Summary of the 2005 Report of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission HA-10-6-05

The Department maintains a BRAC 2005 website www.defenselink.mil/BRAC . The Department’s Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) also maintains a website www.oea.gov. On 13 May 2005 the Honorable Anthony J. Principi was sent a Letter from the Secretary of Defense that stated, the US national security strategy addresses the new challenges posed by international terrorism, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, ungoverned areas, rogue states, and non-state actors. The Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) Report is required under Public Law 101-510 reshapes domestic installations. The Secretaries of the Military Departments, the member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all support the recommendations that will increasing combat effectiveness and transforming to meet future national defense challenges. The report supports force transformation addressing new threats, strategies, and force protection concerns, it consolidates business oriented support functions, promotes joint and multi service basing while providing significant savings. During the past four rounds of BRAC, OEA provided about $280 million in economic planning and redevelopment assistance to local communities. Other Federal agencies provided approximately $1.6 billion in coordinated grant assistance: Federal Aviation Administration ($760 million); the Commerce Department’s Economic Development Administration ($611 million); and the Labor Department’s Employment and Training Administration ($223 million). The successful redevelopment of surplus military property does not occur without a genuine partnering between the Military Departments and the communities that will absorb the former installations. Likewise, it is important to recognize that this necessary Military-community partnership needs to be flexible to adapt to the specific market forces and private sector circumstances found at each location. Government agencies at all levels can bring critical knowledge and resources to this effort. The private sector’s entrepreneurial perspective and capital ultimately turn reuse visions into viable economic redevelopment and job creation.

Chapter 1 Base Realignment and Closure Overview and Results pp 1-4 explains the procedure for the realignment of military bases in foreign locations proceeds under a different bilateral process between the US and the host nation in the International Global Presence and Basing Study (IGPBS), which remains to be de-classified. The domestic base closure process was designed in law to be objective and fair.

• Five percent of plant replacement value will be reduced;

• About 12 million square feet of leased space will be vacated for more secure, functionally enhanced facilities;

• About 18,000 civilian support positions will be eliminated; and

• At the 6-year point in implementation, the Department will begin to realize annual net savings of over $5 billion from BRAC 2005 actions, in addition to about $7 billion from previous BRAC rounds.

Chapter 2 Force Structure Plan pp 5-12 The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff provided a long-term force structure plan for the Defense Department based on analysis of current and future threats, challenges in accordance with Section 2912 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended, the force structure plan for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 is based on the probable threats to national security for a 20-year period, from 2005 to 2024. The U.S. military predominates in the world in traditional forms of warfare and has a preponderance of unconventional nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. To foster a culture of innovation a continuous defense transformation is part of a wider governmental effort to transform America’s national security institutions to meet 21st-century challenges and opportunities. The War on Terrorism imparts an urgency to defense transformation; we must transform to win the war. Porous international borders, weak controls over weapons-related materials and expertise, must undergo ongoing revolutions in information technology to tighten control and limit surplus stockpiles of prohibited weapons. Particularly troublesome is the nexus of transnational terrorists, WMD proliferation, and rogue states. Two factors in particular have intensified the rapid growth and potential danger of irregular challenges: the rise of extremist ideologies and the erosion of traditional sovereignty. Strategy requires that U.S. forces, fulfill commitments to assure friends and allies of the United States. Forces must provide the President with a wide range of options to deter aggression and coercion, and if deterrence fails, forces must have the ability to defeat any adversary at the time, place, and in the manner of U.S. choosing. We must safeguard U.S. freedoms and interests while working actively to forestall the emergence of new challenges. The Army projects it will end FY05 with end strength of 511,800 or 29,400 above the baseline of 482,400. The Marine Corps projects it will end FY05 with end strength of 177,675 or 2,675 above the baseline of 175,000. The FY05 Supplemental request includes $1.7 billion to support these over strengths. In FY06, the Army and Marine Corps plan to exceed the funded end strength levels by at least 30,000 and 3,000 end strength, respectively.

Anticipated Level of Funding ($B)

FY05 FY07 FY09 FY11

USA 115 110.1 120.3 125.6

USN 103.7 110.5 122.7 131.5

USMC 18.9 18.5 20.6 21.9

USAF 119.6 133.3 138.7 146.8

Chapter 3 Analytical Process pp 13-26 states the analytical process begins with Selection Criteria 1 capacity analyses, The intent of this analysis was to develop a comprehensive inventory based upon certified data that included both physical capacity (buildings, runways, maneuver acres, etc.) and operational capacity (workload or throughput). The Department owns more than 520,000 facilities (buildings and structures), of which about 87 percent are in the United States and territories.

Selection Criteria 2 takes the military value of the base into consideration. To arrive at a quantitative military value score, the proponents began by identifying attributes, or characteristics, for each criterion. The proponents then weighted attributes to reflect their relative importance based upon things such as their military judgment or experience and contributions and compliance with military guidance and principles. Pp 22.

Selection Criteria 3 scenario development, an iterative process to identify potential closure and realignment scenarios. These scenarios were developed using either a data-driven optimization model or strategy-driven approaches reliant upon military judgment.

Selection Criteria 4 scenario analysis, process was characterized by an effort to identify options that best support force structure capabilities; enhance military value; provide, in the aggregate, significant infrastructure and/or cost savings; and are not limited by negative community, economic, or environmental consequences.

Selection Criterion 5 Determining Payback requires the Department to consider the “extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years, beginning with the date of completion of the closure or realignment, for the savings to exceed the costs.”

Selection criterion 6 requires the Department to consider the “economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations.” The Department used a certified database and calculator developed by JPAT 6 to assess the economic impact of closures and realignments on communities. The calculator, called the Economic Impact Tool (EIT), measured the total potential job change (direct and indirect) in the economic area or region of influence (ROI) of a scenario, and the total potential job change as a percentage of total employment in that region. Selection Criterion 7 requires the Department to consider the “ability of the infrastructure of both the existing and potential receiving communities to support forces, missions, and personnel.” The process required the evaluation of 10 key community attributes-- demographics, childcare, cost of living, education, employment, housing, medical care, safety/crime, transportation, and utilities.

Selection Criterion 8 requires the Department to consider the “environmental impact, including the impact of costs related to potential environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities.” To assess and consider the environmental resource impacts of different scenarios, JPAT 8 identified 10 environmental resource areas for consideration: air quality; cultural/archeological/tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints/sensitive resource areas; marine mammals/marine resources/marine sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species/critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands.

In the final stages of the scenario analysis process, using its analysis against all eight selection criteria, each analytical proponent deliberated and decided which of its scenarios to recommend. Integration involved allocating costs and savings among candidate recommendations and combining multiple candidate recommendations into a single candidate recommendation where that would produce a complete closure or would make functional or strategic sense.

Chapter 4 Implementation and Reuse pp 27-32 explains the Department worked diligently to assist its military and civilian personnel in transition, to transfer property for reuse, and to assist communities in converting surplus military installations to civilian reuse. The Department attempted to minimize involuntary separations of Defense civilians at closing or realigning installations through a variety of placement, retirement, and federal retraining programs. As a result of prior BRAC efforts, the Department has transferred over 450,000 acres of land and related facilities by deed or long-term lease to other entities for reuse. These transfers have permitted the creation of more than 110,000 new jobs, and redevelopment is continuing at those former installations. The principles learned in BRAC rounds are

Act expeditiously whether closing or realigning. Relocating activities from installations designated for closure will, when feasible, be accelerated to facilitate the transfer of real property for community reuse.

Fully utilize all appropriate means to transfer property. Federal law provides the Department with an array of legal authorities, including public benefit transfers, economic development conveyances at cost and no cost, negotiated sale to state or local government, conservation conveyances, and public sale, by which to transfer on closed or realigned installations.

Rely on and leverage market forces. Community redevelopment plans and military conveyance plans should be integrated to the extent practical and should take account of any anticipated demand for surplus military land and facilities.

Collaborate effectively. Only by collaborating with the local community can the Department close and transfer property in a timely manner and provide a foundation for solid economic redevelopment. Military-community partnerships need to be flexible enough to adapt to the specific market forces and other circumstances at each location.

Speak with one voice. Timely information regarding facility and environmental conditions and closure and realignment schedules are critically important. In the past, when communities spoke with one voice about their reuse goals and activities, the Department was better positioned to consider local redevelopment plans.

From a community’s perspective, BRAC actions take several forms -- complete closure, partial closure, realignment with a loss, and realignment with gains. The Department’s Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) is prepared to help a community adjust to a significant BRAC action whether a loss or a gain. Military commanders and human resource personnel have learned from previous BRAC rounds the importance of stressing job placement and training to employees. When dislocations are likely to be large, establishing transition assistance offices at the installation is important. The Department has a number of mitigating placement, transition, and worker assistance programs to draw from, including the following:

• The Priority Placement Program provides for the referral and mandatory placement of displaced employees who are qualified for other vacancies within the Department. Other programs provide various types of referral and priority considerations for Defense and other Federal agencies’ job vacancies.

• The Department’s permanent Voluntary Early Retirement Authority allows eligible employees to retire early and receive a reduced annuity.

• The Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (with a cash payment) authorizes the Department to encourage displaced employees to separate voluntarily by resignation or retirement to avoid an involuntary separation of another employee.

• The Department’s Homeowners Assistance Program provides financial assistance to relocating military and DoD civilians when they must sell their homes in a market that has been adversely impacted by a BRAC action.

• The U.S. Department of Labor provides funding for assistance to displaced Federal employees. Under the Workforce Investment Act, assistance may include counseling, testing, placement assistance, retraining, and other related services. This assistance is available through the appropriate state employment security agencies.

If interested in reading about the results for any particular base or geographic region the appendix of Part 1 and Part 2 (by Military Department) contain detailed lists of domestic military bases and makes recommendations for reforms. Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) Report at http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/vol_I_parts_1_and_2.html