brac to the future: managing past encroachment, present growth, and future land use around military...

This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 26 November 2014, At: 17:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning & Environmental Law: Issues and decisionsthat impact the built and natural environmentsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpel20

BRAC to the Future: Managing Past Encroachment,Present Growth, and Future Land use Around MilitaryInstallationsHarry M. Parent, IIIPublished online: 13 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Harry M. Parent, III (2008) BRAC to the Future: Managing Past Encroachment, Present Growth, and FutureLand use Around Military Installations, Planning & Environmental Law: Issues and decisions that impact the built and naturalenvironments, 60:9, 3-12, DOI: 10.1080/15480750802400116

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15480750802400116

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpel20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15480750802400116

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15480750802400116

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Commentary

American Planning Association

Planning & Environmental Law

September 2008 Vol. 60, No. 9 | p.3

foster compatible land use. Fort Lee,an Army base in Virginia, will nearlydouble in population as a result of the2005 BRAC round and is shared as anillustrative case study.

THE HISTORY OF BRACThe BRAC process is designed toachieve savings by eliminating unnec-essary DOD infrastructure based onrecommendations from an independentcommission. The process is now in thethird year of the fifth round; the previ-ous four rounds (1988, 1991, 1993, and1995) resulted in approximately504,000 acres declared as unneededand available for transfer and an esti-mated $29 billion in savings through2003. By September 2004, 72 percentof that property had been transferred,with 28 percent undergoing environ-mental cleanup.6

The 2005 round included an addi-tional goal in the BRAC decision-mak-ing process—furtherance of militarytransformation efforts7—that resultedin a strong focus on realignments thatwill lead to installation growth. Thenumber of major realignments ex-ceeded the number of major closures inthis round for the first time in BRAC’shistory.8 The scale dwarfed all priorrounds, with 812 total actions and ananticipated cost of more than $30 bil-lion compared to 387 total actions and$22 billion from the four prior rounds

combined.9 More than $21 billion forconstruction and development projectswill be awarded as a result of this mostrecent round.10

While media attention tends tofocus on the economic effects of basedownsizing or closure, states cannot af-ford to overlook the significant growthresulting from these realignments. TheGovernment Accountability Office(GAO), in a statement before theBRAC Commission, reported that“[M]ost communities surroundingclosed bases are continuing to recoverfrom the impact of BRAC and faringwell compared with average U.S. ratesfor unemployment and incomegrowth.”11 Although many resourceshave been developed for communitiesimpacted by BRAC closures or down-sizing realignments,12 Fort Lee, nearPetersburg, Virginia, and similarly situ-ated installations across the country arebracing for unprecedented growth thatwill impact regional economies andland use planning for at least the nextdecade.13

The GAO recently noted the DODis planning to relocate more than173,000 soldiers: 123,000 resulting fromthe 2005 BRAC round and an addi-tional 50,000 through the GlobalDefense Posture Realignment fromEurope and Korea, while simultane-ously working to increase active dutyend strength by 92,000.14 This means

BRAC to the Future: Managing Past Encroachment, Present Growth, and Future Land Use Around Military Installations

INTRODUCTIONMany people groan when they hear theterm BRAC—Base Realignment andClosure—associating it with base clo-sures, unemployment, and environ-mental remediation. Congress, mean-while, is taking an interest in thegrowing pains created by the most re-cent BRAC decisions.1 Twenty militaryinstallations will experience significantpopulation increases as a result ofBRAC 2005, receiving more than $7billion for growth-related constructionprojects between 2006 and 2008.2

Significant media attention has fo-cused on the BRAC Commission’s rec-ommendations to close 19 major instal-lations.3 Although local governmentshave gained experience with downsiz-ing and base closures during the priorfour BRAC rounds,4 installation growthis a new issue forcing some communi-ties to deal very quickly with tremen-dous population increases and infra-structure concerns. This rapid growthcomes at the same time the Depart -ment of Defense (DOD) is focusing onbase encroachment as a criterion forbase closure or realignment,5 making itimportant to effectively manage thegrowth and encourage compatible landuse to preserve the billions of dollarsalready invested in these installations.

This commentary explains theBRAC process and the encroachmentissue, including examples of efforts to

Harry M. Parent, III

Harry M. Parent, III, is a third-year student at the University of Richmond School of

Law, a staff member of the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, and a staff

member of the Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business. He holds a BA in

Government from The College of William & Mary. The author thanks Tara Butler at

the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices for providing refer-

ence material and an overview of the BRAC process, and professors Dwight

Merriam, FAICP, and David Brower, FAICP, at the Vermont Law School Environmental

Law Center for their insightful Advanced Land Use course and their guidance for

this article. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do

not necessarily reflect those of any individuals with whom he consulted.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

02 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014



September 2008 Vol. 60, No. 9 | p.4Successfully managing encroachment could make states and locali-ties attractive for realignment funding in future rounds, while fail-ure to manage such growth could lead to costly base closures ordownsizing realignments.

more than 265,000 troops will be addedto military bases in the U.S. throughrelocation or accession within the nextdecade. In January 2008, the Office ofEconomic Adjustment (OEA) identi-fied 20 locations where expectedgrowth due to realignment will ad-versely affect surrounding communi-ties.15 Over 85 percent of that growthwill occur on 11 installations,16 where$4.1 billion in contracts have alreadybeen awarded.17 Fort Lee is fourth onthe list with an estimated populationgain of 55 percent.18 Amidst thischange and unprecedented growth,state and local governments must prior-itize compatible land use around mili-tary installations, or jeopardize the bil-lions of dollars currently being investedby the DOD.

Although no future BRAC roundsare currently planned, the 2005 BRACCommission recommended they beheld every eight to 12 years.19

Successfully managing encroachmentcould make states and localities attrac-tive for realignment funding in futurerounds, while failure to manage suchgrowth could lead to costly base clo-sures or downsizing realignments.

I HEAR THE CHOPPERS COMING—ENCROACHMENT AROUND MILITARYBASESTraditionally, “encroachment” in themilitary sense referred to incompatibleland, air, water, and other resource usesaround military installations that limitthe military’s ability to carry out testingand training missions.20 Encroachmentoccurs when residential or civilian de-velopment around the perimeter ofmilitary bases renders certain militaryexercises at the installation unsafe orunfeasible.21 Urban sprawl has been acontributing factor to encroachmentaround military bases.22

The military services manage nearly30 million acres across 400-plus instal-lations.23 Most were originally placedin rural areas to provide “combat-like”training conditions. Increasing subur-ban sprawl and more civilian employ-ment opportunities on base have con-tributed to encroachment problems.24

Considering the impacts of the recentBRAC round, it appears encroachment

now cuts both ways, with increasedmilitary activities at some installationspotentially encroaching on existingcivilian residential and commercialareas outside the installation.

Encroachment creates significantproblems for both the military andlocal residents. Civilians can experi-ence aircraft overflights, dust, andnoise from military activity. Militarytraining exercises may be limited orcancelled due to safety concernscaused by incompatible land use devel-opments near installations and ranges25

Ambient light can interfere with nighttraining, and cell phone towers andradio traffic can interfere with militarycommunications.26 Suburban sprawlforces endangered species to retreat toremaining natural habitat inside mili-tary training areas, causing range use tobe segmented or forbidden in order toprotect the species.27

In the end, excessive encroachmentcan lead to base closure or realignment,causing job loss and loss of tax rev-enue.28 As units are relocated and re-maining installations expand operationsas a result of the 2005 BRAC round,cooperation between the military andlocal and state governments will benecessary to prevent encroachment tothe extent possible, and to workquickly to mitigate unavoidable en-croachment concerns. When there is afailure to communicate effectively onland use issues, realignment becomes agreater threat, as evidenced by thecommission’s recommendations forNaval Air Station (NAS) Oceana.

KEEPING UP WITH THE JET SET: THENEAR-REALIGNMENT OF NAS OCEANA29

NAS Oceana, in Virginia Beach,Virginia, was not originally on theSecretary of Defense’s list ofrecommendations to the 2005 BRACCommission. However, theCommission added the installationduring the course of their work afteryears of complaints from the Navyabout encroachment and complaintsfrom local residents about increasingjet noise from the Master Jet Baselocated at Oceana.

Much of the controversy dealt withtwo Accident Potential Zones (APZs)

outside the installation.30 APZ-1 is thehighest noise zone where the DODrecommends incorporating sound-attenuating (soundproofing) methods inconstruction and calls for prevention ofnoise-sensitive uses (houses, churches)and people-intensive uses (malls,theaters). Ideally, only limited whole -sale or manufacturing operations, publicrights-of-way, or agriculture arecompatible uses in the APZ-1. In APZ-2, the accident and noise risks aresomewhat lower. Although commercialuses are acceptable, the Navy objectedto the construction of Lynnhaven Mallin the APZ-2 near NAS Oceana. Themall was constructed despite Navyobjections before the formaldesignation of the area as an APZ.31

For many years the Navy andVirginia Beach have been at odds on avariety of zoning issues. The “disputedterritory” in APZ-1 includes 3,400 resi-dential units, 189 business units, and241 undeveloped parcels on land, withan estimated value over $475.9 mil-lion.32 In 2001, a class-action complaintwas filed by more than 2,000 propertyowners alleging the Navy’s jets weredecreasing their home value and qualityof life.33 The lawsuit continuedthroughout the 2005 BRAC process. Inits final recommendation, the 2005BRAC Commission issued an ultima-tum: either Virginia Beach enact legisla-tion to prevent further encroachment ofNAS Oceana, or the Master Jet Basewould be moved to Cecil Field,Florida.34 Florida promised to bringtheir previously “BRAC’d” NAS CecilField back online, at state expense, inorder to bring Naval activity back to thearea.

On December 20, 2005, the VirginiaBeach City Council adopted a plan forcompliance with the BRAC Commis -sion’s recommendations,35 but despitethe plan, the Pentagon concluded inMay 2006 that Virginia Beach failed tomeet the requirements of the BRACCommission.36

In May 2007, the Department ofJustice and the Navy settled the 2001lawsuit for $34.4 million.37 A secondcomplaint was filed later that year rep-resenting another group of plaintiffs,who sought damages estimated at $500

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

02 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014




Construction is under way at the BRAC growth installations, andmany states are actively planning for the growth that BRAC 2005will bring to local communities.

million.38 These lawsuits highlight thesometimes irreconcilable differencesbetween landowners, local govern-ments, and the military that can resultfrom realignment. In this particularcase, while the local governmentworked to keep NAS Oceana, the citi-zens waged a litigious campaign to getrid of its jets.

The NAS Oceana example illus-trates the serious fiscal impacts of en-croachment and how it can potentiallycause installation realignment or clo-sure. NAS Oceana provides a lesson toother states and communities to createcompatible land uses near military in-stallations. The military also has an in-centive to work with civilians to ad-dress encroachment and preventpotential litigation.

MANAGING AND PREVENTINGENCROACHMENTConstruction is under way at theBRAC growth installations, and manystates are actively planning for thegrowth that BRAC 2005 will bring tolocal communities. In the NationalDefense Authorization Act (NDAA) of2008, Congress mandated that theGAO assess realignment impacts onmilitary installations caused by in-creases in assigned personnel.39 Thevariety of military operations, existinglevels of encroachment, state laws, andenvironmental factors make it neces-sary for each state and locality to craftplans for compatible land uses aroundmilitary installations. In creating suchplans, states should review existing re-sources, learn about the experiencesother states have had, and be aware ofexisting military initiatives to addressencroachment issues and ensure thatthe land in and around military trainingranges is used in a sustainable manner.

ResourcesA number of helpful resources for man-aging and preventing encroachmenthave become available in recent years.The National Governors Association(NGA) Center for Best Practices cre-ated a series of Issue Briefs addressingencroachment and providing examplesof government responses. The Officeof Economic Adjustment provided a

Several briefs by the National Governors Association serve as an excellentstarting point for research into BRAC-based issues faced by state govern-ments. Military Installations Pressured by Sprawl (Oct. 11, 2002) addressesencroachment and provides examples of encroachment management ini-tiatives in Arizona, California, Florida, and Colorado. State Strategies toAddress Encroachment at Military Installations (September 16, 2004) identi-fies specific state examples while discussing strategies being used, in-cluding state legislation requiring compatible land use; local zoning,planning, and noise requirements; designation of military installations asareas of critical state concern; acquisition of property that surrounds mili-tary installations; and creation of state military advisory boards.

Planning Tools and Policies to Encourage Compatible Development near MilitaryInstallations (Feb. 10, 2006) discusses local, state, and federal planningtools and assistance to prevent encroachment. State Financing Strategies toAddress the Economic Impacts of Military Base Realignments and Closures(July 27, 2006) addresses planning for BRAC; financing strategies forbase redevelopment following closure or downsizing realignment; and fi-nancing strategies for realignment-related growth. These briefs are avail-able at http://www.nga.org.

The Practical Guide to Compatible Civilian Development details the roles oflocal, state, and federal governments in the process of community landuse planning around federal land, and provides techniques and collabora-tive efforts that have proven successful in managing encroachment. TheJoint Land Use Study (JLUS) Program Guidance Manual explains that thepurpose of the JLUS program is to foster compatible land use aroundmilitary installations through increased community planning, and pro-vides the tools to start a Joint Land Use Study. Both guides, as well asadditional resources for managing the economic impacts of BRAC, areavailable at http://www.oea.gov.

The National Association of Counties guide, Encouraging Compatible LandUse Between Local Governments and Military Installations: A Best PracticesGuide (2007), provides case studies of Joint Land Use Studies, fosteringcommunication, and regulatory and voluntary approaches to land use.40

Developed for the DOD’s Sustainable Ranges Initiative, the following primersprovide concise guidance to installation commanders on a variety of landuse issues. Working with Local Governments provides information for militaryleaders seeking cooperation with local officials to combat encroachment andfoster compatible land use. Working with Land Trusts explains how landtrusts operate and encourages communication and collaboration with landtrusts as a way to combat encroachment. Working with State Legislators pro-vides information on the way states make land use decisions that may affecttraining at installations. Collaborative Land Use Planning guides military com-manders to work with local governments to address encroachment andtraining range sustainability. Working to Preserve Farm, Forest and RanchLands details programs and potential partners for installations that are inter-ested in preserving agricultural land bordering bases. The primers are avail-able at http://www.fedcenter.gov.

BRAC PLANNING RESOURCES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

02 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014




Practical Guide to Compatible CivilianDevelopment and the Joint Land UseStudy (JLUS) Program Guidance Manual.The National Association of Counties(NACO) created a Best Practices Guideon Compatible Land Use. The GAOmaintains a section on its website(http://www.gao.gov) on BRAC, withrecent publications showing an in-creased focus on growth installations.Finally, a series of primers has beencreated to assist the military, govern-ments, and NGOs in developing part-nerships and securing property rights toensure compatible land use around mil-itary and other federal lands.

RESPONDING TO ENCROACHMENTCHALLENGESTo understand the need for state andlocal government involvement in landuse planning around military installa-tions, it is helpful to review the mili-tary’s economic impacts on the commu-nity. For example, the defense industryin Florida alone has an economic im-pact of $52 billion, with more than $1billion in tax revenue and over 723,000jobs.41 Maryland’s state economy re-ceives approximately $18 billion eachyear.42 New Jersey has more than98,000 jobs and receives $8.5 billion inannual business revenues, with a $4.7billion contribution to the state’sGDP.43 In South Carolina, the eco-nomic impacts include 142,000 jobs and$7.3 billion in annual sales going toSouth Carolina businesses as a result ofthe state’s military presence.44 Arizona’smilitary industry accounts for morethan 83,000 jobs and $5.7 billion in eco-nomic output.45

The military is the second largest in-dustrial source of earnings in Kentucky,with a combined payroll of more than$2 billion.46 Keesler Air Force Base inBiloxi, Mississippi, touts itself as “TheSingle Largest Employer on the GulfCoast,” with an economic impact ofmore than $1.2 billion in 2006.47 Theeconomic impact on these seven statestotals nearly $100 billion.

Governments have responded to theencroachment issue in several ways.State, regional, and local planning ini-tiatives have been developed. Localzoning and land use restrictions have

been implemented. Some states haveenacted statewide legislation. Despitethese efforts, challenges persist, andfunding remains an issue even amongstates that have implemented com-mendable BRAC planning initiatives.

Planning for Compatible Land Use GrowthThe U.S. Department of Labor,Employment & Training Administra -tion has awarded National EmergencyGrants for BRAC planning worthmore than $30 million among 38states and the District of Columbia.48

An additional $24 million in BRACimplementation grants has beenawarded to nine states and theDistrict of Columbia,49 indicating afederal commitment to help statesmanage BRAC growth.

Several states,50 including Marylandand Virginia, have adopted planningmodels that include state oversight ofregionalized or localized planning ef-forts. To prepare for the effects of re-alignment-related growth, Maryland’sGov. Martin O’Malley created a stateBRAC subcabinet to coordinate state,local, and federal activities to preparefor and accommodate growth. The lieu-tenant governor serves as chairmanwith nine cabinet-level secretaries. ALocal Government Subcommittee wasformed with representatives from eachof nine counties and nine municipali-ties within the counties that will be af-fected by BRAC growth. The subcabi-net oversaw the creation of a statewideBRAC Action Plan to identify andguide critical tasks and programs to ad-dress growth-related needs.51 Creatingsuch an organization was a successfulway for Maryland to reach out to localcommunities to identify needs and fos-ter regional planning.

Virginia’s governor, through execu-tive directive, established four BRACRegional Working Groups operatingunder a State Commission on MilitaryBases.52 These groups included stateand local government officials as well asaffected residents and businesses thatwere tasked with ensuring that stateand local communities were effectivelyprepared for and responded to the 2005BRAC recommendations.53 An exampleof Virginia’s planning can be found in

the Fort Lee Growth ManagementPlan 2008, recently completed for theCrater Planning District Commission.54

Wisconsin took a similar state andlocal approach with legislation man-dating inclusion of a military repre-sentative as a nonvoting member onlocal planning and zoning boards.55 Inaddition, it created a council on mili-tary and state relations in the gover-nor’s office to facilitate cooperation onland use and other issues betweenlocal governments and the state’s mil-itary communities.56

Georgia, Washington, Virginia, andFlorida have passed legislation requir-ing base commanders to be notifiedand provided an opportunity to com-ment when local land use plans or zon-ing changes within a certain proximityto the base pose a potential conflictwith military activity.57 These initia-tives can help prevent encroachmentproblems and create an open dialoguebetween military commanders andlocal leaders.

While statewide implementation ofplanning guidance is helpful, improvedlocal land use planning and zoning re-mains the most effective way to dealwith military base encroachment.58

Federal Planning Assistance is avail-able to local governments working withBRAC and encroachment issuesthrough the DOD’s Office of Econ -omic Adjustment (OEA).59 Throughthe OEA, local governments can re-ceive grants to conduct Joint Land UseStudies (JLUS).60 These studies pro-vide a regional economic snapshot thatallows multiple local governments towork together to create land use man-agement plans to handle growth causedby military installations. As part of theplanning process, educational effortscan increase awareness among localgovernments, planners, and businessesabout compatible land uses near mili-tary installations.

Local Zoning RestrictionsLocal zoning ordinances, whether pro-hibiting residential and commercial de-velopment or mandating sound-attenu-ation standards for construction inaffected areas, are effective ways todeal with incompatible land uses.61

Georgia, Washington, Virginia, and Florida have passed legislation requiring base commanders to be notified and provided an opportunity tocomment when local land use plans or zoning changes within a certainproximity to the base pose a potential conflict with military activity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

02 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014




Anticipating the growth generated by the 2005 BRAC round, developers have been purchasing land around growth installationsfor several years.

Most “noise sensitive” areas outside ofinstallations are ideal for either light in-dustrial or agricultural use. This allowsthe land to remain productive and generate revenue while preventing in-compatible development such as resi-dential encroachment or high-risebuild ings that could jeopardize flightlines. “Sound-attenuation standards”essentially create a noise-proofing re-quirement, mandating minimum levelsof insulation for building constructionto reduce the level of noise heard in-doors.62

Initiatives in several states have ledto the creation of “clear zones,” “acci-dent potential zones,” and “noisezones” limiting commercial and resi-dential use outside of installations.63

Other states have taken a more aggres-sive approach. Outside of Tinker AirForce Base in Oklahoma, a local bondinitiative succeeded in getting all resi-dents in an encroaching zone to agreeto sell their land.64

In areas containing natural habitat forthreatened species, or where habitat canbe revitalized, the Readiness andEnvironmental Protection Initiative(REPI) is a vehicle to bring togetherstate, nonprofit, federal, and militaryfunding to establish conservation ease-ments and create a compatible-usebuffer around an installation. Manybases, like Fort Lee, are not home toany threatened or endangered speciesand so must be more creative in theirland use and planning strategies.

The 2005 BRAC realignments willlikely cause changes in training areason some installations facing significantnew construction. Local governmentsmay have to address ways to amelioratethe reverse encroachment that occurswhen military training on the installa-tion creates new levels of noise, dust, oraccident potential that threaten existingresidential or commercial areas outsidethe base. In areas where commercial orresidential areas may simply be subjectto louder noise, local governmentsmight consider providing tax incentivesfor sound attenuation measures. Inareas where existing commercial or resi-dential development could jeopardizethe ability of an installation to carry outits training, local governments could

consider options such as purchasing theland, preventing expansion or new de-velopment, and rezoning.

Statewide LegislationIn May 2008, Maryland passed theBRAC Community EnhancementAct.65 The act authorizes creation ofBRAC Revitalization and IncentiveZones throughout the state. The zonesprovide economic incentives for devel-opment in “smart growth” areas withexisting public transit capabilities, andalso provides incentives to expand pub-lic infrastructure and recreational ven-ues in designated redevelopmentareas.66

Illinois enacted legislation to ad-dress incompatible land use within theAir Installation Compatible Use Zones(AICUZ) of the state’s Air Force bases.Under the County Air Corridor Pro -tection Act of 2003, counties within thestate can use eminent domain to ac-quire title or easement to land contain-ing incompatible uses located withinthe AICUZ.67 While the primary pur-pose of the Illinois act is to protect thesafety of the communities around mili-tary installations, it has significantpower as an anti-encroachment tool.

State real estate boards can also pro-vide a tool for managing encroachment.The Commonwealth of Virginia man-dates real estate disclosures informingpotential buyers and sellers of the noiseand accident potential of living near amilitary installation,68 as do Maryland69

and Arizona.70 Training exercises andflight paths can create occasional noiseand accident potential significantly farfrom base. Additionally, with the cur-rent force transformation under way,training and military activity noise maycreate new noise and accident hazardsaround installations that were previ-ously unaffected.

CHALLENGES FOR STATE AND LOCALGOVERNMENTSAnticipating the growth generated bythe 2005 BRAC round, developers havebeen purchasing land around growthinstallations for several years.71 Localgovernments will need land to developinfrastructure, schools, and othergrowth-related projects. Maryland’s

state initiatives do a good job of balanc-ing these concerns, instituting astatewide plan in the abstract and pro-viding the necessary tools, economic in-centives, and lines of communicationfor local governments to craft more de-tailed plans tailored to their specificareas.72 The state has not, however,identified the funds it will use to insti-tute the plans.

FundingStates receive federal assistance as wellas organizing state and local funds toaddress the impacts of BRAC. Somestates are developing commissions tomanage and distribute these funds. InJune 2006, Oklahoma appropriated $1million to the state’s Department ofCommerce and the Oklahoma StrategicMilitary Planning Commission to pro-vide matching grants for local infra-structure development and improve-ments to reduce the chance of futureBRAC closures.73 Kentucky’s state sen-ate proposed creation of a BRAC eco-nomic development commission andfund. If enacted, the fund will serve asa repository for state and federal BRACfunding, which the commission willhelp distribute.74 Funding compatibleland use projects to battle encroach-ment can prove more difficult thanplanning the projects, which makes cre-ation of a state BRAC funding commis-sion a useful tool to complement aplanning commission.

A Three-Prong Approach to SuccessfulPlanning and ImplementationAs the examples above indicate, a mixof state and local planning, comple-mented by federal, state, and localfunding, is necessary to successfully ad-dress BRAC growth. States should pur-sue a three-pronged approach:

1. Create model BRAC land use and eco-nomic assessment plans at the state level,drafting them broadly enough to be usedfor local planning throughout the state.

2. Form state-level or regional commit-tees to encourage local governments tocooperate and communicate with state,federal, and military entities to achievecompatible use on land surroundingmilitary installations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

02 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014



September 2008 Vol. 60, No. 9 | p.8Military installations with airfields have been dealing with encroachment for over 30 years.

3. Provide as many economic incentivesand tools as possible to help the localgovernments achieve that goal.

THE MILITARY RESPONSE TO THEENCROACHMENT CHALLENGEMilitary installations with airfields havebeen dealing with encroachment forover 30 years. The AICUZ program wasDOD’s response to the Noise ControlAct of 1972. The program aims to pro-mote an environment free from exces-sive noise and to protect installationsfrom encroachment and incompatibledevelopment. Noise contours are as-sessed through an analysis of flight in-formation, and accident potential zonesare identified for the areas having thehighest accident potential around anairfield.75

The JLUS program is used in theprocess to foster cooperation with localcommunities to promote compatibleland use in the APZs and around theinstallation.76 While the AICUZ pro-gram helps bases identify APZs, it doesnot offer effective means for militaryinstallations to secure buffer zonesaround the bases. Without enforcementmechanisms or incentives, encroach-ment often remains a contentious issueunder the AICUZ program, exempli-fied by the near-realignment of NASOceana largely over disputed land inthe APZs.

A June 2002 report by the GAOfound DOD lacked a comprehensiveplan to manage encroachment on train-ing ranges.77 Six months later, Congressresponded in the National DefenseAuthorization Act (NDAA) of 2003,78

authorizing the military to partner withlocal, state, and federal entities, as wellas NGOs, in cost-sharing acquisitions ofconservation and restrictive-use ease-ments and other land interests fromwilling sellers, in order to preservehabitat and limit incompatible land usearound military installations (10 U.S.C.§2684a). This authorization allowedDOD to launch REPI as part of a largerSustainable Ranges Initiative.79 Almost15,000 acres of buffer land were se-cured in 2005 alone, and from 2005through 2008, 90 projects secured morethan 59,000 acres.80 Congressionalfunding for the program more than

The Navy partnered with the NatureConservancy and California WildlifeCon servation Board in 2006 to acquire330 acres of buffer land around La PostaNavy Mountain Warfare TrainingCenter.89 The effort was the first in anongoing public-private partnership inCalifornia to preserve military bufferzones, with ongoing plans to create abuffer around Camp Pendleton MarineBase, as well.90

Using the REPI framework, theMarine Corps Base Camp Lejeune inNorth Carolina partnered with theNorth Carolina Wildlife ResourceCommission to protect more than 1,000acres originally planned for develop-ment91 The area is now used as awildlife preserve open to the publicand serves as an effective barrieragainst encroachment.92 In 2007, theMarine Corps applied more than $11million in support of REPI anti-en-croachment projects at MCAS CherryPoint, North Carolina, MCB CampLejeune, MCAS Beaufort, SouthCarolina, and MCB Quantico, Virginia,protecting more than 1,685 acresaround these installations.93 In 2007,the Air Force launched its first REPIprojects at McChord AFB inWashington and Eglin AFB, Florida.94

Thirty-eight REPI projects havebeen approved for 2008, marking thelargest year yet for the program. Instal -lations across all four services will con-tinue to apply REPI funding and 10U.S.C. §2684a authority to ongoingcompatible use and conservation proj-ects in addition to forming new partnerships.95

FORT LEE, VIRGINIA: BRAC IN ACTIONVirginia is no stranger to BRAC actions,with more than 55 closure or realign-ment recommendations in BRACrounds one to four from 1988 to 1995.96

Three of the top 11 installations forpopulation growth resulting from the2005 BRAC round are located inVirginia, more than any other state.97

The current 2005 round has severalArmy activities in the state “movingWest” and Fort Monroe, on the coast ofVirginia, will close.98 Many of its activi-ties will move about an hour west toFort Eustis, with activities from

tripled from FY2005 ($12.5 million) toFY2007 ($40 million).81

In April 2008, 12 senators (sixDemocrats and six Republicans), repre-senting California, Colorado, Georgia,Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota,Missouri, New Jersey, and NorthCarolina, signed a letter to the SenateAppropriations Subcommittee onDefense requesting at least $75 millionfor REPI in 2009.82 While REPI is per-haps the best-advertised range sustain-ment initiative, it represents only afraction of what the military is actuallyspending to operate and maintain itstraining ranges, with an estimated $443million budgeted for overall range sus-tainment in 2008.83

Under the Army Compatible UseBuffer (ACUB) program, installationswork with state agencies, other federalagencies, and NGOs to acquire landsurrounding military bases—particu-larly areas with potential habitats forendangered species located on the in-stallations.84 At least 16 ACUBs havebeen approved to date, securing over60,000 acres of land as permanentlypreserved buffers around installa-tions.85 Multiple ACUB projects havegenerated new and preserved existinghabitat for species such as the redcockaded woodpecker and gray bat,while simultaneously buffering trainingareas from civilian encroachment.86

While ACUB, by its name, wouldappear to be a singularly “Army” ini-tiative, other branches have workedwith the process as well.87 As an ex-ample of joint military, state, and non-governmental organization coopera-tion, the Army ACUB Pacific Regionhelped form the Oahu ConservationPartner ship to protect the buffer landsaround Hawaii’s military installations.This ACUB protects training activi-ties on base through off-post conser-vation of endangered species habitats.U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii (USAG–HI) is inhabited by roughly 100threatened or endangered specieswhose off-base habitats are being de-stroyed by suburban sprawl and en-croachment. The Army, Navy, AirForce, and Marines worked with mul-tiple state and nonprofit organizationsto make the ACUB possible.88

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

02 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014




diers involved in logistics, and willserve as headquarters for the Army’sCombined Arms Support Command(CASCOM), Ordnance, Quartermaster,and Transportation Centers andSchools.108 The executive director ofthe region’s Planning DistrictCommission stated, “It is going to takea good decade or more for all of this toshape our regional economy.”109

Fort Lee has spent the past severalyears preparing for tremendousgrowth,110 and the impacts BRAC willhave on the base are obvious to anyonewho drives through the installation.111

Fort Lee’s population will nearly dou-ble in a six-year period, an increase al-most comparable to the total popula-tion of some smaller cities and countiessurrounding the installation.112 Thepost will go from an annually supportedpopulation of 56,716 in 2007 to 90,990by 2011.113 Using the Wal-Mart com-parison again, an increase of 34,274 isnearly equivalent to bringing everyWal-Mart employee in the state to FortLee.114

Immediate transportation projectneeds total nearly $20 million, withhalf the funding still unidentified.115

An estimated 2,500 new students areexpected, with Prince George Countyabsorbing as many as 1,134.116 Thecounty’s elementary schools and highschool are currently over capacity andstand to gain an additional 705 and 386students, respectively, by 2011.117 TheDOD OEA awarded approximately$303,329 in Growth Related grants tocommunities surrounding Fort Leeduring 2006 and 2007.118

Local communities have been work-ing together in preparation for the dra-matic changes BRAC realignment willbring to the region. In December 2006,the Crater Planning District Commis -sion (CPDC), utilizing DOD grantfunding, held an informational meetingattended by representatives from over400 companies.119 The CPDC supportsfour cities (Colonial Heights, Emporia,Hopewell, and Petersburg) and sixcounties (Chesterfield, Dinwiddie,Greensville, Prince George, Surry, andEssex).120 In 2007, Petersburg, site ofover 18 major battles, was added to thetop 10 list of threatened Civil War bat-

tlefields by the Civil War PreservationTrust.121 While Fort Lee does not faceendangered species concerns as someother installations do,122 the substantialCivil War history of the entire regionmakes preservation of these lands animportant priority.123

During this growth, Fort Lee willface several encroachment concerns. Inaddition to the traditional “militarybase encroachment” scenario wherecivilians are moving closer to the instal-lation, Fort Lee’s current plans call formoving training areas closer to thefence line, where existing civilian areasmay be subjected to new levels ofnoise from training activities.124

Encroachment at Fort LeeThe example of NAS Oceana high-lights the problems that can arise if in-stallations and local governments donot cooperate to preemptively addressencroachment issues. The AICUZ,REPI, and ACUB initiatives showDOD’s commitment to preventing en-croachment to the extent possiblearound military installations.125

Upon completion of the BRAC re-alignment, Fort Lee plans to have twomajor training areas, one in the newNorth Range complex for vehicle recov-ery training, and one in the southern partof the range complex for warrior training,including weapons firing and artillerysimulators. The North Range project,currently under construction, will createvehicle noise and potentially increaseddust, but current residential and commer-cial zones are located far enough from thesite that encroachment is not an immedi-ate issue. The warrior training, previouslyconducted where the Ordnance School isbeing built, could bring new levels oftraining noise to an area adjacent to bothcommercial and residential interests, andposes immediate encroachmentconcerns.126 Unlike many previous proj-ects designed to prevent civilian en-croachment from reaching the borders ofa military base, this situation poses theproblem of military exercises reachingexisting civilian development.

Addressing concerns over noise in theSouth Range area will require coopera-tion between Fort Lee and the localgovernment. An initial assessment of the

Monroe and Eustis moving anotherhour west to Fort Lee.99

Installation HistoryCamp Lee was founded as a mobiliza-tion and training facility in 1917 duringWorld War I. Following the war, controlof the camp was assumed by the state,turning much of the area into a gamepreserve. In 1940, a second camp wasbuilt, established it as the Quarter -master center at the end of World WarII.100 Originally targeted for closure inearly BRAC rounds, the latest roundhas called for immense expansion ofthe base, bringing activities from otherparts of Virginia, Alabama, Texas, andMaryland.101

Fort Lee today would be completelyunrecognizable from its original form asCamp Lee.102 Only one structure re-mains from the original Camp. Builtbetween 1915 and 1917, the DavisHouse was recently threatened withdemolition to expand the 49thQuartermaster Group. In March of thisyear, the Historic Petersburg Foun -dation urged members and local citi-zens to attend a public meeting to dis-cuss the proposed demolition.103 A finaldecision is pending. Local leaders mustconsider this history of Fort Lee as asmall installation surrounded by rela-tively small counties and numerous his-toric Civil War battlefields as they planfor Fort Lee’s tremendous growth inorder to make wise land use decisions,particularly in crucial buffer zones.

BRAC 2005 EffectsFort Lee is number four on the Officeof Economic Adjustment’s list of 20 in-stallations where expected growth dueto realignment will adversely affect sur-rounding communities104 More thanhalf a billion dollars worth of construc-tion projects have been awarded in thepast year on Fort Lee, with at least sixmajor projects scheduled to be opera-tional between 2009 and 2011.105 At theconclusion, over seven million squarefeet of new buildings will be con-structed on Fort Lee.106 To put that inperspective, it is equivalent to building37 Wal-Mart Supercenters inside theroughly eight-square-mile perimeter ofthe base.107 The facilities will train sol-

While Fort Lee does not face endangered species concerns assome other installations do, the substantial Civil War history ofthe entire region makes preservation of these lands an important priority.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

02 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Successfully managing encroachment could lead to tremendouseconomic growth in future rounds.

noise risks from the relocated training in-dicates that the noise increase may infact be low compared to existing noisefrom traffic and commercial activity inthe area.127 The potentially affectedareas include a hotel and assisted livingfacility in the city of Hopewell. If noiselevels remain tolerable to the affectedresidents and commercial activities, noaction may be needed; however,Hopewell currently has an opportunityto use this scenario to implement plan-ning strategies that could also be usedfor future realignment actions or trainingarea relocations.

Drawing on the examples of otherstates mentioned above, Hopewell couldtake action in several ways, includingpurchase, rezoning, or limitations on use.The city could purchase the affected realestate, beginning with a study to assessthe willingness of affected landowners tosell their lands before training com-mences. That solution would likely becost prohibitive and unjustified due tothe low level of intrusion by militarynoise and low risk of the affected areascompromising the ability to conduct mil-itary training exercises. Residents arecurrently seeing an increase in land valueand would likely be unwilling to sellbased on potential training noise. Theareas could be rezoned as commercial orindustrial, allowing the current busi-nesses to continue to operate and currentresidents to stay in their homes, yet pro-hibiting future building, additions, or re-construction of residential, assisted liv-ing, or hotel facilities. This could be aneffective long-term solution, but the as-sisted living facility and hotel are bothrelatively new structures and will likelybe there for many years to come.Limitations on land uses in the affectedareas could be instituted, includingmandatory sound attenuation standards.Sound attenuation standards wouldlikely address the noise issues, and inthis case, could be the best compromisebetween the military, city, and residents.

Under the terms of the Virginia RealEstate Board Regulations, disclosuresof aircraft noise and accident potentialmust be provided when purchasing orselling real estate in localities contain-ing military air installations (Virginiacode §55-519.1). To extend the benefits




of real estate disclosure to bases likeFort Lee that experience little to noaircraft noise, Virginia could consideramending this statute to somethingcloser to Maryland’s real estate disclo-sure requirement, which includes “mil-itary operations that may result in highnoise levels” (Md. Code, Real Property,§14-117(k)(2)).

In theory, creating such a disclosurerequirement could persuade landown-ers in affected areas to sell their landprior to the commencement of trainingexercises in order to avoid a potentialloss in value due to the disclosure re-quirement. Ideally, this would free theland up for more acceptable land uses.In practice, the current round of BRACrealignments has led to significantproperty value increases around mili-tary bases, so sale based on a disclosurerequirement is unlikely. It would, how-ever, put future residents on notice ofnoise and accident risk and potentiallyreduce the number of noise complaintsand lawsuits.

CONCLUSIONBRAC realignments resulting from the2005 round stressed the importance ofmanaging encroachment and ensuringcompatible land use around military in-stallations to state and local govern-ments across the nation. It also placedheavy stress on installations receivinglarge population increases to success-fully manage encroachment and re-alignment simultaneously in a short six-year period. The example of NASOceana’s near-realignment serves as awarning to installations and local gov-ernments that fail to work together.During the remaining three years ofthis BRAC period, Fort Lee and simi-larly situated growth installations havean opportunity to preemptively addressencroachment, while other installationscontinue to ameliorate the effects ofneglecting this issue in the past.

Numerous resources have becomeavailable, particularly in the past fiveyears, to address encroachment. Utilizingthese resources and pushing for furtherstate legislation on the issue can make iteasier for installations and communitiesto mitigate the problem of encroach-ment. Failure to plan now could lead

today’s growth bases to become futurebase closures. Successfully managing en-croachment could lead to tremendouseconomic growth in future rounds. It isnow up to state and local governments towork with military installations toachieve an effective balance of commu-nity and military interests.

ENDNOTES1. See generally U.S. Government Accountability Office’s letter toCongressional Committees. Defense Infrastructure: DOD Fundingfor Infrastructure and Road Improvements Surrounding GrowthInstallations. Apr. 1, 2008, at 1–3, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08602r.pdf.

2. Id.

3. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. FinalReport to the President, Volumes I & II (Sept. 8, 2005),http://www.brac.gov/finalreport.html.

4. See generally U.S. Government Accountability Office.Statement Before the Defense Base Closure and RealignmentCommission. Military Base Closures: Observations on Prior andCurrent Brac Rounds, May 2005, at 3, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05614.pdf.

5. See e.g., Naval Air Station Oceana, BRAC Report Vol. 1. 2005, at107, http://www.brac.gov/docs/final/Volume1BRACReport.pdf.

6. This paragraph references U.S. Government AccountabilityOffice, supra note 4, at 3–7.

7. Id. at 3.

8. Major Closures/Realignments in each BRAC round (C/R):1988 (16/4); 1991 (26/17); 1993 (28/12); 1995 (27/22); 2005(22/33). See U.S. Government Accountability Office. TestimonyBefore the Subcommittee on Readiness, Committee on ArmedServices, House of Representatives. Military Base Realignmentsand Closures: Estimated Costs Have Increased and EstimatedSavings Have Decreased, Dec. 2007, at 6, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08341t.pdf.

9. Id.

10. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Report toCongressional Addressees. Military Base Realignments andClosures: Cost Estimates Have Increased and Are Likely toEvolve. Dec. 2007, Highlights Page, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08159.pdf.

11. U.S. Government Accountability Office, supra note 4, at 3;see also U.S. Government Accountability Office. TestimonyBefore the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, FinancialManagement, and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee onGovernment Reform, House of Representatives. Military BaseClosures: Overview of Economic Recovery, Property Transfer,and Environmental Cleanup. Aug. 2001, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d011054t.pdf.

12. See generally KENNETH MATWICZAK, ECONOMIC IMPACT OF RURAL

MILITARY BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE. http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/pubs/isbn/0-89940-921-0; U.S. Department of Defense Officeof Economic Adjustment (OEA), http://www.oea.gov.

13. Bill Farrar, Marching Forward—Fort Lee’s expansion alreadymaking waves in Tri-Cities, RICHMOND MAGAZINE, Jan. 2008, at100–104, http://www.craterpdc.state.va.us/fortlee/Richmond%20Mag%20BRAC%20Article%20(11%20Jan%2008).pdf.

14. U.S. Government Accountability Office, supra note 1, at 1.

15. Id.

16. The11 locations, by population gain: Fort Bliss, Tex. (138percent), Fort Belvoir, Va. (131 percent), Fort Riley, Kan. (69 per-cent), Fort Lee, Va. (55 percent), Fort Sam Houston, Tex. (47 per-cent), Fort Carson, Colo. (43 percent), Fort Benning, Ga. (41 per-cent), Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Va. (38 percent), FortLewis, Wash. (37 percent), Navy Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.(33 percent), Fort Bragg, N.C. (29 percent). U.S. GovernmentAccount ability Office. Letter to Congressional Committees.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

02 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014




Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and RoadImprovement Surrounding Growth Installations. Apr. 2008, at 13,http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08602r.pdf.

17. U.S. Government Accountability Office, supra note 1.

18. Id.

19. See Philip E. Coyle III, Will There Ever Be Another BRAC?THE DEFENSE MONITOR Jan.–Feb. 2006, at 1-2, http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/DMJanFeb06.pdf.

20. See BETH E. LACHMAN, ANNY WONG, AND SUSAN A. RESETAR,THE THIN GREEN LINE: AN ASSESSMENT OF DOD’S READINESS AND ENVI-RONMENTAL PROTECTION INITIATIVE TO BUFFER INSTALLATION ENCROACH-MENT xiii (2007), http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG612.

21. INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION & METRO-POLITAN INSTITUTE AT VIRGINIA TECH, COLLABORATIVE LAND USE PLAN-NING: A GUIDE FOR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,http://www.fedcenter.gov/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=7667&destination=ShowItem.

22. Id. at p. 8.

23. Id. at p. 5.

24. See generally Ryan Santicola, Encroachment: WhereNational Security, Land Use, and the Environment Collide, ARMY

LAWYER, Jul. 2006.

25. International City/County Management Association, supranote 23 at p. 5.

26. READINESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INITIA-TIVE, SECOND ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS 6–7, May2008, available at https://www.denix.osd.mil/ under the “publi-cations,” “sustainable ranges” tab.

27. Id.

28. Tara Butler, NGA Center for Best Practices, Issue Brief:State Strategies to Address Encroachment at MilitaryInstallations, Sept. 2004, http://www.nga.org/cda/files/032403MILITARY.PDF.

29. City of Virginia Beach, Media & Communications Group,BRAC and BRAC FAQ, http://www.vbgov.com, and DaleEisman, Inspector general rejects Beach’s Oceana plan, THE

VIRGINIAN-PILOT, May 24, 2006, http://hamptonroads.com/node/105841. The City of Virginia Beach website provides greater de-tail on the Oceana debate and the contested land in the APZ-1,as well as Virginia Beach’s proposed solution to the BRACCommission’s ultimatum. The newspaper article reports thatVirginia Beach’s plan was ultimately rejected, yet NAS Oceanawill likely remain open.

30. This paragraph references City of Virginia Beach, Media &Communications Group, BRAC and BRAC FAQ, http://www.vbgov.com. Copies on file with author.]

31. Id.

32. Id.

33. Susan E. White, Another class-action lawsuit filed over Navyjet noise, THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT, Sept. 6, 2007, http://hampton-roads.com/node/322901.

34. City of Virginia Beach, supra note 30.

35. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, FinalReport to the President, Volume I, 107–109, Sept. 8, 2005,available at http://www.brac.gov/finalreport.html.

36. City of Virginia Beach, supra note 30.

37. U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Department ReachesSettlement to Resolve Litigation at Oceana Naval Base, May 15,2007, available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2007/May. Seealso Dale Eisman, Inspector general rejects Beach’s Oceanaplan, THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT, May 24, 2006, http://hamptonroads.com/node/105841.

38. Susan E. White, supra note 33.


40. The guide may be difficult to locate from the homepage ofNACO; a direct link is provided here. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

COUNTIES, ENCOURAGING COMPATIBLE LAND USE BETWEEN LOCAL

GOVERNMENTS AND MILITARY INSTALLATIONS: A BEST PRACTICES GUIDE,2007, http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=New_Technical_Assistance&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=23712.

41. Stuart Doyle, Florida’s defense industry has $52B statewideimpact, study reveals, ENTERPRISE FLORIDA, Jan. 31, 2008,http://www.eflorida.com/PressDetail.aspx?id=6438.

42. Maryland Department of Business & EconomicDevelopment, available at http://www.choosemaryland.org/businessinmd/militaryaffairs/militaryaffairs.html.

43. Michael L. Lahr, Report of Research Submitted to GovernorJames E. McGreevey on the Economic Contribution of Militaryand Coast Guard Installations to the State of New Jersey,Rutgers Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and PublicPolicy, Center for Urban Policy Research, April 29, 2004,http://policy.rutgers.edu/cupr/project/economic_impact_of_military_bases_in_nj.htm.

44. Donald L. Schunk, The Economic Impact of South Carolina’sMilitary Bases, Moore School of Business, University of SouthCarolina, BUSINESS & ECONOMICS REVIEW, 2005, http://mooreschool.sc.edu/moore/research/Publications/BandE/bande51/51n1/military.html.

45. The Maguire Company, Economic Impact of Arizona’sPrincipal Military Operations Executive Summary, May 2002,http://www.glendaleaz.com/lukeafb/documents/MaquireSummary.pdf.

46. Kentucky Commission on Military Affairs, Economic ImpactCompared to Other Industries and Other States, http://kcma.ky.gov/impact/comparedother.htm.

47. Keesler Air Force Base Fiscal Year 2006 Economic ImpactAnalysis, http://www.keesler.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070814-022.doc.

48. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment & TrainingAdministration, BRAC National Emergency Grant Awards,http://www.doleta.gov/neg/BRAC_awards.cfm.

49. Id.

50. See generally Tara Butler, supra note 28.

51. This paragraph references Maryland’s Base Realignment &Closure Subcabinet, http://www.gov.state.md.us/brac/index.asp, and State of Maryland BRAC Action Plan Report, 10,http://www.gov.state.md.us/brac/documents/BRACsection1.pdf.

52. Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of the Governor, ExecutiveDirective 10, BRAC Regional Working Groups (2005), http://www.bracarlingtonva.us/execdirten.pdf.

53. See generally Arlington Economic Development in Virginia,http://www.arlingtonvirginiausa.com; Crater Planning DistrictCommission, http://www.craterpdc.state.va.us; see also, TaraButler, NGA Center for Best Practices, Issue Brief: StateFinancing Strategies to Address the Economic Impacts ofMilitary Base Realignments and Closures 4, Aug. 2006,http://www.oea.gov/OEAWeb.nsf/A3619EED9E821C73852571E80054E791/$File/NGA%20Paper%20on%20State%20Finance%20Strategies%20to%20address%20BRAC.pdf.

54. RKG Associates Inc., Fort Lee Growth Management Plan2008, 1–10, Feb. 2008, http://www.craterpdc.state.va.us/fortlee/Fort%20Lee%20-%20GMP%20(3-4-08).pdf.

55. Wisconsin Legislative Council Act Memo, 2005 WisconsinAct 26 2005 Assembly Bill 399, Military Installations; Council on Military-State Relations, http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lc/publications/act/2005/act026-ab399.pdf.

56. Id.

57. Tara Butler, supra note 28.

58. Tara Butler, NGA Center for Best Practices, Issue Brief:Military Installations Pressured by Sprawl, 1, Oct. 11, 2002,http://www.nga.org/cda/files/100802sprawl.pdf.

59. Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment, athttp://www.oea.gov.

60. Tara Butler, supra note 28, at 8.

61. Tara Butler, NGA Center for Best Practices, Issue Brief:Planning Tools and Policies to Encourage CompatibleDevelopment Near Military Installations, 2–4, Feb. 2006,http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0602DEVELOPMILITARY.PDF.

62. For an example of a sound attenuation statute, see ArizonaRevised Statutes §28-8482, Incorporation of sound attenuationstandards in building codes, http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp.

63. Tara Butler, supra note 28.

64. Tara Butler, supra note 28 at 10–11.

65. Maryland Senate Bill 206, BRAC Community EnhancementAct, http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/billfile/sb0206.htm.

66. Tara Butler, NGA Center for Best Practices, Front andCenter, Maryland Law to Support Military Base Growth, May 15,2008, http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.9123e83a1f6786440ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=0bc82dfdd8de9110VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD (for a summary of theMaryland law).

67. Illinois Public Act 093-0176, County Air Corridor ProtectionAct, Jul. 11, 2003, http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/full-text.asp?Name=093-0176&GA=093; see also Tara Butler, supranote 74 at 6.

68. Code of Virginia §55-519.1, Required disclosures pertainingto a military air installation, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-519.1. See also Department ofProfessional and Occupational Regulation, Real Estate TransferDisclosure for Properties Located in a Locality in Which a MilitaryAir Installation is Located, http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/dporweb/Military_Air_Installation_Disclosure.pdf.

69. Maryland Code, Real Property, §14-117(k), http://www.michie.com/maryland (for text of statute); 2006 House Bill 298,Residential Real Property Sales—Notice Requirements—MilitaryOperations and Testing, http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/hb0298.htm.

70. Arizona Revised Statutes §28-8484, http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp; see also Tara Butler, NGA CenterFor Best Practices, Issue Brief: Planning Tools and Policies toEncourage Compatible Development Near Military Installations,7–8, Feb. 2006, http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0602DEVELOPMILITARY.PDF.

71. Versar, Inc., Draft Environmental Assessment for theDevelopment and Operation of Warrior Training FTX (FieldTraining Exercises) at Fort Lee, Virginia, (May 2008). (On file withauthor).

72. See, e.g., PIER Services Group, The Impact of BaseRealignment and Closure (BRAC) on the Maryland Real EstateInvestor, http://pierservicesgroup.com/BRAC.aspx.

73. Office of Governor Brad Henry, Gov. Henry ApprovesFunding to Protect Oklahoma Military Bases, June 6, 2006,http://www.gov.ok.gov/display_article.php?article_id=765&article_type=1.

74. Kentucky Legislature, SB111, http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/08RS/SB111.htm.

75. This paragraph references Department of the Air Force,AICUZ Handbook: A Guidance Document for Air InstallationCompatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Program, Volumes I–III, Jan. 1,1992, http://stinet.dtic.mil.

76. See generally Department of Defense Office of EconomicAssistance, Joint Land Use Study Program Guidance Manual,Nov. 2006, available at http://www.oea.gov.

77. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report toCongressional Requesters, Military Training: DOD Lacks aComprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on TrainingRanges, June 2002, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02614.pdf.

78. Pub. L. 107-314, Bob Stump National Defense AuthorizationAct for Fiscal Year 2003, Dec. 2, 2002, www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/PL107-314.pdf.

79. Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative,Department of Defense—Sustainable Ranges Initiative. Availableat https://www.denix.osd.mil, under the “Sustainable Ranges”quick link.

80. Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative, 2ndAnnual Report to Congress, supra note 26.

81. Id.

82. Stephanie Valencia and Cody Wertz, Sen. Salazar Leads Senate Effort to Protect Colorado & Other MilitaryInstalla tions from Encroaching Growth, Press Release, Apr. 1, 2008, http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/080401enroaching.htm.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

02 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014




2008, at http://pburgpn.net/news/2008/03/13/meeting-on-pro-posed-demolition.


105. Fort Lee BRAC Update, http://www.ima.lee.army.mil/sites/BSO/Fort_Lee_Brac_Update.html.

106. Id.

107. A Wal-Mart Supercenter averages 185,000 square feet. Whilemany of the new buildings on Fort Lee will be several stories tallcompared to Wal-Mart’s one-story height, the comparison is meantto give the reader an idea of the level of construction occurring.Wal-Mart data available at http://www.walmartstores.com, underthe “Facts and News,” “State by State” tabs.

108. Fort Lee BRAC Update, supra note 105.

109. Bill Farrar, supra note 13.

110. See generally Fort Lee BRAC Update, supra note 105;RKG Associates Inc., Fort Lee Growth Management Plan 2008,supra note 54.

111. See generally Fort Lee BRAC Update, supra note 105 (forimages of some of the buildings under construction).


113. Virginia’s Gateway Region, Economic DevelopmentOrganization, Fort Lee BRAC Planning—An InstallationSnapshot, http://www.gatewayregion.com/documents/BRACSnapshot.pdf.

114. Wal-Mart employed 39,758 associates in its 108 businesslocations in Virginia as of June 2008. Wal-Mart data available athttp://www.walmartstores.com, under the “Facts and News,”“State by State” tabs.


116. RKG Associates Inc., Fort Lee Growth Management Plan2008, supra note 54, at 1–10.

117. Id.

118. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report toCongressional Addressees: Defense Infrastructure, ChallengesIncrease Risks for Providing Timely Infrastructure Support forArmy Installations Expecting Substantial Personnel Growth, 29,Sept. 2007, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071007.pdf.



121. Markus Schmidt, 7 acres may be added to park, THE

PROGRESS-INDEX, May 2, 2008 (on file with author).

122. Versar, Inc., supra note 71.

123. Id.

124. These sentences cite Id.

125. See Department of the Air Force, AICUZ Handbook,supra note 75; Department of Defense Readiness andEnvironmental Protection Initiative and Sustainable RangeInitiative, available at https://www.denix.osd.mil/portal/page/portal/denix/range/Compatible; U.S. Army Sustainability—Army Compatible Use Buffer Program (ACUB), http://www.sustainability.army.mil/tools/programtools_acub.cfm; U.S.Army Environmental Command, ACUB website,http://aec.army.mil/usaec/acub/acub00.html.

126. This paragraph cites Versar, Inc., supra note 71.

127. Id. at Appendix C.

83. FY2008 range sustainment funding estimates: Air Force ($200million), Army ($129 million), Marines ($60 million), Navy ($24 mil-lion), DOD REPI ($30 million). U.S. Government AccountabilityOffice, Letter to Congressional Committees. ImprovementContinues in DOD’s Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, ButOpportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments andComprehensive Plan, 8, Oct. 11, 2007, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0810r.pdf.

84. Army Compatible Use Buffer Program, End of YearSummary FY06, 1–3, 2006,http://aec.army.mil/usaec/acub/docs_acub/eoys-fy06.pdf.

85. Id.

86. Army Compatible Use Buffer, Southeast Region Fact Sheet,Aug. 2007, http://aec.army.mil/usaec/acub/acubse.pdf.

87. Army Compatible Use Buffer Program, supra note 84 at 37.

88. This paragraph references Army Compatible Use Buffer,Pacific Region Fact Sheet, Aug. 2007,http://aec.army.mil/usaec/acub/acubpac.pdf.

89. The Nature Conservancy, Press Release, Conservationistsand Navy join forces to preserve open space, Mar. 6, 2006,http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/california/press/laposta030606.html. See also Readiness andEnvironmental Protection Initiative, 2007 Report to Congress,available at https://www.denix.osd.mil, under the “SustainableRanges” quick link “compatible land use” tab.

90. Id.

91. Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative, 2007Report to Congress, supra note 89 at 14–19.

92. Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative, supra note 79.

93. Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative, 2ndAnnual Report to Congress, supra note 26, at 20.

94. Id.

95. Id. at 21.

96. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, FinalReport to the President, Volumes II, App. F, 17–19, Sept. 8,2005, http://www.brac.gov/finalreport.html.

97. U.S. Government Accountability Office, supra note 1 at 13.

98. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, FinalReport to the President, Volume I, 16–17, Sept. 8, 2005,http://www.brac.gov/finalreport.html.

99. The BRAC 2005 recommendations called for creation of aCombat Service Support Center (CSSC) at Fort Lee. The newCSSC will consolidate three Army “centers and schools” onto onebase: The Quartermaster (already at Fort Lee), Ordnance (relocating from Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland), andTransportation (relocating from Fort Eustis, Virginia). Addi tionally,the Missile and Munitions Center will relocate from RedstoneArsenal, Alabama. Culinary Training and Trans portation Man -agement training will relocate from Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.The Defense Contract Management Agency Head quarters will re-locate from Alexandria, Virginia. All components of the DefenseCommissary Agency will move to Fort Lee from San Antonio,Texas, and Hopewell and Virginia Beach, Virginia. See Fort LeeBRAC 05 recommendations summary, http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsim/brac/Forts_pdfs/FortLee.pdf.

100. Paragraph cites Fort Lee, Virginia:http://www.ima.lee.army.mil/sites/about/history.asp.

101. Fort Lee BRAC 05 Recommendations, supra note 99.

102. See generally TIM O’GORMAN AND STEVE ANDERS, FORT LEE,Arcadia Publishing (2003). Available for preview through GoogleBook Search at http://books.google.com/books?id=whJJJeYoK8QC&printsec=frontcover#PPA25,M1.

103. Information on the Davis House from blog post, Meetingon proposed demolition, PETERSBURG PEOPLE’S NEWS, Mar. 13,

Search hundreds

of abstracts

on PEL Online

www.planning.org/pel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

02 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

brac to the future: managing past encroachment, present growth, and future land use around military...

Documents