a) be selected from the active list of the National Guard of the state; b) be federally recognized in the rank of lieuten-ant colonel or higher, immediately preceding appointment; and c) have at least 10 years of service as an officer of the active national guard of the state during the 15 years immediately preceding appointment.

Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §§55-120 and 55-121

Until age 64 unless retired prior to that time by reason of res-ignation, disability or pursuant to applicable regulations issued by the Department of the Army or the Department of the Air Force

An eligible candidate must be appointed by the governor from the active or retired com-missioned officers of the National Guard of the state. The candidate must be or have been a commissioned officer who has actively served in the National Guard of the state for at least five years, attained at least the grade of lieutenant colonel and must be able to become eligible for promotion to general officer. If a retired officer is appointed, he or she cannot have been retired for more than two years at the time he or she is considered for appointment.

Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §§412.042 and 412.044

Four-year term or until relieved by reason of resigna-tion, withdrawal of federal recognition or for cause to be deter-mined by a court-martial; the current term of an adjutant general shall continue until its prescribed expiration date while such adjutant general is serving in a federal active duty status un-der an order or call by the president of the United States

An eligible candidate must be an officer of the Nevada National Guard, federally recognized in the grade of lieutenant colonel or higher and must have completed at least six years’ service in the Nevada National Guard as a federally recognized officer.

New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §110-B:8

Until age 65 An eligible candidate must have at least five years of service as a member of the New Hampshire National Guard, immediately preceding the appointment, have attained at least the rank of colonel and be eligible for federal recognition by the DoD as a brigadier general.





New Jersey N.J. Rev. Stat. §38A:3-3 Concurrent with the term of the appoint-ing governor

An eligible candidate must be a) a federally recognized general officer in the National Guard and have served for the preceding 10 years; or b) a federally recognized commissioned officer in the National Guard and currently serving in a military grade not below that of colonel with the qualificationstobecomeafederallyrecognizedbrigadier general in the New Jersey Army Na-tional Guard or New Jersey Air National Guard.

New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. §20-1-5 Five years; the adju-tant general cannot be removed from office during this period, except for cause to be determined by a court-martial or efficiency board legally convened for that purpose in the manner prescribed by the National Guard regulations of the U.S. DoD

An eligible candidate must be an officer who, for three years immediately preceding his or her appointment, has been federally recognized as an officer in the National Guard of New Mexico and has received federal recognition in the rank of major or higher.

New York N.Y. Military Law §11 Pleasure of the gov-ernor

Not specified in statute

North Carolina N.C. Gen. Stat. §127A-19


An eligible candidate must have at least five years of commissioned service in an active status in any component of the U.S. armed forces.

North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §37-03-01

Six years An eligible candidate must have been a federally recognized commissioned officer of the Na-tional Guard for a period of at least three years immediately preceding the appointment, must have obtained the rank of lieutenant colonel or higher and must have completed the educational requirementsforappointmentasafederallyrecognized general officer.

Ohio Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§5913.02 and 5913.021


An eligible candidate must be a federally recog-nized officer in the Ohio National Guard in the grade of colonel or above at the time of appoint-ment. The candidate also must have at least 10 years’ commissioned service in the U.S. armed forces, at least five of which are in the Ohio National Guard.





Oklahoma Okla. Stat. tit. 44, §24 Pleasure of the gov-ernor

An eligible candidate must be a federally recog-nized officer of the National Guard of Oklahoma and the U.S. National Guard for at least three years and have attained the rank of colonel or higher. The candidate must be currently serving at the time of appointment or served within two years of the time of appointment. If no one with theabovequalificationsisavailable,thegovernormay appoint, subject to the advice and consent ofthesenate,anysuitablyqualifiedpersonwho,at any time in the preceding 10 years, would havebeenqualifiedandwhohasservedatleasttwo years in active federal service in the grade of colonel or higher.

Oregon Or. Rev. Stat. §396.150 Four-year term or un-til relieved by reason of resignation, with-drawal of federal rec-ognition or for cause to be determined by a court-martial

An eligible candidate must be an officer of the Oregon National Guard, federally recognized in the grade of lieutenant colonel or higher and must have completed at least six years’ service in the Oregon National Guard as a federally recognized officer.

Pennsylvania Pa. Cons. Stat. tit. 51, §901


An eligible candidate must have served at least 10 years as a commissioned officer in the Pennsylvania National Guard, or any of the U.S. armed forces or their reserve components; the aforesaid service may be cumulative.

Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws §§30-2-12 and 30-2-13

Four years from the time of appointment and until his or her successor is con-firmed, provided that this appointment may be revoked by the governor for cause or if the adjutant general has been found to be physically unfit for service, as provided by §30-3-22

An eligible candidate must hold a commission of at least colonel in the U.S. armed forces or in a reserve component thereof, and must have served at least five years in one or more of the federal services. The candidate also must meet the crite-ria for federal recognition in the rank to which he or she has been appointed as prescribed by the laws and regulations of the United States.

South Carolina S.C. Const. Art. VI, §7

S.C. Code Ann. §§25-1-320 and 25-1-340

Four years An eligible candidate must be an officer of the active South Carolina National Guard who has attained the rank of colonel or higher and meets theeligibilityrequirementsforaconstitutionalofficer. The candidate also must have a mini-mum of 15 years’ active commissioned service in the South Carolina National Guard.





South Dakota S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §33-1-2


An eligible candidate must be a federally recog-nized commissioned officer of the South Dakota National Guard, with at least 10 years of military service in the armed forces of the state or of the United States. The candidate must meet all requirementsoftheofficer’srespectiveservicetobe appointed and receive federal recognition as a general officer in that service, including any waivers that may be authorized and granted or delegated by the secretaries of the Army or Air Force, as appropriate.

Tennessee Tenn. Code Ann. §58-1-115

Concurrent with the term of the appoint-ing governor; serves at the pleasure of the governor

An eligible candidate must be a member of the Tennessee National Guard who meets all qualificationstobeafederallyrecognizedgeneralofficer.

Texas Tex. Government Code Ann. §431.022

Term expires February 1 of each odd-num-bered year

An eligible candidate must be serving as a federally recognized officer of not less than field grade in the Texas National Guard at the time of appointment and have previously served on active duty or active duty for training with the army, air force, or marines. The candidate also must have completed at least 10 years’ service as a federally recognized reserve or active duty com-missioned officer with an active unit of the U.S. armed forces, the National Guard or the Texas National Guard, including at least five years with the Texas National Guard.

Utah Utah Code Ann. §39-1-12

Six years or until age 64, unless terminated by resignation, dis-ability or for cause as determined by a military court or court-martial

An eligible candidate must be a citizen of Utah andmeettherequirementsprovidedinTitle32,U.S. Code. The candidate must be a federally recognized commissioned officer of the U.S. National Guard with at least 10 years of com-missioned service in the Utah National Guard. Active service in the U.S. armed forces may be includedinthisrequirement,iftheofficerwasamember of the Utah National Guard when he or she entered that service.

Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 20, §363

Two years Not specified in statute

Virginia Va. Code §44-11 Concurrent with and at the pleasure of the governor

An eligible candidate must have at least 10 years’ commissioned service in the Virginia National Guard in field grade or higher.





Washington Wash. Rev. Code §38.12.030


An eligible candidate must be an officer in the Washington Army National Guard or the Washington Air National Guard of field rank or higher with at least 10 years of service in the past 15 years.

West Virginia W. Va. Code §15-1A-2 Four years An eligible candidate must have at least six years’ commissioned service and have attained field grade or higher rank in the organized militia of this or some other state or in the U.S. armed forces, or in all combined.

Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §15.31 Five years, may be ap-pointed to successive terms

An eligible candidate must hold the federally recognized minimum rank of full colonel and must be a current participating member of one of the following components: a) Wisconsin Army National Guard; b) U.S. Army National Guard; c) U.S. Army reserve; d) Wisconsin Air National Guard; e) U.S. Air National Guard; or f ) U.S. Air Force reserve. The candidate also mustbequalifiedtoreceivefederalrecognitionat the minimum rank of brigadier general and have successfully completed a war college course orthemilitaryequivalentacceptabletotheap-propriate service.

If the candidate is already a federally recognized general officer, he or she must be 62 years of age or less and retired from active drilling status within the preceding two years. The candidate also must be eligible for federal recognition as a major general.

Wyoming Wyo. Stat. §19-7-103 Pleasure of the gov-ernor

An eligible candidate must have served as a field, staff or line officer in the U.S. Army or Air Force, or National Guard, or both, for at least 10 years. The candidate also must have been a member of the Wyoming National Guard for at least four years immediately preceding the appointment and attained at least the rank of a federally recognized lieutenant colonel at the time of appointment. The candidate must be a resident of Wyoming.





District of Co-lumbia

D.C. Code Ann. §§49-303 and 49-304

Until age 64, unless retired prior to that time by reason of resignation, disabil-ity or for cause to be determined by a court-martial legally convened for that purpose

An eligible candidate must have had previous military experience. The adjutant general is ap-pointed by the president of the United States.

Guam Guam Code Ann. tit. 10, §63201

Serve until such time as his replacement is appointed by I Maga’lahen Guahan or until he resigns

An eligible candidate must have such rank and qualificationsasI Maga’lahen Guåhan may prescribe, and must: a) be, or have been, a federally recognized commissioned officer in the Army or Air Force or their Reserve components in the grade of at least lieutenant colonel (O-5, Promotable) pursuant to Army or Air Force promotion regulations and policies at the time of appointment; and b) be promoted in the Guam Army or Air National Guard, as appropriate, at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, to a grade not to exceed lieutenant general (O-9).

Puerto Rico P.R. Code Ann. tit. 25, §2059


An eligible candidate must be a U.S. citizen and must have lived in Puerto Rico for at least one year prior to his or her appointment. The candi-date also must be an officer who has or may have had the corresponding federal acknowledgement as officer of the U.S. armed forces and must have served in the National Guard of Puerto Rico for at least five years and reached the grade of lieutenantcoloneloritsequivalentrank.

U.S. Virgin Islands

V. I. Code Ann. tit. 23, §1508


An eligible candidate must be a U.S. citizen and have resided in the U.S. Virgin Islands at least one year immediately prior to the appointment. The candidate also must also be a commissioned officer or a former commissioned officer of the U.S. armed forces.

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) compiled data, 2013.



Appendix C. State Military Advisory BodiesState Military Advisory Body

Name Date Created Authority

Alabama Job Creation and Military Stability Commission 2011 2011 Ala. Acts, Act 350 (2011 SJR 69)

Alaska Force Advocacy and Structure Team 2009 Admin. Order 264 (2012)

Arizona Governor’s Military Affairs Commission 2004 Exec. Order 2004-04 (2004)

Arkansas None None None

California Governor’s Advisor for Military Affairs 2006 Exec. Order S-16-06 (2006)

Governor’s Military Council 2013 N/A

Colorado National Defense Support Council 2012 N/A

Connecticut Office of Military Affairs 2007 Conn. Gen. Stat. §32-58b (2007 SB 937)Military and Defense Advisory Council

Delaware BRAC Task Force 2005 2005 Senate Joint Resolution 7

Florida Defense Support Task Force 2011 Fla. Stat. §288.987 (Created by 2011 House Bill 143;

amended by 2012 House Bill 7041 and 2012 Senate Bill 922/House Bill 7075)

Georgia Military Affairs Coordinating Committee 1994 Exec. Order 07.01.11.01 (2011)

Governor’s Defense Initiative 2012 N/A

Hawaii Chamber of Commerce Military Affairs Council 1985 N/A

Idaho None None None

Illinois Interagency Military Base Support and Economic Development Committee

2005 Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 20, §605-215 (Created by 2005 SB 1354)

Indiana Commission on Military and Veterans Affairs 1992 Ind.Code§§2-5-20-1etseq.(Created by 1992 Senate Bill 28)

Military Base Task Force 2004 Exec. Order 04-2 (2004)

Iowa None None None

Kansas Governor’s Military Council 1998 Exec. Order 11-03 (2011)

Kentucky Commission on Military Affairs 1992 Ky. Rev. Stat. §154.12-203 (Created by 1992 House Bill 652;

amended by 2010 House Bill 434 and 2011 House Bill 122)

Task Force on Military Base Realignment 2008 Exec. Order 2008-0272 (2008)

Louisiana Military Advisory Council 2012 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§29:61 et seq. (Created by 2012 House Bill 936)

Maine Governor’s Office of Redevelopment, Re-employment and Business Support

2005 Exec. Order 03 FY 06/07 (2005)

Governor’s Advisory Council 2005 Exec. Order 10 FY 06/07 (2005)

Maryland Military Installation Council 2003 Md. Economic Development Code Ann. §§11-201 et seq. (Created by 2003 House

Bill 888; amended by 2010 Senate Bill 55)

Governor’s Subcabinet on Base Realignment and Closure

2007-2011 2007 Md. Laws, Chap. 6 (Created by 2007 Senate Bill 110)

Massachusetts Military Asset and Security Strategy Task Force 2012 Exec. Order 541 (2012)





Michigan None None None

Minnesota None None None

Mississippi Military Communities Council 1997 Exec. Order 1317 (2013)

Missouri Military Preparedness and Enhancement Commis-sion

2005 Mo. Rev. Stat. §41.1010 (Created by 2005 Senate Bill 252/House Bill 348; amended by 2008 House Bill

1678)

Montana None None None

Nebraska Base Realignment and Closure Task Force 2008 2008 Legislative Resolution 296

Nevada Joint Military Affairs Committee 2007 N/A

New Hampshire None None None

New Jersey None None None

New Mexico Military Base Planning Commission 2003 N.M. Stat. Ann. §§9-15-49 et seq. (Created by 2003 Senate Bill 287/House Bill 323; amended

by 2004 Senate Bill 333, 2005 House Bill 307 and 2009 House Bill 286)

Office of Military Base Planning and Support

New York None None None

North Carolina Advisory Commission on Military Affairs 2001 N.C. Gen. Stat. §§127C-1 et seq. (Created by 2001 Senate Bill 1005;

amended by 2004 Senate Bill 1159 and 2011 House Bill 200)

State Military Affairs Commission 2013 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws, Chap. 227 (Cre-ated by 2013 Senate Bill 613)

North Dakota Governor’s Military Task Force 2000s N/A

Ohio None None None

Oklahoma Strategic Military Planning Commission 2003 Okla. Stat. tit. 74, §5401 (Created by 2003 House Bill 1396;

amended by 2010 House Bill 2290 and 2011 House Bill 1556)

Oregon None None None

Pennsylvania Military Installation and Base Development Caucus

2011 N/A

Military Community Protection Commission 2012 Exec. Order 2012-12 (2012)

Rhode Island None None None

South Carolina Military Base Task Force 2006 Exec. Order 2013-04 (2013)

South Dakota None None None

Tennessee None None None

Texas Military Preparedness Commission 2003 Tex. Government Code Ann. §§436.001 et seq. (Created by 2003 Senate Bill 652;

amended by 2009 House Bill 2546)

Utah Utah Defense Alliance 1990s N/A





Vermont None None None

Virginia Military Advisory Council 2002 Va. Code §2.2-2666.1 (Created by 2002 Senate Bill 322;

amended by 2007 House Bill 2690 and 2011 Senate Bill 1280/House Bill 1842)

Commission on Military Installations and Defense Activities

2013 Exec. Order 60 (2013)

Washington Military Alliance 2012 N/A

West Virginia None None None

Wisconsin None None None

Wyoming None None None


None None None

American Samoa Unknown Unknown Unknown

Guam U.S. Military Advancement Commission 1998 Guam Code Ann., tit. 1, §1400 et seq.

First Commission on the Military Mission in Guam (Kumision Guahan Fine’nana)

2009 Guam Code Ann., tit. 1, §2401 et seq.




Appendix D. State Grant Programs to Preserve or Enhance the Value of InstallationsState Grant Programs Appropriations


Alabama None None None None

Alaska Military Facility Zones 2012 Alaska Stat. §26.30.005 et seq. (Created by 2012

House Bill 316)

N/A

Arizona Military Installation Fund 2004-2008; Reactivated

June 3, 2013

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §26-262 (Cre-ated by 2004 House Bill 2140; amended by 2010

Senate Bill 1350)

$4.825 million annually, begin-ning in FY 2004-05

Arkansas None None None None

California Infrastructure State Revolving Fund Program

2004 Cal. Government Code §63050 (Created by 1994

Assembly Bill 1495)

N/A

Colorado None None None None

Connecticut None None None None

Delaware None None None None

Florida Defense Infrastructure Grant Program

1999 Fla. Stat. §288.980 (Cre-ated by 1999 Senate Bill 1566; amended by 2012

House Bill 7075 and 2013 Senate Bill 1784)

FY 2007-08: $1.5 million; FY 2008-09: $10.6 million ($9.1

million to one project); FY 2009-10: $500,000; FY 2011-12

and 2012-13: $1,581,245

Defense Reinvestment Grant Program

FY 2007-08: $1 million; FY 2008-09: $750,000;

FY 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13: $850,000.00

Georgia Job Tax Credit Program (Mili-tary Zone Designation)

2004 Ga. Code §48-7-40.1 (Created by 2004 House

Bill 984)

$3,500 maximum tax credit per job created

Hawaii None None None None

Idaho None None None None

Illinois None None None None

Indiana None None None None

Iowa None None None None

Kansas Strong Military Bases Program (Economic Development Initia-

tives Fund)

2007 Kan. Stat. Ann. §79-4804

FY 2013: $100,000 from Eco-nomic Development Initiatives Fund for Strong Military Bases Program;$100,000requested

for FY 2014 and FY 2015

Kentucky None None None None

Louisiana None None None None

Maine None None None None





Maryland BRAC Revitalization and Incen-tive Zone Program

2008 Md. Economic De-velopment Code Ann.

§5-1301 et seq. (Created by 2008 Senate Bill 601; amended by 2009 House

Bill 1429)

Zone Program: Maximum of $5 million annually;

FY 2008 to FY 2011: $3.5 billion for improvements in

transportation, higher educa-tion, water and sewer, and public schools in areas affected by 2005

BRAC

Massachusetts None None None None

Michigan None None None None

Minnesota None None None None

Mississippi None None None None

Missouri None None None None

Montana None None None None

Nebraska None None None None

Nevada None None None None

New Hampshire None None None None

New Jersey None None None None

New Mexico None None None None

New York Military Base Retention Grant 2012 N.Y. Unconsolidated Laws §6254

2012: $2.9 million; 2013: $2 million

North Carolina None None None None

North Dakota None None None None

Ohio None None None None

Oklahoma Military Strategic Planning Commission Incentive Fund

2003 Okla. Stat. tit. 74, §5403 (Created by 2003 House

Bill 1397)

2003: $1.5 million

Military Base Protection Grant Program

2006 2006 Okla. Sess. Laws, Chap. 234 (Senate Bill

1675)

2006: $1 milliion

Oregon None None None None

Pennsylvania None None None None

Rhode Island None None None None

South Carolina None None None None

South Dakota None None None None

Tennessee None None None None





Texas Military Value Revolving Loan Fund

2003 Tex. Government Code Ann. §436.156 et

seq.; Tex. Government Code Ann. §§436.153-436.1532 (Created by 2003 Senate Bill 652)

FY 2012: $2,941,763;

FY 2013: $3,718,473;

as of FY 2012, $49.6 million in loans have been allocated

Defense Economic Adjustment Assistance Grant Program

1997 Tex. Government Code Ann. §486.001 et seq.

(Created by 1997 Senate Bill 227; amended by

2009 House Bill 2546)

As of FY 2012, $32.4 million in grants have been awarded

Utah Utah Military Installation Devel-opment Authority

2007 Utah Code Ann. §63H-1-201 (Created by

2007 Senate Bill 232; Amended by 2012 Senate Bill 49 and 2013 Senate

Bill 221)

2008: $10 million in state grants

Vermont None None None None

Virginia None None None None

Washington None None None None

West Virginia None None None None

Wisconsin None None None None

Wyoming None None None None


None None None None

American Samoa

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Guam None None None None

Northern Mariana Islands

None None None None

Puerto Rico None None None None

U.S. Virgin Islands

None None None None




Appendix E. State Land Use Planning and Conservation LawsState Land Use Planning Notification Of Military Land Conservation Programs

Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§9-461.05, 28-8481, 28-8482, 32-2114, 28-8484

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§9-461.06, 9-462.04, 9-500.28

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §26-262; 2012 Ariz. Sess. Laws, Chap. 278

Arkansas Ark. Stat. Ann. §14-56-426 None None

California Cal. Government Code §65302 Cal. Government Code §§65352, 65404, 65944; Cal. Public Re-sources Code §25519.5

Cal. Public Resources Code §10230

Colorado None Colo. Rev. Stat. §§29-20-105.6, 31-23-206

Colorado Constitution Art. 27, §1

Florida Fla. Stat. §163.3177 Fla. Stat. §163.3175 Fla. Stat. §§259.105-259.1051; 2013 Fla. Laws, Chap. 222

Georgia Ga. Code §36-66-6 Ga. Code §36-66-6 None

Illinois Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 620, §52/1 et seq. None None

Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §12-773 Kan. Stat. Ann. §12-773 None

Kentucky Ky. Rev. Stat. §100.187 Ky. Rev. Stat. §100.187 None

Louisiana None La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§33:4734, 33:4780.52

None

Maryland Md. Real Property Code Ann. §14-117

None None

Massachusetts None Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 40B, §4C

None

Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §67.1203 None None

Montana Mont. Code Ann. §10-1-1503 None None

Nebraska None Neb. Rev. Stat. §§14-407, 19-923, 15-1103

Neb. Rev. Stat. §81-15, 174.01

Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §278.160 None None

New Jersey None N.J. Rev. Stat. §§40:55D-62.1, 40:55D-12.4

None

New York None None N.Y. Environmental Conserva-tion Law §§54-0301-54-0303

North Carolina None N.C. Gen. Stat. §§153A-323, 160A-364

N.C. Gen. Stat. §113A-253.2 et seq.

Ohio None None Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§901.21-901.22

Oklahoma Okla. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, §43-101.1 None None

Pennsylvania None None Pa. Cons. Stat. tit. 27, §6101 et seq.

South Carolina S.C. Code Ann. §6-29-1630 None S.C. Code Ann. §6-1-320

South Dakota S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §50-10-32 et seq.

None None

Texas Tex. Local Government Code Ann. §§397.001 et seq., 240.032

Tex. Local Government Code §§397.005, 397.006

Tex. Natural Resources Code Ann. §183.051 et seq.

Utah None None Utah Code Ann. §63M-6-201 et seq.



Appendix E. State Land Use Planning and Conservation LawsState Land Use Planning Notification Of Military Land Conservation Programs

Virginia Va. Code §§15.2-2223, 15.2-2283, 15.2-2295

Va. Code §§15.2-2204, 15.2-2211

2008 Va. Acts, Chap. 653; Va. Code §3.2-200 et seq.

Washington Wash. Rev. Code §36.70A.530 Wash. Rev. Code §§36.70A.530, 80.50.071

None

Wisconsin None Wis. Stat. §62.23 None

Wyoming None None Wyo. Stat. §9-15-103 et seq.




Notes

1. According to 10 U.S.C. §2687(g)(1), the term “military installation” refers to a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship or other activity under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Defense, including any leased facility, which is located within any of the several states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands or Guam. 2. U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), Military Installations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. DoD, n.d.), www.militaryinstallations.dod.mil/. 3. U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy), 2011 Demographics Profile of the Military Community (Washington, D.C.: U.S. DoD, 2012), 32. 4. Sara Nienow, Chris Harder, Tim Cole, and Anna Lea, North Carolina’s Military Footprint: Current Economic Impacts and Projections for 2013 (Raleigh: North Carolina Department of Commerce, 2008), 4, www.nccommerce.com/Portals/47/Publica-tions/Industry%20Reports/North%20Carolinas%20Military%20Footprint.pdf. 5. Arizona Department of Commerce, Economic Impact of Arizona’s Principal Military Operations: Executive Summary (Phoe-nix: Arizona Department of Commerce, 2008), i, www.glendaleaz.com/lukeafb/documents/military_econ_impact_exec_summary.pdf. 6. Davide Erinakes, chief of staff to Representative Dan Flynn, Texas Legislature, email to Alice Wheet, Sept. 26, 2013. 7. Ibid.; Conexus Indiana, Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) and Aviation Association of Indiana (AAI), Executive Summary: Indiana Airports’ Economic Impact (Indianapolis: Conexus Indiana, INDOT and AAI, 2012), www.in.gov/in-dot/files/Aviation_FinalEconomicImpactStudy.pdf; Paul Coomes, Shaheer Burney and Barry Kornstein, The Economic Importance of the Military in Kentucky (Louisville: The University of Louisville College of Business, 2012), http://kcma.ky.gov/economicIm-pact.htm; James Hosek, Aviva Litovitz, and Adam C. Resnick, How Much Does Military Spending Add to Hawaii’s Economy? (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2011), www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2011/RAND_TR996.pdf; Michael L. Lahr, Report of Research Submitted to Governor James E. Mcgreevey on The Economic Contribution of Military and Coast Guard Installations to the State of New Jersey (New Brunswick: Rutgers University, 2004), http://policy.rutgers.edu/cupr/project/economic_impact_of_military_bases_in_nj.htm; Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED), Mis-sion Maryland: Measuring Economic Impact of Maryland’s Military Installations (Annapolis: Maryland DBED, 2010); Sara Nienow, Chris Harder, Tim Cole, and Anna Lea, North Carolina’s Military Footprint;; Oklahoma 21st Century Foundation and Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce, Oklahoma’s Five Military Installations: An Economic Impact Report (Oklahoma City: Oklahoma 21st Century Foundation and Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce, 2008), www.okstatechamber.com/additional/21stCentury/Military-ImpactStudy_Report_FINAL.pdf; Lu Wang, Paul Carlsen, and David Clayton, The Economic Impact of The Military Community in South Carolina (Columbia: South Carolina Department of Commerce, 2012), http://sccommerce.com/sites/default/files/docu-ment_directory/the_economic_impact_of_the_military_community_in_south_carolina.pdf. 8. University of Massachusetts (UMass) Donahue Institute, Preliminary Findings: An Economic Contribution Analysis and Overview of Massachusetts Military Installations, Underwritten by MassDevelopment for the Military Asset and Security Strategy Task Force (Hadley, Mass.: UMass Donahue Institute, 2012), www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2012/ma-military-bases-economic-contribution-6-26-12.pdf. 9. Oklahoma 21st Century Foundation, Oklahoma’s Five Military Installations, 5. 10. Dr. Paul Sommers, Economic Impacts of the Military Bases in Washington (Olympia: Washington Office of Financial Man-agement, 2004), www.ofm.wa.gov/economy/military/military.pdf. 11. Paul Purpura, “Military bases, defense contracts, retirees bring $8.7 billion to Louisiana economy, study says,” The Times-Picayune (New Orleans), Sept. 11, 2013, www.nola.com/military/index.ssf/2013/09/military_bases_defense_contrac.html. 12. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Federal Deficit Reduction Overview (Denver: NCSL, 2013), www.ncsl.org/issues-research/budget/federal-deficit-reduction-overview.aspx. 13. Annie Lowrey, “Budget Battles Keep Agencies Guessing,” The New York Times, Sept. 3, 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/business/budget-breakdown-keeps-federal-agencies-guessing.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. 14. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Fiscal Affairs Program, State Budget Update: Spring 2013 (Denver: NCSL, 2013), 6, www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=26159. See pages 37-39 for a complete table summarizing states’ survey re-sponses related to defense cuts. 15. Ibid. 16. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Defense Infrastructure: DoD’s Excess Capacity Estimating Methods Have Limitations, GAO-13-535 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GAO, 2013), www.gao.gov/assets/660/655352.pdf.



17. Tara A. Butler, State Financing Strategies to Address the Economic Impacts of Military Base Realignments and Closures (Wash-ington, D.C.: National Governor’s Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices, 2006), 2-3. 18. Ibid. 19. Jason Manning, Why BRAC Exists (Arlington, Va.: PBS Online NewsHour, 2005), www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/brac/history.html; George Schlossberg, “How Congress Cleared the Bases: A Legislative History of BRAC,” Journal of Defense Communities 1 (2012): 1-12, www.defensecommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/FINALJournal1.pdf. 20. Schlossberg, “How Congress Cleared the Bases,” 1-12. 21. Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission, Final Report to the President: Executive Summary (Washing-ton, D.C.: BRAC Commission, 2005), www.brac.gov/docs/final/ExecutiveSummary.pdf; A chart of BRAC 2005 base realignment and closure effects by state is available at www.brac.gov/docs/AppendixCFinalUpdated.pdf; U.S. Government Accountability Of-fice (GAO), Key Factors Contributing to BRAC 2005 Results (testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Readiness), GAO-12-513T (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GAO, 2012), www.gao.gov/assets/590/589135.pdf. 22. GAO, Defense Infrastructure. 23. Chris Carrol, “Hopes dead for a 2013 BRAC round, Panetta concedes,” Stars and Stripes (Washington, D.C.), Aug. 7, 2012, www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/hopes-dead-for-a-2013-brac-round-panetta-con-cedes-1.185056; Steve Vogel, “BRAC 2013 may be DOA,” Washington Post, March 22, 2012, www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/brac-2013-may-be-doa/2012/03/22/gIQAqhCmTS_blog.html. 24. According to Timothy J. Lowenberg, The Role of the National Guard in National Defense and Homeland Security (Wash-ington, D.C.: National Guard Association of the United States, 2006), www.ngaus.org/sites/default/files/pdf/primer%20fin.pdf, National Guard forces may be used in one of three legally distinct ways: 1) by the governor for a state purpose authorized by state law (state active duty); or 2) by the governor, with the concurrence of the president or the president’s designee (e.g., the secretary of defense), for shared state/federal purposes or for a primary federal purpose (Title 32 Duty); or 3) by the president for a federal purpose authorized by federal law (Title 10 duty). 25. Lowenberg, The Role of the National Guard. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid. 28. Ibid. 29. Adjutants General Association of the United States (AGAUS), Adjutants General Association of the United States (Tampa: AGAUS, 2013), www.agaus.org/. 30. Lowenberg, The Role of the National Guard. 31. U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), 2008 Report to Congress on Sustainable Ranges (Washington, D.C.: DoD, 2008), 2, www.denix.osd.mil/sri/upload/2008srrfinal.pdf. 32. U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake, Final Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study (China Lake, Calif.: NAWS China Lake, 2007), 1-1, www.navair.navy.mil/nawcwd/nawcwd/downloads/environmen-tal_news/aicuz_naws_china_lake/FINAL_China_Lake__AICUZ_MAY_07-3.pdf. 33. U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), Joint Land Use Study Program Guidance Manual (Washington, D.C.: DoD OEA, 2006). 34. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on Training Ranges, GAO-02-614 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GAO, 2002), www.gao.gov/new.items/d02614.pdf. 35. International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech (MIVT), prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense Sustainable Ranges Initiative, Collaborative Land Use Planning: A Guide for Military Installations and Local Communities (Washington, D.C.: ICMA and MIVT, n.d.), 2, www.repi.mil/Documents/Primers/Primer_CollaborativeLandUsePlanning.pdf. 36. Ibid. 37. U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), 2012 Report to Congress on Sustainable Ranges (Washington, D.C.: DoD, 2012), 1, www.denix.osd.mil/sri/upload/SRR2012-Web.pdf. 38. DoD, 2008 Report to Congress, 2. 39. DoD, 2012 Report to Congress, 2. 40. National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), Strengthening National Defense: Countering Encroachment Through Military-Community Collaboration (Washington, D.C.: NAPA, 2009), 14, www.napawash.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09-20.pdf. 41. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) defines encroachment as “external forces threatening or constraining . . . activi-tiesrequiredforforcereadinessandweapons[testing].”U.S.DoD,Sustainment of Ranges and Operating Areas, Directive 3200.15 (Washington, D.C.: DoD, 2003), www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/320015p.pdf.



42.Developmentinnearbycommunitiescanforcethemigrationofprotectedspeciesontomilitaryproperty,requiringthemilitary to limit or cease activity in the area. DoD currently is responsible for protecting more than 425 listed plant and ani-mal species under the Endangered Species Act. Bruce A. Stein, Threatened and Endangered Species on DoD Lands, (Washington, D.C.: DoD Natural Resources Conservation Compliance Program, 2013), www.dodnaturalresources.net/files/TE__s_fact_sheet_2-21-13.pdf. 43. Cyrena Eitler, Compatible Use Program lead, Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment, e-mail to Alice Wheet, Sept. 25, 2013. 44. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Better Planning and Funding Priority Needed to Improve Conditions of Military Training Ranges, GAO-05-534 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GAO, June 2005), www.gao.gov/assets/250/246634.pdf. 45. NAPA, Strengthening National Defense, 16-17. 46. Ibid., 4. 47. Timothy W. Brown, Planning in Cooperation with the Military: Increasing Safety and Reducing Incompatible Land Uses Adjacent to Military Bases, (Chicago: American Planning Association, 2013), www.planning.org/practicingplanner/print/2004/fall/essentials.htm?print=true. 48. As of 2010, DoD is responsible for 141 of the 1,620 sites on the EPA’s Superfund list. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Interagency Agreements and Improved Project Management Needed to Achieve Cleanup Progress at Key Defense Installations, GAO-10-348 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GAO, 2010), www.gao.gov/assets/310/308719.pdf. 49. NAPA, Strengthening National Defense, 4. 50. Eitler, e-mail to Alice Wheet. 51. NAPA, Strengthening National Defense, 3. 52. Eitler, e-mail to Alice Wheet. 53. U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) in Cooperation with the National Gover-nor’s Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices, The Practical Guide to Compatible Civilian Development Near Military Installa-tions (Washington, D.C.: DoD OEA, 2005). This document and others—produced by OEA to assist with promoting compatible civilian development around military operations—are available for download at www.oea.gov/library/explorer#assistance/jlus. 54. NAPA, Strengthening National Defense, 7. 55. Ibid., 9-10; U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Readiness and Environmental Integration (REPI) Program, What Is REPI? (Washington, D.C.: DoD REPI, n.d.), www.repi.mil/About/Index.html. 56. U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI), 2013 REPI Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: DoD REPI, 2013), 2, www.repi.mil/Portals/44/Documents/Reports_to_Congress/REPI2013RTC.pdf. 57. Ibid. 58. Michael Behm, senior vice president of Stateside Associates and vice president of NCSL Foundation, and Representa-tive Dan Flynn, Texas Legislature, presentation on U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI) webinar, The National Conference of State Legislatures and Engaging with Local Officials, June 5, 2013, recording accessible at https://connectpro34439332.adobeconnect.com/p3gguusyalb/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal; Delegate Sally Y. Jameson, Maryland General Assembly, recorded interview at 2013 NCSL Legislative Summit, Aug. 14, 2013, Transitioning Veterans to Civilian Jobs (Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2013), video accessible at www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=26529; Representative Tanya Pullin, Kentucky Legislature, recorded interview at 2013 NCSL Legislative Summit, Aug. 14, 2013, Reducing Unemployment with Skilled Veterans (Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2013), video accessible at www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=26529; Representative Tom Sloan, Kansas State Legislature, Interview with Representative Tom Sloan, Kansas, at the 2013 NCSL Legislative Summit (Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2013), video accessible at www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=26605. . 59. Representative Tim Moore, Kentucky General Assembly, e-mail to Alice Wheet, Aug. 15, 2013. 60. Christina L. Nelson and Larry Morandi, Supporting Defense Communities: State and Military Lessons Learned (Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2007), 17. 61. Michael W. Wynne, 2005 Base Closure and Realignment Selection Criteria, memorandum from the Under Secretary of DefenseAcquisition,TechnologyandLogistics,(Washington,D.C.:DoD,2005),www.brac.gov/docs/criteria_final_jan4_05.pdf. 62. 2003 Md. Laws, Chap. 335; 2003 Md. House Bill 888. 63. 2006 Md. Laws, Chap. 634; Md. Economic Development Code Ann. §11-203. 64. Md. Economic Development Code Ann. §11-206. 65. Ibid. 66. Ibid.



67. Md. Economic Development Code Ann. §11-207. 68. Brigadier General Mike Hayes, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), executive director of the Maryland Military Installation Coun-cil and managing director of the Office of Military and Veterans Affairs, e-mail to Jennifer Schultz, Sept. 19, 2013. 69. Ibid. 70. 2007 Md. Laws, Chap. 6. 71. Ibid. 72. Ibid. 73. Ibid. 74. Ibid. 75. Governor’s Subcabinet on Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), 2010 Progress Report (Annapolis: BRAC Subcabinet, 2010), www.brac.maryland.gov/documents/2010_BRAC_Progress_Report_Web.pdf. 76. Anthony Brown, “BRAC and Beyond: Maryland’s New Economy,” Center Maryland, Aug. 23, 2011, www.centermary-land.org/blog-exclusive/entry/lt-gov-brown-brac-and-beyond-e2-80-93-maryland-e2-80-99s-new-economy. 77. Ibid. 78. Fla. Stat. §288.987. 79. Ibid. 80. Ibid. 81. Florida Defense Support Task Force (FDSTF), Budget Summary, (Tallahassee: FDSTF, 2013), www.eflorida.com/fdstf/docs/about_us/TF%20Budget.pdf. 82. Florida Defense Support Task Force (FDSTF), Strategic Plan 2012-2015, (Tallahassee: FDSTF, 2012), www.eflorida.com/fdstf/docs/about_us/Florida%20Defense%20Support%20Task%20Force%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf. The short-term goals outlined in the Strategic Plan are based on a $1.48 million study conducted by The Spectrum Group that provided a detailed analysis of the military value of Florida’s military installations, ranges and airspace. 83. Ibid. 84. Ibid. 85. Ritch Workman, cover letter to Florida Defense Support Task Force (FDSTF), Strategic Plan 2012-2015 (Tallahassee: FD-STF, 2012), www.eflorida.com/fdstf/docs/about_us/Cover%20Letter%20--%20FDSTF%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf. 86. Ibid. 87.The Council of State Governments (CSG), Resolution Supporting the Use of “Commanders Councils,” adopted by the Governing Board at CSG’s 2010 conference in Providence, R.I., Dec. 6, 2010, http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/system/files/Commanders_Councils_2.pdf. 88. Arizona Military Affairs Commission, Meeting Minutes Summary (Phoenix: Arizona Department of Emergency and Mili-tary Affairs, 2012), www.azdema.gov/MIF%20Website%20Files/MAC%201%20FEB%2012%20meeting%20minutes.pdf; Naval Air Station Jacksonville Public Affairs, “Florida Governor, Staff Meet with Military Commanders,” Department of the Navy, Nov. 19, 2011, www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=63915; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Governor’s Land Compatibility Task Force Report (Raleigh: NCDENR, 2012), 37, http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/docu-ment_library/get_file?p_l_id=1169848&folderId=8979146&name=DLFE-57386.pdf; 2013 Tex. Gen. Laws, Chap. 777. 89. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Governor’s Land Compatibility Task Force Report (Raleigh: NCDENR, 2012), 37, http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1169848&folderId=8979146&name=DLFE-57386.pdf. 90. North Carolina governor Beverly Eaves Perdue, 2012 Executive Order 124, www.bracrtf.com/documents/ExecutiveOr-der124ProtectingMilitaryInstallations.pdf. 91. 2013 Tex. Gen. Laws, Chap. 777; Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs and Military Installations, Report and Recom-mendations to the 83rd Texas Legislature (Austin: Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs and Military Installations, 2013), 21, www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/commit/c650/c650.InterimReport82.pdf. 92. Senator Leticia Van de Putte, Texas Legislature, e-mail to Jennifer Schultz, Sept. 25, 2013. 93. Alaska Stat. §26.30.005 et seq.; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §26-262; Cal. Government Code §63050; Fla. Stat. §288.980; Ga. Code. §48-7-40.1; Kan. Stat. Ann. §79-4804; Md. Economic Development Code Ann. §5-1301 et seq.; N.Y. Unconsolidated Laws §6254; Okla. Stat. tit. 74, §5403; 2006 Okla. Sess. Laws, Chap. 234; Tex. Government Code Ann. §436.156 et seq.; Tex. Government Code Ann. §486.001 et seq.; Utah Code Ann. §63H-1-201. 94. Fla. Stat. §288.980. 95. The statute defines “activities” to include studies, presentations, analyses, plans and modeling. For the purposes of the Defense Infrastructure Grant Program, the term “activities” also includes construction, land purchases and easements. Fla. Stat. §288.980.



96. Rocky McPherson, FY 12/13 Defense Reinvestment Grant Program Award Letter (Tallahassee: Enterprise Florida Inc., 2012), www.floridadefense.org/documents/Grant%20Round%20fy%2012-13/Gray%20signed%20DRG%20awards.pdf. 97. Tex. Government Code Ann. §436.001 et seq. 98. 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws, Chap. 1280. 99. Texas Military Preparedness Commission (TMPC), Biennial Report 2011-2012 (Austin: TMPC, n.d.), 56, http://gover-nor.state.tx.us/files/military/TMPC_Annual_Report_4-13.pdf. 100. Ibid. 101. Keith Graf, director of the Texas Military Preparedness Commission, e-mail to Jennifer Schultz, Sept. 30, 2013. 102. Ibid. 103. Ibid. 104. Tex. Government Code Ann. §§436.153 through 436.1532. 105. TMPC, Biennial Report, 6. 106. Alaska Stat. §26.30.005 et seq.; Ga. Code. §48-7-40.1; Md. Economic Development Code Ann. §5-1301 et seq.; Tex. Government Code Ann. §2303.001 et seq. At least California, Illinois and Indiana have zone programs designed to revitalize for-mer military areas. Cal. Government Code Ann. §7070 et seq.; Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 20, §655/1; Ind. Code §5-28-15-1 et seq. 107. Alaska Stat. §26.30.005 et seq. 108. Representative Steve Thompson, Alaska Legislature, e-mail to Jennifer Schultz, Sept. 13, 2013. 109. Ibid. 110. Md. Economic Development Code Ann. §5-1301 et seq. 111. Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED), BRAC Revitalization and Incentive Zone Pro-gram: Annual Status Report to the Governor and General Assembly (Baltimore: DBED, 2012), 3, www.choosemaryland.org/aboutd-bed/Documents/ProgramReports/2012/BRAC_Zone_Annual_Report_2012.pdf. 112. Tex. Government Code Ann. §2303.001 et seq.; As of Dec. 31, 2012, the Texas Enterprise Zone Program had funded 872 projects that have created or retained 332,175 jobs in the state. Office of the Governor, Economic Development and Tour-ism Division (EDT), Texas Enterprise Zone Program Overview Brochure (Austin: EDT, 2013), www.texaswideopenforbusiness.com/incentives-financing/tax/TEZ%203-13.pdf. 113. 2013 Tex. Gen. Laws, Chap. 1401 (2013 Tex. House Bill 3066). 114. Tex. Local Government Code Ann. §379B.001 et seq.; Texas Legislature, Economic and Small Business Development Committee, Bill Analysis: House Bill 2388, 2013. 115. Tex. Government Code Ann. §2303.407. 116. Representative José Menéndez, Texas Legislature, e-mail to Jennifer Schultz, Oct. 11, 2013. 117. Ibid. 118. 2013 Tex. Gen. Laws, Chap. 1378 (2013 Tex. House Bill 1348); 2013 Tex. Gen. Laws, Chap. 1294 (2013 Tex. House Bill 2388). 119. 2012 Alaska Sess. Laws, Chap. 5; Lauren Jones, “Press Release: $2.5 Million in Funding Announced for Natick Soldier Systems Center Support and Infrastructure Upgrades,” Massachusetts Governor’s Office, Nov. 19, 2012, www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2012/20121119-natick-soldier-systems-center-funding-announced.html; Ted Carter, “State Puts $2 Mil-lion Into Effort to Keep Military Bases,” Mississippi Business Journal, May 3, 2013, http://msbusiness.com/blog/2013/05/03/state-puts-2-million-into-effort-to-keep-military-bases/; 2013 Missouri House Bill 7; Richard Eckstrom, “News Release: S.C. Military Base Task Force to Distribute $200,000 in Base-Preservation Funding,” Office of Comptroller General, March 7, 2013, www.cg.sc.gov/newsroom/Documents/Press/3.7.2013-SC%20Military%20Base-Preservation%20Funding.pdf. 120. Richard Eckstrom, “News Release: S.C. Military Base Task Force.” 121. 2013 Mo. House Bill 7. 122. 2013 Mass. House Bill 3334. 123. Ibid. 124. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-8481. 125. Fla. Stat. Ann. §163.3175; 2012 Fla. House Bill 7075. 126. N.C. Gen. Stat. §153A-323 and §160A-364. 127. Representative Rick Glazier, North Carolina General Assembly, e-mail to Jennifer Schultz, Oct. 13, 2013. 128. Texas Local Government Code §397.001 through §397.005, amended by 2011 House Bill 1665. 129. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, A Citizen’s Guide to Planning (Sacramento: State of California, 2001), http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/planning_guide/plan_index.html#anchor156525. 130. Ibid.



131. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §9-461.05; Cal. Government Code §65302; Colo. Rev. Stat. §31-23-204; Fla. Stat. §163.3177; Kan. Stat. Ann. §12-773; Ky. Rev. Stat. §100.187; Nev. Rev. Stat. §278.160; S.C. Code Ann. §6-29-1630; Tex. Local Govern-ment Code Ann. §397.003; Va. Code §15.2-2223; Wis. Stat. §66.1001. 132. Cal. Government Code §65302; Ky. Rev. Stat. §100.187. 133. Ky. Rev. Stat. §100.187. 134. Fla. Stat. §163.3177; Nev. Rev. Stat. §278.160. 135. Arizona communities must include consideration of military airport operations within their general plans and identify the boundaries of high noise or potential accident zones around an airport (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §9-461.05). Wisconsin statute requiresallmasterplanstocontainanintergovernmentalcooperationelementthatreferencesthemapsandplansofmilitaryinstallationswithwhichthelocalgovernmentsharescommonterritory(Wis.Stat.§66.1001).Kansasrequiresmunicipalitiestocoordinate with installation commanders all comprehensive plans affecting certain military areas w (Kan. Stat. Ann. §12-773). Virginia law dictates that comprehensive plans “may” include the location of military installations or other military facilities (Va. Code §15.2-2223). 136. Tex. Local Government Code Ann. §397.003. 137. Tex. Local Government Code Ann. §397.004. 138. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §9-461.05; Ark. Stat. Ann. §14-56-426; Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 620, §52/1 et seq.; Mo. Rev. Stat. §67.1203; 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws, Chap. 206; Okla. Stat. tit. 11, §43-101.1; S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §50-10-34; Wash. Rev. Code §36.70A.530. 139. Ark. Stat. Ann. §14-56-426. 140. Okla. Stat. tit. 11, §43-101.1. 141. Mo. Rev. Stat. §67.1203; S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §§50-10-32 through 50-10-34. 142. Mo. Rev. Stat. §67.1203; S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §50-10-34. 143. Wash. Rev. Code §36.70A.530. 144. 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws, Chap. 206. 145. Ibid. 146. Ibid. 147. Representative John Bell, North Carolina General Assembly, phone conversation with Jennifer Schultz, Sept. 17, 2013. 148. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 620, §52/1 et seq. 149. Many states use this designation, although with varying titles, including: areas of critical state concern; areas of critical concern; areas of statewide significance; state areas of interest; areas of critical environmental concern; etc. 150. American Planning Association (APA), State Land Use Control (Chicago: APA, n.d.), www.planning.org/growingsmart/guidebook/five01.htm. 151. Stuart Meck, Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change (Chicago: American Planning Association, 2002), 5-28, www.planning.org/growingsmart/guidebook/print/pdf/chapter5.pdf. 152. Cal. Public Resources Code §2727; Fla. Stat. §380.05; Ga. Code §50-8-2; Md. Land Use Code Ann. §3-109; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 21A, §(2)(7); Minn. Stat. §116G.05; Nev. Rev. Stat. §770; N.C. Gen. Stat. §113A-100 et seq.; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, §6552; Wyo. Stat. § 102(a)(i). 153. Cal. Public Resources Code §2790; Fla. Stat. §380.05; Minn. Stat. §116G.05. 154. The American Planning Association’s Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook offers examples of language to use in legisla-tion for designating areas of critical state concern (Meck, Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook). 155. Kan. Stat. Ann. §12-773. 156. Ibid. 157. Representative Tom Sloan, Kansas Legislature, e-mail to Jennifer Schultz, Sept. 19, 2013. 158. Mont. Code Ann. §10-1-1503. 159. Senator Edward Buttrey, Montana Legislature, e-mail to Jennifer Schultz, Sept. 19, 2013. 160. Mont. Code Ann. §10-1-1503. 161. Buttrey, e-mail to Jennifer Schultz. 162. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §26-262; Fla. Stat. §§259.105-259.1051; N.C. Gen. Stat. §113A-253.2 et seq.; 2008 Va. Acts, Chap. 653. 163. Fla. Stat. §§259.105-259.1051. 164. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Forever (Tallahassee: Florida DEP, 2013), www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/fl_forever.htm.



165. Ron Tittle, “Florida Cabinet Approves Camp Blanding Florida Forever Purchase,” Florida Department of Military Affairs News and Information, March 7, 2013, http://dma.myflorida.com/florida-cabinet-approves-camp-blanding-florida-forever-pur-chase/. 166. Fla. Stat. §259.105; Eric Draper, “Press Statement: Florida Forever Shorted Again,” Florida Forever Coalition, April 30, 2013, http://floridaforevercoalition.org/2013/04/30/press-statement-florida-forever-shorted-again/. 167. 2013 Fla. Laws, Chap. 222. 168. N.C. Gen. Stat. §113A-253.2 et seq. 169. Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), “North Carolina’s Clean Water Management Trust Fund: 2012 Sum-mary,” CWMTF, 2012, www.cwmtf.net/Docs/cwmtffactsheet.pdf. 170. Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), “Clean Water Management Trust Fund 2012 Grant Awards,” CW-MTF, March 13, 2013, www.cwmtf.net/Docs/2012%20Final%20Funding%20Decisions%203-13-13.pdf. 171. Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission, Text of 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Com-mission Final and Approved Recommendations (Arlington, Va.: BRAC Commission, 2005), 107, www.brac.gov/docs/final/Appen-dixQ.pdf. 172. 2008 Va. Acts, Chap. 653. 173. 2012 Ariz. Sess. Laws, Chap. 278 (2012 Ariz.Senate Bill 1001; Ariz. Proposition 119, November 2012 general election). 174. Constitution of the State of Arizona, Art. 10, §12; Carolyn Classen, “2012 Arizona General Election Results.” Tucson Citizen, Nov. 7, 2012, http://tucsoncitizen.com/community/2012/11/07/2012-arizona-general-election-results-propositions/. 175. The Nature Conservancy, Private Lands Conservation: Conservation Easements (Arlington, Va.: The Nature Conservancy, 2013), www.nature.org/about-us/private-lands-conservation/conservation-easements/index.htm. 176. Land Trust Alliance, FAQ: Conservation Easement (Washington, D.C.: Land Trust Alliance, 2013), www.landtrustal-liance.org/conservation/landowners/faqs-1/faq-conservation-easement. 177. For more information about state tax credits, see Land Trust Alliance, State and Local Tax Incentives (Washington, D.C.: Land Trust Alliance, 2013), www.landtrustalliance.org/policy/tax-matters/campaigns/state-tax-incentives. 178. Twenty-seven states have modeled conservation easement laws after the Uniform Conservation Easement Act adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1981. Robert H. Levin, A Guided Tour of the Conservation Easement Enabling Statutes (Washington, D.C.: Land Trust Alliance, 2010), 7, www.landtrustalliance.org/policy/emerging-issues/cestatutesreportnoappendices.pdf. 179. Robert H. Levin, A Guided Tour of the Conservation Easement Enabling Statutes. 180. The Nature Conservancy, All About Conservation Easements (Arlington, Va.: The Nature Conservancy, 2011), www.nature.org/about-us/private-lands-conservation/conservation-easements/all-about-conservation-easements.xml. 181. Cal. Public Resources Code §10230; Colorado Constitution Art. 27, §1; Fla. Stat. §§259.105-259.1051; Neb. Rev. Stat. §81-15,174.01; N.Y. Environmental Conservation Law §§54-0301-54-0303; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§901.21-901.22; Pa. Cons. Stat. tit. 27, §6101 et seq.; Tex. Natural Resources Code Ann. §183.051 et seq.; Va. Code §3.2-200 et seq.; Wyo. Stat. §9-15-103 et seq. 182. Fla. Stat. §§259.105-259.105. 183.LaurenSageReinlie,“StateAcquiresLandtoProtectEglin’sInterests,”NWF Daily News, June 6, 2013, www.nwfdaily-news.com/military/top-story/state-acquires-land-to-protect-eglin-s-interests-1.154578. 184. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §49-1102; Ark. Stat. Ann. §8-14-102; Colo. Rev. Stat. §24-82-902; Conn. Gen. Stat. §4b-16; Del. Code Ann. tit. 7, §7102A; 2011 Hawaii Senate Bill 2402; 2009 Maine House Bill 6; Md. State Finance and Procurement Code Ann. §14-412; Minn. Stat. §16B.328; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §9-E:3; N.M. Stat. Ann. §74-12-1 et seq.; Or. Rev. Stat. §455.573; R.I. Gen. Laws §42-136-4; Tex. Local Government Code Ann. §240.032; Wyo. Stat. §37-16-202; D.C. Code Ann. §8-1776.02. 185. 2009 Ala. House Bill 866; 2009 Kan. House Bill 2064; 2009 Mass. House Bill 3064; 2011 Mo. House Bill 611; 2011 Mont. Senate Bill 163; 2011 N.C. House Bill 455; 2009 Wash. House Bill 1069. 186. State officials in Minnesota are working to develop a model ordinance that can be adapted for use by local governments to reduce light pollution (Minn. Stat. §16B.328). As of October 2013, similar legislation is pending in New York (2013 N.Y. Sen-ate Bill 4224). For more information on municipal regulations, see resources produced by the International Dark Sky Association, available at www.darksky.org/. 187. Hawaii lawmakers have enacted a series of laws in recent years to reduce unnecessary light pollution. The most recent of these laws implemented the recommendations of a temporary advisory committee established in 2009 to develop a statewide “star-lightreservestrategy”topreservethequalityofthenightsky(2011HawaiiSenateBill2402).The2012lawestablishesdetailedstandardsforoutdoorlighting,includingarequirementthatallnewoutdoorlightfixturesemittingacertainamountoflumensbe fully shielded. Another Hawaii statute intends to protect avian and marine life from adverse effects of coastal light pollution by



prohibiting lights from being positioned in a way that directly illuminates the shoreline and ocean waters (2005 Hawaii House Bill 895). 188. Tex. Local Government Code Ann. §240.032. 189. Ibid. 190. 2011 Mo. House Bill 611. 191. 2009 Kan. House Bill 2064. 192. U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Installations and Environment (ODUSD I&E), DoD Noise Working Group (Washington, D.C.: DoD ODUSD I&E, 2013), www.denix.osd.mil/dnwg/. 193. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-8482. 194. 2004 Ariz. Sess. Laws, Chap. 111. 195. Va. Code §15.2-2295; 2011 Va. Acts, Chap. 135. 196. Va. Code §15.2-2295. 197. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-8484; Kan. Stat. Ann. §12-773; Md. Real Property Code Ann. §14-117. 198. 2010 Co. House Bill 1151; 2009 N.C. Senate Bill 795; 2011 Nev. Senate Bill 93. 199. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-8484. 200. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-8481. 20. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §32-2114. 202. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-8483. 203. Kan. Stat. Ann. §12-773. 204. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), State Policy Options: A Report of the National Conference of State Legis-latures Task Force on Military and Veterans Affairs (Denver: NCSL, 2013), 24-25, www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=23455. 205. California 2012 SB 1409; Senator Fran Pavley, California Legislature, e-mail to Jennifer Schultz, Oct. 28, 2013. 20. Pavley, e-mail to Jennifer Schultz. 207. Hawaii 2012 HB 2410; NCSL, State Policy Options, 24-25. 208.RepresentativeHenryAquino,HawaiiLegislature,e-mailtoJenniferSchultz,Oct.28,2013.

Preparing for Duty

State Policy Options in Sustaining Military Installations

At least 1.2 million people currently are serving in the U.S. armed forces, more than 23 million are veterans and more than 250 military installations exist in 47 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico. State legislatures have an important role in managing relations between existing military installations and surrounding communities, especially in regard to issues related to military base or mission change, growing local development, and incompatible land uses that may threaten the future viability of the military presence.

Preparing for Duty: State Policy Options in Sustaining Military Installations provides state legislatures with an overview of state responsibilities and related policy options to strengthen the relationship between bases and surrounding communities, and to ensure a suitable environment for military installations to operate. With these strategies in mind, states can work to secure the future of their military installations and ensure that communities continue to benefit from the jobs and business opportunities the military provides.