DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

BASE CLOSURE

AND

REALIGNMENT REPORT

VOLUME I 

PART 2 OF 2: DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS

MAY 2005 

Preface

Volume I, Part 2 of 2 

This information has been assembled to support the 2005 Department of 

Defense recommendations for base closures and realignments inside the United 

States. 

 The Secretary of Defense transmitted his recommended closures and 

realignments to the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and 

to the Congress on May 13, 2005, and published them in the Federal Register on 

May 16, 2005, pursuant to Public Law 101-510, as amended. 

 Part 1 of 2 of Volume I of this report contains an overview of the process 

and summarizes the results. 

 This is Part 2 of 2 of Volume I. It contains the statutory recommendations, 

justifications, and process summaries that the Secretary of Defense transmitted to 

the Commission and the Congress. Part 2 is organized as follows: 

Section 1 Department of the Army Army-1

Section 2 Department of the Navy DoN-1

Section 3 Department of the Air Force Air Force-1

Section 4 Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group E&T-1

Section 5 Headquarters and Support Activities Joint CrossService Group H&SA-1

Section 6 Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind-1

Section 7 Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group Int-1

Section 8 Medical Joint Cross-Service Group Med-1

Section 9 Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group S&S-1

Section 10 Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech-1

 Index Index-1

Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 1

Department of the Army 

Summary of Selection Process

Introduction 

The Secretary of Defense stated that, while BRAC 2005 must pursue the reduction of excess 

capacity, it “can make an even more profound contribution to transforming the Department by 

rationalizing our infrastructure with defense strategy. BRAC 2005 should be the means by 

which we reconfigure our current infrastructure into one in which operational capacity 

maximizes both warfighting capability and efficiency.” 

The Secretary of the Army’s memorandum entitled “Transformation Through Base Realignment and 

Closure” stated that the Army’s full participation in BRAC 2005 would enable the Service to realign 

its infrastructure in a way that maximizes both efficiency and warfighting capability. The Secretary 

of the Army further emphasized the importance of adhering to BRAC law. He indicated that the 

Army would treat all of its installations fairly in the process and stressed that no binding decisions 

would be made prior to the Secretary of Defense’s submission of final recommendations to the 

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. 

Multiple levels of the Department of the Army participated in the BRAC 2005 process. The 

Executive Office, Headquarters (EOH), the Army’s most senior deliberative group, is made up of 

the Secretary of the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Under Secretary of the Army, and 

the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army. The EOH issued planning guidance, reviewed analytical 

assessments, and approved candidate recommendations for submission to the Secretary of 

Defense. 

The Army’s BRAC Senior Review Group (SRG), co-chaired by the Vice Chief of Staff of the 

Army and Under Secretary of the Army, included both uniformed and civilian members of the 

Army’s senior leadership, and served as a deliberative and coordinating body for the EOH. The 

BRAC SRG evaluated potential Army recommendations for EOH consideration, supervised the 

efforts of the Army Joint Cross-Service Group (JCSG) representatives, and provided overall 

planning guidance and direction to the Department’s BRAC analytical group, The Army Basing 

Study (TABS) Group. 

The TABS Group, directed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Infrastructure 

Analysis, executed the Army analyses and coordinated the Army’s BRAC 2005 effort. The 

group’s mission was to conduct a comprehensive assessment of Army installations in compliance 

with established BRAC law and criteria; to evaluate alternatives; and to develop, document, and 

publish candidate recommendations for submission to OSD. The TABS Group ensured that the 
Army - 2 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Army’s approach was consistent with the DoD force structure plan, the DoD installation 

inventory, BRAC selection criteria, and the requirements of Public Law 101-510, as amended. 

Strategy 

The Army is transforming from a force designed for deterring a well-defined and understood 

adversary to a post-Cold War era expeditionary force designed for continuous operations over a 

broad spectrum of threats ranging from traditional to potentially catastrophic. Instead of 

focusing on a single, well-defined threat or region, the Army is developing a range of 

complementary and interdependent capabilities that can dominate a range of adversaries and 

situations. Transformation enables the Army to utilize advantages and mitigate vulnerabilities to 

sustain its strategic position in the world. 

The Army’s Modular Force Initiative is reshaping the fighting force—transforming into modular 

brigade units to become a larger, more powerful, more flexible deployable force. The Army is 

relocating the fighting force—rebasing its overseas units in the continental United States. It is 

rebalancing the fighting force—transforming the Reserve and Active force mix. The Army is 

creating a more Joint force—actively participating in Department of Defense efforts for greater 

joint operations and increased focus on homeland defense missions. The Army is becoming a far 

better force—a campaign quality, Joint and Expeditionary Army with the capabilities to provide 

relevant and ready combat power to the Combatant Commanders from a portfolio of installations 

that trains, sustains, enhances the readiness and well-being of the Joint Team, and provides a 

platform for rapid deployment. 

The Secretary of the Army’s strategy for BRAC 2005 is to utilize BRAC to establish a 

streamlined portfolio of installations with optimized military value and a significantly reduced 

cost of ownership that: 

• Facilitates transformation, Joint operations, and Joint business functions; 

• Accommodates rebasing of overseas units within the Integrated Global Presence and 

Basing Strategy (IGPBS); and 

• Divests of an accumulation of installations that are no longer relevant and are less 

effective in supporting the Joint and Expeditionary Army. 

BRAC 2005 is a critical component of Army transformation. The BRAC process enables the 

Army to reshape the infrastructure supporting the current and future forces, making them even 

more relevant and combat ready for the Combatant Commander. Through participation in 

BRAC 2005, the Army realigns its infrastructure to optimize its warfighting capability and 

efficiency. 

Selection Process 

The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended (part A of Title XXIX, 

Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) sets the legal baseline for BRAC, although several 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 3

significant changes were made for BRAC 2005. The guidelines for the BRAC Selection Criteria 

were, for the first time, explicitly written into the law. The Army used the BRAC Selection 

Criteria during its analyses and ensured that military value (Criteria 1-4) was the primary 

consideration in making its BRAC 2005 recommendations. 

To frame its process and begin to develop potential BRAC actions, the Army employed the 

selection criteria, along with the Force Structure Plan and Installation Inventory submitted to 

Congress. The law specifies that all BRAC recommendations must be based on the criteria, plan, 

and inventory; thus, these three requirements formed the analytical foundation for the BRAC 

2005 analysis. 

The military value (MV) criteria provided the Army a comprehensive, proven technique to 

compare and select installations to accomplish Army transformation. With BRAC, the Army 

Modular Force Initiative, return of forces from overseas, and transformation of the Reserve 

Components will occur within the timeframe necessary to satisfy operational needs. The military 

value criteria specifically directed attention to staging areas in support of homeland defense, 

maintenance of a diversity of climate and terrain in support of training, and surge capacity. 

The Army began its BRAC 2005 selection process by determining its installation study list, 

which included and considered all installations on its property list, except those excluded by 

BRAC law. Using these guidelines, the Army developed a study list of 97 installations 

(including 10 leased sites). 

Full transformation of the Army necessitated transformation of Reserve Component (RC) 

facilities, as well. There are more than 4,000 Army Reserve and Guard facilities. Due to the 

sheer number of facilities and the difficulty of comparing RC capabilities to Active Component 

(AC) capabilities, the Army invited the Adjutants General from each state and the Army Reserve 

Regional Readiness Command commanders to conduct analyses of RC facilities against military 

value criteria and Reserve operational requirements. The military value criteria were used to 

identify existing or new installations in the same demographic area that provide enhanced 

homeland defense, training, and mobilization capabilities. The Army sought to create multicomponent facilities (Guard and Reserve) and multi-service, Joint facilities to further enhance 

mission accomplishment. 

The Army collected and maintained data from the study-list installations, which became key 

inputs in selection process analyses. The BRAC process required that all information used to 

develop and make recommendations be certified as accurate and complete to the best of the 

certifier’s knowledge and belief. In this data collection effort, the TABS Group received 

continuous support from installation administrators, Major Command trusted agents, and 

Installation Management Agency trusted agents. 

While data collection provided the Army with an inventory of assets at its installations, capacity 

analysis determined the excesses and shortages that existed within this inventory. Using the 

Force Structure Plan, the Army assessed the requirements and determined excesses and shortages 

across various metrics. In addition, by studying surge, the Army assessed possible future 

requirements and determined how its capacity inventory accommodated uncertainty. 
Army - 4 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

The Army then determined the military value of each installation, the primary consideration for 

BRAC 2005 recommendations. The Army assessed installations using a common set of 40 

attributes that were linked to the military value criteria. The Army defined military value 

through attributes designed to capture current and future capability and not simply current use. 

This capabilities-based approach permitted the Army to assess relative installation capabilities to 

contribute to Army mission accomplishment now and in the future. The military value of each 

installation is the summed collective scores across weighted attributes, and the Army ranked its 

installations from 1 to 97. 

These intermediate results were the starting point for scenario development. The Army 

developed strategy-based scenarios that sought to facilitate transformation, rebasing of overseas 

units, Joint operations, and Joint business functions. Potential stationing actions sought to move 

units and activities from installations with lower MV to installations with higher MV to take 

advantage of excess capacity and divest of less-relevant or less-effective installations. 

Once a scenario had been developed, the Army considered the remaining four selection criteria 

to determine their impacts on the scenario. For criteria 5-8, the Army evaluated scenarios by 

using the DoD-sanctioned models that, respectively, calculated cost and savings information, 

assessed economic impact, evaluated the ability of a local community to support Army 

requirements, and provided environmental analysis. 

The Army developed and analyzed numerous scenarios and selected candidate recommendations 

for submission to the Infrastructure Executive Council. From this list the Secretary of Defense 

determined the final Army BRAC 2005 recommendations for submission to the Secretary of 

Defense. 

Conclusion 

The Army’s BRAC 2005 strategy and process supported the development of recommendations 

that enhance military value, advance the Modular Force Initiative, accommodate the rebasing of 

overseas units, reduce cost of ownership, contribute to Joint operations and Joint business 

function opportunities, and enable the transformation of the Reserve Components and the 

rebalancing of Active and Reserve forces. These recommendations maintain necessary surge 

capabilities, enhance homeland defense missions, and continue the transformation to a more 

relevant and ready Joint and Expeditionary Army. 

The recommendations approved by the Secretary of Defense follow: 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 5

Recommendations and Justifications

Fort Wainwright, AK

Recommendation: Realign Fort Wainwright, AK, by relocating the Cold Regions Test Center 

(CRTC) headquarters from Fort Wainwright, AK, to Fort Greely, AK. 

Justification: This recommendation relocates CRTC headquarters to Fort Greely to improve 

efficiency of operations and enhance personnel safety. Sufficient capacity exists at Fort Greely. 

There would be no impact on Force Structure. This recommendation relocates headquarters 

closer to the CRTC's test mission execution on the Bolio Lake Range Complex. This complex, 

although realigned under Fort Wainwright in BRAC 95, is only 10 miles south of Fort Greely but 

100 miles from Fort Wainwright's cantonment area. This action would enhance interoperability 

and reduce costs by permitting personnel to live closer to their primary work site, thus, avoiding 

a 200 mile round trip between quarters and work sites. Decreases the risks associated with the 

required year-round travel in extreme weather conditions. Results in more efficient and cost 

effective monitoring & control of arctic testing of transformational systems. This 

recommendation did not consider other locations since the CRTC headquarters only manages 

testing at one site. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $0.05M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a saving of $0.2M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.05M with a payback expected in 2 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $0.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will not result in any job reductions 

(direct or indirect) over the 2006-2011 period in the Fairbanks metropolitan area since Fort 

Wainwright and Fort Greely are in the same metropolitan area. The aggregate economic impact 

of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: The local area infrastructure is sufficient to support 

this recommendation. A review of community attributes (Child Care, Cost of Living, Education, 

Employment, Housing, Medical Health, Population Center, Safety, Transportation, and Utilities) 

revealed no significant issues regarding the ability of the local community’s infrastructure to 

support forces, missions, and personnel. Fort Greely is in the same MSA and MHA as Fort 

Wainwright; therefore, the Army uses the same information for Local Area for both installations. 

There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation does not impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance 
Army - 6 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Fort Gillem, GA 

Recommendation: Close Fort Gillem, GA. Relocate the Headquarters, 1st US Army to Rock 

Island Arsenal, IL. Relocate the 2nd Recruiting Brigade to Redstone Arsenal, AL. Relocate the 

52nd Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Group to Fort Campbell, KY. Relocate the 81st RRC 

Equipment Concentration Site to Fort Benning, GA. Relocate the 3rd US Army Headquarters 

support office to Shaw Air Force Base, SC. Relocate the Headquarters US Forces Command 

(FORSCOM) VIP Explosive Ordnance Support to Pope Air Force Base, NC. Close the ArmyAir Force Exchange System (AAFES) Atlanta Distribution Center and establish an enclave for 

the Georgia Army National Guard, the remainder of the 81st RRC units and the Criminal 

Investigation Division (CID) Forensics Laboratory. 

Justification: This recommendation closes Fort Gillem, an Army administrative installation and 

an AAFES distribution center. The recommendation moves the major tenant organizations to 

Rock Island Arsenal, Redstone Arsenal, Fort Benning, and Fort Campbell. It also moves small 

components of the Headquarters 3rd US Army and US Army Forces Command to Pope AFB and 

Shaw AFB. It enhances the Army’s military value, is consistent with the Army’s Force Structure 

Plan, and maintains adequate surge capabilities to address future unforeseen requirements. This 

closure allows the Army to employ excess capacities at installations that can accomplish more 

than administrative missions. 

The closure of Fort Gillem also enables the stationing of its tenant units at locations that will 

increase their ability to associate with like units and promote coordination of efforts. Both the 

52nd EOD Group and the 2nd Recruiting Brigade have regional missions in the Southeastern 

United States. The 52nd EOD Group was co-located with operational forces at Fort Campbell to 

provide training opportunities. The 2nd Recruiting Brigade is recommended to relocate to 

Redstone Arsenal because of its central location in the Southeast and its access to a 

transportation center in Huntsville, AL. The Army is converting the 1st US Army Headquarters 

into the single Headquarters for oversight of Reserve and National Guard mobilization and 

demobilization. To support this conversion the Army decided to relocate 1st Army to Rock 

Island Arsenal, a central location in the United States. The 81st RRC Equipment concentration 

Site is relocated to Fort Benning where there are improved training opportunities with 

operational forces. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $56.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a savings of $85.5M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $35.3M with a payback expected in 1 year. The net present 

value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $421.5M. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 7

This recommendation affects: the U.S. Post Office, FEMA, FAA, GSA and the Civil Air Patrol, 

non-DoD Federal agencies. In the absence of access to credible cost and savings information for 

these agencies or knowledge regarding whether these agencies will remain on the installation, the 

Department assumed that the non-DoD Federal agencies will be required to assume new base 

operating responsibilities on the affected installation. The Department further assumed that 

because of these new base operating responsibilities, the effect of the recommendation on the 

non-DoD agencies would be an increase in their costs. As required by Section 2913(d) of the 

BRAC statute, the Department has taken the effect on the costs of these agencies into account 

when making this recommendation. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,824 jobs (1,067 direct and 737 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA metropolitan statistical 

area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic 

impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructures of the local communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. When moving from Fort Gillem to Rock Island Arsenal, the 

following local area capability improved: Cost of Living and Population. The following 

capabilities are less robust: Housing, Education, Employment, and Medical. When moving from 

Fort Gillem to Fort Campbell, the following local attributes are improved: Cost of Living and 

Population. The following capabilities are not as robust: Housing, Education, Employment, 

Medical, Safety and Transportation. When moving from Fort Gillem to Redstone Arsenal, the 

following local attributes are improved: Cost of Living and Population. The following 

capabilities are not as robust: Child Care, Housing, Medical, and Transportation. When moving 

from Fort Gillem to Fort Benning, the following local capability is improved: Population. The 

following capabilities are not as robust: Housing, Employment, Medical, and Safety. When 

moving from Fort Gillem to Pope AFB, the following capabilities are improved: Cost of Living 

and Population. The following capabilities are not as robust: Housing, Employment, Medical, 

Safety and Transportation. When moving from Fort Gillem to Shaw AFB, the following local 

capabilities are improved: Cost of Living and Population. The following capabilities are not as 

robust: Housing, Education, Medical, Transportation and Safety. There are no known 

community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all recommendations affecting the 

installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Closure of Fort Gillem will necessitate consultations with the State 

Historic Preservation Office to ensure that historic properties are continued to be protected. The 

closure of ranges at Fort Gillem will require clearance of munitions and remediation of any 

munition constituents. The remediation costs for these ranges may be significant and the time 

required for completing remediation is uncertain. Groundwater and surface water resources will 

require restoration and/or monitoring to prevent further environmental impacts. Significant 

mitigation measures to limit releases to impaired waterways may be required at Rock Island, Fort 

Campbell, and Fort Benning to reduce impacts to water quality and achieve USEPA Water 

Quality Standards. Air Conformity determination and New Source Review and permitting effort 
Army - 8 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

and consultations with tribes regarding cultural resources will be required at Fort Campbell. This 

recommendation has the potential to impact noise and threatened and endangered species or 

critical habitat at Fort Campbell. An Air Conformity Analysis will be required at Fort Benning. 

Construction at Pope AFB may have to occur on acreage already constrained by TES. This 

recommendation has the potential to impact wetlands at Pope AFB and Shaw AFB. This 

recommendation has no impact on dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; or 

waste management. This recommendation will require spending approximately $1.3M for 

environmental compliance costs. These costs were included in the payback calculation. Fort 

Gillem reports $18M in environmental restoration costs. Because the Department has a legal 

obligation to perform environmental restoration regardless of whether an installation is closed, 

realigned, or remains open, these costs were not included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this 

recommendation. 

Fort McPherson, GA 

Recommendation: Close Fort McPherson, GA. Relocate the Headquarters US Army Forces 

Command (FORSCOM), and the Headquarters US Army Reserve Command (USARC) to Pope 

Air Force Base, NC. Relocate the Headquarters 3rd US Army to Shaw Air Force Base, SC. 

Relocate the Installation Management Agency Southeastern Region Headquarters and the US 

Army Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM) Southeastern Region 

Headquarters to Fort Eustis, VA. Relocate the Army Contracting Agency Southern Region 

Headquarters to Fort Sam Houston. 

Justification: This recommendation closes Fort McPherson, an administrative installation, and 

moves the tenant headquarters organizations to Fort Sam Houston, Fort Eustis, Pope AFB and 

Shaw AFB. It enhances the Army’s military value, is consistent with the Army’s Force Structure 

Plan, and maintains adequate surge capabilities to address future unforeseen requirements. This 

closure allows the Army to employ excess capacities at installations that can accomplish more 

than administrative missions. The organization relocations in this recommendation also create 

multifunctional, multi-component and multi-Service installations that provide a better level of 

service at a reduced cost. 

The recommended relocations also retain or enhance vital linkages between the relocating 

organizations and other headquarters activities. FORSCOM HQs is relocated to Pope AFB where 

it will be co-located with a large concentration of operational forces. The USARC HQs has a 

mission relationship with FORSCOM that is enhanced by leaving the two co-located. 3rd Army 

is relocated to Shaw AFB where it will be collocated with the Air Force component command of 

CENTCOM. The IMA and NETCOM HQs are moved to Fort Eustis because of 

recommendations to consolidate the Northeastern and Southeastern regions of these two 

commands into one Eastern Region at Fort Eustis. The ACA Southern Region HQs is moved to 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 9

Fort Sam Houston where it is recommended to consolidate with the ACA Southern Hemisphere 

Region HQs, and where it will co-locate with other Army service providing organizations. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $197.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a saving of $111.4M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $82.1M with a payback expected in 2 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $895.2M. 

This recommendation affects the U.S. Post Office, a non-DoD Federal agency. In the absence of 

access to credible cost and savings information for that agency or knowledge regarding whether 

that agency will remain on the installation, the Department assumed that the non-DoD Federal 

agency will be required to assume new base operating responsibilities on the affected 

installation. The Department further assumed that because of these new base operating 

responsibilities, the effect of the recommendation on the non-DoD agency would be an increase 

in its costs. As required by Section 2913(d) of the BRAC statute, the Department has taken the 

effect on the costs of this agency into account when making this recommendation. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 7,123 jobs (4,303 direct and 2,820 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA metropolitan 

statistical area, which is 0.3 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic 

impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructures of the local communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. When moving from Fort McPherson to Pope AFB, the following 

local capability is improved: Cost of Living. The following local area capabilities are not as 

robust: Housing, Employment, Medical and Safety. When moving from Fort McPherson to Fort 

Eustis, the following local capabilities are improved: Cost of Living and Transportation. The 

following local area capabilities are not as robust: Housing, Education, and Medical Health. 

When moving from Fort McPherson to Fort Sam Houston, the following local capability is 

improved: Cost of Living. The following local area capabilities are not as robust: Employment, 

Medical and Safety. When moving from Fort McPherson to Shaw AFB, the following local 

capability is improved: Cost of Living. The following local area capabilities are not as robust: 

Housing, Education, Medical and Safety. There are no known community infrastructure 

impediments to implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this 

recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Closure of Fort McPherson will necessitate consultations with the 

State Historic Preservation Office. Closure of operational ranges will likely necessitate 

clearance of munitions and remediation of any munition constituents. The remediation costs for 

these ranges may be significant and the time required for completing remediation is uncertain. 

Fort McPherson has contaminated water resources that will require restoration and/or 

monitoring. A new source review will be required at Fort Sam Houston. An Air Conformity 
Army - 10 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

determination and New Source Review and permitting effort will be required at Fort Eustis. A 

minor air permit revision may be necessary at Pope AFB. Significant mitigation measures to 

limit releases to impaired waterways may be required at Fort Sam Houston and Fort Eustis to 

reduce impacts to water quality and achieve US EPA water quality standards. Construction at 

Pope AFB may have to occur on acreage already constrained by TES. This recommendation has 

the potential to impact wetlands at Pope AFB and Shaw AFB. This recommendation has no 

impact on dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; or waste management. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $2.5M for environmental compliance activities. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. Fort McPherson reports $129.7M in environmental 

restoration costs. Because the Department has a legal obligation to perform environmental 

restoration regardless of whether an installation is closed, realigned, or remains open, these costs 

were not included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Fort Bragg, NC 

Recommendation: Realign Fort Bragg, NC, by relocating the 7th Special Forces Group (SFG) 

to Eglin AFB, FL, and by activating the 4th Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 82d Airborne 

Division and relocating European-based forces to Fort Bragg, NC. 

Justification: This recommendation co-locates Army Special Operation Forces with Air Force 

Special Operations Forces at Eglin AFB, activates the 4th BCT of the 82nd Airborne Division 

and relocates Combat Service Support units to Fort Bragg from Europe to support the Army 

modular force transformation. This realignment and activation of forces enhances military value 

and training capabilities by locating Special Operations Forces (SOF) in locations that best 

support Joint specialized training needs, and by creating needed space for the additional brigade 

at Fort Bragg. This recommendation is consistent with and supports the Army’s Force Structure 

Plan submitted with the FY 06 budget, and provides the necessary capacity and capability, 

including surge, to support the units affected by this action. 

This recommendation never pays back. However, the benefits of enhancing Joint training 

opportunities coupled with the positive impact of freeing up needed training space and reducing 

cost of the new BCT by approximately $54-$148M (with family housing) at Fort Bragg for the 

Army's Modular Force transformation, justify the additional costs to the Department. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $334.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $446.1M. Annual recurring costs to the Department after 

implementation is $23.8M, with no payback expected. The net present value of the costs and 

savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $639.2M. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 11

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will not result in any job reductions 

(direct or indirect) over the 2006-2011 period in the Fayetteville, NC and Fort Walton BeachCrestview-Destin, FL, metropolitan statistical areas. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the local community’s infrastructure to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. Of the ten attributes evaluated (Child Care, Cost of Living, 

Education, Employment, Housing, Medical Health, Population Center, Safety, Transportation, 

and Utilities) two levels of support declined (Cost of Living, Education) when moving activities 

from Fort Bragg to Eglin AFB. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation may result in operational restrictions to protect 

cultural or archeological resources at Eglin AFB and Fort Bragg. Tribal consultations may also 

be required at both locations. Operations are currently restricted by electromagnetic radiation 

and/or emissions and additional operations/training may result in operational restrictions at Eglin 

AFB. Further analysis may be necessary to determine the extent of new noise impacts at Eglin 

and Bragg. Additional waste production at Eglin may necessitate modifications of hazardous 

waste program. Increased water demand at Fort Bragg may lead to further controls and 

restrictions and water infrastructure may need upgrades due to incoming population. Additional 

operations at Eglin may impact wetlands, resulting in operational restrictions. An evaluation of 

operational restrictions for jurisdictional wetlands will likely have to be conducted at Fort Bragg. 

Added operations may impact threatened and endangered species at Fort Bragg and result in 

further operational and training restrictions. This recommendation has no impact on air quality; 

dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; or marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries. This recommendation will require spending approximately $1.0M for 

environmental compliance costs. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this 

recommendation. 

Fort Monmouth, NJ 

Recommendation: Close Fort Monmouth, NJ. Relocate the US Army Military Academy 

Preparatory School to West Point, NY. Relocate the Joint Network Management System 

Program Office to Fort Meade, MD. Relocate the Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, 

Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon System 

Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management 

Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items to Defense Supply 

Center Columbus, OH, and reestablish them as Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control 

Point functions; relocate the procurement management and related support functions for Depot 
Army - 12 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Level Reparables to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and designate them as Inventory Control 

Point functions, detachment of Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, and relocate the 

remaining integrated materiel management, user, and related support functions to Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, MD. Relocate Information Systems, Sensors, Electronic Warfare, and 

Electronics Research and Development & Acquisition (RDA) to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

Relocate the elements of the Program Executive Office for Enterprise Information Systems and 

consolidate into the Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems at Fort Belvoir, 

VA. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA by relocating and consolidating Sensors, Electronics, and Electronic 

Warfare Research, Development and Acquisition activities to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 

and by relocating and consolidating Information Systems Research and Development and 

Acquisition (except for the Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems) to 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

Realign Army Research Institute, Fort Knox, KY, by relocating Human Systems Research to 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

Realign Redstone Arsenal, AL, by relocating and consolidating Information Systems 

Development and Acquisition to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

Realign the PM Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Enterprise Systems and Services 

(ALTESS) facility at 2511 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA, a leased installation, by 

relocating and consolidating into the Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems 

at Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Justification: The closure of Fort Monmouth allows the Army to pursue several 

transformational and BRAC objectives. These include: Consolidating training to enhance 

coordination, doctrine development, training effectiveness and improve operational and 

functional efficiencies, and consolidating RDA and T&E functions on fewer installations. Retain 

DoD installations with the most flexible capability to accept new missions. Consolidate or colocate common business functions with other agencies to provide better level of services at a 

reduced cost. 

The recommendation relocates the US Army Military Academy Preparatory School to West 

Point, NY and increases training to enhance coordination, doctrine development, 

training effectiveness and improve operational and functional efficiencies. 

The recommendation establishes a Land C4ISR Lifecycle Management Command (LCMC) to 

focus technical activity and accelerate transition. This recommendation addresses the 

transformational objective of Network Centric Warfare. The solution of the significant 

challenges of realizing the potential of Network Centric Warfare for land combat forces requires 

integrated research in C4ISR technologies (engineered networks of sensors, communications, 

information processing), and individual and networked human behavior. The recommendation 

increases efficiency through consolidation. Research, Development and Acquisition (RDA), 

Test and Evaluation (T&E) of Army Land C4ISR technologies and systems is currently split 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 13

among three major sites – Fort Monmouth, NJ, Fort Dix, NJ, Adelphi, MD and Fort Belvoir, VA 

and several smaller sites, including Redstone Arsenal and Fort Knox. Consolidation of RDA at 

fewer sites achieves efficiency and synergy at a lower cost than would be required for multiple 

sites. This action preserves the Army’s "commodity" business model by near collocation of 

Research, Development, Acquisition, and Logistics functions. Further, combining RDA and 

T&E requires test ranges – which cannot be created at Fort Monmouth. 

The closure of Fort Monmouth and relocation of functions which enhance the Army’s military 

value, is consistent with the Army’s Force Structure Plan, and maintains adequate surge 

capabilities. Fort Monmouth is an acquisition and research installation with little capacity to be 

utilized for other purposes. Military value is enhanced by relocating the research functions to 

under-utilized and better equipped facilities; by relocating the administrative functions to multipurpose installations with higher military and administrative value; and by co-locating education 

activities with the schools they support. Utilizing existing space and facilities at the gaining 

installations, maintains both support to the Army Force Structure Plan, and capabilities for 

meeting surge requirements. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $822.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $395.6M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $143.7M with a payback expected in 6 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $1,025.8M. 

This recommendation affects non-DoD Federal agencies. These include, the U.S. Post Office, the 

Department of Justice and the General Services Administration. In the absence of access to 

credible cost and savings information for those agencies or knowledge regarding whether those 

agencies will remain on the installation, the Department assumed that the non-DoD Federal 

Agencies will be required to assume new base operating responsibilities on the affected 

installation. The Department further assumed that because of these new base operating 

responsibilities, the affect of the recommendations on the non-DoD agencies would be an 

increase in cost. As required by Section 2913 (d) of the BRAC statute, the Department has taken 

the effect on the cost of these agencies into account when making this recommendation. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 9,737 jobs (5,272 direct and 4,465 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 periods in the Edison, NJ Metropolitan Division, which is 0.8 percent 

of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 20 jobs (11 direct and 9 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 periods in the 

Elizabethtown, KY Metropolitan Division, which is 0.03 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 1,218 jobs (694 direct and 524 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 periods in the 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division, which is 0.04 

percent of economic area employment. 
Army - 14 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 63 jobs (37 direct and 26 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 periods in the 

Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Division, which is 0.03 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

increase of 9,834 jobs (5,042 direct and 4,792 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 periods in the 

Baltimore-Towson, MD Metropolitan Division, which is 0.6 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

increase of 422 jobs (264 direct and 158 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 periods in the 

Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metropolitan Division, which is 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

increase of 89 jobs (49 direct and 40 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 periods in the 

Columbus, OH Metropolitan Division, which is 0.01 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of communities to support forces, 

missions, and personnel. When moving from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen, MD, the following 

local area capabilities improve: Cost of Living and Medical Health. The following attributes 

decline: Safety and Transportation. When moving from Fort Monmouth to West Point, the 

following local area capabilities improve: Education and Employment. The following attribute 

declines: Housing. When moving from Fort Monmouth to Fort Belvoir, the following local area 

capabilities improve: Employment and Medical Health. The following attributes decline: 

Education and Safety. When moving from Fort Monmouth to Fort Meade, the following local 

area capabilities improve: Cost of Living and Medical Health. The following attributes decline: 

Education and Safety. When moving from Fort Monmouth to Columbus, OH, the following 

local area capabilities improved: Cost of living, Employment, and Medical Health. The 

following attribute declines: Safety. When moving from Fort Belvoir to Aberdeen, MD, the 

following local area capabilities improve: Cost of living and Education. The following attributes 

decline: Employment, Safety and Transportation. When moving from Fort Knox to Aberdeen, 

MD, the following local area capabilities improve: Housing, Employment, and Medical Health. 

The following attributes decline: Cost of Living, Safety, and Transportation. When moving from 

Redstone Arsenal to Aberdeen, MD, the following local area capabilities improve: Child Care, 

Housing, and Medical Health. The following attributes decline: Employment, Safety, Population 

Center, and Transportation. When moving from Arlington, VA, to Aberdeen, MD, the following 

attributes decline: Population Center, and Transportation. 

Environmental Impact: Closure of Fort Monmouth will necessitate consultations with the State 

Historic Preservation Office to ensure that sites are continued to be protected. Fort Monmouth’s 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 15

previous mission-related activities will result in land use constraints/sensitive resource area 

impacts. An Air Conformity Analysis and a New Source Review and permitting effort is 

required at Aberdeen, West Point, and Fort Belvoir. The extent of the cultural resources on 

Aberdeen, West Point, and Fort Belvoir are uncertain. Potential impacts may occur as result of 

increased times delays and negotiated restrictions. Additional operations at Aberdeen, West 

Point, and Fort Belvoir may further impact threatened/endangered species leading to additional 

restrictions on training or operations. Significant mitigation measures to limit releases may be 

required to reduce impacts to water quality and achieve US EPA water quality standards. Due to 

the increase in personnel there would be a minimal impact on waste production and water 

consumption at Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC), OH. This recommendation has no 

impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, 

or sanctuaries; noise; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately 

$2.95M for environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the payback 

calculation. Fort Monmouth reports $2.9M in environmental restoration costs. Because the 

Department has a legal obligation to perform environmental restoration regardless of whether an 

installation is closed, realigned, or remains open, these costs were not included in the payback 

calculation. This recommendation does not impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this 

recommendation. 

Fort Hood, TX 

Recommendation: Realign Fort Hood, TX, by relocating a Brigade Combat Team (BCT) and 

Unit of Employment (UEx) Headquarters to Fort Carson, CO. 

Justification: This recommendation ensures Army BCTs and support units are located at 

installations capable of training modular formations, both mounted and dismounted, at home 

station with sufficient land and facilities to test, simulate, or fire all organic weapon systems. 

This recommendation enhances the military value of the installations and the home station 

training and readiness of the units at the installations by relocating units to installations that can 

best support the training and maneuver requirements associated with the Army’s transformation. 

This recommendation relocates to Fort Carson, CO, a Heavy BCT that will be temporarily 

stationed at Fort Hood in FY06, and a Unit of Employment Headquarters. The Army is 

temporarily stationing this BCT to Fort Hood in FY06 due to operational necessity and to 

support current operational deployments in support of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). 

However, based on the BRAC analysis, Fort Hood does not have sufficient facilities and 

available maneuver training acreage and ranges to support six permanent heavy BCTs and 

numerous other operational units stationed there. Fort Carson has sufficient capacity to support 

these units. The Army previously obtained approval from the Secretary of Defense to 

temporarily station a third BCT at Fort Carson in FY05. Due to Fort Carson’s capacity, the 

BRAC analysis indicates that the Army should permanently station this third BCT at Fort 

Carson. 
Army - 16 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

This relocation never pays back because it involves the relocation of a newly activated unit. No 

permanent facilities exist to support the unit. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $435.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $579.5M. Annual recurring costs to the Department 

after implementation are $45.3M. This recommendation never pays back. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $980.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential increase of 8,167 jobs (4,945 direct and 3,222 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX metropolitan area, which is 

4.4 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community infrastructure attributes 

revealed no significant issues regarding the ability of the community to support forces, missions, 

and personnel. When moving activities from Fort Hood to Fort Carson, one attribute improved 

(Population Center) and one (Education) was not as robust. There are no known community 

infrastructure impediments to implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations 

in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: A New Source Review and permitting effort will be required. 

at Fort Carson. To preserve archeological/cultural resources at Fort Carson, training restrictions 

may be imposed and increased operational delays and costs are possible. Tribal consultations 

may be required. Further analysis will be required to determine the extent of new noise impacts 

at Fort Carson. Added operations may impact threatened and endangered species at Fort Carson 

and result in further training restrictions. Distribution of potable water is severely restricted at 

Fort Carson. Increased missions at the installation may result in additional restrictions or 

mitigation requirements. Significant mitigation measures to limit releases may be required to 

reduce impacts to water quality and achieve US EPA water quality standards. This 

recommendation will require spending approximately $1.1M for environmental compliance 

costs. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Red River Army Depot, TX 

Recommendation: Close Red River Army Depot, TX. Relocate the storage and demilitarization 

functions of the Munitions Center to McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, OK. Relocate the 

munitions maintenance functions of the Munitions Center to McAlester Army Ammunition 

Plant, OK, and Blue Grass Army Depot, KY. Relocate the depot maintenance of Armament and 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 17

Structural Components, Combat Vehicles, Depot Fleet/Field Support, Engines and 

Transmissions, Fabrication and Manufacturing, Fire Control Systems and Components, and 

Other to Anniston Army Depot, AL. Relocate the depot maintenance of Powertrain 

Components, and Starters/Generators to Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, GA. Relocate the 

depot maintenance of Construction Equipment to Anniston Army Depot, AL, and Marine Corps 

Logistics Base Albany, GA. Relocate the depot maintenance of Tactical Vehicles to Tobyhanna 

Army Depot, PA and Letterkenny Depot, PA. Relocate the depot maintenance of Tactical 

Missiles to Letterkenny Army Depot, PA. Disestablish the supply, storage, and distribution 

functions for tires, packaged Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants, and compressed gases. Relocate 

the storage and distribution functions and associated inventories of the Defense Distribution 

Depot to the Defense Distribution Depot, Oklahoma City, OK. 

Justification: This recommendation supports the strategy of minimizing the number of 

industrial base sites performing depot maintenance for ground and missile systems. The 

receiving depots have greater maintenance capability, higher facility utilization and greater 

opportunities for inter-service workloading. This recommendation reinforces Anniston's and 

Letterkenny's roles as Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence for Combat Vehicles 

(Anniston) and Missile Systems (Letterkenny). 

This recommendation decreases the cost of depot maintenance operations by consolidation and 

elimination of 30 percent of duplicate overhead structures required to operate multiple depot 

maintenance activities. This recommendation also increases opportunities for inter-service 

workloading by transferring maintenance workload to the Marine Corps. 

This recommendation relocates storage, demilitarization, and munitions maintenance functions 

to McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, and thereby reduces redundancy and removes excess 

from Red River Munitions Center. 

This recommendation allows DoD to create centers of excellence, generate efficiencies, and 

create deployment networks servicing all Services. 

This recommendation relocates the storage and distribution functions and associated inventories 

to the Defense Distribution Depot Oklahoma City at Tinker Air Force Base. It also contributes 

to the elimination of unnecessary redundancies and duplication, and streamlines supply and 

storage processes. 

The disestablishment of the wholesale supply, storage, and distribution functions for all 

packaged POL, tires, and compressed gas products supports transformation by privatizing these 

functions. Privatization of packaged POL, tires, and compressed gas products will eliminate 

inventories, infrastructure and personnel associated with these functions and products. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $456.2M. The net present value of all costs and savings to the Department of 

Defense during the implementation period is a cost of $216.6M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $76.5M with a payback expected in 4 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $539.0M. 
Army - 18 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 4,176 jobs (2,500 direct and 1,676 indirect) 

over the 2006 -2011 period in the Texarkana, TX - Texarkana, AR Metropolitan Statistical area, 

which is 6.2 percent of the economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces and personnel. When moving from Red River Army Depot to Tobyhanna, 5 

attributes improve (child care, medical health, safety, population center, and transportation) and 

1 declines (employment). When moving from Red River to Letterkenny Army Depot, 2 

attributes decline (child care and housing) and one improves (safety). When moving from Red 

River to Anniston Army Depot, 3 attributes improve (child care, cost of living and population 

center) and 1 declines (housing). When moving from Red River to Tinker, seven attributes 

improve (population, child care, education, employment, housing, medical and transportation) 

and one attribute declines (crime). There are no known community infrastructure impediments 

to implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Closure of Red River Army Depot may require consultations with the 

State Historic Preservation Office to ensure that cultural sites are continued to be protected. 

Closure of operational ranges at Red River will necessitate clearance of munitions and 

remediation of any munitions constituents. The remediation costs for these ranges may be 

significant and the time required for completing remediation is uncertain. Contaminated areas at 

Red River will require restoration and/or monitoring. An Air Conformity Analysis is required at 

Anniston, Tobyhanna, and Letterkenny. Anniston is located over a sole-source aquifer, which 

may require additional mitigation measures/pollution prevention to protect the aquifer from 

increased depot maintenance activities. The industrial wastewater treatment plant at Anniston 

may require upgrades. Additional operations at Tinker may impact wetlands, which may lead to 

operational restrictions. This recommendation has no impact on dredging; marine mammals, 

resources, or sanctuaries; noise; or threatened and endangered species or critical habitat. 

This recommendation will require spending approximately $4.8M for environmental compliance 

costs. These costs were included in the payback calculation. Red River reports $49.1M in 

environmental restoration costs. Because the Department has a legal obligation to perform 

environmental restoration regardless of whether an installation is closed, realigned, or remains 

open, these costs were not included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 19

Fort Monroe, VA 

Recommendation: Close Fort Monroe, VA. Relocate the US Army Training & Doctrine 

Command (TRADOC) Headquarters, the Installation Management Agency (IMA) Northeast 

Region Headquarters, the US Army Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM) 

Northeast Region Headquarters and the Army Contracting Agency Northern Region Office to 

Fort Eustis, VA. Relocate the US Army Accessions Command and US Army Cadet Command 

to Fort Knox, KY. 

Justification: This recommendation closes Fort Monroe, an administrative installation, and 

moves the tenant Headquarters organizations to Fort Eustis and Fort Knox. It enhances the 

Army’s military value, is consistent with the Army’s Force Structure Plan, and maintains 

adequate surge capabilities to address future unforeseen requirements. The closure allows the 

Army to move administrative headquarters to multi-purpose installations that provide the Army 

more flexibility to accept new missions. Both Fort Eustis and Fort Knox have operational and 

training capabilities that Fort Monroe lacks and both have excess capacity that can be used to 

accept the organizations relocating from Fort Monroe. 

The recommended relocations also retain or enhance vital linkages between them relocating 

organizations and other headquarters activities. TRADOC HQs is moved to Fort Eustis in order 

to remain within commuting distance of the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) HQs in Norfolk, 

VA. JFCOM oversees all joint training across the military. IMA and NETCOM HQs are moved 

to Fort Eustis because of recommendations to consolidate the Northeastern and Southeastern 

regions of these two commands into one Eastern Region at Fort Eustis. The ACA Northern 

Region is relocated to Fort Eustis because its two largest customers are TRADOC and IMA. The 

Accessions and Cadet Commands are relocated to Fort Knox because of recommendations to 

locate the Army’s Human Resources Command at Fort Knox. The HRC recommendation 

includes the collocation of the Accessions and Cadet Commands with the Recruiting Command, 

already at Fort Knox and creates a Center of Excellence for military personnel and recruiting 

functions by improving personnel life-cycle management. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $72.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a saving of $146.9M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $56.9M with a payback expected in 1 year. The net present 

value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $686.6M. 

This recommendation affects the U.S. Post Office, a non-DoD Federal agency. In the absence of 

access to credible cost and savings information for that agency or knowledge regarding whether 

that agency will remain on the installation, the Department assumed that the non-DoD Federal 

agency will be required to assume new base operating responsibilities on the affected 

installation. The Department further assumed that because of these new base operating 

responsibilities, the effect of the recommendation on the non-DoD agency would be an increase 

in its costs. As required by Section 2913(d) of the BRAC statute, the Department has taken the 

effect on the costs of this agency into account when making this recommendation. 
Army - 20 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 2,275 jobs (1,013 direct and 1,262 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 

metropolitan statistical area, which is 0.2 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate 

economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was 

considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. When moving from Fort Monroe to Fort Eustis, the following 

local area capabilities improved: Child Care, Population and Transportation. When moving from 

Fort Monroe to Fort Knox, the following local area capabilities improved: Child Care, Cost of 

Living, Education and Safety. The following capabilities are not as robust: Employment and 

Medical. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Closure of Fort Monroe will necessitate consultations with the State 

Historic Preservation Office to ensure that historic properties are continued to be protected. 

Increased operational delays and costs are likely at Fort Knox in order to preserve cultural 

resources and tribal consultations may be necessary. An Air Conformity determination and New 

Source Review and permitting effort will be required at Fort Eustis. Significant mitigation 

measures to limit releases may be required at Fort Eustis to reduce impacts to water quality and 

achieve US EPA water quality standards. This recommendation will require spending 

approximately $2.0M for environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the 

payback calculation. Although no restoration costs were reported, Fort Monroe has a probable 

Military Munitions Response Program site that may require some combination of UXO sweeps, 

clearance, munition constituent cleanup, remediation, and land use controls. Because the 

Department has a legal obligation to perform environmental restoration regardless of whether an 

installation is closed, realigned, or remains open no cost for environmental remediate was 

included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Maneuver Training 

Recommendation: Realign Fort Knox, KY, by relocating the Armor Center and School to Fort 

Benning, GA, to accommodate the activation of an Infantry Brigade Combat Team (BCT) at Fort 

Knox, KY, and the relocation of engineer, military police, and combat service support units from 

Europe and Korea. Realign Fort McCoy, WI, by relocating the 84th Army Reserve Regional 

Training Center to Fort Knox, KY. 

Justification: This recommendation enhances military value, improves training and deployment 

capabilities, better utilizes training resources, and creates significant efficiencies and cost savings 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 21

while maintaining sufficient surge capability to address future unforeseen requirements. It 

properly locates Operational Army units in support of the Army’s force structure plans and 

modular force transformation. 

This recommendation supports the consolidation of the Armor and Infantry Centers and Schools 

at Fort Benning and creates a Maneuver Center of Excellence for ground forces training and 

doctrine development. It consolidates both Infantry and Armor One Station Unit Training 

(OSUT), which allows the Army to reduce the total number of Basic Combat Training locations 

from five to four. 

This recommendation also relocates the 84th ARRTC to Fort Knox and supports another 

recommendation which relocates Army Reserve Command and Control units to Fort McCoy. 

These relocations enhance command and control within the Army Reserve, and promote 

interaction between the Active and Reserve Components. 

This recommendation directly supports the Army’s operational unit stationing and training 

requirements by using available facilities, ranges, training land at Fort Knox, KY (vacated by the 

Armor Center and School) to effectively and efficiently relocate various Combat Support and 

Combat Service Support units returning from overseas, and as the installation platform for the 

activation of a new Infantry BCT. These units are a combination of the relocation of Integrated 

Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS) – related units returning from overseas and the 

activation of units as part of the Army’s modular force transformation. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $773.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $244.1M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $123.3M with a payback expected in 5 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $948.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation could result in a maximum 

potential reduction of 8,521 jobs (6,100 direct and 2,421 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 

period in the Elizabethtown, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 12.9 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 834 jobs (497 direct and 337 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the 

Monroe County, WI area, which is 3.5 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community infrastructure attributes 

revealed no significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to 

support missions, forces, and personnel. When moving activities from Fort McCoy to Fort Knox, 

five improved (Child Care, Cost of Living, Education, Population Center and Transportation) 

and one (Employment) was not as robust. When moving from Fort Knox to Fort Benning, the 
Army - 22 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

following local area capabilities improved: Employment, Population Center, and Transportation; 

and the following local area capabilities are not as robust: Cost of Living, Education, and Safety. 

There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Tribal consultations may be necessary at Fort Knox and Fort Benning. 

An Air Conformity Analysis and New Source Review will be required at Fort Benning. Noise 

analysis and monitoring is required at Fort Knox and Fort Benning to determine the extent of 

new noise impacts.. Additional operations may impact TES at Fort Benning, leading to 

additional restrictions on operations. Fort Knox range is located over the recharge zone of a solesource aquifer, which may result in future regulatory limitations on training activities. Significant 

mitigation measures to limit releases may be required to reduce impacts to water quality and 

achieve US EPA water quality standards at Fort Benning. This recommendation has no impact 

on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; waste management; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending 

approximately $1.3M for environmental compliance costs. These costs were included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Operational Army (IGPBS) 

Recommendation: Realign Fort Bliss, TX by relocating air defense artillery units to Fort Sill 

and relocating 1st Armored Division and various echelon above division units from Germany 

and Korea to Fort Bliss, TX. Realign Fort Sill by relocating an artillery (Fires) brigade to Fort 

Bliss. Realign Fort Hood, TX by relocating maneuver battalions, a support battalion, and 

aviation units to Fort Bliss, TX. Realign Fort Riley, KS by inactivating various units, activating a 

Brigade Combat Team (BCT) and relocating 1st Infantry Division units and various echelons 

above division units from Germany and Korea to Fort Riley, KS. Realign Fort Campbell, KY, by 

relocating an attack aviation battalion to Fort Riley, KS. 

Justification: This proposal ensures the Army has sufficient infrastructure, training land and 

ranges to meet the requirements to transform the Operational Army as identified in the Twenty 

Year Force Structure Plan. It also ensures the Army maintains adequate surge capacity. As part 

of the modular force transformation, the Army is activating 10 new combat arms brigades for a 

total of 43 active component brigade combat teams (BCTs). Including the results of the 

Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS), the number of BCTs stationed in the 

United States will rise from twenty-six to forty. Relocating the units listed in this 

recommendation to Fort Bliss, Fort Riley, and Fort Sill takes advantage of available 

infrastructure and training land. Fort Bliss and Fort Riley are installations capable of training 

modular formations, both mounted and dismounted, at home station with sufficient land and 

facilities to test, simulate, or fire all organic weapon systems. This recommendation enhances 

home station training and readiness of the units at all installations. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 23

Relocating 1st Armored Division units and echelons above division (EAD) units to Fort Bliss 

will transform it from an institutional training installation into a major mounted maneuver 

training installation. This avoids overcrowding and overuse at other installations by stationing 

them at one of the installations with the greatest capacity. It also creates a potential opportunity 

for enhanced Operational Testing due to the close proximity of Fort Bliss to White Sands Missile 

Range. 

Relocating an Air Defense Artillery (ADA) unit to Fort Sill supports the establishment of the Net 

Fires Center, combining the Artillery and ADA schools at Fort Sill and provides a force 

stabilization opportunity for soldiers in this unit. Relocating the Artillery (Fires) Brigade to Fort 

Bliss collocates the artillery with the maneuver units at Fort Bliss and vacates space at Fort Sill 

for the ADA unit. 

Realigning Fort Riley by inactivating an Engineer Brigade Headquarters, two other engineer 

units, two maneuver battalions and other smaller units beginning in FY 06 directly supports the 

Army’s modular force transformation. It also facilitates activating a BCT in FY 06, and 

relocating 1st Infantry Division Headquarters, the Division Support Command Headquarters, 

Aviation Brigade units and other units returning from overseas to Fort Riley. The relocation of 

an attack aviation battalion from Fort Campbell to Fort Riley supports the formation of a multifunctional aviation brigade at Fort Riley. 

The Army obtained approval to temporarily station a BCT at Fort Hood in 2005 and another 

BCT at Fort Bliss in 2006. This recommendation validates the stationing of that BCT at Fort 

Bliss and relocates two maneuver battalions, an armored reconnaissance squadron and a support 

battalion from Fort Hood to support the activation at Fort Bliss. Relocating these battalions will 

provide the assets necessary to accomplish the activation. Relocating aviation units from Fort 

Hood supports the activation of a multi-functional aviation brigade. 

While this recommendation does not in BRAC terms save money, the costs are mitigated by the 

non-BRAC savings that will accrue to the Department from the closure or realignment of the 

overseas locations from which these units come. Those non-BRAC savings amount to $4,400M 

during the 6 year period, and approximately $20,000M of 20 year net present value savings. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $3,946M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $5,229M. Annual recurring costs to the 

Department after implementation are $294.7M, with no payback expected. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $7,826.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 748 jobs (434 direct and 314 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the Clarksville, TN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.6 

percent of economic region of influence employment. 
Army - 24 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 8,522 jobs (5,136 direct and 3,386 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the 

Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 4.5 percent of economic 

region of influence employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on 

this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community infrastructure attributes 

revealed some issues regarding the ability of the communities to support forces, missions, and 

personnel. The City of El Paso, TX (Fort Bliss) and the City of Manhattan, KS (Fort Riley) must 

cooperate fully and quickly to assess requirements and implement them, especially in the areas 

of housing and schools. When moving activities from Fort Hood to Fort Bliss, four attributes 

improved (Housing, Medical Health, Safety, and Population Center) and one (Employment) is 

not as robust. When moving activities from Fort Campbell to Fort Riley, three attributes 

improved (Housing, Employment, and Safety) and two (Child Care and Population Center) are 

not as robust. When moving activities from Fort Bliss to Fort Sill, two attributes improved (Cost 

of Living, and Employment) and six (Housing, Education, Medical Health, Safety Population 

Center and Utilities) are not as robust. There are no known community infrastructure 

impediments to implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this 

recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: An Air Conformity determination and New Source Review and 

permitting effort will be required at Fort Bliss. To preserve cultural and archeological resources, 

training restrictions may be imposed and increased operational delays and costs are possible at 

Fort Bliss and tribal consultations may be required. Tribal negotiations may be required at Fort 

Riley to expand use near listed areas. Added operations at Riley and Sill may impact threatened 

and endangered species and result in further restrictions. Development of a Programmatic 

Agreement, tribal consultations, and evaluations to determine significance of cultural and 

historical resources will be required at Fort Sill. Further analysis will be required to determine 

the extent of new noise impacts at Bliss, Riley, and Sill. This recommendation results in 

significant additional water demands for the Fort Bliss region and therefore the installation will 

likely have to purchase or develop new potable water sources if groundwater sources are not 

sufficient. Further analysis will be required to assess long-term regional water impacts. 

Significant mitigation measures to limit releases may be required at Fort Sill to reduce impacts to 

water quality and achieve USEPA Water Quality Standards. This recommendation has no 

impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, 

or sanctuaries; waste management; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending 

approximately $2.6M for environmental compliance costs. These costs were included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 25

RC Transformation in Alabama 

 

Recommendation: Realign Birmingham Armed Forces Reserve Center, Birmingham, Alabama, 

by relocating Detachment 1, 450th Military Police Company into a new Armed Forces Reserve 

Center(AFRC) on or near Birmingham Air National Guard Base, Birmingham, Alabama, if the 

Army is able to acquire land suitable for the construction of the facility. The new AFRC shall 

have the capability to accommodate the Alabama National Guard units from the following 

Alabama ARNG Readiness Centers: Fort Graham, Fort Hanna and Fort Terhune, Birmingham, 

Alabama, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the Wright United States Army Reserve Center, Mobile, Alabama and relocate units into a 

new Armed Forces Reserve Center in Mobile, Alabama, if the Army is able to acquire land 

suitable for the construction of the facility. The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate Alabama National Guard units from the following Alabama ARNG Readiness 

Centers: Fort Ganey, and Fort Hardeman, Mobile, Alabama, if the state decides to relocate those 

National Guard units. 

Close the Faith Wing United States Army Reserve Center on Fort McClellan, Alabama and 

relocate units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on Pelham Range in Anniston, Alabama. 

Close the Finnell United States Army Reserve Center and the Area Maintenance Support 

Activity, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and the Vicksburg United States Army Reserve Center, 

Vicksburg, Mississippi, and relocate units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center and Area 

Maintenance Support Activity (AMSA) in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, if the Army is able to acquire 

land suitable for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC and AMSA shall have the 

capability to accommodate the 31st Chemical Brigade from the Northport Alabama Army 

National Guard Readiness Center, and units from the Fort Powell-Shamblin Alabama Army 

National Guard Readiness Center, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, if the state decides to relocate those 

National Guard units. 

Close the Screws Army Reserve Center in Montgomery, Alabama; close the Cleveland Abbot 

Army Reserve Center, Tuskegee, Alabama; close the Harry Gary, Jr. Army Reserve Center, in 

Enterprise, Alabama; close the Quarles-Flowers Army Reserve Center in Decatur, Alabama; 

close the Grady Anderson Army Reserve Center, Troy, Alabama; and relocate all units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) at the Alabama Army National Guard Joint Forces 

Headquarters Complex in Montgomery, AL, if the Army is able to acquire suitable property for 

the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate 

ARNG units currently located on the Alabama Army National Guard Joint Forces Headquarters 

Complex in Montgomery, Alabama, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Alabama. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 
Army - 26 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes nine Army Reserve Centers and one Area Maintenance Support 

Activity throughout the state of Alabama and constructs five multi component/service, multi 

functional Armed Forces Reserve Centers, and one Area Maintenance Support Facility capable 

of accommodating National Guard and Reserve units. This recommendation reduces military 

manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing facilities by collapsing fifteen 

geographically separated facilities into five modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers. The 

Department understands that the State of Alabama will close ALARNG Readiness Centers: Fort 

Graham, Fort Hanna, Fort Terhune, Fort Ganey, Fort Hardeman and Fort Powell-Shamblin and 

realign the Northport Alabama Army National Guard Readiness Center by relocating the 31st

Chemical Brigade to the new AFRC. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will have the 

capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the units from these closed 

facilities into the new AFRCs. 

The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve homeland 

defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant 

efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army 

transformational objectives. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The site selected was determined as the best location 

because it optimizes the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve Component 

soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$72.8M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $109.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $31.1M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $17.8M with a payback expected in 6 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $140.3M. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 27

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 40 jobs (28 direct and 12 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Birmingham-Hoover Alabama metropolitan area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 44 jobs (28 direct and 16 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the 

Vicksburg, MS Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.2 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 32 jobs (22 direct and 10 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Mobile, 

Alabama Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 171 jobs (103 direct and 68 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the 

Montgomery, Alabama Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 19 jobs (10 direct and 9 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the EnterpiseOzark, Alabama Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 23 jobs (15 direct and 8 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Troy, 

Alabama Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.2 percent of economic area 

employment. 

 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 5 jobs (3 direct and 2 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Tuskegee, 

Alabama Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Wetlands Survey may need to be conducted at Birmingham IAP to 

determine impact. This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, 
Army - 28 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste 

management; or water resources. This recommendation will require spending approximately 

$0.4M for waste management and/or environmental compliance activities. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs 

of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Arizona 

Recommendation: Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Allen Hall near Tucson 

Arizona and the Area Maintenance Support Activity 18 on Fort Huachuca, Arizona by relocating 

all units from the closed facilities to an Armed Forces Reserve Center and maintenance facility 

on the Arizona Army National Guard Silverbell Army Heliport/Pinal Air Park in Marana, 

Arizona, if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for the construction of the facilities. The 

new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate the Arizona National Guard 860th MP 

Company and the 98th Troop Command from Papago Park Readiness Center, if the State of 

Arizona decides to relocate those units. 

Close the Deer Valley United States Army Reserve Center (#2) in Phoenix and re-locate units to 

a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on the Arizona Army National Guard Buckeye Training 

Site. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate units from the Army National 

Guard Phoenix Readiness Center, if the State of Arizona decides to relocate those units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Arizona. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes two Army Reserve centers, closes an Army Maintenance Support 

Activity and constructs two multi component, multi functional Armed Forces Reserve Centers 

(AFRCs), in the State of Arizona, capable of accommodating National Guard and Army Reserve 

units. This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for maintaining 

existing facilities by collapsing units from six geographically separated facilities into two 

modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers. These joint use facilities will significantly reduce 

operating costs and create improved business processes. Relocating units to Buckeye will allow 

them to utilize a large local training area while maintaining a reasonably close commuting 

distance from Phoenix. The Department understands that the State of Arizona will close the 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 29

Army National Guard Reserve Center and Organizational Maintenance Shop Phoenix, Arizona, 

and realign the Papago Park Army National Guard Readiness Center by relocating the 860th

Military Police Company and the 98th Troop Command. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers 

will have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the units from 

these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. This recommendation provides the opportunity for 

other Local, State, or Federal organizations to partner with the Reserve Components to enhance 

Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated $1.8M 

in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting AT/FP 

construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and communications 

requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and increase the net 

savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation period, and in the 20-

year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $31.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $5.3M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $5.9M with a payback expected in 5 years. The net present 

value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $51.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 113 jobs (60 direct and 53 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. 

This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.06M for waste management 

and/or environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the payback 

calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 
Army - 30 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

RC Transformation in Arkansas 

Recommendation: Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Arkadelphia, Arkansas and 

re-locate units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center in Arkadelphia, if the Army is able to 

acquire suitable land for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the 

capability to accommodate Arkansas National Guard units from the Arkansas Army National 

Guard Readiness Center, Arkadelphia if the State of Arkansas decides to relocate those units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Camden, Arkansas and relocate units into an 

Armed Forces Reserve Center by converting the Arkansas Army National Guard Readiness 

Center, Camden if the state decides to alter their facility. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center, El Dorado, Arkansas and re-locate units into a 

new Armed Forces Reserve Center in El Dorado, if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for 

the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate 

Arkansas National Guard units from the Arkansas Army National Guard Readiness Center, El 

Dorado if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Realign the Army Reserve Center, Darby, Arkansas, by relocating the 341st Engineer Company 

and elements of the 75th Division (Exercise) from buildings #2552-2560, 2516, and 2519, Fort 

Chaffee, AR into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center, on Fort Chaffee, AR. The new AFRC 

shall have the capability to accommodate Arkansas National Guard units from the following 

Arkansas National Guard Readiness Centers: the Arkansas Army National Guard Readiness 

Center, Charleston, AR, the Arkansas Army National Guard Readiness Center, Van Buren, AR, 

and the Arkansas Army National Guard Readiness Center, Fort Smith, AR, if the state decides to 

relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the Army Reserve Equipment Concentration Site (ECS), Barling, Arkansas and relocate 

units to a new Joint Maintenance Facility on Fort Chaffee, Arkansas. The new Joint Maintenance 

Facility shall have the capability to accommodate Arkansas National Guard units from the 

Arkansas Army National Guard Combined Support Maintenance Shop (CSMS) on Fort Chaffee 

if the State of Arkansas decides to relocate those units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Hot Springs, Arkansas and the United States 

Army Reserve Organizational Maintenance Activity (OMS), Malvern, AR and relocate units to a 

new Armed Forces Reserve Center on property located in Hot Springs, AR, if the Army is able 

to acquire suitable land for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the 

capability to accommodate Arkansas Army National Guard units from the Arkansas Army 

National Guard Readiness Center in Hot Springs, AR if the State of Arkansas decides to relocate 

those units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Jonesboro, Arkansas and relocate units into a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center and Field Maintenance Site in Jonesboro, AR if the Army is able 

to acquire suitable land for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the 

capability to accommodate Arkansas National Guard units from the Arkansas Army National 

Guard Readiness Center, Jonesboro, AR, the Arkansas Army National Guard Readiness Center, 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 31

Paragould, AR and the Field Maintenance Site (FMS), Jonesboro, if the state decides to relocate 

those National Guard units. Close the Pond United States Army Reserve Center, Fayetteville, 

Arkansas and re-locate units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center in Northwest Arkansas, if 

the Army is able to acquire suitable land for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC 

shall have the capability to accommodate Arkansas National Guard units from the Arkansas 

Army National Guard Readiness Centers in Fayetteville, Springdale, Rogers and Bentonville, 

Arkansas if the State of Arkansas decides to relocate those units. 

Close the Stone United States Army Reserve Center, Pine Bluff, Arkansas and re-locate units 

into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas. The new AFRC shall 

have the capability to accommodate Arkansas National Guard units from the Arkansas Army 

National Guard Readiness Center, Pine Bluff if the state decides to relocate those National Guard 

units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Arkansas. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes seven Army Reserve centers, one Equipment Concentration Site 

and one Organizational Maintenance Site and constructs eight multi-component, multifunctional Armed Forces Reserve Centers (AFRCs) and one multi-component, maintenance 

facility throughout the State of Arkansas, capable of accommodating National Guard and 

Reserve units. This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for 

maintaining existing facilities by collapsing twenty-six geographically separated facilities into 

nine modern, multi-component facilities. These joint use facilities will significantly reduce 

operating costs and create improved business processes. The Department understands that the 

State of Arkansas will close fifteen Arkansas Army National Guard Readiness Centers: 

Charleston, Van Buren, Fort Smith, Jonesboro, Paragould, El Dorado, Pine Bluff, Arkadelphia, 

Fayetteville, Springdale, Rogers, Bentonville, and Hot Springs, the Fort Chaffee Combined 

Support Maintenance Shop and the Jonesboro Field Maintenance Shop. The Armed Forces 

Reserve Centers will have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to 

relocate the units from these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. This recommendation 

considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas of the closing 

facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best locations because they 

optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve Component soldiers and 

to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 
Army - 32 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$63.3M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $118.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $97.6M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $5.8M with a payback expected in 31 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $38.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 48 jobs (34 direct and 14 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Pine Bluff Arkansas metropolitan statistical area, which is 0.1 percent 

of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 37 jobs (24 direct and 13 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the El 

Dorado/Union County micropolitan statistical area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.1M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 33

RC Transformation in California 

Recommendation: Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Moffett Field, California, the 

George Richey United States Army Reserve Center, San Jose, California, and the Jones Hall 

United States Army Reserve Center, Mountain View, California and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center with an Organizational Maintenance Shop on existing Army 

Reserve property on Moffett Field, California. The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate California National Guard Units from the following California ARNG Readiness 

Centers: Sunnyvale, California, San Lorenzo, California, Redwood City, California, and the 

Organizational Maintenance Shop, San Jose, California, if the state decides to relocate those 

National Guard units. 

Close the Desiderio United States Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California, the Schroeder 

Hall United States Army Reserve Center, Long Beach, California, the Hazard Park United States 

Army Reserve Center, Los Angeles, California, and relocate units to a new Armed Forces 

Reserve Center on property being transferred to the Army Reserve from the General Services 

Administration at Bell, California. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate 

California National Guard Units from the following California ARNG Readiness Centers: Bell, 

California, and Montebello, California, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard 

units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of California. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes six Army Reserve centers, two Naval Reserve Centers, and one 

Marine Corps Reserve Center, throughout the State of California, and constructs two multi 

component, multi functional Armed Forces Reserve Centers (AFRCs), capable of 

accommodating National Guard and Reserve units. This recommendation reduces military 

manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing facilities by collapsing fifteen 

geographically separated facilities into two modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers. These joint 

use facilities will significantly reduce operating costs and create improved business processes. 

The Department understands that the State of California will close five California Army Guard 

Armories: Sunnyvale, San Lorenzo, Redwood City, Bell, and Montebello, California, and the 

Organizational Maintenance Shop, San Jose, California. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers 

will have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the units from 

these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. 
Army - 34 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

The implementation of this recommendation and creation of these new AFRCs will enhance 

military value, improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment 

capability, create significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s 

force structure plans and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated $6.3M 

in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting AT/FP 

construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and communications 

requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and increase the net 

savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation period, and in the 20-

year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $78.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $41.3M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $8.9M with a payback expected in 10 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $46.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 4 jobs (3 direct and 1 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metropolitan Statistical Area, which 

is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 106 jobs (72 direct and 34 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Los 

Angles-Long Beach-Glendale Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 35

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.3M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. Installation has no jurisdictional wetlands. The aggregate environmental 

impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has 

been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this 

recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Connecticut 

Recommendation: Close Turner US Army Reserve Center, Fairfield, CT, close Sutcovey US 

Army Reserve Center, Waterbury, CT; close Danbury US Army Reserve Center Danbury, CT, 

and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center and Maintenance Facility in Newtown, 

CT, if the Army is able to acquire land suitable for the construction of the facilities adjacent to 

the existing CT Army National Guard Armory in Newtown, CT. The new AFRC and OMS shall 

have the capability to accommodate units from the following facilities: Connecticut Army 

National Guard Armories in Naugatuck, Norwalk and New Haven, CT, if the state decides to 

relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the US Army Reserve Center, Middletown, CT, the Organizational Maintenance Shop, 

Middletown, CT; the SGT Libby US Army Reserve Center, New Haven, CT; the Organizational 

Maintenance Shop, New Haven, CT; the Army Reserve Area Maintenance Support Activity #69, 

Milford, CT and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center, Organizational 

Maintenance Shop and Army Maintenance Support Activity in Middletown, Connecticut, if the 

Army is able to acquire land suitable for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC, OMS 

and AMSA shall have the capability to accommodate units from the following facilities: 

Connecticut Army National Guard Armories in Putnam, Manchester, New Britain and the 

CTARNG facility in Newington, CT if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Connecticut. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 
Army - 36 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

This recommendation closes five US Army Reserve Centers, one Army Maintenance Support 

Activity and two Organizational Maintenance Shops throughout the state of Connecticut and 

constructs two Armed Forces Reserve Centers and collocated Organizational Maintenance Shops 

and one Army Maintenance Support Activity capable of accommodating National Guard and 

Reserve units. The Department understands that the State of Connecticut will close seven 

Connecticut Army National Guard Centers: Naugatuck, Norwalk, New Haven, Putnam, 

Manchester, New Berlin and Newington, Connecticut. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will 

have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the units from 

these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. 

The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve homeland 

defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant 

efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army 

transformational objectives. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$52.1M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $128.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $107.0M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $5.8M with a payback expected in 36 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $47.5M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 26 jobs (18 direct and 8 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT metropolitan area, which is 

less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 33 jobs (21 direct and 12 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the New 

Haven-Milford, CT metropolitan area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 37

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.2M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Delaware 

Recommendation: Close the Major Robert Kirkwood United States Army Reserve Center and 

its organizational maintenance shop in Newark, DE and re-locate units to a new Armed Forces 

Reserve Center and organizational maintenance support facility in Newark, DE, if the Army is 

able to acquire suitable land for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the 

capability to accommodate Delaware Army National Guard units from the William Nelson 

Armory in Middletown, DE, if the state decided to relocate those units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

Delaware. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes an Army Reserve Center in Newark, DE and relocates units to a 

new Armed Forces Reserve Center and organizational maintenance support facility capable of 

accommodating Delaware Army National Guard units. This recommendation reduces military 

manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing facilities by collapsing two facilities into 

one. The Department understands that the State of Delaware will close the William Nelson 
Army - 38 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Armory in Middletown, DE. The Armed Forces Reserve Center will have the capability to 

accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the units from the closed facilities into 

the new AFRC. 

The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve homeland 

defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant 

efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army 

transformational objectives. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The site selected was determined as the best location 

because it optimized the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve Component 

soldiers, and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$10.9M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $13.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $9.8M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $0.9M with a payback expected in 19 years. The net present value of 

the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $0.9M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 13 jobs (9 direct and 4 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ metropolitan division, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 39

spending approximately $0.03M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Georgia

Recommendation: Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Columbus, GA and relocate 

and consolidate those units together with Army Reserve Units currently on Fort Benning into a 

new United States Army Reserve Center on Fort Benning, GA. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

Georgia. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes one United States Army Reserve Center in Columbus, GA and relocates units together with United States Army Reserve units currently on Fort Benning into a 

new United States Army Reserve Center on Fort Benning, GA. This recommendation reduces 

military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing facilities by reducing the 

number of separate DoD installations and by relocating a U.S. Army Reserve Center to an 

existing base. This recommendation supports the recommendation to close Fort Gillem by 

providing a relocation site for the vehicles and equipment stored at the Army Reserve Equipment 

Concentration Site (ECS). 

 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The site selected was determined as the best location 

because it optimizes the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve Component 

soldiers, and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$52.8M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 
Army - 40 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $21.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $3.5M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $5.0M with a payback expected in 5 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $44.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 103 jobs (65 direct and 38 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the Columbus, GA-AL metropolitan statistical area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation may impact air quality and water quality at Fort 

Benning. Due to the increase in personnel and new construction, an Air Conformity Analysis 

will be required. Significant mitigation measures to limit releases may be required to reduce 

impacts to water quality and achieve US EPA water quality standards. This recommendation has 

no impact on cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or 

sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; or wetlands. This recommendation 

will require spending approximately $0.008M for waste management and/or environmental 

compliance activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. Installation has no jurisdictional 

wetlands. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Hawaii 

Recommendation: Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Hilo (SFC Minoru Kunieda), 

HI and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on Keaukaha Military Reservation 

if the Army can acquire suitable land for the construction of the new facilities. The New AFRC 

shall have the capability to accommodate Hawaii National Guard units from the following 

Hawaii ARNG Armories: Keaau and Honokaa if the state decides to relocate those units. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 41

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

Hawaii. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army 

Reserve Regional Readiness Command. 

This recommendation closes one Army Reserve Center in Hilo, HI and constructs a multi 

component, multi functional Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) on Keaukaha Military 

Reservation, Hawaii. The Department understands that the State of Hawaii will close two 

Hawaii Army National Guard Armories: Keaau and Honokaa, HI. The Armed Forces Reserve 

Center will have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the 

units from the closed facilities into the new AFRC. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$17.4M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $56.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $26.4M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department to the Department after implementation are $9.1M with a payback expected in 7 

years. The net present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a 

savings of $62.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 181 jobs (118 direct and 63 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the Hilo County metropolitan area, which is 0.2 percent of economic 

area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic 

region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 
Army - 42 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Keuakaha Military Reservation has potential contamination from 

underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste and pesticide storage areas. The installation 

reported potential for lead-based paint contaminated soil. There is the potential for encountering 

storm water permitting issues. These conditions may impose restrictions or delays that impact 

proposed construction. This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; 

threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; or wetlands. This recommendation will 

require spending approximately $0.1M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Illinois 

Recommendation: Close the United States Army Reserve Center in Marion, IL, and relocate 

units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center in Carbondale, IL, if the Army is able to acquire 

suitable land for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate Illinois National Guard Units from the following Army National Guard Readiness 

Centers: Cairo, IL and Carbondale, IL, if the State of Illinois decides to relocate those units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center in Centralia, IL and the United States Army 

Reserve Center in Fairfield, IL, and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center in Mt. 

Vernon, IL. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Illinois National Guard 

Units from the following Army National Guard Readiness Centers: Mt. Vernon (17B75), IL, Mt. 

Vernon (17B73), IL, and Salem (17C65), IL, if the State of Illinois decides to relocate those 

units. 

Close the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Waukegan, IL and re-locate units into a new Armed 

Forces Reserve Center in Lake County, IL, if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for the 

construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Illinois 

National Guard Units from the Army National Guard Readiness Center in Waukegan, IL, if the 

State of Illinois decides to relocate those units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

Illinois. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 43

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes four United States Army Reserve Centers and constructs three 

multi-component, multi-functional Armed Forces Reserve Centers (AFRCs), throughout the 

State of Illinois, capable of accommodating National Guard, Army Reserve, Naval Reserve and 

Marine Corps Reserve units. This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated 

costs for maintaining existing facilities by collapsing ten geographically separated facilities into 

three modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers. These joint use facilities will significantly reduce 

operating costs and create improved business processes. The Department understands that the 

State of Illinois will close six Illinois Army Guard Armories: Cairo, IL, Carbondale, IL, Mount 

Vernon, IL, Mount Vernon, IL, Salem, IL, and Waukegan, IL. The Armed Forces Reserve 

Centers will have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the 

units from these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. The implementation of this 

recommendation and creation of these new AFRCs will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$29.8M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $42.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $28.1M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $3.5M with a payback expected in 14 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $6.5M. 
Army - 44 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 49 jobs (32 direct and 17 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Carbondale, IL micropolitan area, which is 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic 

region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.05M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Indiana 

Recommendation: Close Lafayette United States Army Reserve Center in Lafayette, IN and 

relocate units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) on the site of the existing 

Indiana Army Guard Armory (18B75) Lafayette, IN, if the Army is able to acquire land suitable 

for the construction of the facility. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate the 

Indiana National Guard units from the following Indiana ARNG Readiness Centers: Boswell, IN, 

Attica, IN, Delphi, IN, Remington, IN, Monticello, IN, and Darlington, IN, if the state decides to 

relocate those National Guard units. 

Realign Charles H. Seston United States Army Reserve Center by relocating the 402nd Engineer 

Company and Detachment 1 of the 417th Petroleum Company into a new Armed Forces Reserve 

Center in the vicinity of Greenwood and Franklin, IN, if the Army is able to acquire land suitable 

for the construction of the facility. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate the 

Indiana National Guard units from the Camp Atterbury Army National Guard Readiness Center 

(building #500), and the 219th Area Support Group Readiness Center (Building #4), Camp 

Atterbury, IN, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Indiana. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 45

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes one Army Reserve Center in the state of Indiana and constructs two 

multi component, multi functional Armed Forces Reserve Centers capable of accommodating 

National Guard and Reserve units. This recommendation reduces the number of separate DoD 

installations by relocating to an existing base. The Department understands that the State of 

Indiana will close the following INARNG Readiness Centers: Boswell, IN, Attica, IN, Delphi, 

IN, Remington, IN, Monticello, IN, Darlington, IN, and Camp Atterbury, IN. The Armed Forces 

Reserve Centers will have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to 

relocate the units from these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The site selected was determined as the best location 

because it optimizes the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve Component 

soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$34.7M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $47.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $33.7M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $2.7M with a payback expected in 22 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $6.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 32 jobs (21 direct and 11 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 16 jobs (12 direct and 4 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the 

Indianapolis, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 
Army - 46 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.02M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Iowa 

Recommendation: Close the Recruiting Battalion Headquarters and Military Entrance 

Processing Station (MEPS) leased facilities in Des Moines and relocate units into a new Armed 

Forces Reserve Center and MEPS at Camp Dodge, IA. The new AFRC shall have the capability 

to accommodate units from the Army National Guard Readiness Center located at Camp Dodge, 

IA, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center and the Area Maintenance Support Activity in 

Middletown, IA and relocate units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) with an 

Organizational Maintenance and Vehicle Storage Facility on Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, IA. 

The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate units from the Burlington Army 

National Guard Readiness Center located in Burlington, IA, if the state decides to relocate those 

National Guard units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center in Muscatine, IA and relocate units into a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) in Muscatine, IA, if the Army is able to acquire land 

suitable for the construction of the facility. The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate units from the Muscatine Army National Guard Readiness Center located in 

Muscatine, IA, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Cedar Rapids, IA and relocate units into a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) with an Organizational Maintenance Facility (OMF) in 

Cedar Rapids, IA, if the Army is able to acquire land suitable for the construction of the facility. 

The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate units from the Cedar Rapids Army 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 47

National Guard Readiness Center and its Organizational Maintenance Facility located in Cedar 

Rapids, IA, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Iowa. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes three Army Reserve Centers, one Area Maintenance Support 

Activity, one Recruiting Battalion, and one Military Entrance Processing Station, throughout the 

State of Iowa and constructs three multi component, multi functional Armed Forces Reserve 

Centers, two Organizational Maintenance Facilities, and one MEPS, capable of accommodating 

National Guard and Reserve units. This recommendation reduces military manpower and 

associated costs for maintaining existing facilities by collapsing eight geographically separated 

facilities into four modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers. This recommendation reduces the 

number of separate DoD installations by relocating to an existing base. The Department 

understands that the State of Iowa will close IAARNG Readiness Centers: Camp Dodge, IA, 

Burlington, IA, Muscatine, IA, and Cedar Rapids, IA. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will 

have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the units from 

these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$20.5M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $68.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a saving of $16.5M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $19.4M with a payback expected in 3 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $201.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 303 jobs (218 direct and 85 indirect jobs) over 
Army - 48 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the Des Moines Iowa Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.06M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Kentucky

Recommendation: Close the Richmond US Army Reserve Center, Maysville US Army 

Reserve Center and relocate and consolidate those units with Army Reserve units currently on 

Bluegrass Army Depot into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) and Field Maintenance 

Facility (FMS) on Blue Grass Army Depot, KY. The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate Kentucky National Guard units located on Bluegrass Army Depot, KY, if the state 

decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the Paducah Memorial United States Army Reserve Center and the Paducah #2 United 

States Army Reserve Center and relocate units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) 

and Field Maintenance Shop (FMS) adjacent to the Paducah Airport, Paducah, KY, if the Army 

is able to acquire land suitable for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC and FMS 

shall have the capability to accommodate units from the Paducah Army National Guard 

Readiness Center and the Kentucky Army National Guard Organizational Maintenance Shop 

(OMS) #2, Paducah, KY, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Kentucky. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 49

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes four Army Reserve Centers throughout the state of Kentucky and 

constructs two multi component, multi functional Armed Forces Reserve Centers, and two Field 

Maintenance Shops capable of accommodating National Guard and Reserve units. This 

recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing 

facilities by collapsing seven geographically separated facilities into two modern Armed Forces 

Reserve Centers. This recommendation reduces the number of separate DoD installations by 

relocating to an existing base. The Department understands that the State of Kentucky will close 

the Blue Grass Station and the Paducah Army National Guard Readiness Centers and the 

Kentucky Army National Guard Organizational Maintenance Shop, Paducah, KY. The Armed 

Forces Reserve Centers will have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides 

to relocate the units from these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. 

The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve homeland 

defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant 

efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army 

transformational objectives. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The site selected was determined as the best location 

because it optimizes the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve Component 

soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated $5.8M 

in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting AT/FP 

construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and communications 

requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and increase the net 

savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation period, and in the 20-

year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $25.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $6.9M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $4.2M with a payback expected in 6 years. The net present 

value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $34.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 284 jobs (18 direct and 106 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the Maysville, KY Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 
Army - 50 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 48 jobs (31 direct and 17 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Paducah, 

KY-IL metropolitan statistical area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Due to presence of cultural resources and a very limited portion of the 

installation having been surveyed, surveys may have to occur at Blue Grass. Blue Grass Army 

Depot has a limited ability to accept new missions due to threatened and endangered species. 

This recommendation has no impact on air quality, dredging; land use constraints or sensitive 

resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; waste management; water 

resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.04M for 

waste management and/or environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. 

Installation has no jurisdictional wetlands. The aggregate environmental impact of all 

recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this 

recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Louisiana

Recommendation: Close the Roberts United States Army Reserve Center Baton Rouge, LA 

and the Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center, Baton Rouge, LA, and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center and Field Maintenance Shop on suitable state property adjacent to 

the Baton Rouge Airport (State Property). The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate Louisiana National Guard Units from the Army National Guard Readiness Center 

located in Baton Rouge, LA and the Army National Guard Organizational Maintenance Shop #8 

located in Baton Rouge, LA if the State of Louisiana decides to relocate those National Guard 

units. 

Close United States Army Reserve Center, Shreveport, LA, and the United States Army Reserve 

Center, Bossier City, LA and relocate all Reserve Component units to a new Armed Forces 

Reserve Center that will be constructed on or adjacent to the Naval-Marine Corps Reserve 

Center, Shreveport in Bossier City, LA if the Army is able to acquire suitable property for 

construction of the facilities. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 51

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

Louisiana. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes three Army Reserve centers, one Navy-Marine Corps Reserve 

Center and constructs two multi component or joint, multi functional Armed Forces Reserve 

Centers (AFRCs), throughout the State of Louisiana, capable of accommodating National Guard, 

Army Reserve, Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve units. 

This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing 

facilities by collapsing six separate facilities into two modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers. 

These joint use facilities will significantly reduce operating costs and create improved business 

processes. The Department understands that the State of Louisiana will close the Louisiana 

Army National Guard Readiness Center in Baton Rouge and Organizational Maintenance Shop # 

8 in Baton Rouge. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will have the capability to accommodate 

these units if the State decides to relocate the units from these closed facilities into the new 

AFRCs. 

The implementation of this recommendation and creation of these new AFRCs will enhance 

military value, improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment 

capability, create significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s 

force structure plans and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$20.0M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 
Army - 52 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $30.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a saving of $17.7M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $13.6M with a payback expected in 2 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $147.6M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 235 jobs (158 direct and 77 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.05M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Maryland (AFRC Frederick, MD) 

Recommendation: Close the Flair Memorial Armed Forces Reserve Center and its 

organizational maintenance shop in Frederick, MD and re-locate US Army Reserve and US 

Marine Corps Reserve units to new consolidated Armed Forces Reserve Center and 

organizational maintenance support facility on Fort Detrick, MD. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

Maryland. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 53

This recommendation closes one Army Reserve Center and one Organizational Maintenance 

Shop in Frederick, MD and constructs a multi service, multi functional Armed Forces Reserve 

Center and Organizational Maintenance Shop on Fort Detrick, MD. This recommendation 

reduces military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing facilities by reducing 

the number of separate DoD installations by relocating to an existing base. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$10.0M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $6.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense during 

the implementation period is a savings of $1.4M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $1.7M with a payback expected in 3 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $17.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 38 jobs (22 direct and 16 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Bethesda-Frederick-Gaithersburg, MD metropolitan division, which is 

less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: An Air Conformity determination and a New Source Review and 

permitting effort will be required at Fort Detrick. This recommendation has no impact on 

cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource 

areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or 

critical habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will 

require spending approximately $0.2M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. Installation has no jurisdictional wetlands. The aggregate environmental 

impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has 
Army - 54 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this 

recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Massachusetts 

Recommendation: Close the Army Reserve Equipment Concentration Site 65 Annex, Ayer, 

MA and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center in Ayer, MA; realign the Devens 

Reserve Forces Training Area, MA, by relocating the 323d Maintenance Facility, and the 

Regional Training Site Maintenance to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center complex in Ayer, 

MA; realign Ayer Area 3713 by relocating storage functions to a new Armed Forces Reserve 

Center complex in Ayer, MA. Realign the Marine Corps Reserve Center Ayer, MA, by 

relocating the 1/25th Marines Maintenance Facility, Marine Corps Reserve Electronic 

Maintenance Section, and Maintenance Company/4th Marine Battalion to a new Armed Forces 

Reserve Center complex in Ayer, MA. The new Armed Forces Reserve Center complex shall 

have the capability to accommodate all Reserve units affected by this recommendation including 

Army National Guard units from the Ayer Armory and Consolidated Support Maintenance Shop, 

Ayer, MA, if the state decides to relocate the National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

Massachusetts. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes one Equipment Concentration Site Annex, realigns a Reserve 

Forces Training Area and a US Marine Corps Reserve Center, and constructs a multi component, 

multi functional Armed Forces Reserve Center in Ayer, Massachusetts. The Department 

understands that the State of Massachusetts will close: one Massachusetts Army National Guard 

Armory and one Consolidated Support Maintenance Site, Ayer, Massachusetts. The Armed 

Forces Reserve Centers will have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides 

to relocate the units from the closed facilities to the new AFRC complex. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The site selected was determined as the best location 

because it optimizes the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve Component 

soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 55

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$28.8M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $85.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $ 79.7M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $1.7M with a payback expected in 100+ years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $60.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will not result in any job reductions 

(direct or indirect) over the 2006-2011 period in the Worchester, MA metropolitan. The 

aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence 

was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.005M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Michigan 

Recommendation: Close the US Army Reserve Center Stanford C. Parisian in Lansing, MI, 

close the Army Reserve Area Maintenance Support Activity #135 in Battle Creek, MI, and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on Fort Custer Reserve Training Center, MI. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

Michigan. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 
Army - 56 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes one Army Reserve Center in Lansing, MI and one Area 

Maintenance Support Activity in Battle Creek, MI and constructs a multi functional Armed 

Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) capable of accommodating Reserve units. This recommendation 

reduces the number of separate DoD installations by relocating to a new AFRC. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated $9.0M 

in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting AT/FP 

construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and communications 

requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and increase the net 

savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation period, and in the 20-

year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $7.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense during 

the implementation period is a savings of $1.4M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $2.1M with a payback expected in 3 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department after implementation are a savings of $21.6M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 37 jobs (25 direct and 12 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Lansing – East Lansing MI metropolitan statistical area, which is 0.01 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.03M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 57

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Minnesota

Recommendation: Close US Army Reserve Center Faribault, MN and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center at Faribault Industrial Park if the Army is able to acquire suitable 

land for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate units from the Faribault Minnesota Army National Guard Armory, if the state 

decides to relocate those units. 

Close US Army Reserve Center Cambridge, MN and relocate units to a new Armed Forces 

Reserve Center in Cambridge, MN if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for the 

construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate 

Minnesota ARNG units from the Cambridge Minnesota Army National Guard Armory, if the 

state decides to relocate those units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Minnesota. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes two US Army Reserve Centers throughout the State of Minnesota 

and constructs two Armed Forces Reserve Centers capable of accommodating National Guard 

and Reserve units. The Department understands that the State of Minnesota will close two 

Minnesota Army National Guard Armories: Faribault and Cambridge, MN. The Armed Forces 

Reserve Centers will have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to 

relocate the units from these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. 

This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing 

facilities by collapsing four geographically separated facilities into two modern Armed Forces 

Reserve Centers. These joint use facilities will significantly reduce operating costs and create 

improved business practices. 
Army - 58 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated $3.0M 

in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting AT/FP 

construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and communications 

requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and increase the net 

savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation period, and in the 20-

year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $17.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $17.8M. Annual recurring costs to the Department 

after implementation are $0.006M. This recommendation never pays back. The net present 

value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $17.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will not result in any job reductions 

(direct or indirect) over the 2006-2011 period in the Faribault County, MN or Minneapolis-St 

Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI area. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions 

on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.04M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Missouri 

Recommendation: Close the United States Army Reserve Center in Greentop, MO, and 

relocate units to a new United States Army Reserve Center in Kirksville, MO, if the Army is able 

to acquire suitable land for the construction of the facilities. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 59

Close the Jefferson Barracks United States Army Reserve Center, and re-locate units into a new 

consolidated Armed Forces Reserve Center on Jefferson Barracks, MO, if the Army is able to 

acquire suitable land for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the 

capability to accommodate Missouri Army National Guard Units from the Readiness Center in 

Jefferson Barracks if the State of Missouri decides to relocate those units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Missouri. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes two Army Reserve centers and constructs one Armed Forces 

Reserve Center (AFRC) and one United States Army Reserve Center, in the State of Missouri, 

capable of accommodating National Guard and Army Reserve units. This recommendation 

reduces military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing facilities by collapsing 

four separate facilities into two modern Reserve Centers. These facilities will significantly 

reduce operating costs and create improved business processes. The Department understands that 

the State of Missouri will close one Missouri Army Guard Readiness Centers on Jefferson 

Barracks. The Armed Forces Reserve Center will have the capability to accommodate these units 

if the State decides to relocate the units from these closed facilities into the new AFRC. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated $5.5M 

in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting AT/FP 

construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and communications 

requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and increase the net 

savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation period, and in the 20-

year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $28.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $0.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 
Army - 60 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

after implementation are $6.4M with a payback expected in 3 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $61.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 121 jobs (67 direct and 54 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Minor revisions to the air permit may be needed at Lambert IAP AGS 

(Jefferson Barracks). It may be necessary to build on constrained acreage at Lambert. A wetlands 

survey may need to be conducted at Lambert. This recommendation has no impact cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; 

threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; or 

wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.5M for waste 

management and/or environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Montana

Recommendation: Close Galt Hall Army Reserve Center in Great Falls, MT and relocate units 

to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on Malmstrom Air Force Base, Great Falls, MT. 

Close Army Reserve Center Veuve Hall (building #26) and Area Maintenance Support Activity 

#75 on Fort Missoula, MT, and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center in 

Missoula, MT if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for the construction of the facilities. 

The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Montana National Guard units from 

the Montana Army National Guard Armory in Missoula, MT, if the state decides to relocate 

those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Montana. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 61

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes two US Army Reserve Centers and one Army Maintenance Support 

Activity throughout the State of Montana and constructs two Armed Forces Reserve Centers 

capable of accommodating National Guard and Reserve units. This recommendation reduces the 

number of separate DoD installations by relocating to an existing base. The Department 

understands that the State of Montana will close one Montana Army National Guard Armory in 

Missoula, MT. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will have the capability to accommodate 

these units if the State decides to relocate the units from these closed facilities into the new 

AFRCs. 

The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve homeland 

defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant 

efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army 

transformational objectives. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$19.5M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $26.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $19.8M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $1.5M with a payback expected in 23 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $4.3M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 27 jobs (17 direct and 10 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Great Falls, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 
Army - 62 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Additional operations may impact T&E species and/or critical 

habitats and wetlands at Malstrom. This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; waste management; or water resources. This 

recommendation will require spending approximately $0.09M for waste management and/or 

environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. 

This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this 

recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Nebraska 

Recommendation: Close the United States Army Reserve Center in Wymore, NE, and relocate 

units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center with an organizational maintenance facility in the 

vicinity of Beatrice, NE, if the Army is able to acquire land suitable for the construction of the 

facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Nebraska National Guard 

Units from the following Nebraska ARNG Readiness Centers: Fairbury, NE, Falls City, NE and 

Troop C, 1-167th Cavalry in Beatrice, NE, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard 

units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center in Columbus, NE, and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center in Columbus, NE, The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate Nebraska National Guard Units from the Nebraska ARNG Readiness Center, 

Columbus, NE, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center in Hastings, NE, and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center on Greenlief Training Site in Nebraska. The new AFRC shall 

have the capability to accommodate Nebraska National Guard Units from the following 

Nebraska ARNG Readiness Centers: Grand Island, NE, Crete, NE, and Hastings, NE, if the state 

decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center in Kearney, NE, and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center in Kearney, NE if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for the 

construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Nebraska 

National Guard Units from the Nebraska ARNG Readiness Center, Kearney, NE, if the state 

decides to relocate those National Guard units. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 63

Close the United States Army Reserve Center in McCook, NE, and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center in McCook, NE, if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for 

the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate 

Nebraska National Guard Units from the Nebraska ARNG Readiness Center, McCook, NE, if 

the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Nebraska. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes five Army Reserve centers, and constructs five multicomponent, 

multi-functional Armed Forces Reserve Centers (AFRCs), throughout the State of Nebraska, 

capable of accommodating National Guard and Reserve units. 

This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing 

facilities by collapsing thirteen geographically separated facilities into five modern Armed 

Forces Reserve Centers. These joint use facilities will significantly reduce operating costs and 

create improved business processes. The Department understands that the State of Nebraska will 

close eight Nebraska Army Guard Armories: Grand Island, Crete, Hastings, Fairbury, Falls City, 

Columbus, Kearney, and McCook, NE. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will have the 

capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the units from these closed 

facilities into the new AFRCs. 

The implementation of this recommendation and creation of these new AFRCs will enhance 

military value, improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment 

capability, create significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s 

force structure plans and Army transformational objectives. This recommendation considered 

feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas of the closing facilities and 

affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best locations because they optimize the 

Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve Component soldiers and to train and 

mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$31.4M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 
Army - 64 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $33.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $6.0M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $6.2M with a payback expected in 5 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $53.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 48 jobs (31 direct and 17 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Columbus, NE Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.2 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 48 jobs (31 direct and 17 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Grand 

Island NE Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 12 jobs (8 direct and 4 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Kearney, 

NE Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.07M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 65

RC Transformation in New Hampshire 

Recommendation: Close Paul Doble Army Reserve Center in Portsmouth, NH; and relocate 

units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center and associated training and maintenance facilities 

adjacent to Pease Air National Guard Base, NH, if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for 

the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC and complex will have the capability to 

accommodate New Hampshire National Guard units from the following New Hampshire ARNG 

Armories: Rochester, Portsmouth, Somersworth and Dover, NH, if the state decides to relocate 

those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

New Hampshire. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes one Armed Forces Reserve Center in Portsmouth, NH and 

constructs a multi-component, multi-functional Armed Forces Reserve Center on land adjacent 

to Pease Air National Guard Base. The Department understands that the State of New Hampshire 

will close four New Hampshire Army National Guard Readiness Centers: Rochester, 

Portsmouth, Somersworth and Dover. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will have the 

capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the units from the closed 

facilities into the new AFRC. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The site selected was determined as the best location 

because it optimizes the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve Component 

soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$14.6M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 
Army - 66 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $54.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $44.6M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $3.1M with a payback expected in 26 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $12.9M.

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 73 jobs (44 direct and 29 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Rockingham County-Strafford County, NH metropolitan division, 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of 

all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Additional operations at Pease-Newington Air Reserve Base may 

impact sensitive resource areas and constrain operations. A wetlands survey may need to be 

conducted to determine impact to wetlands at Pease-Newington. This recommendation has no 

impact on air quality, cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; marine mammals, 

resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste 

management; or water resources. This recommendation will require spending approximately 

$0.2M for waste management and/or environmental compliance activities. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in New Jersey 

Recommendation: Close the Nelson Brittin Army Reserve Center in Camden, NJ and relocate 

units to a new consolidated Armed Forces Reserve Center in Camden, NJ, if the Army can 

acquire suitable land for the construction of the new facilities. The New AFRC shall have the 

capability to accommodate units from the New Jersey ARNG Armory, Burlington, if the state 

decides to relocate those units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

New Jersey. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 67

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes Brittin Army Reserve Center in Camden, NJ and constructs a multi 

component, multi functional Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) in Camden, NJ. This 

recommendation reduces costs for maintaining existing facilities by collapsing two separate 

facilities into one modern AFRC. The Department understands that the State of New Jersey will 

close one National Guard Armory in Burlington, NJ. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will 

have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate units to the new 

multi functional AFRC in Camden, NJ. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. This 

recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$14.5M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $15.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $2.0M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $3.0M with a payback expected in 5 years. The net present 

value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $26.6M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 64 jobs (35 direct and 29 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Camden, NJ Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this 

economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 
Army - 68 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.01M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in New Mexico 

Recommendation: Close the Jenkins Armed Forces Reserve Center located in Albuquerque, 

New Mexico and re-locate the units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on Kirtland Air 

Force Base. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

New Mexico. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes an Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) located in Albuquerque, 

New Mexico and relocates units to a new multi functional AFRC on Kirtland Air Force Base, 

NM. This recommendation reduces the number of separate DoD installations by relocating a 

geographically separate facility onto an existing base. Reducing the number of DoD installations 

also reduces the manpower costs required to sustain multiple facilities. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated $0.8M 

in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting AT/FP 

construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and communications 

requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and increase the net 

savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation period, and in the 20-

year period used to calculate NPV. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 69

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $17.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $4.6M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $3.0M with a payback expected in 6 years. The net present 

value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $24.6M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction 65 jobs (36 direct and 29 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Albuquerque, NM metropolitan area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this 

economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: A minor revision to the existing air permits may be necessary at 

Kirtland AFB. Kirtland may have to modify their hazardous waste program due to incoming 

mission. Additional operations at Kirtland may impact wetlands. This recommendation has no 

impact on cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive 

resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered 

species or critical habitat; waste management; or water resources. This recommendation will 

require spending approximately $0.5M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in New York 

Recommendation: Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Stewart-Newburg, NY and 

relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on Stewart Army Sub Post adjacent to 

Stewart Air National Guard Base, NY. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate 

New York National Guard units from the Readiness Center at Newburg, NY, if the State of New 

York decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center and Army Maintenance Support Activity, Niagara 

Falls, NY and construct a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on the existing site in Niagara 

Falls, NY. The New AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate the NY National Guard 

units from the Niagara Falls Readiness Center, if the state of New York decides to relocate those 

National Guard units. 
Army - 70 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Close the BG Theodore Roosevelt United States Army Reserve Center, Uniondale, NY, the 

Amityville Armed Forces Reserve Center (Army Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve), 

Amityville, NY, and re-locate units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center with an 

Organizational Maintenance Shop on federal property licensed to the New York Army National 

Guard in Farmingdale, NY. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate New York 

National Guard units from the following New York Army National Guard Readiness Centers: 

Bayshore, Freeport, Huntington Station, Patchogue and Riverhead, and Organizational 

Maintenance Shop 21, Bayshore, NY, if the State of New York decides to relocate those 

National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of New York. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes four Army Reserve centers and constructs three multi-component, 

multi-functional Armed Forces Reserve Centers (AFRCs), throughout the State of New York, 

capable of accommodating National Guard and Reserve units. This recommendation reduces 

military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing facilities by collapsing three 

geographically separated facilities into three modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers. These joint 

use facilities will significantly reduce operating costs and create improved business processes. 

The Department understands that the State of New York will close six New York Army Guard 

Armories: Niagara Falls, Bayshore, Freeport, Huntington Station, Patchogue and Riverhead, and 

Organizational Maintenance Shop 21 Bayshore, NY. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will 

have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the units from 

these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. 

The implementation of this recommendation and creation of these new AFRCs will enhance 

military value, improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment 

capability, create significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s 

force structure plans and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 71

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$81.6M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $103.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $88.5M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $4.0M with a payback expected in 47 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $46.5M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 37 jobs (28 direct and 9 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Nassau-Suffolk County, NY metropolitan area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 1 job (1 direct and 0 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the BuffaloNiagara Falls, NY metropolitan area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.1M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 
Army - 72 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

RC Transformation in North Carolina 

Recommendation: Close the Army Reserve Adrian B. Rhodes Armed Forces Reserve Center in 

Wilmington, NC, close the Rock Hill Armed Forces Reserve Center in Rock Hill, South 

Carolina, close the Niven Armed Forces Reserve Center in Albermarle, NC and relocate all 

Army and Navy units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) and Organizational 

Maintenance Shop (OMS) in Wilmington, NC, if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for the 

construction of the facilities. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

North Carolina. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes two Army Reserve Centers in the state of North Carolina and one 

Army Reserve Center in the state of South Carolina and constructs a multi component, multi 

functional, Armed Forces Reserve Center capable of accommodating Navy and Army Reserve 

units. This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for maintaining 

existing facilities by collapsing three geographically separated facilities into a modern Armed 

Forces Reserve Center. 

The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve homeland 

defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant 

efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army 

transformational objectives. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The site selected was determined as the best location 

because it optimizes the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve Component 

soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$10.2M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 73

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $9.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense during 

the implementation period is a savings of $5.1M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $2.6M with a payback expected in 2 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a saving of $30.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 43 jobs (29 direct and 14 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Albemarle, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.2 percent of 

economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this 

economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.03M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in North Dakota 

Recommendation: Close 96th RRC David Johnson USARC in Fargo, ND and relocate into a 

new Reserve Center on Hector Field Air National Guard Base. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

North Dakota. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 
Army - 74 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes a United States Army Reserve Center (USARC) located in Fargo, 

ND and relocates units to a new USARC on Hector Field Air National Guard Base, ND. This 

recommendation reduces the number of separate DoD installations by relocating to an existing 

base. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facility and affected units. The site selected was determined as the best location 

because it optimizes the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve Component 

soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated $4.0M 

in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting AT/FP 

construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and communications 

requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and increase the net 

savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation period, and in the 20-

year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $7.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense during 

the implementation period is a cost of $8.1M. Annual recurring costs to the Department after 

implementation are $0.02M. This recommendation never pays back. The net present value of 

the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $8.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will not result in any job reductions 

(direct or indirect) over the 2006-2011 period in the Fargo, ND economic area. The aggregate 

economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was 

considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Wetlands Survey may need to be conducted at Hector Field Air 

National Guard Base to determine impact. This recommendation has no impact on air quality, 

cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource 

areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or 

critical habitat; waste management; or water resources. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.01M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 75

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Ohio

Recommendation: Close the Scouten Army Reserve Center, Mansfield, OH and the Parrott 

Army Reserve Center, Kenton, OH, and relocate all units to a new AFRC at Mansfield Air 

National Guard Base located at Mansfield-Lahm Airport. The new AFRC shall have the 

capability to accommodate units from the following facilities: Ohio ARNG Armories in 

Mansfield and Ashland, OH, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close US Army Reserve Center, Springfield OH, and relocate all units to a new Armed Forces 

Reserve Center on the Springfield Air National Guard Base, Springfield, OH. The new AFRC 

shall have the capability to accommodate units from the following facility: Ohio ARNG 

Readiness Center, Springfield, OH; if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close Fort Hayes US Army Reserve Center, Columbus, OH and Whitehall US Army Reserve 

Center, Whitehall, OH and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on Defense 

Supply Center Columbus, OH. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate units 

from the following facilities: Ohio ARNG Armories Howey (Columbus), Sullivant (Columbus), 

Newark, Westerville and Oxford, OH, Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base, Building #943 if 

the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Ohio. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes five US Army Reserve Centers throughout the state of Ohio and 

constructs three Armed Forces Reserve Centers capable of accommodating National Guard and 

Reserve units. This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for 

maintaining existing facilities by collapsing thirteen geographically separated facilities into three 

modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers. 

This recommendation reduces the number of separate DoD installations by relocating to an 

existing base. These joint use facilities will significantly reduce operating costs and create 
Army - 76 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

improved business practices. The Department understands that the State of Ohio will close eight 

Ohio Army National Guard Centers: Mansfield, Ashland, Springfield, Howey (Columbus), 

Sullivant (Columbus), Newark, Westerville, and Oxford, OH and realign Rickenbacker Air 

National Guard Base Building #943 by relocating the Regional Training Institute to the new 

AFRC. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will have the capability to accommodate these units 

if the State decides to relocate the units from these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$74.4M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $134.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $93.6M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $9.3M with a payback expected in 18 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $1.3M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 56 jobs (41 direct and 15 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Columbus, OH metropolitan statistical area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 139 jobs (71 direct and 68 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the 

Mansfield, OH metropolitan statistical area, which is 0.2 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: A minor air permit revision may be needed at Springfield-Beckley 

AGS and Mansfield ANG Base and new permits may be needed at DSCC OH. The 

recommendation may require building on constrained acreage at Springfield-Beckley and 

Mansfield. Additional operations may impact sensitive resource areas at Springfield-Beckley. 

The hazardous waste program at Springfield-Beckley and Mansfield may need to be modified. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 77

Treatment works at Mansfield may need to be modified. Air emission permits and storm water 

management permits may be required at DSCC OH. Additional operations at SpringfieldBeckley and Mansfield may impact wetlands, which may restrict operations. This 

recommendation has no impact on cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; marine 

mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; or threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.9M for waste 

management and/or environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Oklahoma 

Recommendation: Close the Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) Broken Arrow located in 

Broken Arrow, OK and relocate the Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve and Naval Reserve 

units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center and consolidated maintenance facility in Broken 

Arrow, OK if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for the construction of the facility. The 

new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Oklahoma Army National Guard units 

from the following Oklahoma Army National Guard Readiness Centers: Broken Arrow, Eufaula, 

Okmulgee, Tahlequah, Haskell, Cushing, Wagoner and the Field Maintenance Shop (FMS 14) 

located in Okmulgee, if the State of Oklahoma decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the Keathley and Burris United States Army Reserve Centers located in Lawton and 

Chickasha, OK; close the Wichita Falls United States Army Reserve Center in Wichita Falls, 

TX; close the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 6th United States Army Reserve Centers and Equipment 

Concentration Site (ECS) located on Fort Sill and re-locate units into a new Armed Forces 

Reserve Center on Fort Sill, OK and a new United States Army Reserve Equipment 

Concentration Site to be collocated with the Oklahoma Army National Guard Maneuver Area 

Training Equipment Site on Fort Sill. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate 

Oklahoma Army National Guard units from the following Oklahoma Army National Guard 

Readiness Centers: Lawton, Frederick, Anadarko, Chickasha, Marlow, Walters, and Healdton; 

realign B/1-158 Field Artillery (MLRS) from the Oklahoma Army National Guard Readiness 

Center located in Duncan if the State of Oklahoma decides to relocate those National Guard 

units. 

Close the Floyd Parker United States Army Reserve Center in McAlester, OK and re-locate units 

into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center and Consolidated Field Maintenance Shop on the 

McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, McAlester, OK. The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate Oklahoma Army National Guard units from the following Oklahoma Army 

National Guard Readiness Centers: the Field Maintenance Shop in Durant, OK; the Oklahoma 

Army National Guard Readiness Centers in Atoka, Allen, Hartshorne, Madill, McAlester and 

Tishomingo, OK; the Oklahoma Army National Guard Readiness Center and Field Maintenance 

Shop in Edmond, OK if the State of Oklahoma decides to relocate those National Guard units. 
Army - 78 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Close the Ashworth United States Army Reserve Center located in Muskogee, OK and re-locate 

units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center in Muskogee, OK, if the Army is able to acquire 

suitable land for the construction of the facility. The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate Oklahoma Army National Guard units from the following Oklahoma Army 

National Guard Readiness Centers: Henryetta, Muskogee, Okemah, Pryor, and Stilwell, OK if 

the State of Oklahoma decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the Farr United States Army Reserve Center, Antlers, OK, the Roush United States Army 

Reserve Center, Clinton, OK, the Smalley United States Army Reserve Center, Norman, OK and 

relocate units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center and Consolidated Maintenance Facility 

on the Norman Military Complex, Norman, OK. The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate Oklahoma Army National Guard units from the following Oklahoma Army 

National Guard facilities: Oklahoma Army National Guard Readiness Centers in Tonkawa, OK, 

Konawa, OK, Wewoka, OK, Oklahoma City (23rd Street), OK, the 23d Street Field Maintenance 

Shop in Oklahoma City, the Consolidated Maintenance Facility on the Norman Military 

Complex, Norman, OK and C CO, 700th Support Battalion from the Readiness Center, Edmond, 

OK if the State of Oklahoma decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the Manuel Perez and Billy Krowse United States Army Reserve Centers located in 

Oklahoma City, OK. Relocate units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center in West Oklahoma 

City, OK, if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for the construction of the facility. The new 

AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Oklahoma Army National Guard units from the 

following Oklahoma Army National Guard facilities: Readiness Centers located in Southwest 

Oklahoma City (44th Street), El Reno, Minco, and Pawnee, the Oklahoma Army National Guard 

1345 Transportation Company and the 345th Quartermaster Water Support Battalion from 

Midwest City if the State of Oklahoma decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the Robbins United States Army Reserve Center located in Enid, OK and relocate units 

into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center and Consolidated Field Maintenance Shop on Vance 

Air Force Base, OK. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Oklahoma Army 

National Guard units from the following Oklahoma Army National Guard facilities: Enid, Alva, 

Woodward, Blackwell, Cherokee, Watonga, and the National Guard Field Maintenance Shop in 

Enid, OK if the State of Oklahoma decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Oklahoma. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 79

This recommendation closes eleven Army Reserve centers, realigns five Army Reserve facilities 

and constructs seven joint or multi-component, multi-functional Armed Forces Reserve Centers 

(AFRCs) throughout the State of Oklahoma, capable of accommodating National Guard and 

Reserve units. This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for 

maintaining existing facilities by collapsing units from sixty-four geographically separated 

facilities into seven modern, multi-component facilities. These joint use facilities will 

significantly reduce operating costs and create improved business processes. The Department 

understands that the State of Oklahoma will close forty Oklahoma Army National Guard 

Readiness Centers, close five Maintenance Facilities, realign two Readiness Centers and one 

Maintenance Facility. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will have the capability to 

accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the units from these closed facilities into 

the new AFRCs. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$61.9M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $168.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $98.6M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $16.5M with a payback expected in 11 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $63.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 46 jobs (30 direct and 16 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Johnston County, OK Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.2 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 25 jobs (16 direct and 9 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Muskogee, 

OK Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 162 jobs (84 direct and 78 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the 
Army - 80 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Oklahoma City, OK, metropolitan area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 36 jobs (26 direct and 10 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Tulsa OK 

Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Potential cultural resource impacts may occur at McAlester, since 

resources must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Significant mitigation measures to limit 

releases may be required at McAlester and Fort Sill to reduce impacts to water quality and 

achieve US EPA Water Quality Standards. Modification of hazardous waste program at Vance 

may be necessary. This recommendation has no impact on air quality, dredging; land use 

constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; 

threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; or wetlands. This recommendation will 

require spending approximately $0.6M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Oregon 

Recommendation: Close Sears Hall United States Army Reserve Center in Portland, OR, close 

Sharff Hall United States Army Reserve Center in Portland, OR, and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center on Camp Withycombe, OR. The new Armed Forces Reserve 

Center (AFRC) shall have the capability to accommodate Oregon National Guard units currently 

on Camp Withycombe and from the following Oregon ARNG Armories: Lake Oswego Armory, 

Maison Armory, and Jackson Band Armory, OR, if the state decides to relocate those National 

Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

Oregon. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 81

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes two Army Reserve Centers in the State of Oregon and constructs a 

multi component, multi functional Armed Forces Reserve Center capable of accommodating 

National Guard and Reserve units. This recommendation reduces the number of separate DoD 

installations by relocating to an existing base. 

This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing 

facilities by collapsing three geographically separated facilities into a modern Armed Forces 

Reserve Center. The Department understands that the State of Oregon will close: Lake Oswego 

Armory in Lake Oswego, OR and realign the Jackson Band Armory, and the Maison Armory. 

The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will have the capability to accommodate these units if the 

State decides to relocate the units from the closed and realigning facilities to the new AFRC 

complex. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated $36M 

in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting AT/FP 

construction standards and altering the existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs, would reduce costs to the 

Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation period, and in the 20-year period 

used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $24.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $23.5M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.3M with a payback expected in 100+ years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $19.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will not result in any job reductions 

(direct or indirect) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 

Metropolitan area. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this 

economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 
Army - 82 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.02M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Pennsylvania 

Recommendation: Close the United States Army Reserve Center in Lewisburg, PA, the United 

States Army Reserve Center in Bloomsburg, PA, the United States Army Reserve Organizational 

Maintenance Shop in Bloomsburg, PA, and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center 

with an organizational maintenance facility in the Lewisburg / Bloomsburg, PA area, if the Army 

is able to acquire suitable land for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have 

the capability to accommodate PA National Guard Units from the following Army National 

Guard Readiness Centers: Lewisburg, PA, Sunbury, PA, and Berwick, PA, if the Commonwealth 

of PA decides to relocate those units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center in Williamsport, PA, the United States Army 

Reserve Organizational Maintenance Shop in Williamsport, PA, and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center with an organizational maintenance facility in Williamsport, PA, 

if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC 

shall have the capability to accommodate Pennsylvania National Guard Units from the Army 

National Guard Readiness Center in Williamsport, PA, if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

 decides to relocate those units. 

Close the Reese United States Army Reserve Center in Chester, PA, the United States Army 

Reserve Organizational Maintenance Shop in Chester, PA, the Germantown Veterans Memorial 

United States Army Reserve Center in Philadelphia, PA, the Horsham Memorial United States 

Army Reserve Center in Horsham, PA, the 1LT Ray S. Musselman Memorial United States 

Army Reserve Center in Norristown, PA, and the North Penn memorial United States Army 

Reserve Center in Norristown, PA, and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center 

with an organizational maintenance facility at Willow Grove Joint Reserve Base, PA. The Army 

shall establish an enclave at Willow Grove Joint Reserve Base, PA, to retain essential facilities to 

support activities of the Reserve Components. 

Close the Wilson Kramer United States Army Reserve Center in Bethlehem, PA, and the United 

States Army Reserve Organizational Maintenance Shop in Bethlehem, PA, and relocate units to 

a new United States Army Reserve Center with an organizational maintenance facility in the 

Allentown/ Bethlehem, PA area, if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for the construction 

of the facilities. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 83

Close the Philadelphia Memorial United States Armed Forces Reserve Center in Philadelphia, 

PA, the Philadelphia Memorial United States Armed Forces Reserve Center Organizational 

Maintenance Shop in Philadelphia, PA, and relocate Army Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 

units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center with an organizational maintenance facility in 

Bristol, PA, on the existing Bristol Veterans Memorial Reserve Center site. 

Close the Serrenti Memorial United States Army Reserve Center in Scranton, PA, the Serrenti 

Memorial United States Army Reserve Organizational Maintenance Shop in Scranton, PA, the 

United States Army Reserve Center in Wilkes-Barre, PA, the United States Army Reserve 

Organizational Maintenance Shop in Wilkes-Barre, PA, and relocate units to a new Armed 

Forces Reserve Center with an organizational maintenance facility in Scranton, PA, if the Army 

is able to acquire suitable land for the construction of the facilities. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

Commonwealth of PA. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes eleven Army Reserve Centers, one Armed Forces Reserve Center, 

and seven Organizational Maintenance Shops, throughout the Commonwealth of PA and 

constructs six multi-component, multi-functional Armed Forces Reserve Centers, with six colocated Organizational Maintenance Facilities, capable of accommodating National Guard and 

Reserve units. This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for 

maintaining existing facilities by collapsing sixteen geographically separated facilities into six 

modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers. This recommendation reduces the number of separate 

DoD installations by relocating to an existing base. The Department understands that the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will close PAARNG Readiness Centers: Lewisburg, PA, 

Sunbury, PA, Berwick, PA, and Williamsport, PA. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will have 

the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the units from these 

closed facilities into the new AFRCs. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$110.4M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with 

meeting AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 
Army - 84 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $142.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $81.1M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $14.2M with a payback expected in 10 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $58.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 18 jobs (11 direct and 7 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Lewisburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 66 jobs (44 direct and 22 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the 

Philadelphia, PA Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 77 jobs (55 direct and 22 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Scranton 

– Wilkes Barre Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 46 jobs (29 direct and 17 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the 

Williamsport, PA metropolitan area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 34 jobs (22 direct and 12 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the 

Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation may impact air quality at NAS Willow-Grove, 

which is in a region projected/proposed for non-attainment for PM2.5 and Ozone (8-hour). Due 

to new construction an Air Conformity Analysis and New Source Review and permitting effort 

will be required. This recommendation has no impact on cultural, archeological, or tribal 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 85

resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, 

resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste 

management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending 

approximately $0.4M for waste management and/or environmental compliance activities. These 

costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Puerto Rico 

Recommendation: Close the US Army Reserve Center 1st Lieutenant Paul Lavergne, 

Bayamon, PR and relocate the 973rd Combat Support (CS) Company into a new Armed Forces 

Reserve Center on United States Army Reserve property in Ceiba, PR, and relocate all other 

units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) on Fort Buchanan, PR. Realign the US 

Army Reserve Center Captain E. Rubio Junior, Puerto Nuevo, PR, by relocating the 807th Signal 

Company into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on Fort Buchanan, PR. The new AFRC on 

Fort Buchanan, PR shall have the capability to accommodate units from the Puerto Rico Army 

Guard San Juan Readiness Center, San Juan, PR, if Puerto Rico decides to relocate those 

National Guard units. The new AFRC facility in Ceiba, PR shall have the capability to 

accommodate Puerto Rico National Guard units from the following PRARNG Readiness 

Centers: Humacao, Juncos, and Ceiba, PR, if Puerto Rico decides to relocate those National 

Guard units. 

Realign United States Army Reserve Center Captain E. Rubio Junior, Puerto Nuevo, PR, by 

relocating the 8th Brigade, 108th DIV (IT) to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on Fort Allen, 

PR. 

Realign United States Army Reserve Center Ramey, Aguadilla, PR by relocating the 249th 

Quartermaster Company into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center in Mayaguez, PR, if the Army 

is able to acquire suitable land. The new facility shall have the capability to accommodate Puerto 

Rico National Guard units from the Puerto Rico Army National Guard Readiness Center 

Mayaguez, if Puerto Rico decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout Puerto 

Rico. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 
Army - 86 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

This recommendation closes one and realigns four US Army Reserve Centers throughout Puerto 

Rico and constructs four multi component, multi functional Armed Forces Reserve Centers 

capable of accommodating National Guard and Reserve units. This recommendation reduces the 

number of separate DoD installations by relocating to an existing base. This recommendation 

reduces military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing facilities by collapsing 

five geographically separated facilities into three modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers. These 

joint facilities will significantly reduce operating costs and create improved business processes. 

The Department understands that Puerto Rico will close PRARNG Readiness Centers: Humacao, 

Juncos, Ceiba, and Mayaguez, PR. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will have the capability 

to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the units from these closed facilities 

into the new AFRCs. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$36.4M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $87.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $64.0M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $7.3M with a payback expected in 15 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $8.6M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 161 jobs (95 direct and 66 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the San Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo, PR MSA metropolitan area, which is 

less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 15 jobs (10 direct and 5 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the AguadillaIsabela-San Sebastian, PR metropolitan area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 87

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Additional operations at Fort Buchanan may impact threatened and 

endangered leading to additional restrictions on construction, training, or operations. 

This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; 

dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; noise; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will 

require spending approximately $0.1M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Rhode Island 

Recommendation: Close the Bristol Army Reserve Center, Bristol, RI, the Harwood Army 

Reserve Center, Providence, RI, the Warwick Army Reserve Center and Organizational 

Maintenance Shop, Warwick, RI. Relocate all units to a new Army Reserve Center on Newport 

Naval Base, RI. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

Rhode Island. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes three Army Reserve Centers in Bristol, Harwood and Warwick, RI; 

and closes one Army Reserve Organizational Maintenance Shop in Warwick, RI and constructs a 

multi functional Army Reserve Center (AFRC) on Newport Naval Base, RI. This 

recommendation reduces the number of separate DoD installations by relocating to an existing 

base. 

The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve homeland 

defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant 

efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army 

transformational objectives. 
Army - 88 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The site selected was determined as the best location 

because it optimizes the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve Component 

soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$20.8M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $32.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is cost of $9.4M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $4.6M with a payback expected in 6 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $35.3M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 108 jobs (48 direct and 60 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA metropolitan area, 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of 

all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Naval Station Newport is in serious Non Attainment for Ozone (1-hr). 

Consultation with state historic preservation authorities may be necessary at Newport. This 

recommendation may impact waste management and water resources at Newport. This 

recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $41,000 for 

waste management and/or environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 89

RC Transformation in Tennessee 

Recommendation: Close the Guerry United States Army Reserve Center, Chattanooga, TN, 

and Bonney Oaks United States Army Reserve Center, Chattanooga, TN, and relocate units into 

a new Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) on Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant, 

Chattanooga, TN. 

Close the Kingsport Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC), the Kingsport Organizational 

Maintenance Shop (OMS), and the Army Maintenance Support Activity (AMSA), Kingsport, 

TN, and relocate units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center and Field Maintenance Shop on 

Holston Army Ammunition Plant, Kingsport, TN. The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate Tennessee National Guard units from the Kingsport Armed Forces Reserve 

Center, Kingsport, TN, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center outside of Fort Campbell (located in Clarksville 

TN), KY, and relocate units, along with units currently in buildings #6912 and #2907 on Fort 

Campbell into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) and Organizational Maintenance 

Shop (OMS) on Fort Campbell, KY. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate 

units from the Clarksville Army National Guard Readiness Center, Clarksville, TN, if the state 

decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Tennessee. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes four Army Reserve Centers, one Area Maintenance Support 

Activity and one Organizational Maintenance Shop throughout the State of Tennessee and 

constructs three multi component, multi functional Armed Forces Reserve Centers, one Field 

Maintenance Shop, and one Organizational Maintenance Shop capable of accommodating 

National Guard and Reserve units. This recommendation reduces military manpower and 

associated costs for maintaining existing facilities by collapsing nine geographically separated 

facilities into three modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers. This recommendation reduces the 

number of separate DoD installations by relocating to an existing base. 

The Department understands that the State of Tennessee will close the Clarksville Army 

National Guard Readiness Center, Clarksville, TN. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will have 

the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the units from these 

closed facilities into the new AFRCs. 
Army - 90 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve homeland 

defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant 

efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army 

transformational objectives. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$23.8M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $36.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $28.2M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $2.7M with a payback expected in 18 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $1.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 39 jobs (32 direct and 7 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA metropolitan area, which is less 

than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: An Air Conformity Analysis and New Source Review is required at 

Holston and Fort Campbell. Significant mitigation measures and training restrictions to limit 

releases may be required at Holston and Fort Campbell to reduce impacts to water quality and 

achieve US EPA water quality standard. This recommendation has no impact on cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending 

approximately $0.5M for waste management and/or environmental compliance activities. These 

costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 91

installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Texas 

Recommendation: Close the Tharp United States Army Reserve Center, Amarillo, TX and 

relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center in Amarillo, TX, if the Army is able to 

acquire land suitable for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the 

capability to accommodate Texas National Guard Units from the following Texas ARNG 

Readiness Centers: Amarillo, Pampa, and Hale Co, TX, if the state decides to relocate those 

National Guard units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Brownsville, TX and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center in Brownsville, TX, if the Army is able to acquire suitable land 

for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate 

Texas National Guard Units from the Texas ARNG Readiness Center in Brownsville, TX, if the 

state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Boswell, TX and the United States Army Reserve 

Center, Callaghan, TX and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on existing 

Federal property on Camp Bullis, TX. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate 

Texas National Guard Units from the Texas ARNG Readiness Center in Hondo, TX, A 

Company and Headquarters Company, 1st of the 141st Infantry, the Fifth Army ITAAS, the 

Regional Training Site-Intelligence, and the Texas Army National Guard Area Support Medical 

Battalion, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the Grimes United States Army Reserve Center, Abilene, TX and relocate B Company of 

the 413th Civil Affairs Battalion and the Area Maintenance Support Activity 11 Sub-Shop to a 

new Armed Forces Reserve Center with a Field Maintenance Shop on Dyess Air Force Base, 

TX. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Texas National Guard Units from 

the following Texas ARNG Readiness Centers: Abilene, Coleman, and Snyder, TX, and the 

Texas Army National Guard Field Maintenance Shop, Abilene, TX, if the state decides to 

relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Seguera, TX, the United States Army Reserve 

Center, Benavidez, TX, the United States Army Reserve Center, Fort Bliss, TX, the United 

States Army Reserve Center, McGregor Range, TX and the United States Army Reserve 

Equipment Concentration Site, McGregor Range, TX and relocate units to a new Armed Forces 

Reserve Center with a Consolidated Equipment Concentration Site and Maintenance Facility on 

Fort Bliss, TX. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Texas National Guard 

Units from the following Texas ARNG Readiness Centers: Fort Bliss and Hondo Pass, TX, if the 

state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the Herzog United States Army Reserve Center, Dallas, TX and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center on the existing Grand Prairie Reserve Complex, Grand Prairie, 
Army - 92 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

TX. Realign the 490th Civil Affairs Battalion from the Grimes United States Army Reserve 

Center and relocate the unit into the new AFRC. The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate Texas National Guard Units from the following Texas ARNG Readiness Centers: 

Arlington, TX, and California Crossing, TX, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard 

units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, TX and relocate units to a new Armed 

Forces Reserve Center with a Field Maintenance Shop in (East) Houston, TX, if the Army is able 

to acquire land suitable for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the 

capability to accommodate Texas National Guard Units from the following Texas ARNG 

Readiness Centers: Baytown, Pasadena, and Ellington Field, TX, and the Texas Army National 

Guard Field Maintenance Shop located on Ellington Field, TX, if the state decides to relocate 

those National Guard units. 

Close United States Army Reserve Center #2, Perimeter Park, TX and United States Army 

Reserve Center #3, Houston, TX and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center with 

a consolidated Field Maintenance Shop in (Northwest) Houston, TX, if the Army is able to 

acquire land suitable for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the 

capability to accommodate Texas National Guard Units from the following Texas ARNG 

Readiness Centers: Beaumont, Port Arthur, Port Neches, and Orange, TX, and the Texas Army 

National Guard Field Maintenance Shop located in Port Neches, TX if the state decides to 

relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the Miller United States Army Reserve Center, Huntsville, TX and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center in Huntsville, TX, if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for 

the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Texas 

National Guard Units from the Texas ARNG Readiness Center in Huntsville, TX, if the state 

decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the Muchert United States Army Reserve Center, Dallas, TX and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center Lewisville, TX, if the Army is able to acquire land suitable for the 

construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Texas 

National Guard Units from the following Texas ARNG Readiness Centers: Denton, Irving, and 

Denison, TX, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Lufkin, TX and relocate units to a new Armed 

Forces Reserve Center in Lufkin, TX, if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for the 

construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Texas 

National Guard Units from the following Texas ARNG Readiness Centers: Lufkin and 

Nacogdoches, TX, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Alice, TX and the United States Army Reserve 

Center, NAS Kingsville, TX and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on NAS 

Kingsville, TX, if the Army determines the property is suitable for construction. The new AFRC 

shall have the capability to accommodate Texas National Guard Units from the following Texas 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 93

ARNG Readiness Centers: Alice and Kingsville, TX, if the state decides to relocate those 

National Guard units. 

Close the Watts-Guillot United States Army Reserve Center, Texarkana, TX and realign the 

Hooks Army Reserve Center on Red River Army Depot by relocating units to a new Armed 

Forces Reserve Center on Red River Army Depot, TX. The new AFRC shall have the capability 

to accommodate Texas National Guard Units from the following Texas ARNG Readiness 

Centers: Atlanta, and Texarkana, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close Round Rock United States Army Reserve Center (leased) and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center with a consolidated Field Maintenance Shop in Round Rock, TX, 

if the Army is able to acquire land suitable for the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC 

shall have the capability to accommodate Texas National Guard Units from the Texas ARNG 

Readiness Centers in Austin and Taylor, TX, and the Texas Army National Guard Field 

Maintenance Shop in Austin, TX, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center, San Marcos, TX, and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center in San Marcos, TX, if the Army is able to acquire land suitable for 

the construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Texas 

National Guard Units from the following Texas ARNG Readiness Centers: San Marcos, Sequin, 

and New Braunfels, TX, if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. Close the 

Hanby-Hayden United States Army Reserve Center, Mesquite, TX and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center with an Organizational Maintenance Shop on United States Army 

Reserve property in Seagoville, TX. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate 

Texas National Guard Units from the following Texas ARNG Readiness Centers: Dallas #2, 

Kaufman and Terrell (including the Organizational Maintenance Shop), TX, if the state decides 

to relocate those National Guard units. 

Close the United States Army Reserve Center, Tyler, TX and the United States Army Reserve 

Center, Marshall, TX and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center with a Field 

Maintenance Shop in Tyler, TX, if the Army is able to acquire suitable land for the construction 

of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate Texas National Guard 

Units from the following Texas ARNG Readiness Centers: Athens, Tyler, Henderson, Kilgore, 

Marshall, and Corsicana, TX, and the Field Maintenance Shop in Marshall, TX, if the state 

decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Texas. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 
Army - 94 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

The recommendation closes twenty-four Army Reserve centers and one equipment concentration 

site, realigns one Army Reserve Center, and constructs seventeen multicomponent, multifunctional Armed Forces Reserve Centers (AFRCs), throughout the State of Texas, capable of 

accommodating National Guard and Reserve units. This recommendation reduces military 

manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing facilities by collapsing seventy-seven 

geographically separated facilities into seventeen modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers. These 

joint use facilities will significantly reduce operating costs and create improved business 

processes. The Department understands that the State of Texas will close forty-three Texas Army 

Guard Armories: Abilene, Alice, Amarillo, Arlington, Atlanta, Athens, Austin, Baytown, 

Beaumont, Brownsville, California Crossing, Coleman, Corsicana, Dallas #2, Denison, Denton, 

Ellington Field, Fort Bliss, Henderson, Hondo, Hondo Pass, Huntsville, Irving, Kaufman, 

Kilgore, Kingsville, Lufkin, Marshall, Nacogdoches, New Braunfels, Orange, Pampa, Pasadena, 

Hale Co, Port Arthur, Port Neches, San Marcos, Sequin, Snyder, Taylor, Terrell, Texarkana and 

Tyler, TX; close six Army National Guard Field Maintenance Facilities in Abilene, Austin, 

Marshall, Ellington Field, Port Neches and Terrell; and realign Camp Bullis. The Armed Forces 

Reserve Centers will have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to 

relocate the units from these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$231.3M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with 

meeting AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $375.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $220.6M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $36.0M with a payback expected in 12 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $133.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in the maximum potential job reductions (direct and indirect) over the 2006-2011 

period, as follows: 

Economic Area

Direct Job 

Reductions

Indirect Job 

Reductions

Total Job 

Reductions

% of Economic 

Area 

Employment

Austin-Round Rock, TX, 

Metropolitan Statistical Area 106 39 145 Less than 0.1 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 95

Dallas – Plano - Irving, TX, 

Metropolitan Division 137 73 210 Less than 0.1 

El Paso, TX Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 106 82 188 Less than 0.1 

Houston-BaytownSugarland, TX Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 61 43 104 Less than 0.1 

Lufkin, TX, Micropolitan 

Statistical Area 10 5 15 Less than 0.1 

San Antonio, TX 

Metropolitan Statistical Area 106 89 195 Less than 0.1 

Tyler, TX Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 16 9 25 Less than 0.1 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: An Air Conformity determination and New Source Review and 

permitting effort will be required at Fort Bliss. To preserve cultural and archeological resources, 

training restrictions may be imposed and increased operational delays and costs are possible at 

Fort Bliss and NAS Kingsville. Tribal consultations may be required at Fort Bliss. This 

recommendation may require minor air permit modifications at Dyess. This recommendation 

may also impact noise and wetlands at Dyess. This recommendation has no impact on dredging; 

land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; 

threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; or water resources. 

This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.9M for waste management and/or 

environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this 

recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Vermont 

Recommendation: Close Chester Memorial Army Reserve Center and Organizational 

Maintenance Shop, Chester, VT and Berlin Army Reserve Center, Berlin, VT and relocate all 

units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center with an Organizational Maintenance Facility in the 

vicinity of White River Junction, VT if the Army is able to acquire land suitable for the 

construction of the facilities. The new AFRC and OMS shall have the capability to 
Army - 96 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

accommodate units from the following facilities: Vermont Army National Guard Armories in 

Ludlow, North Springfield and Windsor, VT, if the state decides to relocate those National 

Guard units. 

Close Army Reserve Center, Courcelle Brothers and associated Organizational Maintenance 

Shop, Rutland, VT; close Army Reserve Army Maintenance Support Activity, Rutland, VT and 

relocate all units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center and Organizational Maintenance 

Facility in the vicinity of Rutland, VT, if the Army is able to acquire land suitable for the 

construction of the facilities. The new AFRC and Maintenance Activity shall have the ability to 

accommodate units from the following facility: Vermont Army National Guard Armory Rutland, 

VT; if the state decides to relocate those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Vermont. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

The recommendation closes four US Army Reserve Centers, one Area Maintenance Support 

Activity and two Organizational Maintenance Shops throughout the State of Vermont and 

constructs two Armed Forces Reserve Centers and collocated Organizational Maintenance 

facilities capable of accommodating National Guard and Reserve units. This recommendation 

reduces military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing facilities by collapsing 

eleven geographically separated facilities into two modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers with 

maintenance facilities. These new facilities will significantly reduce operating costs and create 

improved business practices. The Department understands that the State of Vermont will close 

four Vermont Army National Guard Centers: Ludlow, North Springfield, Windsor and Rutland, 

VT. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will have the capability to accommodate these units if 

the State decides to relocate the units from these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$30.1M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 97

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $61.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $57.2M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $1.4M with a payback expected in 100+ years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $41.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will not result in any job reductions 

(direct or indirect) over the 2006-2011 period in the Ludlow, VT or Rutland County, VT 

economic areas. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic 

region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.8M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Washington 

Recommendation: Close Mann Hall Army Reserve Center, Area Maintenance Support Shop 

#80 and Walker Army Reserve Center in Spokane, WA and relocate units to a new consolidated 

Armed Forces Reserve Center and Organizational Maintenance Shop on Fairchild Air Force 

Base. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate units from the following 

Washington ARNG facilities: Washington ARNG Armory and Organizational Maintenance 

Shop, Geiger Field, WA, if the state decides to relocate those units. 

Close Wagenaar Army Reserve Center Pasco, WA and relocate units to a new consolidated 

Armed Forces Reserve Center on Yakima Training Center. Realign Pendleton Army Reserve 

Center on Yakima Training Center by moving all assigned units to the new Armed Forces 

Reserve Center on Yakima Training Center. The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate units from the following Washington ARNG facility: Washington ARNG 

Ellensburg Readiness Center, if the state decides to relocate those units. 

Close the Oswald United States Army Reserve Center, Everett, WA, and relocate units to a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center in the Everett, WA area if the Army is able to acquire suitable 
Army - 98 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

land for construction of the new facility. The new AFRC shall have the capability to 

accommodate units from the following Washington ARNG facilities: Washington ARNG Everett 

Readiness Center and Snohomish Readiness Center, if the state decides to relocate those units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of Washington. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes four US Army Reserve Centers and one Area Maintenance Support 

Activity, realigns one Army Reserve Center and constructs three multi component, multi 

functional Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRCs) throughout the State of Washington, capable 

of accommodating National Guard and Reserve units. This recommendation also reduces 

military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing facilities by collapsing nine 

geographically separated facilities into three modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers. These joint 

use facilities will significantly reduce operating costs and create improved business practices. 

The Department understands that the State of Washington will close four Washington Army 

National Guard Centers: Geiger Field, Everett, Snohomish and Ellensburg; and one 

Organizational Maintenance Shop, Geiger Field, WA. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will 

have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the units from 

these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. 

The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve homeland 

defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant 

efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army 

transformational objectives. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$24.5M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 99

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $61.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $33.6M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $8.2M with a payback expected in 9 years. The net present 

value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $46.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 70 jobs (38 direct and 32 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Spokane, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 89 jobs (57 direct and 32 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the SeattleTacoma-Bellevue, WA metropolitan area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: A minor air permit revision may be needed at Fairchild. 

Additional operations may impact cultural, archeological, or tribal resources at Fairchild. 

Environmental consultation is required at Fairchild and Wagenaar USARC, due to the presence 

of species of concern. This recommendation may impact wetlands at Fairchild. This 

recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; waste management; or water resources. This 

recommendation will require spending approximately $0.4M for waste management and/or 

environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this 

recommendation. 

RC Transformation in West Virginia 

Recommendation: Close the Elkins US Army Reserve Center and its supporting Maintenance 

Shop in Beverly, WV and re-locate units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center in the vicinity 
Army - 100 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

of Elkins, WV, if the Army is able to acquire land suitable for the construction of the facilities. 

The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate West Virginia Army National Guard 

Units from the Readiness Center in Elkins, WV if the State decides to relocate those National 

Guard units. 

Close the 1LT Harry Colburn US Army Reserve Center and its supporting Maintenance Shop in 

Fairmont, WV and re-locate units into a new Armed Forces Reserve Center in the vicinity of 

Fairmont, WV, if the Army is able to acquire land suitable for the construction of the facilities. 

The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate West Virginia National Guard Units 

from the Readiness Center in Fairmont, WV if the State decides to relocate those National Guard 

units. 

Close SSG Roy Kuhl US Army Reserve Center and Maintenance Facility in Ripley and the MAJ 

Elbert Bias USAR Center, Huntington, WV and re-locate units into a new Armed Forces Reserve 

Center in the vicinity of Ripley, WV, if the Army is able to acquire land suitable for the 

construction of the facilities. The new AFRC shall have the capability to accommodate West 

Virginia National Guard Units from the West Virginia Army National Guard Readiness Center 

in Spencer, West Virginia if the State of West Virginia decides to relocate those National Guard 

units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities throughout the 

State of West Virginia. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, 

improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes four Army Reserve centers, three supporting Maintenance Shops 

and constructs three multi-component, multi-functional Armed Forces Reserve Centers 

(AFRCs), throughout the State of West Virginia, capable of accommodating National Guard and 

Reserve units. This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for 

maintaining existing facilities by collapsing ten separate facilities into three modern Armed 

Forces Reserve Centers. These multi-component facilities will significantly reduce operating 

costs and create improved business processes. The Department understands that the State of 

West Virginia will close three West Virginia Army Guard Armories: Spencer, Fairmont, Elkins, 

WV. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will have the capability to accommodate these units if 

the State decides to relocate the units from these closed facilities into the new AFRCs. 

The implementation of this recommendation and creation of these new AFRCs will enhance 

military value, improve homeland defense capability, improve training and deployment 

capability, create significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s 

force structure plans and Army transformational objectives. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 101

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$43.6M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $29.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a savings of $4.2M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $7.6M with a payback expected in 3 years. The net present 

value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $77.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 135 jobs (88 direct and 47 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the Fairmont, WV metropolitan statistical area, which is 0.5 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 1 job (1 direct and 0 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the HuntingtonAshland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the local communities' infrastructure to support forces, 

missions, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.08M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 
Army - 102 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Wisconsin 

Recommendation: Close the Truman Olson and G.F. O’Connell US Army Reserve Centers in 

Madison, WI and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) in Madison, WI, 

if the Army can acquire suitable land for the construction of the new facilities. The new AFRC 

shall have the capability to accommodate Army National Guard units from the following 

Wisconsin Army National Guard Armories; the Madison Armory (Bowman Street), Madison 

Armory / OMS 9, and the Madison Armory (2400 Wright Street), if the state decides to relocate 

those units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

Wisconsin. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes two Army Reserve Centers and realigns three Wisconsin Army 

National Guard Armories and constructs a multi-service, multi-functional Armed Forces Reserve 

Center (AFRC) in Madison, WI. The Department understands that the State of Wisconsin will 

realign the Madison Armory (Bowman Street) by relocating the 64th Troop Command; the 

Madison Armory / OMS 9, by re-locating the 54th Civil Support Team, the Madison Armory 

(2400 Wright Street) by re-locating the 641st Troop Command. The Armed Forces Reserve 

Centers will have the capability to accommodate these units if the State decides to relocate the 

units from these facilities to the new AFRC. 

This is a joint proposal with the Navy that supports actions to close the Navy and Marine Corps 

Reserve Center, Madison, WI, the Navy Reserve Center, La Crosse, WI and the Navy Reserve 

Center in Dubuque, IA. This recommendation reduces costs for maintaining existing facilities by 

collapsing two separate facilities and units from three overcrowded facilities into one modern 

AFRC. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 103

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$12.7M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $10.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a saving of $37.7M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $10.8M with a payback expected immediately. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $139.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 173 jobs (125 direct and 48 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the Madison, WI metropolitan statistical area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.03M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

RC Transformation in Wyoming 

Recommendation: Close Wyoming Army National Guard (WYARNG) Army Aviation 

Support Facility (AASF) in Cheyenne, WY (DA leased facility) and relocate Army National 

Guard units and aviation functions to a new WYARNG AASF, Readiness Center, and Field 

Maintenance Shop (FMS) on F.E. Warren Air Force Base, WY. The new readiness center/FMS 

shall have the capability to accommodate Army National Guard units from the Joint Force 

Headquarters Complex in Cheyenne, WY, if the state decides to relocate those units. 
Army - 104 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities in the State of 

Wyoming. The implementation of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve 

homeland defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create 

significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans 

and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a state-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation closes a WYARNG AASF, two WYARNG armories and constructs an 

AASF, readiness center and FMS on F.E. Warren Air Force Base, WY. This recommendation 

reduces costs for maintaining existing facilities by collapsing an AASF and consolidating with 

other units in the Cheyenne area into a single facility onto an existing Air Force Base. The 

Department understands that the State of Wyoming will close the Thermopolis Armory (vacantno units relocating) and the Joint Force Headquarters Armory (adjacent to F.E. Warren Air Force 

Base). The new facility will have the capability to accommodate these units if the state decides to 

relocate those units. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$22.2M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $72.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $53.8M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $4.5M with a payback expected in 21 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $9.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 49 jobs (34 direct and 15 indirect jobs) over the 

2006 – 2011 period in the Cheyenne, WY metropolitan statistical area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 105

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: A minor air permit revision may be needed at F.E. Warren. Noise 

contours at F.E. Warren may change as a result of the change in mission. Additional operations 

may impact T&E species and/or critical habitats at F.E. Warren. The hazardous waste program at 

F.E. Warren may need to be modified. This recommendation has no impact on cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation 

will require spending approximately $0.6M for waste management and/or environmental 

compliance activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this 

recommendation. 

Single Drill Sergeant School 

 

Recommendation: Realign Fort Benning, GA, and Fort Leonard Wood, MO, by relocating the 

Drill Sergeant School at each location to Fort Jackson, SC. 

Justification: This recommendation consolidates Drill Sergeant’s Training from three locations 

(Fort Benning, Fort Jackson, and Fort Leonard Wood) to one location (Fort Jackson), which 

fosters consistency, standardization and training proficiency. It enhances military value, supports 

the Army’s force structure plan, and maintains sufficient surge capability to address future 

unforeseen requirements. This recommendation supports Army Transformation by collocating 

institutional training, MTOE units, RDTE organizations and other TDA units in large numbers 

on single installations to support force stabilization and engage training. It improves training 

capabilities while eliminating excess capacity at institutional training installations, and provides 

the same or better level of service at a reduced cost. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $1.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense during 

the implementation period is a saving of $7.6M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $2.5M with a payback expected within one year. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $31.3M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recover, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 171 jobs (121 direct and 50 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the Columbus GA-AL Metropolitan area, which is 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 
Army - 106 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 237 jobs (183 direct and 54 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Fort 

Leonard Wood, MO Metropolitan area, which is 0.9 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the local community’s infrastructure to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: An Air Conformity determination and New Source Review and 

permitting effort will be required at Fort Jackson. This recommendation has no impact on 

cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource 

areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or 

critical habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will 

require spending approximately $0.3M for environmental compliance costs. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

U.S. Army Garrison Michigan (Selfridge) 

Recommendation: Close United States Army Garrison Michigan at Selfridge, which is located 

on Selfridge Air National Guard Base. Retain an enclave to support the Dynamic Structural 

Load Simulator (Bridging) Laboratory and the Water Purification Laboratory on Selfridge. 

Justification: This recommendation closes the US Army Garrison Michigan (USAG-M) at 

Selfridge, which is located at Selfridge Air National Guard Base. The USAG-M at Selfridge is 

federally owned property located on Selfridge Air National Guard Base. USAG-M at Selfridge 

is the primary provider of housing and other support and services to certain military personnel 

and their dependents located in the Detroit area. There is sufficient housing in the Detroit 

Metropolitan area to support military personnel stationed in the area. Closing USAG-Michigan 

at Selfridge avoids the cost of continued operation and maintenance of other unnecessary support 

facilities. A Bridging Lab and Water Purification Lab located on Selfridge, which are part of the 

Tank Automotive Army Research and Development Center at Detroit Arsenal will be retained 

and enclaved. Six garrison personnel (Garrison Commander and staff) will be relocated to 

Detroit Arsenal. This recommendation enhances military value, supports the Army’s force 

structure plan, and maintains sufficient surge capability to address future unforeseen 

requirements. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 107

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $9.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $91.4M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $18.1M with a payback expected immediately. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $260.9M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 601 jobs (376 direct and 225 indirect) over the 

2006-2011 period in the Warren-Farmington Hills-Troy, MI Metropolitan Division which is 0.04 

percent of the economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the local community's infrastructure to support forces, 

missions and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Closure will require consultations with the State Historic Preservation 

Office to ensure that the historic sites are protected. Restoration and/or monitoring of 

contaminated groundwater will likely be required after closure in order to prevent significant 

long-term impacts to the environment. This recommendation has no impact on air quality; 

dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; or 

wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.65M for environmental 

compliance costs. These costs were included in the payback calculation. USAG Michigan at 

Selfridge reports $13.3M in environmental restoration costs. Because the Department has a legal 

obligation to perform environmental restoration regardless of whether an installation is closed, 

realigned, or remains open, these costs were not included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this 

recommendation. 

USAR Command and Control New England 

Recommendation: Close the Westover Armed Forces Reserve Center, Chicopee, 

Massachusetts, the MacArthur United States Army Reserve Center, Springfield, Massachusetts, 

the United States Army Reserve Area Maintenance Support Activity, Windsor Locks, 

Connecticut, and realign the Malony United States Army Reserve Center on Devens Reserve 

Forces Training Area by disestablishing the 94th Regional Readiness Command, and relocate all 

units from the closed facilities to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on Westover Air Reserve 

Base. Establish an Army Reserve Sustainment Brigade headquarters in the new Armed Forces 

Reserve Center on Westover Air Reserve Base. Realign Devens Reserve Forces Training Area 

by relocating the 5th JTF, 654th ASG and the 382nd MP Battalion to the new Armed Forces 
Army - 108 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Reserve Center on Westover Air Reserve Base. The new Armed Forces Reserve Center shall 

have the capability to accommodate Massachusetts Army National Guard units from the 

Massachusetts Army National Guard Armory in Agawam Massachusetts, if the state decides to 

relocate those National Guard units. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities and command 

and control structure throughout the Southeast Region of the United States. The implementation 

of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve homeland defense capability, 

greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant efficiencies and cost 

savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army transformational 

objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a nation-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation supports the Army Reserve’s Command and Control restructuring 

initiative to reduce Regional Readiness Commands from ten to four by disestablishing one major 

peacetime administrative headquarters, the 94th Regional Readiness Command and creating a 

new deployable headquarters on Westover Air Reserve Base. 

This recommendation closes one Armed Forces Reserve Center in Chicopee, one United States 

Army Reserve Center in Springfield, Massachusetts; one United States Army Reserve Area 

Maintenance Support Activity in Windsor Locks, Connecticut and constructs a multi-component, 

multi-functional Armed Forces Reserve Center on Westover Air Reserve Base. The Marine 

Corps Reserve units located in the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Chicopee will relocate to the 

new AFRC on Westover Air Reserve Base. The Department understands that the State of 

Massachusetts will close one Massachusetts Army National Guard Armory in Agawam, 

Massachusetts. The Armed Forces Reserve Center will have the capability to accommodate these 

units if the State decides to relocate the units from the closed facilities into the new AFRC. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$21.6M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs reduce costs and increase 

the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation period, and in 

the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations 

to partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense 

at a reduced cost to those agencies. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $96.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $61.2M. Annual recurring savings to the 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 109

Department after implementation are $8.4M with a payback expected in 13 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $21.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Cambridge: Assuming no economic recovery, this 

recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 243 jobs (155 direct and 88 

indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Cambridge-Newton-Framingham 

Massachusetts Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic 

region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: A minor air permit revision may be needed at Westover. Additional 

operations may impact historic sites and sensitive resource areas and constrain operations at 

Westover. The hazardous waste program at Westover may need to be modified. Additional 

operations may impact wetlands, which may restrict operations. This recommendation will 

require spending approximately $0.6M for waste management and/or environmental compliance 

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

USAR Command and Control – Northeast 

Recommendation: Realign Pitt USARC, Coraopolis, PA by disestablishing the HQ 99th 

Regional Readiness Command and establishing a Northeast Regional Readiness Command 

Headquarters at Fort Dix, NJ. Close Camp Kilmer, NJ and relocate the HQ 78th Division at Fort 

Dix, NJ. Realign Fort Totten, NY by disestablishing the HQ 77th Regional Readiness Command 

and establishing a Maneuver Enhancement Brigade at Fort Dix, NJ. Realign Fort Sheridan IL by 

relocating the 244th Aviation Brigade to Fort Dix, NJ. Realign Fort Dix, NJ by relocating 

Equipment Concentration Site 27 to the New Jersey Army National Guard Mobilization and 

Training Equipment Site joint facility at Lakehurst, NJ. Close Charles Kelly Support Center and 

relocate units to Pitt US Army Reserve Center, PA. Close Carpenter USARC, Poughkeepsie, 

NY, close McDonald USARC, Jamaica, NY, close Fort Tilden USARC, Far Rockaway, NY, 

close Muller USARC, Bronx, NY, and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center at 

Fort Totten, NY. Close the United States Army Reserve Center on Fort Hamilton, NY and 

relocate the New York Recruiting Battalion Headquarters and Army Reserve units into a new 

Armed Forces Reserve Center on Fort Hamilton, NY. The new AFRC shall have the capacity to 

accommodate units from the NYARNG 47th Regiment Marcy Armory, Brooklyn and the 

Brooklyn Bedford Armory/OMS, Brooklyn NY if the state decides to relocate those National 

Guard units. 
Army - 110 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities and command 

and control structure throughout the Northeast Region of the United States. The implementation 

of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve homeland defense capability, 

greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant efficiencies and cost 

savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army transformational 

objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a nation-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation transforms Army Reserve command and control by consolidating four 

major headquarters onto Fort Dix, NJ; this recommendation supports the Army Reserve’s 

nationwide Command and Control restructuring initiative to reduce Regional Readiness 

Commands from ten to four. The realignment of Pitt USARC, Coraopolis, PA by the 

disestablishment of the 99th Regional Readiness Command allows for the establishment of the 

Northeast Regional Readiness Command Headquarters at Fort Dix, NJ which will further 

support the re-engineering and streamlining of the Command and Control structure of the Army 

Reserves throughout the United States. This restructuring will allow for the closure of Camp 

Kilmer, NJ and the relocation of the HQ 78th Division to Fort Dix and establishment of one of 

the new Army Reserve Sustainment Units of Action which establishes a new capability for the 

Army Reserve while increasing the support capabilities of the Army Reserve to the Active 

Army. To further support restructuring; the realignment of Fort Totten and the disestablishment 

of the HQ 77th RRC will enable the establishment of a Maneuver Enhancement Brigade at Fort 

Dix resulting in a new operational capability for the Army Reserve. The realignment of Fort 

Sheridan, IL by relocating the 244th Aviation Brigade to Fort Dix coupled with the Department 

of the Navy recommendation to close NAS Willow Grove, PA and relocate Co A/228th Aviation 

to Fort Dix; consolidates Army aviation assets in one location. Other actions supporting 

restructuring include realigning maintenance functions on Fort Dix, the closure of Charles Kelly 

Support Center, PA and relocation of multiple subordinate units to Pitt USARC, PA; and the 

closure of five US Army Reserve Centers in the greater New York City area with relocation of 

those units to Fort Totten. These actions will significantly enhance training, mobilization, 

equipment readiness and deployment. 

This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing 

facilities by closing one Camp, five Army Reserve Centers, realigning five facilities and 

relocating forces to multiple installations throughout the Northeast Region of the United States. 

These actions will also improve business processes. The implementation of this recommendation 

and creation of these new command structures will enhance military value, improve homeland 

defense capability, greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant 

efficiencies and cost savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army 

transformational objectives. The Department understands that the State of New York will close 

NYARNG Armories: 47th Regiment Marcy Armory, Brooklyn and Brooklyn Bedford 

Armory/OMS 12. The Armed Forces Reserve Centers will have the capability to accommodate 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 111

these units if the State decides to relocate the units from these closed facilities into a new AFRC 

on Fort Hamilton, NY. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$168.3M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidance associated with 

meeting Anti Terror / Force Protection construction standards and altering existing facilities to 

meet unit training and communication requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs, would 

reduce costs and increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC 

implementation period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $171.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $44.3M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $35.9M with a payback expected in 5 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $302.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in the maximum potential job reductions (direct and indirect) over the 2006-2011 

period, as follows: 

Economic Area

Direct Job 

Reductions

Indirect Job 

Reductions

Total Job 

Reductions

% of Economic 

Area 

Employment

Edison, NJ Metropolitan 

Division 44 32 76 Less than 0.1 

New York-White Plains, 

NY-NJ Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 

149 72 221 Less than 0.1 

Lake County-Kenosha 

County, IL-WI 

Metropolitan Division 

34 53 87 Less than 0.1 

Pittsburgh Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 530 317 847 Less than 0.1 

Poughkeepsie-NewburghMiddletown Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 

9 5 14 Less than 0.1 
Army - 112 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation will require Air Conformity determination and 

New Source Review analysis and permitting at Fort Hamilton, Fort Totten, and Fort Dix. If 

facility demolition is required to enable new construction at Fort Hamilton, this may impact 

historic resources, causing construction delays and increased costs. Historic resources at Fort 

Dix and Fort Totten must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, possibly causing construction 

delays and increased costs. Closure of Kelly Support Center will require consultations with the 

State Historic Preservation Office to ensure that historic properties are continued to be protected. 

Significant mitigation measures to limit releases may be required at Fort Hamilton and Fort 

Totten to reduce impacts to water quality and achieve US EPA water quality standards. 

Restoration and or monitoring of groundwater is required at Charles Kelly Support Center. This 

recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending 

approximately $1.3M for waste management and/or environmental compliance activities. These 

costs were included in the payback calculation. Although no restoration costs were reported for 

Charles Kelly Support Center, future costs are likely. This recommendation does not otherwise 

impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

USAR Command and Control – Northwest 

 

Recommendation: Close Vancouver Barracks and relocate the 104th Division (IT) to Fort 

Lewis, WA. Relocate all other units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center in Vancouver, WA. 

Close Fort Lawton by disestablishing the 70th Regional Readiness Command, relocate all other 

units to a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on Fort Lewis, WA and establish a Maneuver 

Enhancement Brigade. Realign Fort Snelling, MN by disestablishing the 88th Regional Readiness 

Command and establish the Northwest Regional Readiness Command Headquarters at Fort 

McCoy, WI. Realign the Wichita US Army Reserve Center by disestablishing the 89th Regional 

Readiness Command and establishing a Sustainment Unit of Action at the Wichita Army 

Reserve Center in support of the Northwest Regional Readiness Command at Fort McCoy, WI. 

Realign Fort Douglas, UT by disestablishing the 96th Regional Readiness Command and 

establishing a Sustainment Unit of Action in support of the Northwest Regional Readiness 

Command at Fort McCoy, WI. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 113

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities and command 

and control structure throughout the Northwest Region of the United States. The implementation 

of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve homeland defense capability, 

greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant efficiencies and cost 

savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army transformational 

objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a nation-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation supports the Army Reserve’s Command and Control restructuring 

initiative to reduce Regional Readiness Commands from ten to four. This recommendation 

transforms Army Reserve command and control by consolidating two major headquarters onto 

Fort Lewis, Washington. This sets the conditions for establishing one of three new operationally 

capable Army Reserve Maneuver Enhancement Brigades which will increase the support 

capabilities of the Army Reserve to the Active Army and is a new operational capability for the 

Army Reserve. The realignment of Fort Snelling, MN by the disestablishment of the 88th 

Regional Readiness Command allows for the establishment of the Northwest Regional Readiness 

Command Headquarters at Fort McCoy, WI which will support the re-engineering and 

streamlining of the Command and Control structure of the Army Reserves throughout the United 

States. 

This recommendation also realigns Fort Douglas Utah and the Wichita Army Reserve Center, 

establishing Sustainment Units of Action in those locations in support of the Northwest Regional 

Readiness Command Headquarters. Relocation of multiple subordinate units from Vancouver 

Barracks and Fort Lawton, WA to new Armed Forces Reserve Centers contributes significantly 

to enhanced training, mobilization and deployment. 

This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing 

facilities by closing two Reserve facilities and relocating the units onto an Active component 

installation and thereby significantly reducing operating costs and creating improved business 

processes. The implementation of this recommendation and creation of these new command 

structures will enhance military value, improve homeland defense capability, greatly improve 

training and deployment capability, create significant efficiencies and cost savings, and is 

consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$70.7M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 
Army - 114 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $80.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $43.4M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $11.1M with a payback expected in 9 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $65.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 184 jobs (107 direct and 77 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which 

is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 409 jobs (254 direct and 155 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 95 jobs (51 direct and 44 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Tacoma, 

WA Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of the economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 154 jobs (78 direct and 76 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Wichita, 

KS Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 95 jobs (53 direct and 42 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Salt Lake 

City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 115

Environmental Impact: The existence of archeological and historic resources, coupled with 

regional tribal interest, existing restrictions and a lack of a Programmatic Agreement, may result 

in increased time delays and negotiated restrictions at Fort Lewis and Fort McCoy. Consultation 

with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may be required regarding threatened and endangered 

species at Fort Lewis.. This recommendation has no impact on air quality; dredging; land use 

constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; waste 

management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending 

approximately $0.1M for waste management and/or environmental compliance activities. These 

costs were included in the payback calculation. Fort Lawton reports $2.7M in environmental 

restoration costs. Vancouver Barracks reports $18.4M in environmental restoration costs. 

Because the Department has a legal obligation to perform environmental restoration regardless of 

whether an installation is closed, realigned, or remains open, these costs were not included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

USAR Command and Control – Southeast 

 

Recommendation: Realign Birmingham Armed Forces Reserve Center Alabama by 

disestablishing the 81st Regional Readiness Command, and establishing the Army Reserve 

Southeast Regional Readiness Command in a new Armed Forces Reserve Center on Fort 

Jackson, SC. Close Louisville United States Army Reserve Center and relocate the 100th 

DIV(IT) headquarters to Fort Knox, KY. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities and command 

and control structure throughout the Southeast Region of the United States. The implementation 

of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve homeland defense capability, 

greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant efficiencies and cost 

savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army transformational 

objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a nation-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 

This recommendation supports the Army Reserve’s Command and Control restructuring 

initiative to reduce Regional Readiness Commands from ten to four. This recommendation 

transforms Army Reserve command and control by relocating one major headquarters from 

inadequate facilities in Birmingham, Alabama to Fort Jackson, South Carolina. This supports the 

initiative to consolidate command structure and responsibilities on Active Army installations, 

which will in turn increase the support capabilities of the Army Reserve to the Active Army 

while establishing a new operational capability for the Army Reserve. The relocation of the 
Army - 116 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

100th Division (Institutional Training) to Fort Knox, KY supports the re-engineering and 

streamlining of support delivered by Army Reserve training base units in order to significantly 

enhance training in support of mobilization and deployment. 

This recommendation reduces military manpower and associated costs for maintaining existing 

facilities by closing one Armed Forces Reserve Center, and moving two major commands onto 

Active Army installations thus significantly reducing operating costs and creating improved 

business processes. The implementation of this recommendation and creation of these new 

command structures will enhance military value, improve homeland defense capability, greatly 

improve training and deployment capability, create significant efficiencies and cost savings, and 

is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army transformational objectives. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$13.1M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $29.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $22.5M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $2.4M with a payback expected in 16 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $1.5M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 499 jobs (305 direct and 194 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 65 jobs (43 direct and 22 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the 

Louisville, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 117

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: An Air Conformity determination and New Source Review and 

permitting effort will be required at Fort Jackson. To preserve historic and archeological 

resources at Fort Jackson and Fort Knox, additional training restrictions may be imposed and 

increased construction delays and costs are possible. Tribal consultations may be required at Fort 

Knox and Fort Jackson. Construction and added operations at Fort Jackson may impact 

threatened and endangered species at Fort Jackson and result in further training restrictions. This 

recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; waste management; water resources; or 

wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.2M for waste 

management and/or environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

USAR Command and Control - Southwest 

 

Recommendation: Realign the Joint Force Training Base Los Alamitos, CA by disestablishing 

the 63rd Regional Readiness Command (RRC) Headquarters, Robinson Hall, USARC and 

activating a Southwest Regional Readiness Command headquarters at Moffett Field, CA in a 

new AFRC. Realign Camp Pike Reserve Complex, Little Rock, AR by disestablishing the 90th 

RRC and activating a Sustainment Brigade. Close the Major General Harry Twaddle United 

States Armed Forces Reserve Center, Oklahoma City, OK, and relocate the 95th DIV (IT) to Fort 

Sill, OK. Realign Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, CA, by relocating the 91st Div 

(TSD) to Fort Hunter Liggett, CA. 

Justification: This recommendation transforms Reserve Component facilities and command 

and control structure throughout the Southeast Region of the United States. The implementation 

of this recommendation will enhance military value, improve homeland defense capability, 

greatly improve training and deployment capability, create significant efficiencies and cost 

savings, and is consistent with the Army’s force structure plans and Army transformational 

objectives. 

This recommendation is the result of a nation-wide analysis of Reserve Component installations 

and facilities conducted by a team of functional experts from Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, the Office of the State Adjutant General, and the Army Reserve Regional Readiness 

Command. 
Army - 118 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 

This recommendation supports the Army Reserve’s Command and Control restructuring 

initiative to reduce Regional Readiness Commands from ten to four. This recommendation 

transforms Army Reserve command and control by eliminating nondeployable command and 

control headquarters, transforming excess spaces into deployable units and moving institutional 

training units onto major training areas. It supports the Army Reserve’s Command and Control 

restructuring initiative to reduce Regional Readiness Commands from ten to four by 

disestablishing two major peacetime administrative headquarters, the 63d Regional Readiness 

Command in Los Angeles, CA and the 90th Regional Readiness Command in Little Rock, AR 

and creating a new consolidated headquarters in their place at Moffett Field, CA. It supports the 

transformation of Army Reserve Operational Force Structure by activating a sustainment brigade 

in little Rock, AR in the place of the 90th RRC, which will increase the deployable capability of 

the Army Reserve to support the Active Army. The Sustainment brigade is a new operational 

capability for the Army Reserve. This proposal transforms the Army’s training support to the 

Reserve Component by re-locating the 95th DIV (Institutional Training) from the Major General 

Harry Twaddle United States Army Reserve Center, Oklahoma City, OK to Fort Sill, OK, and 

relocating the 91st Div (Training Support) from Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, CA, 

to Fort Hunter Liggett, CA which improves operational effectiveness by putting these Training 

Divisions at major training sites in their regions. 

This recommendation considered feasible locations within the demographic and geographic areas 

of the closing facilities and affected units. The sites selected were determined as the best 

locations because they optimize the Reserve Components ability to recruit and retain Reserve 

Component soldiers and to train and mobilize units impacted by this recommendation. 

Although not captured in the COBRA analysis, this recommendation avoids an estimated 

$16.8M in mission facility renovation costs and procurement avoidances associated with meeting 

AT/FP construction standards and altering existing facilities to meet unit training and 

communications requirements. Consideration of these avoided costs would reduce costs and 

increase the net savings to the Department of Defense in the 6-year BRAC implementation 

period, and in the 20-year period used to calculate NPV. 

This recommendation provides the opportunity for other Local, State, or Federal organizations to 

partner with the Reserve Components to enhance Homeland Security and Homeland Defense at a 

reduced cost to those agencies. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $55.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $44.1M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $3.4M with a payback expected in 23 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $9.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 270 jobs (170 direct and 100 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006 – 2011 period in the Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division, which is 

less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 
Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army Army - 119

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 335 jobs (177 direct and 158 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011period in the Little 

Rock-North Little Rock, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 69 jobs (43 direct and 26 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the OaklandFremont-Hayward Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum 

potential reduction of 109 jobs (53 direct and 56 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the 

Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Numerous archeological and historic resources, coupled with regional 

tribal interest, existing restrictions and a lack of a Programmatic Agreement, may result in 

increased time delays and negotiated restrictions at Fort Sill. Significant mitigation measures to 

limit releases may be required at Fort Sill to reduce impacts to water quality. Fort Hunter Liggett 

is over or in the recharge zone of a sole source aquifer, which may result in future regulatory 

limitations on training activities. This recommendation has no impact on air quality, dredging; 

land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; 

noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; or wetlands. 

This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.02M for waste management 

and/or environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the payback 

calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 
Army - 120 Section 1: Recommendations – Department of Army 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 1

Department of the Navy 

Summary of Selection Process 

Introduction 

Building on the experience gained during previous rounds of BRAC, the Secretary of the Navy 

established policies, procedures, organizations, and internal controls that ensured that the process 

in the Department of the Navy (DoN) for making base closure and realignment recommendations 

to the Secretary of Defense was sound and in compliance with the Base Closure Act. The 

Secretary of the Navy established the Infrastructure Evaluation Group as the deliberative body 

responsible for the development of recommendations for closure and realignment of installations 

and the DoN Analysis Group as a subordinate deliberative body responsible for analyzing 

Department of the Navy unique functions. The Secretary of the Navy also established the 

Infrastructure Analysis Team to provide analytic and staff support to the Infrastructure 

Evaluation Group and DoN Navy Analysis Group. 

Strategy 

The Department of the Navy employed a multi-pronged strategy for BRAC 2005 that sought to 

rationalize and consolidate infrastructure capabilities to eliminate unnecessary excess, balance the 

effectiveness of fleet concentrations with anti-terrorism/force protection desires for dispersion of 

assets and redundancy of facilities, leverage opportunities for total force laydown and joint basing, 

accommodate changing operational concepts, and facilitate the evolution of force structure and 

infrastructure organizational alignment. In developing BRAC 2005 recommendations, the 

Department adhered to the principles that its recommendations must eliminate excess capacity, save 

money, improve operational readiness and jointness, and maintain quality of service. 

Selection Process 

Under the oversight and guidance of the Secretary of the Navy, the Infrastructure Evaluation Group 

had nine members consisting of senior DoN career civilians and Navy flag and Marine Corps 

general officers who were responsible for developing recommendations for closure and realignment 

of Navy and Marine Corps military installations or activities for approval by the Secretary of the 

Navy. The Infrastructure Evaluation Group was responsible for ensuring: that an equitable and 

complete evaluation of all Navy and Marine Corps installations was conducted in accordance with 

the Base Closure Act; that all recommendations were in compliance with the Base Closure Act and 

appropriate guidance from higher levels; that the procedures used could be appropriately reviewed 

and analyzed by the Comptroller General; and that factors of concern to the Navy and Marine Corps 

Operational Commanders were considered. In conducting its evaluation, the Infrastructure 

Evaluation Group applied the Secretary’s selection criteria and based its recommendations on the 
DoN - 2 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

20-year Force Structure Plan and infrastructure inventory. The DoN evaluation also fully 

considered surge and homeland defense missions requirements. 

The DoN Analysis Group had eleven members consisting of senior Department of the Navy career 

civilians and Navy flag and Marine Corps general officers who were responsible for conducting 

analyses and developing specific recommendations regarding closure and realignment of DoN 

military installations or activities for consideration by the Infrastructure Evaluation Group. The 

DoN Analysis Group was responsible for ensuring: that the process utilized and the conduct of the 

deliberations were in compliance with the Base Closure Act and appropriate guidance from higher 

levels; that the procedures used could be appropriately reviewed and analyzed by the Comptroller 

General; and that factors of concern to the Navy and Marine Corps Operational Commanders were 

considered. 

The Infrastructure Analysis Team, composed of military and civilian analysts and supporting staff 

from throughout the DoN and from the Center for Naval Analysis, was responsible for providing 

intensive staff support to the Infrastructure Evaluation Group and the DoN Analysis Group. 

Additionally, the Naval Audit Service and the Office of General Counsel were integrally involved 

in the process. The Naval Audit Service reviewed the activities of the Infrastructure Evaluation 

Group, DoN Analysis Group, and Infrastructure Analysis Team to ensure compliance with the 

approved Internal Control Plan and audited the accuracy and reliability of data provided by Navy 

and Marine Corps activities. The Office of the General Counsel provided senior-level legal advice 

and counsel. 

In compliance with the Internal Control Plan, a base structure database was developed that 

contained relevant information on all DoN military installations subject to the Base Closure Act. 

The DoN BRAC Information Transfer System, a secure web-based data collection and management 

tool, was the sole and authoritative base structure database. It served as the baseline for evaluation 

of all Department of the Navy installations leading to the development of BRAC 2005 

recommendations for closure and realignment. Pursuant to the certification policy promulgated by 

the Secretary of the Navy in the Internal Control Plan to comply with the provisions of the Base 

Closure Act, data that was entered into the DoN BRAC Information Transfer System had to be 

certified as accurate and complete by the officer or civilian employee who initially generated data in 

response to a request for information, and then at each succeeding level in an established 

certification chain. In conjunction with the requirement to keep records of all meetings that were 

part of the decision making process, the DoN BRAC Information Transfer System and the 

certification process were designed to ensure the accuracy of the information upon which the 

recommendations were based. 

The senior leadership of the Navy and Marine Corps was substantially involved in the process. 

Policy issues and basic principles that affect basing and infrastructure requirements were articulated, 

and comments were solicited from major “owner/operators” of Navy and Marine Corps installations 

on Fleet operations, support, and readiness impacts. Additionally, the relationship between the 

Military Departments and the Office of the Secretary of Defense for BRAC 2005 was more 

formalized and robust than in any prior round of BRAC. The Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of 

Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine 

Corps, and the Vice Chief of Naval Operations were members of the Infrastructure Executive 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 3

Council and the Infrastructure Steering Group and thus personally involved in all aspects of 

decision-making. 

In order to comply with the requirements of the Base Closure Act relating to evaluation using the 

Force Structure Plan and selection criteria, the first step in the process was to categorize and 

aggregate activities for analysis. For BRAC 2005, the Secretary of Defense directed that the 

analysis would be divided into two categories of functions with seven Joint Cross-Service 

Groups (JCSGs) analyzing common business-oriented support functions and the Military 

Departments analyzing all Service unique functions. With regard to the DoN unique functions, 

the Infrastructure Evaluation Group approved Operations, Education and Training, Headquarters 

and Support, and Other Support as the major areas for analyses. These major areas were then 

further divided into functions to ensure that installations performing like functions were 

compared to one another and to allow identification of total capacity and military value for an 

entire category of installations, as follows: Operations (Surface/Subsurface Operations, Aviation 

Operations, Ground Operations, and Munitions Storage and Distribution); Education and 

Training (Recruit Training, Officer Accession Training, and DoN Unique Professional Military 

Education); Headquarters and Support (Reserve Centers, Recruiting Districts/Stations, and 

Regional Support Activities); and Other Support (Organizational Followers, Dependent 

Activities, Stand Alone Activities, and Specialized Functions Activities). 

Of the 889 activities in the Navy and Marine Corps universe, 469 of these performed functions 

that were analyzed by one or more of the JCSGs. Thus, a significant portion of the universe was 

analyzed by the JCSGs in BRAC 2005. Of the 889 activities, 590 of these performed unique 

functions that were analyzed by the Department of the Navy. In some instances, an activity was 

analyzed by the DoN and one or more JCSGs. The universe of activities was carefully reviewed 

to ensure that every activity fell under the analytic purview of either the DoN or a JCSG. 

Finally, because the BRAC 2005 analysis was conducted on a functional rather than an 

installation basis, it was necessary to ensure that the totality of activities covered the universe of 

Department of the Navy bases. 

The next step in the BRAC 2005 process was the development of requests for information, or data 

calls, for the purpose of collecting all types of information required for development of the base 

structure database and use in subsequent analyses. The JCSGs and Military Departments jointly 

developed an initial capacity data call that was sent to all Navy and Marine Corps activities. 

Supplemental capacity data calls were developed and issued in the same manner except that they 

were issued to a smaller or targeted group of activities. A second series of data calls was then 

issued to obtain information necessary to conduct military value and other selection criteria 

analyses. Like the supplemental capacity data calls, these data calls were issued to targeted DoN 

activities. Because most Department of the Navy activities perform more than one function, each 

activity normally received multiple data calls. Additional data calls were issued during the scenario 

analysis phase. The DoN BRAC Information Transfer System was used for the distribution of data 

calls and collection of activity responses and supporting documentation. 

Capacity analysis compared the current base structure to the future force structure requirements to 

determine whether excess base structure capacity exists within a given functional area. Capacity 

analysis was conducted on a functional basis (e.g., ship berthing) rather than by installation category 
DoN - 4 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

(e.g., Naval Stations). For each function, measures of capacity were selected which reflected the 

appropriate "metric" for that function. For example, the metric used in the Aviation Operations 

Function was the Hangar Module, i.e., that amount of hangar, apron, maintenance, and 

administrative space necessary to support a squadron of aircraft. If total current capacity in a 

function was greater than the capacity required to support the future force structure, excess capacity 

was deemed to exist within a particular function. The other steps in the process were designed to 

allow the narrowing of focus to develop options for reducing that excess. Of the 14 functions 

evaluated, two (Ground Operations and Specialized Functions Activities) demonstrated either little 

or no excess capacity. 

Except for a limited number of activities in the “Other Support” area, each activity performing a 

given function was subjected to a military value analysis using a quantitative methodology that was 

as objective as possible. The foundation of the analysis was the Secretary’s selection criteria. The 

purpose of the military value analysis was to assess the relative military value of activities 

performing a given function. Information from the military value data call responses was displayed 

in a matrix and scored by the DoN Analysis Group according to its relative importance for a 

particular function. A military value score for a particular activity is a relative measure of military 

value only within the context of the function in which that activity was analyzed, in order to 

compare one activity within a function against another in that function. 

The results of the capacity analyses and military value analyses were then combined in that stage of 

the process called configuration analysis. The purpose of configuration analysis was to identify for 

each function that set of activities that best meets the needs of the Navy and Marine Corps, in light 

of future requirements, while eliminating the most excess capacity. Configuration analysis used a 

mixed-integer linear programming solver, AMPL/CPLEX, to generate multiple solutions for an 

optimization model that allowed the DoN Analysis Group to explore tradeoffs between eliminating 

excess capacity and retaining sites having high military value. 

The configuration analysis solutions were used by the DoN Analysis Group as the starting point for 

the development of potential closure and realignment scenarios that would undergo analysis to 

determine return on investment. Scenario development was an iterative process in which results of 

the Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) analyses and inputs from senior Defense 

leadership were used to generate additional options. An integral part of scenario development was 

the input received from the Fleet, the major claimants (including the System Commands), and the 

Department’s civilian leadership. The Fleet Commanders and major claimants provided input both 

directly, during meetings, and indirectly, through scenario data call responses. As a result of the 

scenario development portion of the DoN BRAC 2005 process, the DoN Analysis Group/ 

Infrastructure Evaluation Group developed and analyzed 187 scenarios involving 344 activities.

COBRA analyses were conducted on all of these scenarios, using certified responses to scenario 

data calls from the chains of command of affected installations and their tenants. In analyzing these 

responses, the DoN Analysis Group aggressively challenged cost estimates to ensure both their 

consistency with standing policies and procedures and their reasonableness. With reductions in 

budgets and force structure, the DoN Analysis Group reviewed the data call responses to ensure that 

out year requirements were appropriately reduced in terms of personnel, facilities, and capacities of 

remaining facilities. The COBRA algorithms were used as a tool to ensure the recommendations 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 5

were cost effective. The DoN Analysis Group and the Infrastructure Evaluation Group were 

particularly sensitive to up-front costs and the length of time required to obtain a return on 

investment because of the difficulties in ensuring sufficient funding and resources to execute base 

closure. As a result, a significant majority of the Department of the Navy recommendations will 

obtain a return on investment within four years, with savings offsetting costs of closure within the 

closure implementation period. 

The impact on the local economic area for each installation considered for closure or realignment 

was assessed during the scenario analysis process using an Economic Impact Tool that provided a 

uniform methodology for estimating the total direct and indirect job changes associated with a 

closure or realignment scenario. The DoN is very concerned about economic impact and has made 

every effort to fully understand all of the economic impacts its recommendations might have on 

local communities. 

The Department of the Navy also assessed the ability of the infrastructure of both the existing and 

potential receiving communities to support forces, missions, and personnel by analyzing 

infrastructure impacts of different scenarios in the following ten community attributes: 

demographics, child care, cost of living, education, employment, housing, medical providers, 

safety/crime, transportation, and utilities. No significant community infrastructure impediments 

were identified for any of the DoN proposed closure or realignment actions. 

In order to assess and consider the environmental impacts of different closure and realignment 

scenarios, the following environmental resource areas were identified for consideration: air 

quality; cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive 

resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered 

species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands. For those 

scenarios for which COBRA analysis was completed and for which it was determined that a 

complete criteria review would be conducted, a Summary of Scenario Environmental Impacts 

was prepared. The Summary of Scenario Environmental Impacts consisted of an overview of the 

certified data, including the costs related to potential environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities, and summarized the environmental 

impacts associated with a particular scenario. To assist in the assessment of the cumulative 

environmental impacts from all scenarios at a particular installation, a Summary of Cumulative 

Environmental Impacts was also prepared for each gaining installation. The environmental 

impact analysis permitted the Department of the Navy to obtain a comprehensive picture of the 

potential environmental impacts arising from the recommendations for closure and realignment. 

No environmental impacts that would preclude implementation were identified for any scenario. 

Finally, as noted above, the Secretary of Defense mandated in BRAC 2005 that the JCSGs would 

analyze common business-oriented functions. The Joint Cross-Service recommendations 

impacted numerous Navy and Marine Corps installations. In some instances, the Joint CrossService recommendation resulted in a realignment of the installation. In other cases, the 

recommendation or series of recommendations allowed for closure of the installation fenceline, 

thereby generating additional savings and reductions in excess capacity. Those 

recommendations are included within the Department of the Navy recommendations. 

The recommendations approved by the Secretary of Defense follow:
DoN - 6 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

Recommendations and Justifications

Recommendation for Realignment 

Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, CA 

Recommendation: Realign Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow, CA. Disestablish the depot 

maintenance of Aircraft Other Components, Aircraft Rotary, and Strategic Missiles. Consolidate 

depot maintenance of Engines/Transmissions, Other Components, and Small Arms/Personal 

Weapons at Anniston Army Depot, AL. Consolidate the depot maintenance of Conventional 

Weapons, Engines/Transmissions, Material Handling, Powertrain Components, Starters/ 

Alternators/Generators, Test Measurement Diagnostic Equipment, and Wire at Marine Corps 

Logistics Base Albany, GA. Consolidate depot maintenance of Electronic Components (NonAirborne), Electro-Optics/Night Vision/Forward-Looking-Infrared, Generators, Ground Support 

Equipment, Radar, and Radio at Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA. Consolidate depot maintenance of 

Tactical Missiles at Letterkenny Army Depot, PA. Realign Fleet Support Division Maintenance 

Center Barstow and Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow operations to increase efficiencies and 

reduce infrastructure.

Justification: This recommendation follows the strategy of minimizing sites using maximum 

capacity of 1.5 shifts while maintaining a west coast depot maintenance presence at Marine Corps 

Logistics Base Barstow to provide west coast operating forces with a close, responsive source for 

depot maintenance support. Required capacity to support workloads and core requirements for the 

DoD is relocated to other DoD Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence, thereby increasing 

the military value of depot maintenance performed at these sites. This recommendation decreases 

the cost of depot maintenance operations across DoD through consolidation and elimination of 30 

percent of duplicate overhead structures required to operate multiple depot maintenance activities. 

This recommendation supports transformation of DoD’s depot maintenance operations by 

increasing the utilization of existing capacity by up to 150 percent while maintaining capability to 

support future force structure. This recommendation also results in utilization of DoD capacity to 

facilitate performance of interservice workload. In addition, based on present and future wartime 

surge projections, Marine Corps Logistics Center Barstow will establish an additional 428 thousand 

hours of amphibious vehicle capacity. 

This recommendation along with other recommendations affecting supply and storage functions, 

optimizes the depot maintenance operations at Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $26.0M. The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a 

savings of $56.5M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after implementation are $18.4M 

with an immediate payback. The net present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 

20 years is a savings of $230.6M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 796 jobs (409 direct jobs and 387 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 7

Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact 

of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix 

B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

 

Environmental Impact: Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, GA, is in Attainment although 

Title V permit modifications will be required. There are potential impacts to cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste 

management; and wetlands. Anniston Army Depot, AL, is in Attainment. There are impacts 

anticipated for threatened and endangered species or critical habitat. Letterkenny Army Depot, 

PA is in Marginal Non-attainment for Ozone (1-Hour and 8-Hour) and an Air Conformity 

determination is required. Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA, is in Moderate Non-attainment for 

Ozone (1-Hour) and an Air Conformity determination is required. No impacts are anticipated for 

the remaining resource areas of dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine 

mammals, resources or sanctuaries; noise; or water resources. This recommendation indicates 

impacts of costs at the installations, which report $0.9M in costs for waste management and 

environmental compliance. These costs were included in payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management or environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impacts of 

all the recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this 

recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure 

Naval Support Activity Corona, CA

Recommendation: Close Naval Support Activity Corona, CA. Relocate Naval Surface Warfare 

Center Division Corona, CA to Naval Base Ventura County (Naval Air Station Point Mugu), 

CA. 

Justification: The Naval Surface Warfare Center Division Corona performs three required 

missions for Department of the Navy (Independent Assessment Capability, Metrology and 

Calibration Laboratories, and Tactical Aircrew Combat Training System Ranges). It was 

analyzed under 11 Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation functions (Air 

Platforms Development & Acquisition; Air Platforms Test & Evaluation; Ground Vehicles Test 

and Evaluation; Information Systems Technology Development & Acquisition; Information 

Systems Technology Test & Evaluation; Sea Vehicles Development & Acquisition; Sea Vehicles 

Test & Evaluation; Sensors, Electronics, and Electronic Warfare Development & Acquisition; 

Sensors, Electronics, and Electronic Warfare Test & Evaluation; Weapons Technology 

Development & Acquisition; and Weapons Technology Test & Evaluation). In each functional 

area, Naval Surface Warfare Center Division Corona’s quantitative military value scores fell in 
DoN - 8 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

the bottom half of facilities performing the same function, and thus were reviewed for relocation 

and/or consolidation with like functions. The Department of the Navy determined it would lose 

a critical capability if the 11 functions were relocated to a variety of locations, since this would 

fracture the full spectrum warfare center and independent assessment capability. Considering the 

overall military value and the fact that Naval Support Activity Corona was a single function 

facility, the Department reviewed the possibility of relocating the Naval Surface Warfare Center 

functions to a multi-functional location with the capability to host these functions. Relocation of 

Naval Surface Warfare Center Division Corona to Naval Air Station Point Mugu collocates it 

with other Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation activities and with fleet 

assets at Naval Air Station Point Mugu. This consolidation of space will provide a more 

efficient organization with greater synergies and increased effectiveness. 

Relocation of Naval Surface Warfare Center Division Corona Research, Development & 

Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation functions to Naval Air Station Point Mugu removes the 

primary mission from Naval Support Activity Corona and eliminates or moves the entirety of the 

workforce at Naval Support Activity Corona except for those personnel associated with the base 

operations support function. As a result, retention of Naval Support Activity Corona is no longer 

necessary. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $80.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $65.5M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $6.0M with a payback expected in 15 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $0.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,796 jobs (892 direct jobs and 904 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic 

impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

 

Environmental Impact: Naval Air Station Point Mugu, CA, is in Severe Non-attainment for 

Ozone (1-Hour) but no Air Conformity Determination will be required. There are potential 

impacts for cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; threatened and endangered species; waste 

management and wetlands. No impacts are anticipated for dredging; land use constraints or 

sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise or water resources. 

This recommendation indicates impacts of costs at the installations involved, which reported 

$410 thousand in costs for waste management and environmental compliance. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs 

of environmental restoration, waste management or environmental compliance activities. The 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 9

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure 

Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment, Concord, CA 

Recommendation: Close the Inland area of Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment, 

Concord CA, except retain such property and facilities as are necessary to support operations in 

the Tidal area of Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord. The Tidal area of 

Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord, along with the retained portion of the 

Inland area, shall be transferred to the Army. 

Justification: While Department of the Navy weapons stations have no excess capacity for 

loading and distribution of munitions, there is an excess of munitions storage capacity. Because 

of the departure of Fleet units from the San Francisco area in the 1990s, Naval Weapons Station 

Seal Beach Detachment Concord’s Inland magazine field has been in a reduced operating status 

since 1999. At that time, the Inland area was retained in an effort to minimize risk should a 

future need develop to expand storage capacity. The Explosive Safety Quantity Distance arcs in 

the Inland area were available to allow safe, temporary holding of railcars with munitions 

destined for loading by the Army-managed Marine Ocean Terminal Concord (at the Tidal area) 

during high tempo operations. After consultation with Combatant Commanders, the Army 

Material Command and the Army component of the U.S. Transportation Command, the 

Department of the Navy has concluded this capability is no longer necessary. The Inland area is 

excess to Department of the Navy/DoD needs and is severable. The closure of the Inland area, 

therefore, will save money and have no impact on mission capability. 

The City of Concord requested closure of both the Inland and Tidal portions of Naval Weapons 

Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord. Munitions loading requirements preclude closing the 

Tidal area but the Inland area is excess and may be closed. Because Tidal area operations are in 

support of the Army component of the U.S. Transportation Command, transfer of the property to 

the Army aligns the property holder with the property user. 

 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $14.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $43.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $16.4M with a payback expected in one year. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $199.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will not result in any job reductions 

(direct or indirect) over the 2006-2011 period in the Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA, 

Metropolitan Division economic area. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 
DoN - 10 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

 

Environmental Impact: Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord, CA, is in 

Extreme Non-attainment for Ozone (1-Hour) but no Air Conformity Determination will be 

required. There are potential impacts for cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; threatened 

and endangered species or critical habitat; and wetlands that may impact new construction. No 

impacts are anticipated for dredging, land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine 

mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; waste management or water resources. This 

recommendation indicates impacts of costs at the installation involved, which indicated $0.3M in 

costs for waste management and environmental compliance. These costs were included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure 

Submarine Base New London, CT 

Recommendation: Close Naval Submarine Base New London, CT. Relocate its assigned 

submarines, Auxiliary Repair Dock 4 (ARDM-4), and Nuclear Research Submarine 1 (NR-1) 

along with their dedicated personnel, equipment and support to Submarine Base Kings Bay, GA, 

and Naval Station Norfolk, VA. Relocate the intermediate submarine repair function to Shore 

Intermediate Repair Activity Norfolk, at Naval Shipyard Norfolk, VA, and Trident Refit Facility 

Kings Bay, GA. Relocate the Naval Submarine School and Center for Submarine Learning to 

Submarine Base Kings Bay, GA. Consolidate the Naval Security Group Activity Groton, CT 

with Naval Security Group Activity Norfolk, VA at Naval Station Norfolk, VA. Consolidate 

Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory Groton, CT, with Naval Medical Research 

Center at Walter Reed Army Medical Center Forest Glenn Annex, MD. Relocate Naval 

Undersea Medical Institute Groton, CT to Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL, and Fort Sam 

Houston, TX. Consolidate Navy Region Northeast, New London, CT, with Navy Region, MidAtlantic, Norfolk, VA. 

Justification: The existing berthing capacity at surface/subsurface installations exceeds the 

capacity required to support the Force Structure Plan. The closure of Submarine Base New 

London materially contributes to the maximum reduction of excess capacity while increasing the 

average military value of the remaining bases in this functional area. Sufficient capacity and 

fleet dispersal is maintained with the East Coast submarine fleet homeports of Naval Station 

Norfolk and Submarine Base Kings Bay, without affecting operational capability. The 

intermediate submarine repair function is relocated to Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity 

Norfolk at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and the Trident Refit Facility Kings Bay, GA, in support of 

the relocating submarines. Consolidating the Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 11

with assets at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center Forest Glenn Annex will create a DoD 

Center of Hyperbaric and Undersea Medicine that will increase synergy by consolidating 

previously separate animal and human research capabilities at a single location. The 

consolidation of Navy Region, Northeast with Navy Region, Mid-Atlantic is one element of the 

Department of the Navy efforts to reduce the number of Installation Management Regions from 

twelve to eight. Consolidation of the Regions rationalizes regional management structure and 

allows for opportunities to collocate regional entities to align management concepts and 

efficiencies. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $679.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $345.4M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $192.8M with a payback expected in three years. The net present value of 

the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $1,576.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 15,808 jobs (8,457 direct jobs and 7,351 

indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, which is 9.4 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic 

impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Naval Station Norfolk, VA is in Maintenance for Ozone (1-Hour) and 

Marginal Non-attainment for Ozone (8-Hour). An Air Conformity Determination may be 

required. There are potential impacts for dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; 

threatened and endangered species; and water resources. Naval Shipyard Norfolk, VA, has the 

same air status as Naval Station Norfolk. There may be similar water resource impacts. 

Submarine Base Kings Bay, GA, is in Attainment. There are potential impacts for dredging; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; threatened and endangered species; and water 

resources. Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL, is in Attainment. There are potential impacts to 

cultural, archeological, tribal resources; waste management; and wetlands. Walter Reed Medical 

Center-Forrest Glen Annex, MD, is in Severe Non-attainment for Ozone (1-Hour and 8-Hour) 

and an Air Conformity Determination will be required. There are potential impacts to land use 

constraints or sensitive resources, and wetlands. Fort Sam Houston, TX, is in Attainment. There 

are potential impacts to cultural, archeological, tribal resources; threatened and endangered 

species; and water resources. No impacts are anticipated for the remaining resource areas of 

noise; or waste management. This recommendation indicates impacts of costs at the installations 

involved, which reported $11.3M in costs for waste management and environmental compliance. 

These costs were included in the payback calculation. Naval Submarine Base New London, CT, 

the closing installation, reports $23.9M in costs for environmental restoration. Because the 

Department has a legal obligation to perform environmental restoration regardless of whether an 
DoN - 12 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

installation is closed, realigned, or remains open, this cost is not included in the payback 

calculation. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting 

the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Realignment 

Officer Training Command, Pensacola, FL

Recommendation: Realign Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL by relocating Officer Training 

Command Pensacola, FL to Naval Station Newport, RI, and consolidating with Officer Training 

Command Newport, RI. 

 

Justification: Navy Officer Accession Training is currently conducted at three installations: (1) 

U.S. Naval Academy Annapolis, MD hosts Midshipman Training; (2) Naval Station Newport 

hosts Naval Academy Preparatory School and Officer Training Command Newport, which 

includes Officer Indoctrination School and Seaman to Admiral-21 Program courses; and (3) 

Naval Air Station Pensacola hosts Officer Training Command Pensacola which includes Navy 

Officer Candidate School, Limited Duty Officer Course, Chief Warrant Officer Course, and the 

Direct Commissioning Program. Consolidation of Officer Training Command Pensacola and 

Officer Training Command Newport will reduce inefficiencies inherent in maintaining two sites 

for similar training courses through reductions in facilities requirements, personnel requirements 

(including administrative and instructional staff), and excess capacity. This action also supports 

the Department of the Navy initiative to create a center for officer training at Naval Station 

Newport. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $3.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $1.4M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $0.9M with a payback expected in 4 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $10.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 675 jobs (295 direct jobs and 380 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL, Metropolitan Statistical Area, 

which is 0.3 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Naval Station Newport, RI, is in Serious Non-attainment for Ozone (1-

Hour) and in Moderate Non-attainment for Ozone (8-Hour) but no Air Conformity 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 13

Determination will be required. No impacts are anticipated for air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation does not impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure 

Naval Air Station Atlanta, GA

Recommendation: Close Naval Air Station Atlanta, GA. Relocate its aircraft and necessary 

personnel, equipment and support to Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, LA; 

Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, TX; and Robins Air Force Base, Robins, GA. 

Relocate Reserve Intelligence Area 14 to Fort Gillem, Forest Park, GA. Relocate depot 

maintenance Aircraft Components, Aircraft Engines, Fabrication and Manufacturing, and 

Support Equipment in support of F/A-18, C-9 and C-12 aircraft to Fleet Readiness Center West 

Site Fort Worth at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, TX. Relocate intermediate 

maintenance in support of E-2C aircraft to Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic Site New 

Orleans at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, LA. Consolidate the Naval Air 

Reserve Atlanta with Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Atlanta located at Dobbins Air 

Reserve Base, Marietta, GA. Retain the Windy Hill Annex. 

Justification: This recommendation reduces excess capacity while maintaining reserve forces in 

regions with favorable demographics. The aviation assets will be located closer to their theater 

of operations and/or will result in increased maintenance efficiencies and operational synergies. 

Relocating Reserve Intelligence Area 14 to Fort Gillem creates synergies with joint intelligence 

assets while maintaining the demographic base offered by the Atlanta area for this function. The 

Fleet Readiness Center portion of this recommendation realigns and merges depot and 

intermediate maintenance activities. It supports both DoD and Navy transformation goals by 

reducing the number of maintenance levels and streamlining the way maintenance is 

accomplished with associated significant cost reductions. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $43.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $289.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $66.1M with an immediate payback expected. The net present value of 

the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $910.9M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 2,186 jobs (1,420 direct jobs and 766 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate 
DoN - 14 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered 

and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, TX, is in Serious 

Non-attainment for Ozone (1-Hour) and an Air Conformity Determination may be required. 

There are potential impacts to waste management. Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New 

Orleans, LA is in Attainment. Robins Air Force Base, GA, is in Attainment. There are potential 

impacts to cultural, archeological, tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource 

areas; noise; waste management; water resources; and wetlands. No impacts are anticipated for 

the resource areas of dredging, marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; or threatened and 

endangered species. For Fort Gillem, GA, and Dobbins Air Reserve Base, GA, there are no 

anticipated impacts regarding the resource areas of air quality; cultural, archeological, tribal 

resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, 

resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species; waste management; water 

resources; or wetlands. This recommendation indicates impacts of costs at the installations 

involved, which reported $0.2M in costs for waste management and environmental compliance. 

These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise 

impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management or environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure 

Navy Supply Corps School Athens, GA 

Recommendation: Close the naval installation at Athens, GA. Relocate the Navy Supply 

Corps School and the Center for Service Support to Naval Station Newport, RI. Disestablish the 

Supply Corps Museum. 

Justification: This recommendation closes a single-function installation and relocates its 

activities to a multi-functional installation with higher military value. Naval Station Newport has 

a significantly higher military value than Navy Supply Corps School and the capacity to support 

the Navy Supply Corps School training mission with existing infrastructure, making relocation 

of Navy Supply Corps School to Naval Station Newport desirable and cost efficient. Relocation 

of this function supports the Department of the Navy initiative to create a center for officer 

training at Naval Station Newport. 

Center for Service Support, which establishes curricula for other service support training, is 

relocated to Naval Station Newport with the Navy Supply Corps School to capitalize on existing 

resource and personnel efficiencies. 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 15

 

Relocation of the Navy Supply Corps School and Center for Service Support to Naval Station 

Newport removes the primary mission from the naval installation at Athens and removes or 

relocates the entirety of the Navy workforce at the naval installation at Athens, except for those 

personnel associated with base support functions. As a result, retention of the naval installation 

at Athens is no longer required. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $23.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $13.6M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $3.5M with a payback expected in 7 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $21.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 831 jobs (513 direct jobs and 318 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Athens-Clark County, GA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 

0.9 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

 

Environmental Impact: Naval Station Newport, RI, is in Serious Non-attainment for Ozone (1-

Hour), however, an Air Conformity Determination will not be required. There are potential 

impacts for cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; and water resources. No impacts are 

anticipated for dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, 

resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species; waste management; or 

wetlands. This recommendation will impact environmental costs at the installations involved, 

which reported $0.03M in costs for waste management and environmental compliance. These 

costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management or environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure 

Naval Support Activity New Orleans, LA

Recommendation: Close Naval Support Activity New Orleans, LA. Relocate the Navy 

Reserve Personnel Command and the Enlisted Placement and Management Center to Naval 

Support Activity Mid-South, Millington, TN and consolidate with the Navy Personnel Command 

at Naval Support Activity Mid-South, Millington, TN. Relocate the Naval Reserve Recruiting 

Command to Naval Support Activity Mid-South, Millington, TN and consolidate with the Navy 
DoN - 16 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

Recruiting Command at Naval Support Activity Mid-South, Millington, TN. Relocate the Navy 

Reserve Command to Naval Support Activity Norfolk, VA, except for the installation 

management function, which consolidates with Navy Region Southwest, Naval Station San 

Diego, CA, Navy Region Northwest, Submarine Base Bangor, WA, and Navy Region Midwest, 

Naval Station Great Lakes, IL. Relocate Headquarters, Marine Forces Reserve to Naval Air 

Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, LA, and consolidate with Marine Corps Reserve 

Support Command element of Mobilization Command, which is relocating from Marine Corps 

Support Activity, Kansas City, MO. Relocate Naval Air Systems Command Support Equipment 

Facility New Orleans, LA, Navy Recruiting District New Orleans, LA, and the Navy Reserve 

Center New Orleans, LA, to Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, LA. Relocate 

8th Marine Corps District to Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, TX. Consolidate 

Naval Support Activity New Orleans, LA installation management function with Naval Air 

Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, LA. 

Justification: The collocation of the Navy Reserve Personnel Command, the Enlisted 

Placement Management Center, and Naval Reserve Recruiting Command at Naval Support 

Activity Mid-South, Millington creates a Navy Human Resources Center of Excellence, 

improves personnel life-cycle management, and furthers active and reserve component total 

force integration and effectiveness. This recommendation consolidates Reserve personnel and 

recruiting headquarters with like active component functions in a single location and eliminates 

stand-alone headquarters. In addition, activities of the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Navy 

Manpower Analysis Center and Navy Personnel Research and Development Center are currently 

located at Naval Support Activity Mid-South. 

The relocation of the Navy Reserve Command comprised of Navy Reserve Forces Command, 

Navy Reserve Forces, and Naval Reserve Air Forces, to Naval Support Activity Norfolk, VA 

will enhance internal active and reserve component interoperability. By locating the reserve 

headquarters elements on the same base with Fleet Forces Command, its active component 

headquarters, this recommendation will significantly increase interaction between the two 

components, produce a reduction in force size by eliminating duplicative staff, and allow for 

further decrease in staffing size for common support functions. The consolidation of the Navy 

Reserve Command installation management functions with other Navy Regional organizations is 

part of the Department of the Navy efforts to streamline regional management structure and to 

institute consistent business practices. 

The relocation of Headquarters, Marine Forces Reserve and the Marine Corps Reserve Support 

Command element of Mobilization Command to Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New 

Orleans maintains a central location for management of widely-dispersed Marine Corps Reserve 

elements and allows consolidation of Marine Reserve management functions. Marine Corps 

Reserve Support Command is currently the only geographically separated element of the Marine 

Forces Reserve. Consolidation with its Headquarters will significantly increase interaction and 

operational efficiency as well as eliminate duplicative staff. Location of this consolidated 

headquarters at a joint reserve base will enhance joint service interoperability concepts. 

Relocation of 8th Marine Corps District to Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth 

moves this management organization within their geographic area of responsibility. It also 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 17

places them at a major transportation node with reduced average distance to managed recruiting 

stations. 

Relocating these functions removes the primary missions from Naval Support Activity New 

Orleans, and eliminates or moves the entirety of the workforce except for those personnel 

associated with the base operations support function and a number of smaller tenant activities. 

As a result, retention of Naval Support Activity New Orleans is no longer required. 

Accordingly, this recommendation closes the installation and eliminates or relocates the 

remaining base operations support personnel and tenant activities. Base operations support 

organizations and tenant activity services currently shared between Naval Support Activity New 

Orleans and Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans consolidate at Naval Air Station 

Joint Reserve Base New Orleans to support the remaining area population. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $164.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $86.1M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $36.5M with a payback expected in three years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $276.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 2,096 jobs (1,192 direct jobs and 904 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, which is 0.3 percent of the economic area employment. The aggregate 

economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was 

considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, LA is in 

Attainment. There are potential impacts to waste management and wetlands. Naval Air Station 

Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, TX is in Serious Non-attainment for Ozone (1-Hour) and in 

Moderate Non-attainment for Ozone (8-Hour), however, no Air Conformity Determination will 

be required. No impacts are anticipated for air quality; cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; 

dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species; or water resources. Naval Support 

Activity Mid-South Millington, TN, Naval Station San Diego, CA, Naval Submarine Base 

Bangor, WA, Naval Station Great Lakes, IL and Naval Support Activity Norfolk, VA report that 

there are no impacts anticipated for air quality; cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; 

dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources or 

sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species; waste management; water resources; or 

wetlands. This recommendation indicates impacts of costs at the installations involved, which 

reported $0.3M in costs for waste management and environmental compliance. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs 
DoN - 18 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

of environmental restoration, waste management or environmental restoration. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Realignment 

Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME 

Recommendation: Realign Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME to a Naval Air Facility and 

relocate its aircraft along with dedicated personnel, equipment and support to Naval Air Station 

Jacksonville, FL. Consolidate Aviation Intermediate Maintenance with Fleet Readiness Center 

Southeast Jacksonville, FL. 

Justification: The realignment of Naval Air Station Brunswick will reduce operating costs while 

single siting the East Coast Maritime Patrol community at Naval Air Station Jacksonville. This 

recommendation retains an operational airfield in the northeast that can be used to support the 

homeland defense mission, as needed, and maintains strategic flexibility. The Fleet Readiness 

Center portion of this recommendation realigns and merges depot and intermediate maintenance 

activities. It supports both DoD and Naval transformation goals by reducing the number of 

maintenance levels and streamlining the way maintenance is accomplished with associated 

significant cost reductions. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $147.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $112.6M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $34.9M with a payback expected in four years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $238.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 4,266 jobs (2,420 direct jobs and 1,846 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Portland-South Portland-Biddeford ME Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, which is 1.3 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic 

impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL, is in Maintenance for Ozone (1-

Hour) and no Air Conformity Determination is required. This recommendation has no impact on 

air quality; cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive 

resource areas; marine mammals, resources or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered 

species or critical habitat; or water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation indicates 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 19

impacts of costs at the installations involved, which reported $0.2M in costs for waste 

management and environmental compliance. These costs were included in the payback 

calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the cost of environmental 

restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure 

Marine Corps Support Activity Kansas City, MO 

Recommendation: Close Marine Corps Support Activity, Kansas City, MO. Relocate Marine 

Corps Reserve Support Command element of Mobilization Command to Naval Air Station Joint 

Reserve Base New Orleans, LA, and consolidate with Headquarters, Marine Forces Reserve. 

Retain an enclave for the 9th Marine Corps District and the 24th Marine Regiment. 

Justification: The relocation of Marine Corps Reserve Support Command and its parent 

command, Headquarters, Marine Forces Reserve to Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New 

Orleans maintains a central location for management of widely dispersed Marine Corps Reserve 

elements and allows consolidation of Marine Reserve management functions. Marine Reserve 

Support Command is currently the only geographically separated element of the Marine Forces 

Reserve. Consolidation with its headquarters will significantly increase interaction and 

operational efficiency as well as eliminate duplicative staff. Location of this consolidated 

headquarters at a joint reserve base will enhance joint service interoperability concepts. 

Relocating these functions removes the primary missions from Marine Corps Support Activity 

Kansas City and eliminates or moves the entirety of the workforce except for those personnel 

associated with the 9th Marine Corps District and 24th Marine Regiment. This recommendation 

closes the Marine Corps Support Activity but retains an enclave for these organizations. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $23.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $8.0M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $5.8M with a payback expected in three years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $49.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 583 jobs (333 direct jobs and 250 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Kansas City, MO-KS, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 

less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 
DoN - 20 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, LA, is in 

Attainment. There are potential impacts to water resources. No impacts are anticipated for air 

quality; cultural, archeological or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive 

resource areas; marine mammals, resources or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered 

species; waste management; or wetlands. This recommendation indicates impacts of costs at the 

installations involved, which reported $0.2M in costs for waste management and environmental 

compliance. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does 

not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management or environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure 

Naval Station Pascagoula, MS 

Recommendation: Close Naval Station Pascagoula, MS. Relocate its ships along with 

dedicated personnel, equipment, and support to Naval Station Mayport, FL. Relocate the ship 

intermediate repair function to Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity Mayport, FL. 

Justification: This recommendation will reduce excess berthing capacity while allowing for 

consolidation of surface ships in a fleet concentration area. Sufficient capacity and fleet 

dispersal is maintained with East Coast surface fleet homeports of Naval Station Norfolk and 

Naval Station Mayport, FL. Gulf Coast presence can be achieved as needed with available Navy 

ports at Naval Air Station Key West, FL, and Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL. The Guided 

Missile Cruisers (CG-47 Class) at Naval Station Pascagoula are scheduled for decommissioning 

prior to FY 2006 and will not relocate. This recommendation also supports mission elimination 

at Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity Pascagoula and reduces excess repair capacity. The 

Defense Common Ground Station-Navy 2 facility can be relocated to another Naval activity or 

remain in its present location as a tenant of the U.S. Coast Guard, if the Coast Guard elects to 

assume property ownership of some or all of the Pascagoula facility. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $17.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $220.0M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $47.4M with an immediate payback expected. The net present value of 

the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $665.7M. 

This recommendation affects the U.S. Coast Guard, a non-DoD Federal Agency. In the absence 

of access to credible cost and savings information for that agency or knowledge regarding 

whether the agency will remain on the installation, the Department assumed that the non-DoD 

Federal agency will be required to assume new base operating responsibilities on the affected 

installation. The Department further assumed that because of these new base-operating 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 21

responsibilities, the effect of the recommendation on the non-DoD agency would be an increase 

in its costs. As required by Section 2913(d) of the BRAC statute, the Department has taken the 

effect on the costs of this agency into account when making this recommendation. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,762 jobs (963 direct jobs and 799 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Pascagoula, MS, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 2.6 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Naval Station Mayport, FL, is in Maintenance for Ozone (1-Hour), but 

an Air Conformity Determination is not required. No impacts are anticipated for cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation indicates 

impacts of costs at the installations involved, which reported $0.02M in costs for waste 

management and environmental compliance. These costs were included in the payback 

calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management or environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure and Realignment 

Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove, PA, and 

Cambria Regional Airport, Johnstown, PA 

Recommendation: Close Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove, PA. Relocate 

all Navy and Marine Corps squadrons, their aircraft and necessary personnel, equipment and 

support to McGuire Air Force Base, Cookstown, NJ. Relocate the minimum amount of 

manpower and equipment to support intermediate maintenance workload and capacity for Tire 

and Wheel, non-destruction inspections, and Aviation Life Support System equipment to 

McGuire Air Force Base. Relocate intermediate maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft 

Components, Aircraft Engines, Fabrication & Manufacturing, and Support Equipment to Fleet 

Readiness Center East, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC. Deactivate the 111th Fighter 

Wing (Air National Guard) and relocate assigned A-10 aircraft to the 124th Wing (Air National 

Guard), Boise Air Terminal Air Guard Station, Boise, ID (three primary aircraft authorized); 

175th Wing (Air National Guard), Martin State Airport Air Guard Station, Baltimore, MD, (three 

primary aircraft authorized); 127th Wing (Air National Guard), Selfridge Air National Guard 

Base, Mount Clemens, MI (three primary aircraft authorized) and retired (six primary aircraft 
DoN - 22 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

authorized). Relocate Armed Forces Reserve Center Expeditionary Combat Support manpower 

to Eglin Air Force Base, FL. Relocate Co A/228th Aviation to Fort Dix, Trenton, NJ. Relocate 

Reserve Intelligence Area 16 to Fort Dix. Establish an enclave for the Army Reserve units 

remaining on or relocating to Willow Grove and the Air National Guard 270th Engineering 

Installation Squadron. Realign Cambria Regional Airport, Johnstown, PA, by relocating Marine 

Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 775 Detachment A, to include all required personnel, 

equipment, and support, to McGuire Air Force Base. 

Justification: This recommendation will reduce excess capacity while creating new joint 

opportunities in the McGuire Air Force Base/Fort Dix/Naval Aviation Engineering Station 

Lakehurst military concentration area. This recommendation leverages maintenance and 

operational efficiencies within Marine Corps Reserve Aviation and maintains reserve forces in 

areas with favorable demographics. Inclusion of the realignment of Cambria Regional Airport in 

this recommendation allows the assets currently housed there to be collocated with their 

headquarters at McGuire Air Force Base. The major intermediate maintenance functions are 

consolidated into a Fleet Readiness Center, which reduces the number of maintenance levels and 

streamlines the way maintenance is accomplished with associated significant cost reductions. 

This recommendation enables Air Force Future Total Force transformation by consolidating the 

A-10 fleet at installations of higher military value, and contributes to Army’s establishment of 

the Northeast Army Reserve Regional Readiness Command. 

The USAF KC-135E model aircraft (16 primary aircraft authorized) at McGuire Air Force Base, NJ, 

retire. The capacity created by the Air Force force structure retirement of KC-135Es (16 primary 

aircraft authorized) from McGuire Air Force Base enables the execution of this recommendation. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $126.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $134.7M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $60.6M with a payback expected in two years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $710.5M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could 

result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,805 jobs (1,142 direct, 663 indirect) over the 2006-

2011 period in the Philadelphia, PA Metropolitan Division, which is 0.08 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 138 jobs (86 direct jobs and 52 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Johnstown, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.2 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of influence 

was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 23

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: McGuire Air Force Base, NJ, is in Severe Non-attainment for Ozone (1-

Hour). The Air Force indicates that no Air Conformity Determination is required, but an air permit 

revision may be required. There are potential impacts for cultural, archeological, tribal resources; 

noise; waste management; water resources; and wetlands. Fort Dix, NJ, is in Severe Non-attainment 

for Ozone (1-Hour and 8-Hour) and Air Conformity analysis will be required. There are potential 

impacts to cultural, archeological, tribal resources. Boise Air Terminal Air Guard Station, ID, is in 

Attainment. There are potential impacts to cultural, archeological, tribal resources; and land use 

constraints or sensitive resource areas. Martin Airport Air Guard Station, MD, is in Moderate Nonattainment for Ozone (8-Hour) and an Air Conformity Determination may be required. There are 

potential impacts to wetlands. For Eglin Air Force Base, FL, the Air Force indicates a significant air 

permit revision may be required. There are potential impacts for cultural, archeological, tribal 

resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and endangered species 

or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands. No impacts are anticipated for 

the resource areas of dredging; marine mammals, resources or sanctuaries. Selfridge Army National 

Guard Base, MI, is in Marginal Non-attainment for Ozone and an Air Conformity Determination 

will be required as well as permit revisions. There are potential impacts to cultural, archeological, 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; waste management; and 

wetlands. No impacts are anticipated for the resource areas of marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; and dredging. Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC, is in Attainment. There are 

no anticipated impacts for the resource areas of air quality; cultural, archeological, or tribal 

resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources or 

sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water 

resources; or wetlands. This recommendation indicates impacts of costs at the installations involved, 

which reported $2.5M in costs for waste management and environmental compliance. These costs 

were included in the payback calculation. Willow Grove, the closing installation, reports $10.3M in 

environmental restoration costs. Because the Department has a legal obligation to perform 

environmental restoration regardless of whether an installation is closed, realigned, or remains open, 

this cost is not included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance activities. 

The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure 

Naval Shipyard Portsmouth, Kittery, ME 

Recommendation: Close the Naval Shipyard Portsmouth, Kittery, ME. Relocate the ship depot 

repair function to Naval Shipyard Norfolk, VA, Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance 

Facility Pearl Harbor, HI and Naval Shipyard Puget Sound, WA. Relocate the Submarine 

Maintenance, Engineering, Planning and Procurement Command to Naval Shipyard Norfolk. 
DoN - 24 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

Justification: This recommendation retains one nuclear-capable shipyard on each coast, plus 

sufficient shipyard capacity to support forward deployed assets. There are four Naval Shipyards 

performing depot-level ship refueling, modernization, overhaul and repair work. There is 

sufficient excess capacity in the aggregate across the four shipyards to close either Naval 

Shipyard Pearl Harbor or Naval Shipyard Portsmouth. There is insufficient excess capacity to 

close any other shipyard or combination of shipyards. Naval Shipyard Portsmouth was selected 

for closure, rather than Naval Shipyard Pearl Harbor, because it is the only closure which could 

both eliminate excess capacity and satisfy retention of strategically-placed shipyard capability. 

Planned force structure and force positioning adjustments reflected in the 20-year Force 

Structure Plan led to the selection of Naval Shipyard Portsmouth as the preferred closure 

candidate between the two sites. Additional savings, not included in the payback analysis, are 

anticipated from reduced unit costs at the receiving shipyards because of the higher volume of 

work. 

Relocating the ship depot repair function and Submarine Maintenance, Engineering, Planning 

and Procurement Command removes the primary missions from Naval Shipyard Portsmouth and 

eliminates or moves the entirety of the workforce at Naval Shipyard Portsmouth except for those 

personnel associated with the base operations support function. Naval Shipyard Portsmouth had 

a low military value compared to operational homeports, and, its berthing capacity is not 

required to support the Force Structure Plan. Therefore, closure of Naval Shipyard Portsmouth is 

justified. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $448.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $21.4M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $128.6M with a payback expected in four years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $1,262.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 9,166 jobs (4,510 direct jobs and 4,656 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, which is 2.8 percent of the economic area employment. The aggregate 

economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was 

considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

 

Environmental Impact: Naval Shipyard Norfolk, VA, is in Maintenance for Ozone (1-Hour) 

and Marginal Non-attainment for Ozone (8-Hour). An Air Conformity Determination is 

required. There are potential impacts for cultural, archeological or tribal resources; waste 

management; and water resources. Naval Station Bremerton, WA, is in Attainment. There are 

potential impacts for cultural, archeological or tribal resources; waste management; and 

wetlands. Naval Station Pearl Harbor, HI, is in Attainment. No impacts are anticipated for the 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 25

environmental resource areas of dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resources; marine 

mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; or threatened and endangered species. This 

recommendation indicates impacts of costs at the installations involved, which reported $4.9M in 

costs for waste management and environmental compliance. These costs were included in the 

payback calculation. Naval Shipyard Portsmouth, the closing installation, reports $47.1M in 

costs for environmental restoration. Because the Department has a legal obligation to perform 

environmental restoration regardless of whether an installation is closed, realigned, or remains 

open, this cost is not included in the payback calculation. The aggregate environmental impact 

of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this 

recommendation. 

Recommendation for Realignment 

Naval Station Newport, RI

Recommendation: Realign Naval Station Newport, RI by relocating the Navy Warfare 

Development Command to Naval Station Norfolk, VA. 

Justification: Navy Warfare Development Command performs the functions of warfare 

innovation, concept development, fleet and joint experimentation, and the synchronization and 

dissemination of doctrine. Relocating the Navy Warfare Development Command to Norfolk 

better aligns the Navy’s warfare development organization with those of the other joint force 

components and Joint Forces Command, as well as places Navy Warfare Development 

Command in better proximity to Fleet Forces Command and the Second Fleet Battle Lab it 

supports, resulting in substantial travel cost savings to conduct experimentation events. Location 

of Navy Warfare Development Command in Hampton Roads area places it in proximity to Army 

Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, VA and Marine Corps Combat Development 

Command, Quantico, VA, as well as in closer proximity to the Air Force Doctrine Center at 

Maxwell Air Force Base, AL, which furthers joint interoperability concepts. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $11.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $8.3M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $1.0M with a payback expected in 13 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over the next 20 years is a savings of $2.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 490 jobs (200 direct, and 290 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate 

economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was 

considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 
DoN - 26 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Naval Station Norfolk, VA, is in Maintenance for Ozone (1-Hour) and 

Marginal Non-attainment for Ozone (8-Hour) but an Air Conformity Determination is not 

required. There are potential impacts for the environmental resource areas of cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources and wetlands. No impacts are anticipated for dredging; land 

use constraints or sensitive resources areas; marine mammals, resources or sanctuaries; noise; 

threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; or water resources. 

This recommendation indicates impacts of costs at the installations involved, which reported 

$0.075M in costs for environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management or environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure and Realignment 

Naval Station Ingleside, TX and 

 Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, TX 

Recommendation: Close Naval Station Ingleside, TX. Relocate its ships along with dedicated 

personnel, equipment and support to Naval Station San Diego, CA. Relocate the ship 

intermediate repair function to Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity San Diego, CA. 

Consolidate Mine Warfare Training Center with Fleet Anti-submarine Warfare Training Center 

San Diego, CA. Realign Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, TX. Relocate Commander Mine 

Warfare Command and Commander Mobile Mine Assembly Group to Fleet Anti-Submarine 

Warfare Center, Point Loma, CA. Relocate Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 15 

(HM-15) and dedicated personnel, equipment and support to Naval Station Norfolk, VA. 

Disestablish Commander Helicopter Tactical Wing U.S. Atlantic Fleet Aviation Intermediate 

Maintenance Detachment Truax Field at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, TX and relocate its 

intermediate maintenance function for Aircraft Components, Fabrication & Manufacturing, and 

Support Equipment to Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic Site Norfolk, VA. 

Justification: This recommendation moves mine warfare surface and aviation assets to major 

fleet concentration areas and reduces excess capacity. Gulf Coast presence can be achieved as 

needed with available Navy ports at Naval Air Station Key West, FL, and Naval Air Station 

Pensacola, FL. The Minehunter Coastal ships at Naval Station Ingleside are scheduled for 

decommissioning between FY 2006 and FY 2008 and will not relocate. Additionally, U.S. Coast 

Guard presence is expected to remain in the Gulf Coast region. Relocation of Commander Mine 

Warfare Command and the Mine Warfare Training Center to San Diego, CA, creates a center of 

excellence for Undersea Warfare, combining both mine warfare and anti-submarine warfare 

disciplines. This reorganization removes the Mine Warfare community from a location remote 

from the fleet thereby better supporting the shift to organic mine warfare. This recommendation 

also supports mission elimination at Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity Naval Reserve 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 27

Maintenance Facility Ingleside, TX, and Aviation Intermediate Maintenance Detachment Truax 

Field at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi and reduces excess repair capacity. The relocation of 

Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 15 (HM-15) to Naval Station Norfolk single sites 

all Mine Warfare Aircraft in a fleet concentration area. This location better supports the HM-15 

mission by locating them closer to the C-5 transport Air Port of Embarkation for overseas 

employment and mine countermeasures ship and helicopter coordinated exercises. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $178.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $100M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $75.6M with a payback expected in two years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $822.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 6,864 jobs (3,184 direct jobs and 3,680 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Corpus Christi, TX, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which 

is 3.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Naval Station San Diego, CA, is in Maintenance for Ozone (1-Hour), 

but an Air Conformity Determination is not required. There are potential impacts for dredging 

and wetlands. Anti-Submarine Warfare Center Point Loma is in Maintenance for Ozone (1-

Hour), but an Air Conformity Determination will not be required. There are potential impacts to 

the resource areas of land use constraints or sensitive resources. Naval Station Norfolk, VA is in 

Maintenance for Ozone (1-Hour) and Marginal Non-attainment for Ozone (8-Hour) and no Air 

Conformity Determination is required. No impacts are anticipated regarding the other resource 

areas of cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; 

noise; threatened and endangered species; waste management; or water resources. This 

recommendation indicates impacts of costs at the installations involved, which reported $1.0M in 

costs for waste management and environmental compliance. These costs were included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management or environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 
DoN - 28 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

Recommendation for Closure 

Engineering Field Division/Activity 

Recommendation: Close Naval Facilities Engineering Field Division South leased space in 

Charleston, SC. Consolidate Naval Facilities Engineering Field Division South, Charleston, SC, 

with Naval Facilities Engineering Field Activity Southeast, Jacksonville, FL, at Naval Air 

Station Jacksonville, FL; Naval Facilities Midwest, Great Lakes, IL, at Naval Station Great 

Lakes, IL; and Naval Facilities Atlantic, Norfolk, VA at Naval Station Norfolk, VA. Close 

Naval Facilities Engineering Field Activity Northeast leased space in Lester, PA. Consolidate 

Naval Facilities Engineering Field Activity Northeast, Philadelphia, PA, with Naval Facilities 

Atlantic, Norfolk, VA at Naval Station Norfolk, VA and relocate Navy Crane Center Lester, PA, 

to Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, VA. 

Justification: This recommendation enhances the Navy’s long-standing initiative to accomplish 

common management and support on a regionalized basis by consolidating and collocating 

Naval Facilities commands with the installation management Regions in Jacksonville, FL, Great 

Lakes, IL and Norfolk, VA. This collocation aligns management concepts and efficiencies and 

may allow for further consolidation in the future. 

Naval Facilities Engineering Field Division South, Naval Facilities Engineering Field Activity 

Northeast and Navy Crane Center are located in leased space, and this recommendation will 

achieve savings by moving from leased space to government-owned space. Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command is undergoing organizational transformation, and this recommendation 

facilitates the evolution of organizational alignment. This recommendation will result in an 

increase in the average military value for the remaining Naval Facilities Engineering Field 

Division/Engineering Field Activity activities, and it relocates the Navy Crane Center to a site 

with functional synergy. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $37.9M. The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is 

a cost of $9.1M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after implementation are $9.3M 

with a payback expected in four years. The net present value of the costs and savings to the 

Department over 20 years is a savings of $81.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,433 jobs (543 direct jobs and 890 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area, 

which is 0.43 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 447 jobs (247 direct jobs and 200 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Philadelphia, PA Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of influence 

was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 29

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL is in Maintenance for Ozone (1-

Hour) and Attainment for all other criteria pollutants. No Air Conformity determination will be 

required. There are potential impacts for cultural, archeological and tribal resources; and 

wetlands. Naval Station Great Lakes, IL is in Severe Non-Attainment for Ozone (1-Hour) and 

Moderate Non-Attainment for Ozone (8-Hour). An Air Conformity Determination is not 

required. Naval Shipyard Norfolk, VA is in Maintenance for Ozone (1-Hour) and Marginal NonAttainment for Ozone (8-Hour). An Air Conformity Determination is not required. Water 

Resources will be impacted. There are no anticipated impacts for air quality; dredging; land use 

constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources or sanctuaries; noise; 

threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; or water resources. 

This recommendation indicates impacts of costs at the installations involved, which reported 

$0.008M in costs for environmental compliance. These costs were included in the payback 

calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management or environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure 

Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Centers 

Recommendation: 

Close Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Encino, CA and relocate the Marine Corps units to 

Marine Corps Reserve Center Pasadena, CA. 

Close Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Moundsville, WV and relocate the Marine Corps units 

to Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Pittsburgh, PA. 

Close Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Reading, PA and relocate the Navy and Marine Corps 

units to Navy Marine Corps Reserve Centers Lehigh Valley, PA. 

Close Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Los Angeles, CA and relocate the Navy and Marine 

Corps units to Armed Forces Reserve Center Bell, CA. 

Close Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Akron, OH and Navy Reserve Center Cleveland, OH 

and relocate the Navy and Marine Corps units to Armed Forces Reserve Center Akron, OH. 
DoN - 30 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

Close Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Madison, WI, Navy Reserve Center Lacrosse, WI and 

Navy Reserve Center Dubuque, IA and relocate the Navy and Marine Corps units to Armed 

Forces Reserve Center Madison, WI. 

Close Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Baton Rouge, LA and relocate the Marine Corps units 

to Armed Forces Reserve Center Baton Rouge, LA. 

Close Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Tulsa, Ok and relocate the Navy and Marine Corps 

units to Armed Forces Reserve Center Broken Arrow, OK. 

Close Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Mobile, AL and relocate the Marine Corps units to 

Armed Forces Reserve Center Mobile, AL. 

Close Inspector-Instructor West Trenton, NJ and relocate Marine Corps reserve units and support 

staff to Navy Reserve Center Ft. Dix, NJ. 

Close Inspector-Instructor Rome, GA, and relocate Marine Corps reserve units and support staff 

to Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Atlanta, GA. 

Justification: This recommendation will reduce excess capacity through the consolidation of 12 

Navy Reserve Centers and Navy Marine Corps Reserve Centers with other reserve centers in the 

effected areas or into Armed Forces Reserve Centers. Nine of 12 of the reserve center closures 

are joint actions with the Department of the Army that support relocation into Armed Forces 

Reserve Centers. This recommendation will also relocate two Inspector-Instructor activities to 

existing reserve facilities aboard active duty bases. Sufficient capacity for drilling reserves is 

maintained throughout the United States, and all states will continue to have at least one 

Navy/Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center. This recommendation reduces excess capacity in the 

Department of the Navy reserve center functional area, but existing capacity in support of the 

Department of the Navy Reserve component continues to be in excess of force structure 

requirements. This recommendation is part of the closure of 37 Department of the Navy reserve 

centers, which includes 35 Navy centers (Navy Reserve Centers, Navy Reserve Facilities and 

Navy Marine Corps Reserve Centers) and two Marine Corps centers (Inspector-Instructor 

activities). The closure of 35 Navy centers will result in a capacity reduction of 12.7 percent of 

total current square footage. The closure of two Marine Corps centers will result in a capacity 

reduction of 5.5 percent of total current square footage. 

Payback: The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the 

closure of Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Encino, CA, is $0.1M. The net of all costs and 

savings during the implementation period is a savings of $4.6M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.8M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $12.3M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Marine Corps Reserve Center Moundsvillle, WV, is $0.2M. The net of all costs and savings to 

the Department during the implementation period is a savings of $4.7M. Annual recurring 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 31

savings to the Department after implementation are $0.9M with an immediate payback. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $13.0M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Marine Corps Reserve Center Reading, PA, is $9.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the 

Department during the implementation period is a cost of $5.0M. Annual recurring savings to 

the Department after implementation are $1.0M with a payback expected in 12 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $4.1M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Marine Corps Reserve Center Los Angeles, CA, is $12.2M. The net of all costs and savings to 

the Department during the implementation period is a cost of $8.0M. Annual recurring savings 

to the Department after implementation are $0.9M with a payback expected in 18 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $0.5M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Marine Corps Reserve Center Akron, OH, and Navy Reserve Center Cleveland, OH, is $11.8M. 

The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the implementation period is a cost of 

$4.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after implementation are $1.7M with a 

payback expected in 7 years. The net present value of the costs and savings to the Department 

over 20 years is a savings of $11.8M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Marine Corps Reserve Center Madison, WI and Navy Reserve Center Lacrosse, WI, and Navy 

Reserve Center Dubuque, IA, is $10.2M. The net of all costs and savings during the 

implementation period is a cost of $3.7M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $1.8M with a payback expected in 6 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $13.6M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Marine Corps Reserve Center Baton Rouge, LA, is $3.9M. The net of all costs and savings to 

the Department during the implementation period is a savings of $0.9M. Annual recurring 

savings to the Department after implementation are $1.0M with a payback expected in 3 years. 

The net present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of 

$10.2M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Marine Corps Reserve Center Tulsa, OK, is $5.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the 

Department during the implementation period is a cost of $3.7M. Annual recurring savings to 

the Department after implementation are $0.5M with a payback expected in 14 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $1.1M. 

 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Marine Corps Reserve Center Mobile, AL, is $8.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the 

Department during the implementation period is a cost of $4.6M. Annual recurring savings to 
DoN - 32 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

the Department after implementation are $0.7M with a payback expected in 12 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $2.4M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of 

Inspector-Instructor West Trenton, NJ, is $1.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the 

Department during the implementation period is a savings of $1.4M. Annual recurring savings 

to the Department after the implementation period are $0.5M with a payback expected in 3 years. 

The net present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of 

$5.9M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of 

Inspector-Instructor Rome, GA, is $0.05M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $0.6M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.1M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $1.9M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy 

Marine Corps Reserve Center Encino, CA will result in a maximum potential reduction of 12 

jobs (8 direct jobs and 4 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Los Angeles-Long 

Beach-Glendale, CA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center 

Moundsville, WV, will result in a maximum potential reduction of 21 jobs (16 direct jobs and 5 

indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Wheeling, WV-OH, Metropolitan Statistical 

Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Reading, 

PA, could result in a maximum potential reduction of 25 jobs (18 direct jobs and 7 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Reading, PA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

The closure of Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Los Angeles, CA, will not result in any job 

reductions (direct or indirect) over the 2006-2011 period in the Los Angeles-Long BeachGlendale, CA, Metropolitan Division. Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Los Angeles and 

Armed Forces Reserve Center Bell are in the same Metropolitan Division. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Akron, OH, 

and Navy Reserve Center Cleveland, OH will result in a maximum potential reduction of 34 jobs 

(25 direct jobs and 9 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH, 

Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Akron and Armed Forces Reserve Center Akron are in the 

same Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Madison, 

WI, and Navy Reserve Center Lacrosse, WI, and Navy Reserve Center Dubuque, IA, will result 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 33

in a maximum potential reduction of 9 jobs (7 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 

period in the LaCrosse, WI-MN, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Madison, 

WI, and Navy Reserve Center Lacrosse, WI and Navy Reserve Center Dubuque, IA, will result 

in a maximum potential reduction of 32 jobs (24 direct jobs and 8 indirect jobs) over the 2006-

2011 period in the Dubuque, IA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Madison and Armed Forces 

Reserve Center Madison are in the same Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Baton 

Rouge, LA, will result in a maximum potential reduction of 10 jobs (7 direct jobs and 3 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Baton Rouge, LA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 

less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

The closure of Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Tulsa, OK, will not result in any job 

reductions (direct or indirect) over the 2006-2011 period in the Tulsa, OK, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area. Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Tulsa and Armed Forces Reserve Center 

Broken Arrow are in the same Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Mobile, AL, 

will result in a maximum potential reduction of 7 jobs (5 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 

2006-2011 period in the Mobile, AL, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent 

of economic area employment. Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Mobile and Armed Forces 

Reserve Center Mobile are in the same Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Inspector-Instructor West Trenton, NJ, could 

result in a maximum potential reduction of 16 jobs (12 direct jobs and 4 indirect jobs) over the 

2006-2011 period in the Trenton-Ewing, NJ, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Inspector-Instructor Rome, GA, could result in a 

maximum potential reduction of 12 jobs (9 direct jobs and 3 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 

period in the Rome, GA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 
DoN - 34 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened or endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation indicates 

impacts of costs at the installations involved, which reported $0.1M in costs for environmental 

compliance activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, or environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all 

recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this 

recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure 

Navy Recruiting Districts 

Recommendation: Close the following Navy Recruiting Districts: 

 Montgomery, AL 

 Indianapolis, IN 

 Kansas City, MO 

 Omaha, NE 

 Buffalo, NY 

Justification: This recommendation achieves economies of scale and scope by reducing excess 

capacity in management overhead and physical resources in the Navy Recruiting District 

functional area. Through the elimination of leased space, the recommendation results in an 

annual lease savings of over $0.7M. The recommendation is consistent with the Commander, 

Navy Recruiting Command’s Transformation Plan, which envisions consolidation of active and 

reserve recruiting functions, and supports the reallocation of management oversight over all 

Navy recruiting functions. This recommendation involves the closure of the specified Navy 

Recruiting Districts only and does not impact the storefront recruiting offices currently assigned 

to the closing Navy Recruiting Districts. The recruiting offices and associated personnel and 

resources will be reassigned to the remaining 26 Navy Recruiting Districts. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $2.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $78.3M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $14.5M with an immediate payback. The net present value of the costs and 

savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $214.5M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 68 jobs (41 direct and 27 indirect) over the 

2006–2011 period in the Montgomery, AL, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 35

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 54 jobs (38 direct jobs and 16 indirect jobs) over the 2006–2011 period in the 

Indianapolis, IN, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 64 jobs (38 direct and 26 indirect) over the 2006–2011 period in the Kansas City, 

MO-KS, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 60 jobs (32 direct jobs and 28 indirect jobs) over the 2006–2011 period in the 

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 53 jobs (37 direct and 16 indirect) over the 2006–2011 period in the BuffaloNiagara Falls, NY, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation does not impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure 

Navy Regions 

Recommendation: Realign Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL, by consolidating Navy Region 

Gulf Coast, with Navy Region Southeast at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL. Realign Naval 

Air Station Corpus Christi, TX by consolidating Navy Region South with Navy Region Midwest 

at Naval Station Great Lakes, IL and Navy Region Southeast at Naval Station Jacksonville, FL. 
DoN - 36 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

Justification: In conjunction with other recommendations that consolidate Navy Region 

Commands, this recommendation will reduce the number of Installation Management regions 

from twelve to eight, streamlining the regional management structure and allowing for 

opportunities to collocate other regional entities to further align management concepts and 

efficiencies. Sufficient Installation Management capability resides within the remaining regions. 

As part of the closures of Naval Support Activity New Orleans, LA, and Submarine Base New 

London, CT, the Navy Reserve Forces Command installation management function and Navy 

Region Northeast are also consolidated into the remaining regions, significantly increasing 

operational efficiency. 

This recommendation supports the Department of the Navy establishment of Commander, Navy 

Installations in order to align shore assets in support of Navy requirements, to find efficiencies 

through common business practices, and to provide consistent shore installation services to allow 

the operational commander and major claimants to focus on their primary missions. 

Consolidating Navy Regions allows for more consistency in span of responsibility and better 

enables Commander, Navy Installations to provide operational forces support, community 

support, base support, and mission support to enhance the Navy’s combat power. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $3.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $8.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $2.7M with a payback expected in one year. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $34.6M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 65 jobs (24 direct jobs and 41 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL, Metropolitan Statistical Area, 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 144 jobs (59 direct jobs and 85 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Corpus Christi, TX, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation does not impact 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 37

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management or environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Closure 

Navy Reserve Centers 

Recommendation: Close the following Navy Reserve Centers: 

Tuscaloosa, AL 

St. Petersburg, FL 

Pocatello, ID 

Forest Park, IL 

Evansville, IN 

Cedar Rapids, IA 

Sioux City, IA 

Lexington, KY 

Bangor, ME 

Adelphi, MD 

Duluth, MN 

Cape Girardeau, MO 

Lincoln, NE 

Glens Falls, NY 

Horseheads, NY 

Watertown, NY 

Asheville, NC 

Central Point, OR 

Lubbock, TX 

Orange, TX 

Close the following Navy Reserve Facility: 

 Marquette, MI 

Close the following Navy Marine Corps Reserve Centers: 

 Grissom Air Reserve Base, Peru, IN 

Tacoma, WA 

Justification: This recommendation will reduce excess capacity through the consolidation of 23 

Navy Reserve Centers/Navy Reserve Facilities and Navy Marine Corps Reserve Centers with 

other reserve centers in the effected areas. These reserve centers will close and their drilling 

population supported by other existing centers; thereby reducing management overhead. 

Sufficient capacity for drilling reserves is maintained throughout the United States, and all states 

will continue to have at least one Navy Reserve Center/Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center. 

This recommendation reduces excess capacity in the Department of the Navy Reserve Center 

functional area, but existing capacity in support of the Department of the Navy Reserve 
DoN - 38 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

component continues to be in excess of force structure requirements. This recommendation is 

part of the closure of 37 Department of the Navy reserve centers, which includes 35 Navy 

centers (Navy Reserve Centers, Navy Reserve Facilities and Navy Marine Corps Reserve 

Centers) and two Marine Corps centers (Inspector-Instructor activities). The closure of 35 Navy 

centers will result in a capacity reduction of 12.7 percent of total current square footage. The 

closure of two Marine Corps centers will result in a capacity reduction of 5.5 percent of total 

current square footage. 

Payback: The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the 

closure of Navy Reserve Center Tuscaloosa, AL, is $0.05M. The net of all costs and savings to 

the Department during the implementation period is a savings of $4.2M. Annual recurring 

savings to the Department after implementation are $0.8M with an immediate payback. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $11.4M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center St. Petersburg, FL, is $0.09M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $4.5M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.8M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $12.1M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Pocatello, ID, is $0.04M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $3.3M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.6M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $9.0M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Forest Park, IL, is $0.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $7.5M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $1.4M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $20.4M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Evansville, IN, is $0.06M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $2.9M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.5M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $8.0M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Cedar Rapids, IA, is $0.05M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $2.7M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.5M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $7.2M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Sioux City, IA, is $0.05M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 39

during the implementation period is a savings of $3.1M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.6M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $8.5M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Lexington, KY, is $0.05M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $2.6M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.5M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $7.0M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Bangor, ME, is $0.04M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $3.9M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.7M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $10.5M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Adelphi, MD, is $0.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $5.0M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.9M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $13.5M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Duluth, MN, is $0.07M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $4.8M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.9M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $13.1M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Cape Girardeau, MO, is $0.06M. The net of all costs and savings to the 

Department during the implementation period is a savings of $2.7M. Annual recurring savings to 

the Department after implementation are $0.5M with an immediate payback. The net present 

value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $7.2M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Lincoln, NE, is $0.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $3.5M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.7M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $9.6M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Glens Falls, NY, is $0.04M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $4.5M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.8M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $12.3M. 
DoN - 40 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Horseheads, NY, is $0.05M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $2.3M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.4M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $6.2M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Watertown, NY, is $0.06M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $2.2M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.4M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $6.0M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Asheville, NC, is $0.07M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $3.0M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.5M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $8.0M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Central Point, OR, is $0.04M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $2.8M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.5M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $7.7M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Lubbock, TX, is $0.08M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $3.7M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.7M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $10.0M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Orange, TX, is $0.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during 

the implementation period is a savings of $6.5M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $1.3M with an immediate payback. The net present value of the costs 

and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $18.3M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Reserve Facility Marquette, MI, is $0.05M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department 

during the implementation period is a savings of $2.6M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $0.5M with an immediate payback. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $6.9M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Marine Corps Reserve Center Grissom Air Reserve Base, IN, is $0.7M. The net of all costs and 

savings to the Department during the implementation period is a savings of $3.1M. Annual 

recurring savings to the Department after implementation are $0.6M with an immediate payback. 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 41

The net present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of 

$8.5M. 

The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the closure of Navy 

Marine Corps Reserve Center Tacoma, WA, is $0.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the 

Department during the implementation period is a savings of $5.7M. Annual recurring savings 

to the Department after implementation are $1.0M with an immediate payback. The net present 

value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $15.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy 

Reserve Center Tuscaloosa, AL will result in a maximum potential reduction of 10 jobs (7 direct 

jobs and 3 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Tuscaloosa, AL, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center St. Petersburg, FL will 

result in a maximum potential reduction of 22 jobs (12 direct jobs and 10 indirect jobs) over the 

2006-2011 period in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL, Metropolitan Statistical Area, 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Pocatello, ID will result in 

a maximum potential reduction of 10 jobs (7 direct jobs and 3 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 

period in the Pocatello, ID, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Forest Park, IL, will result 

in a maximum potential reduction of 20 jobs (15 direct jobs and 5 indirect jobs) over the 2006-

2011 period in the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL, Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Evansville, IN will result 

in a maximum potential reduction of 9 jobs (7 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 

period in the Evansville, IN-KY, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Cedar Rapids, IA will 

result in a maximum potential reduction of 9 jobs (7 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 

2006-2011 period in the Cedar Rapids, IA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Lexington, KY, will result 

in a maximum potential reduction of 12 jobs (9 direct jobs and 3 indirect jobs) over the 2006-

2011 period in the Lexington-Fayette, KY, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Bangor, ME, will result in 

a maximum potential reduction of 9 jobs (7 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 
DoN - 42 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

period in the Bangor, ME, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Adelphi, MD will result in 

a maximum potential reduction of 28 jobs (17 direct jobs and 11 indirect jobs) over the 2006-

2011 period in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, Metropolitan Division, 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Duluth, MN, will result in 

a maximum potential reduction of 11 jobs (8 direct jobs and 3 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 

period in the Duluth, MN-WI, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Cape Girardeau, MO, will 

result in a maximum potential reduction of 8 jobs (7 direct jobs and 1 indirect jobs) over the 

2006-2011 period in the Cape Girardeau-Jackson, MO-IL, Micropolitan Statistical Area, which 

is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Lincoln, NE, will result in 

a maximum potential reduction of 11 jobs (7 direct jobs and 4 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 

period in the Lincoln, NE, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Glens Falls, NY, will 

result in a maximum potential reduction of 9 jobs (7 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 

2006-2011 period in the Glen Falls, NY, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Horseheads, NY, will 

result in a maximum potential reduction of 14 jobs (7 direct jobs and 7 indirect jobs) over the 

2006-2011 period in the Elmira, NY, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent 

of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Watertown, NY, will 

result in a maximum potential reduction of 15 jobs (9 direct jobs and 6 indirect jobs) over the 

2006-2011 period in the Watertown- Fort Drum, NY, Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is less 

than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Asheville, NC, will result 

in a maximum potential reduction of 9 jobs (7 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 

period in the Asheville, NC, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Central Point, OR, will 

result in a maximum potential reduction of 9 jobs (7 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 43

2006-2011 period in the Medford, OR, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Lubbock, TX, will result 

in a maximum potential reduction of 10 jobs (7 direct jobs and 3 indirect jobs) over the 2006-

2011 period in the Lubbock, TX, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Orange, TX, will result in 

a maximum potential reduction of 17 jobs (11 direct jobs and 6 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 

period in the Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Center Sioux City, IA, will result 

in a maximum potential reduction of 10 jobs (7 direct jobs and 3 indirect jobs) over the 2006-

2011 period in the Sioux City, IA-NE-SD, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Reserve Facility Marquette, MI, will result 

in a maximum potential reduction of 9 jobs (7 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 

period in the Marquette, MI, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Grissom Air 

Reserve Base, IN, will result in a maximum potential reduction of 9 jobs (7 direct jobs and 2 

indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Peru, IN, Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is 

less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center Tacoma, 

WA, will result in a maximum potential reduction of 35 jobs (20 direct jobs and 15 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Tacoma, WA, Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened or endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation does not impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance 
DoN - 44 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Recommendation for Realignment 

Navy Reserve Readiness Commands 

Recommendation: Realign Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, TX, by 

consolidating Navy Reserve Readiness Command South with Naval Reserve Readiness 

Command Midwest at Naval Station Great Lakes, IL. Realign Naval Station Newport, RI, and 

the Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC, by consolidating Naval Reserve Readiness 

Command Northeast with Naval Reserve Readiness Command Mid-Atlantic and relocating the 

consolidated commands to Naval Station, Norfolk, VA. 

Justification: This recommendation enhances the Navy’s long-standing initiative to accomplish 

common management and support on a regionalized basis, by consolidating and collocating 

reserve readiness commands with the installation management Regions. This collocation aligns 

management concepts and efficiencies and ensures a reserve voice at each region as well as 

enabling future savings through consolidation of like functions. This recommendation will result 

in an increase in the average military value for the remaining Naval Reserve Readiness 

Commands and ensures that each of the installation management Regions has an organization to 

manage reserve matters within the region. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $2.6M. The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is 

a savings of $30.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after implementation are 

$6.5M with a payback expected immediately. The net present value of the costs and savings to 

the Department over 20 years is a savings of $91.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 95 jobs (59 direct jobs and 36 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006-2011 period in the Fort Worth-Arlington, TX, Metropolitan Division, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 114 jobs (49 direct jobs and 65 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA, Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent 

of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 62 jobs (37 direct jobs and 25 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 
Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps DoN - 45

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of influence 

was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates there are 

no issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, 

forces, and personnel. There are no know community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Naval Station Great Lakes, IL, is in Severe Non-Attainment for Ozone 

(1-hour) and Moderate Non-Attainment for Ozone (8-hour). An Air Conformity Determination 

is not required. Naval Station Norfolk, VA, is in Maintenance for Ozone (1-hour) and Marginal 

Non-Attainment for Ozone (8-hour). An Air Conformity Determination is not required. This 

recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; 

dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources or 

sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; 

water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation does not impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management or environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 
DoN - 46 Section 2: Recommendations – Navy and Marine Corps 

 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 1

Department of the Air Force 

Summary of Selection Process

Introduction 

The Secretary of Defense, in initiating the BRAC 2005 effort, established the following goals: 

 

• Transform the current and future force and its support systems to meet new threats, 

• Eliminate excess physical capacity,

• Rationalize the base infrastructure with the new defense strategy,

• Maximize both warfighting capability and efficiency, and

• Examine opportunities for joint activities. 

Consistent with these goals, the Secretary of the Air Force established the following four goals to 

support right-sizing the force and enhancing its capabilities through BRAC 2005: 

• Transform by maximizing the warfighting capability of each squadron, 

• Transform by realigning Air Force infrastructure with the future defense strategy, 

• Maximize operational capability by eliminating excess physical capacity, and 

• Capitalize on opportunities for joint activity. 

Strategy 

The Air Force strategy for BRAC 2005 was to consolidate and right-size operational and support 

units and in the process reduce excess infrastructure and capacity. This strategy was dictated by 

two primary dynamics. First, over the 20-year period of the force structure plan (FSP), the 

Service’s combat force will become smaller, even as it becomes more capable. Older weapons 

systems are being replaced by more capable platforms on a less than one-for-one basis. Second, 

the current force is organized in too many small, less than optimal sized operational units. 

BRAC offered the Air Force the opportunity to rebase its current force to increase its combat 

capability and efficiency, while preparing to integrate new weapons systems into the Service 

during the 20-year period of the FSP. Concurrently, this rebasing strategy ensured that the 

restructured force provided capabilities to support the new defense strategy; increased overall 

efficiency by eliminating excess plant capacity; retained those Air Force bases that, by virtue of 

location or other difficult to reconstitute attributes, had the highest military value; supported joint 

basing initiatives where feasible; and generated savings within a reasonable period. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 2 

Selection Process 

The Air Force BRAC analysis was grounded in the 20-year Force Structure Plan, the Service’s 

facility inventory, and the BRAC selection criteria. In developing its recommendations, the Air 

Force base analysis was shaped by three underlying rules: 

• Military value, both quantitative and qualitative, was the primary factor; 

• All installations were treated equally; and 

• Installation military value was determined not only on a base’s current mission but also 

on its capacity to support other core missions. 

The Secretary of the Air Force chartered the Base Closure Executive Group (BCEG) to advise 

and assist him in developing BRAC recommendations. The BCEG comprised 12 senior military 

and civilian executives. 

Capacity Analysis 

The Air Force estimated the theoretical capacity of each installation using data collected from its 

installations, other data available at Headquarters Air Force, and weapons system templates 

provided by the Air Force Major Commands. These templates detailed operational and support 

capabilities required to host the major weapons systems. 

This capacity information, along with other inputs, was used in the Air Force Cueing Tool (the 

cueing tool is a Binary Integer Goal Programming tool) identify an optimal set of bases to 

support a specified force. 

Military Value Analysis 

The Service assessed the military value of its operational bases using certified data derived from 

individual installations. Rather than focus on fungible attributes like assigned personnel or 

relocatable equipment and forces, the military value assessment stressed installation 

characteristics that were either immutable or outside the control of the Air Force or were difficult 

to replicate elsewhere due to expense or complexity. Immutable characteristics include 

geographic location and proximity to other physical features or defense activities, terrain, and 

prevailing weather. Difficult-to-reconstitute characteristics include the installation’s 

transportation infrastructure, missile silos, or basic airfield infrastructure. 

Applying operational capability data collected through a web-based installation data gathering 

and entry tool to BRAC Selection Criteria 1-4 and the weighing guidance assigned by the BCEG, 

each of the Air Force’s 154 installations was given a Mission Capability Index (MCI). For a 

given installation, there was a separate MCI for each of the eight mission areas (fighter, bomber, 

tanker, airlift, special operation / combat search and rescue, intelligence / surveillance / 

reconnaissance, unmanned aerial vehicles, and space control). 

Ultimately, using these data to assess all Active and Reserve Component installations on an 

equal basis, all installations were rank ordered on their relative ability to support the eight Air 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 3

Force missions. The objective was to find an optimal long-term basing plan that, within physical 

and operational constraints, located the Air Force’s long-term force structure at installations with 

the highest military value. 

Scenario Development 

The Air Force started the scenario development process using a model called the Air Force 

Cueing Tool. Application of this binary integer, goal programming tool assisted in arraying the 

force at the strongest constellation of bases by applying automated, but relatively simple rules. 

The tool produced what was termed “first-look” output which provided a starting point for 

BCEG consideration. Through an iterative deliberation, the BCEG refined the “first-look” 

results to remove actions that the tool was unable to recognize. The BCEG also rejected options 

that failed to improve aggregate military value, or ran counter to compelling military rationale. 

In this process, BRAC Selection Criteria 1-4 (military value) were effectively applied. 

These iterations continued until a set of potential force structure deployments were reached that: 

conformed to Air Force principals; did not violate any Air Force imperative; improved aggregate 

military value; and were consistent with sound military judgment. 

Once an optimal basing plan was identified, the Air Force analysis teams developed a related 

group of potential base closure and realignment options. The BCEG reviewed these proposals 

and selected the most promising to become scenarios that would undergo further analysis. 

Scenario Analysis 

Each of the scenarios analyses included the application of the COBRA model, and Criteria 6-8. 

The results of these analyses, i.e., payback (as determined by COBRA), community 

infrastructure support capability, and economic and environmental impacts of each scenario, 

were briefed to the BCEG. Again, an iterative process of review and refinement continued until 

the BCEG approved a candidate recommendation for consideration by the DoD review group, 

the Infrastructure Executive Council (IEC). 

During this process, the three Military Department BRAC directors chartered a Joint Action 

Scenario Team (JAST) to coordinate, manage, and assist in the process of developing joint 

operational basing scenarios. The JAST passed scenarios from other Military Departments that 

affected Air Force installations to the Air Force for action. Opportunities for joint basing were 

worked into Air Force scenarios and formal analyses, and were briefed to the BCEG as part of 

the development of the Air Force’s candidate recommendations. 

Summary of Results 

Ultimately, the Air Force portion of the Secretary of Defense’s recommendation package 

included the closure of ten installations: three in the Active force and seven in the Reserve 

Components. Additionally, the Air Force Secretary’s package included 62 realignment 

recommendations affecting a total of 115 installations, or 76 percent of all Air Force bases in the 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 4 

United States. Of 142 installations with operational flying missions, 28 (or 20 percent) will lose 

these missions. 

The following patterns emerge from the Air Force’s recommendations: 

• The concept of joint operational basing will be advanced by the reassignment of the 

Army’s Seventh Special Forces Group to Eglin AFB, where it will collocate with the 

center of Air Force Special Operations. Initial graduate-level pilot training on the Joint 

Strike Fighter for the Navy, Marines, and Air Force will be conducted jointly at the 

same base. 

• Air Force flying units will be restructured into a smaller number of fully equipped 

squadrons to increase operational effectiveness and efficiency. In the process, aircraft 

of like configuration (i.e., block) will be based together. 

• In selected cases, personnel from Reserve Component units will be transferred into 

blended units similar to the well-proven Reserve Associate concept that has long been 

common in the strategic airlift mission area. 

• Forces will be rebased to fully support the homeland security-related air sovereignty 

taskings of the US Northern Command. 

• Forces across mission areas will be based to enhance their capability to provide a global 

response to the needs of combatant commanders around the world. 

• The annual recurring savings of the Air Force recommendations will be approximately 

$2.6B, and the net present value of these savings over twenty years will be $14.5B. 

The recommendations approved by the Secretary of Defense follow:
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 5

Recommendations and Justifications

Birmingham International Airport Air Guard Station, AL 

Recommendation: Realign Birmingham International Airport Air Guard Station (AGS), AL. 

Distribute the 117th Air Refueling Wing’s (ANG) KC-135R aircraft to the 101st Air Refueling 

Wing (ANG), Bangor International Airport AGS, ME (two aircraft); the 134th Air Refueling 

Wing (ANG), McGhee-Tyson Airport AGS, TN (four aircraft); and the 161st Air Refueling 

Wing (ANG), Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport AGS, AZ (two aircraft). The 117th Air 

Refueling Wing’s firefighter positions will move to Dannelly Field AGS, AL, and the remaining 

expeditionary combat support (ECS) will remain in place. 

Justification: Phoenix Sky Harbor (37) scored higher than Birmingham (63) in military value 

for the tanker mission. This recommendation takes advantage of available capacity at Phoenix 

by robusting the air refueling squadron size from eight to ten aircraft, increasing the wing's 

overall capability. It also capitalizes on the favorable recruiting environment of the greater 

Phoenix region that can sustain this increased squadron size. Although McGhee-Tyson (74) and 

Bangor (123) ranked lower, military judgment argued in favor of retaining and adding force 

structure to these installations to increase their overall effectiveness. Bangor was increased in 

squadron size from 8 to 12 aircraft because of its critical role in the Northeast Tanker Task 

Force, as well as its participation in the transatlantic air bridge. The Air Force considered 

McGhee-Tyson's available capacity and Air National Guard experience in replacing aging, high 

maintenance KC-135E aircraft with re-engined KC-135R models and in increasing the squadron 

from 8 to 12 aircraft. Birmingham's ECS remains in place to support the Air Expeditionary Force 

and to retain trained and experienced Air National Guard personnel. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $11.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $7.7M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $0.8M, with a payback expected in 18 years. The net present value of the 

savings to the Department over 20 years is $0.5M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 307 jobs (183 direct jobs and 124 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Birmingham-Hoover, AL, Metropolitan Statistical economic 

area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic 

impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation.
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 6 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; land use constraints or 

sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; and 

wetlands that may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. 

There are no anticipated impacts to cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; marine 

mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; waste management; or water resources. Impacts of costs 

include $0.2M thousand in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These 

costs were included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Eielson Air Force Base, AK, Moody Air Force Base, GA, and Shaw Air Force Base, SC 

Recommendation: Realign Eielson Air Force Base, AK. The 354th Fighter Wing’s assigned 

A-10 aircraft will be distributed to the 917th Wing Barksdale Air Force Base, LA (three aircraft); 

to a new active duty unit at Moody Air Force Base, GA (12 aircraft); and to backup inventory 

(three aircraft). The 354th Fighter Wing's F-16 aircraft will be distributed to the 57th Wing, 

Nellis Air Force Base, NV (18 aircraft). The Air National Guard Tanker unit and rescue alert 

detachment will remain as tenant on Eielson. Realign Moody Air Force Base, by relocating 

base-level ALQ-184 intermediate maintenance to Shaw Air Force Base, SC, establishing a 

Centralized Intermediate Repair Facility (CIRF) at Shaw Air Force Base, SC for ALQ-184 pods. 

Realign Shaw Air Force Base, relocating base-level TF-34 engine intermediate maintenance to 

Moody Air Force Base, establishing a CIRF at Moody Air Force Base for TF-34 engines. 

Justification: Eielson’s (11) military value is high because of its close proximity to valuable 

airspace and ranges. Eielson is, however, an expensive base to operate and improve (build). The 

Air Force recommends realigning Eielson, but keeping the base open in a “warm” status using 

the resident Air National Guard units and a portion of the infrastructure to continue operating the 

base for USAF/Joint/Combined exercises. The Air Force distributes the F-16s to Nellis (13) a 

base with high military value, and the A-10s to Moody (11-SOF/CSAR), which also ranks high 

in military value. The CIRFs at Moody and Shaw compliment force structure moves and 

anticipate these bases as workload centers for these commodities. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $141.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $594.0M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $229.4M with an immediate payback expected. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $2,780.6M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 4,711 jobs (2,940 direct jobs and 1,771 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Fairbanks, AK, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, 

which is 8.7 percent of economic area employment. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 7

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 40 jobs (23 direct jobs and 17 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Sumter, SC, economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of Metropolitan Statistical economic 

area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Nellis Air Force Base is in a National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (serious), particulate matter (PM10, serious), and ozone 

(8-hr, subpart 1). A preliminary assessment indicates that a conformity determination may be 

required to verify that positive conformity can be achieved. Costs to mitigate this potential 

impact have been included in the payback calculation and this is not expected to be an 

impediment to the implementation of this recommendation. There are also potential impacts to 

air quality; cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource 

areas; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water 

resources; and wetlands that may need to be considered during the implementation of this 

recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts to dredging; or marine mammals, resources, 

or sanctuaries. Impacts of costs include $2.4M in costs for environmental compliance and waste 

management. These costs were included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated 

impacts to the costs of environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all 

recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to the implementation of this 

recommendation. 

Kulis Air Guard Station, AK, and Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK 

Recommendation: Close Kulis Air Guard Station (AGS), AK. Relocate the 176th Wing 

(ANG) and associated aircraft (eight C-130Hs, three HC-130Ns, and five HH-60s) and 

Expeditionary Combat Support (ECS) to Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK. Realign Elmendorf 

Air Force Base. With the addition of four aircraft from another installation (see Air Force 

recommendation for Ellsworth Air Force Base and Dyess Air Force Base), the 176th Wing at 

Elmendorf will form an ANG/active duty association with 12 C-130H aircraft. The 3d Wing at 

Elmendorf Air Force Base will distribute 24 of 42 assigned F-15C/D aircraft to the 1st Fighter 

Wing, Langley Air Force Base, VA. 

Justification: This recommendation distributes C-130, HC-130 and HH-60 aircraft from Kulis 

AGS (110) to Elmendorf Air Force Base (51), which has a higher military value. Moving these 

aircraft to Elmendorf Air Force Base consolidates two installations in the same city, reduces 

infrastructure, creates an active/ARC association, and retains the skilled, highly trained ANG 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 8 

personnel from Kulis AGS. This recommendation also distributes a portion of the F-15C/Ds at 

Elmendorf Air Force Base (36-fighter) to Langley Air Force Base (2-fighter). Elmendorf retains 

one squadron (18 aircraft) for air sovereignty missions and distributes the remaining 24 F-15Cs 

to Langley Air Force Base. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $81.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $20.6M. Annual recurring savings after implementation 

are $17.3M, with payback expected in 4 years. The net present value of the cost and savings to 

the Department over 20 years is a savings of $146.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,470 jobs (848 direct jobs and 622 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Anchorage, AK, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, 

which is 0.7 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes indicates no 

issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support forces, missions 

and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of 

all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Langley Air Force Base is in a National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards nonattainment area for ozone (8-hr, marginal). A preliminary assessment indicates 

that a conformity determination may be required to verify that positive conformity can be 

achieved. Costs to mitigate this impact have been included in the payback calculation and this is 

not expected to be an impediment to the implementation of this recommendation. There are also 

potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; land use constraints or 

sensitive resource areas; noise; waste management; water resources; and wetlands that may need 

to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no anticipated 

impacts to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; or threatened and endangered 

species or critical habitat. Impacts of costs include $1.5M in costs for environmental compliance 

and waste management. These costs were included in the payback calculation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to the costs of environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental 

impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation 

have been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to the implementation of 

this recommendation. 

Fort Smith Air Guard Station, AR, and Luke Air Force Base, AZ 

Recommendation: Realign Fort Smith Municipal Airport (MAP) Air Guard Station (AGS), 

AR. Distribute the 188th Fighter Wing’s (ANG) F-16s to the 144th Fighter Wing (ANG) Fresno 

Air Terminal AGS, CA (seven aircraft) and retirement (eight aircraft). The 144th Fighter Wing's 

F-16s (15 aircraft) retire. The wing’s expeditionary combat support (ECS) elements remain in 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 9

place. Fire fighter positions realign to Tulsa, OK, and the Home Station Training Site moves to 

Savannah, GA. Realign Luke Air Force Base, AZ. The 56th Fighter Wing, Luke Air Force 

Base, AZ, distributes its F-16 Block 25s (13 aircraft) and F-16 Block 42s (24 aircraft) to 

retirement. The 944th Fighter Wing distributes its F-16s to the 144th Fighter Wing at Fresno (11 

aircraft). 

Justification: Military value played the predominant role coupled with homeland defense. The 

Air Force recommendation realigns 15 aircraft from Fort Smith (110) to Fresno (87), which 

supports the homeland defense Air Sovereignty Alert mission. Additionally, this 

recommendation helps align the eight different F-16 models across the Air Force. Finally, this 

recommendation makes experienced Airmen available to support the new ANG flying training 

unit created at Little Rock Air Force Base, AR. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $17.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $12.4M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $1.4M with a payback expected in 16 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $2.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 134 jobs (78 direct jobs and 56 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Fort Smith, AR-OK, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 386 jobs (184 direct jobs and 202 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; and wetlands that may 

need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to dredging; waste management; or water resources. Impacts of costs 

include $0.3M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 10 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Beale Air Force Base, CA, and Selfridge Air National Guard Base, MI 

Recommendation: Realign Beale Air Force Base, CA. The 940th Air Refueling Wing (AFR) 

will realign its KC-135R tanker aircraft while its expeditionary combat support (ECS) elements 

will remain in place. Beale's KC-135R aircraft will be distributed to the Air National Guard at 

Selfridge ANGB, MI (four aircraft) and 134th Air Refueling Wing (ANG), McGhee-Tyson 

Airport Air Guard Station, TN (four aircraft). Realign Selfridge Air Reserve Base, MI. The 

927th Air Refueling Wing (AFR) at Selfridge will distribute its eight KC-135 aircraft to the 

127th Wing (ANG) at Selfridge. The 127th Wing will retire its 15 F-16 aircraft and eight C130E aircraft, and will convert to A-10 and KC-135R aircraft. 

Justification: This recommendation capitalizes on Beale's (7-C2ISR and 33-UAV) high 

military value and emerging Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) mission. Realigning 

KC-135 force structure enables Beale to have one primary operational flying mission--manned 

and unmanned high altitude reconnaissance, balances the Reserve and Air National Guard KC135 force structure, and retains reserve component manpower and experience for the new Global 

Hawk mission. The receiver locations for Beale’s tankers--Selfridge (57) and McGhee-Tyson 

(74)--each have above average military value for reserve component bases in the tanker mission. 

Beale's more modern KC-135R aircraft will replace the older, higher maintenance KC-135E 

models at McGhee-Tyson and help increase the new ANG tanker mission at Selfridge to an 

effective-size of 12 aircraft. The resulting KC-135R increase at Selfridge and McGhee-Tyson 

robusts the tanker force structure into squadron sizes that are more operationally effective. 

As a reserve component base, Selfridge ANGB has above average military value as both a tanker 

installation (57) and fighter installation (70) as rated for those respective mission areas. This 

recommendation streamlines operations at Selfridge ANGB by realigning the Reserve air 

refueling mission, currently operating as a tenant unit, and divesting the ANG wing of its retiring 

force structure. The ANG wing's older, less capable C-130E and F-16 aircraft will retire and be 

replaced with Reserve KC-135R aircraft from Selfridge and Beale, and 15 A-10 aircraft 

realigned by the recommended closures of W.K. Kellogg Airport Air Guard Station, MI, and 

NAS Willow Grove, PN. Reorganizing the flying operations under one component (ANG) will 

maximize organizational effectiveness and allow the installation to accommodate two effectively 

sized squadrons. The 927th Air Refueling Wing will realign to associate with the 6th Air 

Mobility Wing at MacDill Air Force Base, FL, to capture reserve experience in the region and 

enhance that unit's capability. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $45.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $34.6M. Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$3.9M, with a payback expected in 14 years. The net present value of the cost and savings to the 

Department over 20 years is a savings of $6.4M. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 11

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 312 jobs (179 direct jobs and 133 indirect jobs) 

over 2006-2011 period in the Yuba City, CA, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is 

0.5 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 52 jobs (18 direct jobs and 34 indirect jobs) over 2006-2011 period in the WarrenFarmington Hills-Troy, MI, economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes indicates no 

issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces 

and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of 

all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation.

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands that 

may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to dredging; or marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries. Impacts of costs 

include $0.3M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

March Air Reserve Base, CA 

Recommendation: Realign March Air Reserve Base, CA. The 163d Air Refueling Wing 

(ANG) will distribute its nine KC-135R aircraft to the 452d Air Mobility Wing (AFR), March 

Air Reserve Base (four aircraft); the 157th Air Refueling Wing (ANG), Pease International 

Tradeport Air Guard Station, NH (three aircraft); the 134th Air Refueling Wing (ANG), 

McGhee-Tyson Airport Air Guard Station, TN (one aircraft); and the 22d Air Refueling Wing, 

McConnell Air Force Base, KS (one aircraft). The 163d Air Refueling Wing's expeditionary 

combat support (ECS) will remain in place. 

Justification: This recommendation realigns aircraft and organizationally optimizes March Air 

Reserve Base. With the highest military value (16) of all air reserve component bases for the 

tanker mission, March Air Reserve Base is retained and streamlined from two wing 

organizational structures to one reserve component flying mission with a more effectively sized 

KC-135 unit of 12 aircraft. This action distributes the remaining Air National Guard force 

structure at March to the higher-ranking active installation, McConnell (15), and two ANG 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 12 

installations, McGhee-Tyson (74) and Pease (105). McGhee-Tyson, though rated lower in 

military value, receives one aircraft due to military judgment to robust the squadron to a more 

effective size of 12 aircraft. Military judgment also placed additional force structure at Pease to 

support the Northeast Tanker Task Force and also robust the squadron to a more effective size of 

12 aircraft. All receiver installations are increased in operational capability with the additional 

aircraft because of their proximity to air refueling missions. March's ECS remains in place to 

support the Air Expeditionary Force and to retain trained and experienced Air National Guard 

personnel. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $10.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $1.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $1.8M, with a payback expected in five years. The net present value of the 

cost and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $15.5M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 201 jobs (111 direct jobs and 90 indirect jobs) 

over 2006-2011 period in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA, Metropolitan Statistical 

economic area, which is 0.01 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic 

impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes indicates no 

issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces 

and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of 

all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands that 

may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to dredging; or marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries. Impacts of costs 

include $0.4M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Onizuka Air Force Station, CA 

Recommendation: Close Onizuka Air Force Station, CA. Relocate the Air Force Satellite 

Control Network (AFSCN) mission and tenant Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) 

Defense Satellite Communication System (DSCS) mission and equipment to Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, CA. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 13

Justification: This recommendation consolidates satellite command and control operations 

while reducing excess infrastructure. Onizuka AFS (124) hosts the AFSCN Second Node and 

scheduling backup mission, but has no primary assigned Air Force Space Command operational 

mission. Onizuka AFS also supports classified tenant missions that are anticipated to phase out 

during the BRAC 2005 timeframe. Schriever Air Force Base, CO (1) ranked highest in military 

value for satellite operations, but hosts the AFSCN Primary Node. Vandenberg Air Force Base 

(2) currently hosts one of the AFSCN remote tracking stations. An Air Force Space Command 

policy directive on backup satellite control operations prescribes the requirements for backup 

operations and geographical separation to preclude simultaneous degradation of both primary 

and secondary nodes from natural or man-made threats. During major command capacity 

briefings to Headquarters Air Force, Onizuka AFS was identified as having seismic and antiterrorism/force protection constraints, with no buildable land to mitigate these. Vandenberg Air 

Force Base offers better protection for the DSCS Sun East and Sun West antenna complexes, 

which are designated a Protection-Level 1 resource. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $123.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $45.3M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $25.9M, with a payback expected in five years. The net present value of the 

cost and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $211.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 393 jobs (278 direct jobs and 115 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA, Metropolitan Statistical 

economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate 

economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of influence was 

considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; threatened and endangered 

species or critical habitat; and wetlands that may need to be considered during the 

implementation of this recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts to dredging; marine 

mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; waste management; or water resources. Impacts of 

costs include $0.04M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These 

costs were included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 14 

Bradley International Airport Air Guard Station, CT, Barnes Air Guard Station, MA, 

Selfridge Air National Guard Base, MI, Shaw Air Force Base, SC, 

and Martin State Air Guard Station, MD 

Recommendation: Realign Bradley International Airport Air Guard Station, CT. The A-10s 

assigned to the 103d Fighter Wing will be distributed to the 104th Fighter Wing, Barnes 

Municipal Airport Air Guard Station, MA (nine aircraft) and retirement (six aircraft). The 

wing’s expeditionary combat support (ECS) elements will remain in place at Bradley and 

Bradley will retain capability to support a Homeland Defense mission. Realign Barnes Air 

Guard Station, MA; Selfridge ANGB, MI; Shaw Air Force Base, SC; and Martin State Airport 

Air Guard Station, MD, by relocating base-level TF-34 engine intermediate maintenance to 

Bradley, establishing a Centralized Intermediate Repair Facility (CIRF) at Bradley for TF-34 

engines. 

Justification: Barnes (97) and Bradley (98) are located approximately 12 miles apart. The Air 

Force placed one full squadron at Barnes because it ranked higher in military value. By 

combining the two units into one squadron the Air Force retains the trained A-10 pilots and 

maintenance technicians in the area and creates an optimum-sized and more effective squadron. 

The recommendation to close Otis ANGB, MA, generated a requirement to build an air 

sovereignty alert (ASA) site in the region. The Air Force priced an alert facility at both Barnes 

and Bradley, and chose Bradley on the basis of lower cost. The Bradley ECS elements remain in 

place to support the ASA mission. 

Establishing a CIRF at Bradley for TF-34 engine maintenance compliments the realignment of 

the A-10 fleet. The CIRF at Bradley will consolidate TF-34 engine maintenance for ANG A-10 

aircraft from Barnes, Selfridge, Martin State and active duty aircraft at Spangdahlem, Germany. 

Establishing this CIRF at Bradley rather than at Barnes avoids relocation of a hush house facility 

at an estimated cost of $3.5M, and avoids construction of additional 18,000 square feet of 

maintenance facilities already existing at Bradley and that will be available. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $3.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $6.1M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $2.0M with a payback expected in two years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $25.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 154 jobs (92 direct jobs and 62 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Hartford-West-East Hartford, CT, Metropolitan Statistical 

economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 7 jobs (4 direct jobs and 3 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the WarrenFarmington Hills-Troy, MI, economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 15

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 43 jobs (25 direct jobs and 18 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Sumter, SC, economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 8 jobs (4 direct jobs and 4 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Baltimore-Towson, MD, economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; land use constraints or 

sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; water 

resources; and wetlands that may need to be considered during the implementation of this 

recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts to cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; 

dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; or waste management. Impacts of costs 

include $0.6M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

New Castle Airport Air Guard Station, DE 

Recommendation: Realign New Castle County Airport Air Guard Station (AGS), DE. 

Distribute the wing’s eight C-130H aircraft to the 145th Airlift Wing (ANG), Charlotte/Douglas 

International Airport (IAP) AGS, NC (four aircraft), and 165th Airlift Wing (ANG), Savannah 

IAP AGS, GA (four aircraft). Move flying related Expeditionary Combat Support (ECS) to 

McGuire Air Force Base, NJ (Aeromedical Squadron), and Dover Air Force Base, DE (aerial 

port and fire fighters). Other ECS remains in place at New Castle. 

Justification: This recommendation makes experienced Airmen from New Castle (120) 

available for employment at these nearby installations. Military value was the predominant 

consideration; New Castle had a low military value ranking and was near other bases keeping or 

gaining aircraft. Charlotte (33) and Savannah (77) were selected to receive aircraft because of 

higher military value rankings and avoiding conversion training costs. The Air Force also 

considered active / Air National Guard / Air Force Reserve manning mix, recruiting, cost factors 

(to include cost avoidance), environmental factors, and base capacity in its analysis of this 

recommendation. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 16 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $15.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $29.1M. Annual recurring savings after implementation 

are $9.6M, with a payback period expected in one year. The net present value of the cost and 

savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $120.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 250 jobs (148 direct jobs and 102 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ, Metropolitan Statistical economic 

area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic 

impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: Review of community attributes indicates there are 

no issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, 

forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; waste management; water 

resources; and wetlands that may need to be considered during the implementation of this 

recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; or threatened and endangered species or critical habitat. Impacts of costs include 

$0.08M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Robins Air Force Base, GA 

Recommendation: Realign Robins Air Force Base, GA. The 19th Air Refueling Group's KC135R aircraft will be distributed to the 22nd Air Refueling Wing, McConnell Air Force Base, KS 

(nine aircraft), and to backup aircraft inventory (three aircraft). The 202d Engineering 

Installation Squadron (ANG), a geographically separated unit at Middle Georgia Regional 

Airport, will be relocated into available space at Robins Air Force Base. 

Justification: This recommendation realigns active duty KC-135R aircraft from Robins (18) to 

McConnell (15), a base higher in military value for the tanker mission and with available 

capacity to receive the additional aircraft at no cost. This consolidation increases McConnell’s 

active duty tanker squadrons to optimum size. This recommendation also enables the Air 

National Guard to transfer its KC-135R aircraft based at McConnell to Forbes Field AGS, KS 

(35), retaining one of the higher-ranking air reserve component tanker bases. The vacated 

infrastructure and capacity resulting from the realignment of the tenant 19th Air Refueling Group 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 17

will accommodate U.S. Navy aircraft realigning to Robins from Naval Air Station Atlanta. The 

Navy will pay any costs to reconfigure the AF facility for their use. By realigning 

geographically separated units onto Robins, the Air Force can use excess capacity and reduce 

leased facilities in the community. This recommendation does not affect the blended active 

duty/Air National Guard Air Control Wing at Robins, which remains the major operational 

flying mission at Robins. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $6.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $31.9M. Annual recurring savings after implementation 

are $15.0M, with an immediate payback expected. The net present value of the cost and savings 

to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $175.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 795 jobs (471 direct jobs and 324 indirect jobs) 

over 2006-2011 period in the Warner Robins, GA, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which 

is 1.2 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation.

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; waste management; water 

resources; and wetlands that may need to be considered during the implementation of this 

recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; or threatened and endangered species or critical habitat. Impacts of costs include 

$0.4M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration.. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of environmental 

restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting 

the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Boise Air Terminal Air Guard Station, ID 

Recommendation: Realign Boise Air Terminal Air Guard Station (AGS), ID. Distribute the 

four C-130H aircraft of the 124th Wing (ANG) to the 153rd Airlift Wing (ANG), Cheyenne, 

WY. The new, larger unit at Cheyenne will create an active duty/ ANG association. 

Justification: Currently, Boise (66-SOF/CSAR, 66-airlift) operates a mix of C-130 and A-10 

aircraft. These aircraft have very different missions. This recommendation realigns Boise to 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 18 

operate only A-10s and distributes its C-130 aircraft to Cheyenne (118-airlift). Boise is a 

valuable A-10 base because of its proximity to air-to-ground ranges with scoreable strafing and 

bombing, threat emitters, and integrated air combat training. In turn, Cheyenne is robusted to a 

larger, more effective C-130 squadron size. Additionally, Cheyenne’s proximity to an active 

duty Air Force installation (F.E. Warren Air Force Base) allows it to host an active/ANG 

associate unit. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $2.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $1.6M. Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$0.3M, with payback expected in 8 years. The net present value of the cost and savings to the 

Department over 20 years is a savings of $1.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 159 jobs (84 direct jobs and 75 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Boise City-Nampa, ID, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of 

all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to land use constraints or sensitive 

resource areas; noise; and wetlands that may need to be considered during the implementation of 

this recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; or water resources. Impacts of costs 

include $0.3M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Mountain Home Air Force Base, ID, Nellis Air Force Base, NV, 

and Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK 

Recommendation: Realign Mountain Home Air Force Base, ID. Distribute the 366th Fighter 

Wing assigned F-15Cs (18 aircraft) to the 57th Fighter Wing, Nellis Air Force Base, NV (nine 

aircraft), to the 125th Fighter Wing, Jacksonville International Airport AGS, FL (six aircraft), 

and to retirement (three aircraft). The 366th Fighter Wing will distribute assigned F-16 Block 52 

aircraft to the 169th Fighter Wing McEntire AGS, SC (nine aircraft), the 57th Wing, Nellis Air 

Force Base, NV (five aircraft), and to backup inventory (four aircraft). Realign Nellis Air Force 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 19

Base. The 57th Wing, Nellis Air Force Base, NV, will distribute F-16 Block 42 aircraft to the 

138th Fighter Wing Tulsa International Airport AGS, OK (three aircraft), and retire the 

remaining F-16 Block 42 aircraft (15 aircraft). The 57th Wing also will distribute F-16 Block 32 

aircraft (six aircraft) to the 144th Fighter Wing Fresno Air Terminal AGS, CA, and to retirement 

(one aircraft). Realign Elmendorf Air Force Base. The 366th Fighter Wing, Mountain Home 

Air Force Base, ID, will receive F-15E aircraft from the 3d Wing, Elmendorf Air Force Base, 

AK (18 aircraft), and attrition reserve (three aircraft). 

Justification: Military value was the predominant consideration in moving the F-15Es from 

Elmendorf (36) to Mountain Home (23) and F-16s to Nellis (12) and McEntire (48). 

Additionally, realigning the eight F-16 models and four F-16 engine types weighed in the final F16 force structure laydown. Mountain Home currently operates several types of aircraft; this 

recommendation realigns Mountain Home to fly only F-15Es, streamlining operations at a 

location that is well suited for air-to-ground, low-level and air-to-air flight training. This 

recommendation also aligns common versions of F-16s and F-15Cs. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $74.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $21.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $37.8M with an immediate payback expected. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $389.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential decrease of 833 jobs (528 direct jobs and 305 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Mountain Home, ID, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, 

which is 5.8 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

decrease of 1,388 jobs (802 direct jobs and 586 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Anchorage, AK, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is 0.7 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Nellis Air Force Base is in a National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (serious), particulate matter (PM10, serious), and ozone 

(8-hr, subpart 1). A preliminary assessment indicates that a conformity determination may be 

required to verify that positive conformity can be achieved. Costs to mitigate this potential 

impact have been included in the payback calculation and this is not expected to be an 

impediment to the implementation of this recommendation. There are also potential impacts to 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 20 

air quality; cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource 

areas; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water 

resources; and wetlands that may need to be considered during the implementation of this 

recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts to dredging; or marine mammals, resources, 

or sanctuaries. Impacts of costs include $1.9M in costs for environmental compliance and waste 

management. These costs were included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated 

impacts to the costs of environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all 

recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to the implementation of this 

recommendation. 

Capital Air Guard Station, IL, and Hulman Regional Airport Air Guard Station, IN 

Recommendation: Realign Capital Airport Air Guard Station, IL. Distribute the 183d Fighter 

Wing’s F-16s to the 122d Fighter Wing, Fort Wayne International Airport Air Guard Station, IN, 

(15 aircraft). The 122d Fighter Wing's F-16s (15 aircraft) retire. The wing’s expeditionary 

combat support (ECS) elements, the Illinois ANG State Headquarters, and the 217th Engineering 

Installation Squadron remain in place. Realign Hulman Regional Airport Air Guard Station, IN. 

The 181st Fighter Wing’s F-16s are distributed to the 122d Fighter Wing, Fort Wayne 

International Airport Air Guard Station, IN (nine aircraft), and retirement (six aircraft). The 

181st Fighter wing’s ECS elements remain in place. Realign Dane County Regional Air Guard 

Station/Truax Field, WI; Joe Foss Field Air Guard Station, SD; Des Moines Air Guard Station, 

IA; Fort Wayne Air Guard Station, IN; and Lackland Air Force Base, TX; by relocating baselevel F-110 intermediate maintenance to Capital, establishing a Centralized Intermediate Repair 

Facility (CIRF) at Capital for F110 engines. 

Justification: Capital (115) and Hulman (119) were both ranked low in military value by the 

fighter MCI. Although somewhat lower (130) the ANG recommended Fort Wayne be retained 

because of its record of recruiting and its proximity to Hulman--allowing the experienced airmen 

there to remain available to the Indiana ANG. This recommendation also helps align common 

versions of the F-16. 

Establishing a CIRF at Capital consolidates F110 engine intermediate maintenance for F-16 

aircraft from five air reserve component units, and compliments other Air Force CIRF 

recommendations. The Capital CIRF is centrally located in proximity to the serviced 

installations, and utilizes Capital's experienced people and existing facilities as part of an Air 

Force effort to standardize stateside and deployed intermediate-level maintenance concepts. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $19.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $13.3M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $2.0M with a payback expected in 13 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $6.3M. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 21

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 269 jobs (163 direct jobs and 106 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Springfield, IL, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which 

is 0.2 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 232 jobs (136 direct jobs and 96 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Terre Haute, IN, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is 0.3 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 6 jobs (4 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Des 

Moines, IA, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 4 jobs (3 direct jobs and 1 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Madison, 

WI, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 9 jobs (5 direct jobs and 4 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the San 

Antonio, TX, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 6 jobs (4 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Sioux 

Falls, SD, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; waste management; and 

wetlands that may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. 

There are no anticipated impacts to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; 

threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; or water resources. Impacts of costs 

include $0.8M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 22 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

New Orleans Air Reserve Station, LA 

Recommendation: Realign NAS New Orleans ARS, LA. Distribute the 926th Fighter Wing’s 

A-10 aircraft to the 442d Fighter Wing (AFR), Whiteman Air Force Base, MO (nine aircraft), 

and the 917th Wing (AFR) at Barksdale Air Force Base, LA (six aircraft). The 442 wing HQ 

element realigns to Nellis Air Force Base, NV, and the wing Expeditionary Combat Support 

realigns to Buckley Air Force Base, CO. 

Justification: Both Whiteman (28) and Barksdale (33) bases have a higher military value for 

the A-10 operational mission than New Orleans (49). These realignments bring the units at 

Whiteman and Barksdale to optimal size. Additionally, the Barksdale A-10 unit provides close 

air support to the U.S. Army’s Joint Readiness Training Center, one of the nation’s premier joint 

training opportunities. Finally, realigning these A-10s to reserve units helped keep the active/Air 

National Guard/Air Force Reserve force structure mix constant. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $50.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $32.5M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $11.3M, with a payback expected in five years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $80.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 625 jobs (312 direct jobs and 313 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA, Metropolitan Statistical 

economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate 

economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was 

considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; and wetlands that may need to be 

considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts 

to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; or water resources. Impacts of costs 

include $0.5M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 23

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Andrews Air Force Base, MD, Will Rogers Air Guard Station, OK, 

Tinker Air Force Base, OK, and Randolph Air Force Base TX 

Recommendation: Realign Andrews Air Force Base, MD, by relocating the Air Force Flight 

Standards Agency (AFFSA) and its two C-21 aircraft to Will Rogers World Airport Air Guard 

Station, OK. Realign Randolph Air Force Base, TX, by relocating the USAF Advanced 

Instrument School (AIS) to Will Rogers Air Guard Station. Realign Tinker Air Force Base, OK, 

by relocating the Global Air Traffic Operations Program Office (GATOPO) to Will Rogers Air 

Guard Station. Realign Will Rogers Air Guard Station by relocating the 137th Airlift Wing 

(ANG) to Tinker Air Force Base and associate with the 507th Air Refueling Wing (AFR). The 

137th’s C-130H aircraft are distributed to the 136th Airlift Wing (ANG), Naval Air Station Joint 

Reserve Base Fort Worth, TX (4 aircraft), and 139th Airlift Wing (ANG), Rosecrans Memorial 

Airport Air Guard Station, MO (4 aircraft). The aerial port squadron at Will Rogers moves to 

Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, the Aeromedical Squadron and fire fighters 

move to Rosecrans AGB. Other elements of the 137th’s Expeditionary Combat Support remain 

in place at Will Rogers. 

Justification: Consolidating AFFSA, AIS, and GATOPO at Will Rogers World Airport creates 

synergy between the Air Force administrative aviation functions and the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) located at Will Rogers World. Associating the ANG operation at Will 

Rogers (64-airlift) with the AFR operation at Tinker (4-tanker) consolidates and streamlines Air 

Force reserve component operations in Oklahoma City at a base of high military value. 

Additionally, this realignment creates two larger C-130 squadrons at Naval Air Station Joint 

Reserve Base Fort Worth (53) and Rosecrans Air Guard Station (114) from three under sized 

squadrons. Finally, this recommendation moves federal assets out of the National Capital 

Region, reducing the nation’s vulnerability. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $21.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $12.2M. Annual recurring savings after implementation 

are $7.5M, with a payback period expected in two years. The net present value of the cost and 

savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $83.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 191 jobs (115 direct jobs and 76 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, 

Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 105 jobs (33 direct jobs and 72 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 24 

Oklahoma City, OK, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 29 jobs (16 direct jobs and 13 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the San 

Antonio, TX, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands that 

may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to dredging; or marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries. Impacts of costs 

include $0.4M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Martin State Air Guard Station, MD 

Recommendation: Realign Martin State Air Guard Station (AGS), MD. Distribute the eight C130J aircraft of the 175th Wing (ANG) to the 146th Airlift Wing (ANG), Channel Islands AGS, 

CA (four aircraft), and 143d Airlift Wing (ANG), Quonset State Airport AGS, RI (four aircraft). 

The Aerial Port Squadron will move to Andrews Air Force Base, MD. The 143rd and 146th 

Airlift Wings will each retire two C-130E aircraft (total of four). 

Justification: Martin State (140) had a low military value ranking. This recommendation 

moves C-130Js to Channel Islands AGS (96), and Quonset State (125), both of which rank 

higher in military value and already operate the J-model C-130--avoiding conversion training 

costs. Additionally, this recommendation creates to right sized C-130J squadrons. The Aerial 

Port Squadron is realigned to a nearby base with a robust airlift mission, retaining these skilled 

and highly trained ANG personnel. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $9.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $13.7M. Annual recurring savings after implementation 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 25

are $8.7M, with payback expected in one year. The net present value of the cost and savings to 

the Department over 20 years is a savings of $97.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 229 jobs (119 direct jobs and 110 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Baltimore-Towson, MD, Metropolitan Statistical economic 

area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic 

impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; water resources; and wetlands that may need to be 

considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts 

to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; or waste management. Impacts of 

costs include $0.09M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These 

costs were included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Otis Air National Guard Base, MA, Lambert St. Louis International Airport Air Guard 

Station, MO, and Atlantic City Air Guard Station, NJ 

Recommendation: Close Otis ANGB, MA. The 102d Fighter Wing’s F-15s will be distributed 

to the 125th Fighter Wing, Jacksonville International Airport Air Guard Station, FL (three 

aircraft), and 177th Fighter Wing, Atlantic City International Airport Air Guard Station, NJ (12 

aircraft). The 253d Combat Communications Group, and 267th Communications Squadron will 

remain in place at Otis, with 104th Fighter Wing at Barnes providing administrative support as 

the parent wing. An air sovereignty alert (ASA) facility will be constructed at Bradley 

International Airport Air Guard Station, CT. Firefighter positions from Otis will move to Barnes 

Municipal Airport Air Guard Station, MA. 

Realign Lambert-St. Louis International Airport Air Guard Station, St. Louis, MO. The 131st 

Fighter Wing’s F-15s (15 aircraft) will distribute to the 57th Fighter Wing, Nellis Air Force 

Base, NV (nine aircraft), and 177th Fighter Wing, Atlantic City International Airport Air Guard 

Station, NJ (six aircraft). Realign Atlantic City International Airport Air Guard Station, NJ. The 

177th Fighter Wing's F-16s will be distributed to the 158th Fighter Wing, Burlington 

International Airport Air Guard Station, VT (three aircraft), and retire (12 aircraft). The wing’s 

expeditionary combat support (ECS) elements will remain in place. Firefighter positions move 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 26 

to Scott Air Force Base, IL. The 157Air Operations Group (AOG) and the 218th Engineering 

Installation Group (EIG) will relocate from Jefferson Barracks geographically separated unit 

(GSU) into space at Lambert International. Jefferson Barracks real property accountability will 

transfer to the Army. 

Justification: The Air Force distributed reserve component F-15C force structure to bases with 

higher military value than Otis (88) and Lambert-St. Louis (127). The F-15C aircraft are 

realigned to Nellis (13), Jacksonville Air Guard Station (24), and Atlantic City Air Guard Station 

(61). The Nellis bound aircraft will help form an enhanced aggressor squadron for Operation 

RED FLAG and the Atlantic City bound aircraft will provide expanded capability for the 

Homeland Defense mission. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $103.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $12.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $33.6M with a payback expected in three years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $336.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 827 jobs (505 direct jobs and 322 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Barnstable Town, MA, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, 

which is 0.6 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 510 jobs (249 direct jobs and 261 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the St. 

Louis, MS-IL, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Nellis Air Force Base is in a National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (serious), particulate matter (PM10, serious), and ozone 

(8-hr, subpart 1). A preliminary assessment indicates that a conformity determination may be 

required to verify that positive conformity can be achieved. Costs to mitigate this potential 

impact have been included in the payback calculation and this is not expected to be an 

impediment to the implementation of this recommendation. There are also potential impacts to 

air quality; cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource 

areas; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; and 

wetlands that may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. 

There are no anticipated impacts to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; or 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 27

water resources. Impacts of costs include $3.1M in costs for environmental compliance and 

waste management. These costs were included in the payback calculation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to the costs of environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental 

impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation 

have been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to the implementation of 

this recommendation. 

W.K. Kellogg Airport Air Guard Station, MI 

Recommendation: Close W.K. Kellogg Airport Air Guard Station, MI. Distribute the 110th 

Fighter Wing’s A-10s (15 aircraft) to the 127th Wing (ANG), Selfridge ANGB, MI. 

Justification: The Air Force placed one squadron at Selfridge (62) because it is significantly 

higher in military value than Kellogg (122). The Air Force retired the older F-16s from Selfridge 

and combined the two A-10 units into one squadron at Selfridge to retain trained and skilled 

Michigan ANG Airmen from both locations. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department to implement this 

recommendation is $8.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $46.7M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $12.7M with an immediate payback expected. The net present value of the 

cost and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $166.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 441 jobs (274 direct jobs and 167 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Battle Creek, MI, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, 

which is 0.6 percent of economic area employment. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; waste management; and 

wetlands that may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. 

There are no anticipated impacts to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; 

threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; or water resources. Impacts of costs 

include $0.5M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 28 

Duluth International Airport Air Guard Station, MN 

Recommendation: Realign Duluth International Airport Air Guard Station, MN, by retiring the 

148th Fighter Wing’s F-16s (15 aircraft). 

Justification: Duluth (136) ranked low in military value. The reduction in F-16 force structure 

and the need to align common versions of the F-16 at the same bases argued for realigning 

Duluth to an ASA site using aircraft assigned elsewhere and operating from Duluth on rotational 

basis as tasked by US Northern Command. The 148th Fighter Wing’s expeditionary combat 

support will remain at Duluth supporting the air sovereignty alert (ASA) facility. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $2.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $0.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $0.8M with a payback expected in five years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $7.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will not result in any job reductions 

(direct or indirect) over the 2006-2011 period in the Duluth, MN-WI, Metropolitan Statistical 

economic area. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic 

region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are no anticipated impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, 

or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, 

resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste 

management; water resources; or wetlands. No impacts are anticipated for the costs of 

environmental restoration, environmental compliance, or waste management activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in 

this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

the implementation of this recommendation. 

Key Field Air Guard Station, MS 

Recommendation: Realign Key Field Air Guard Station, MS. Distribute the 186th Air 

Refueling Wing’s KC-135R aircraft to the 128th Air Refueling Wing (ANG), General Mitchell 

Air Guard Station, WI (three aircraft); the 134th Air Refueling Wing (ANG), McGhee-Tyson 

Airport Air Guard Station, TN (three aircraft); and 101st Air Refueling Wing (ANG), Bangor 

International Airport Air Guard Station, ME (two aircraft). One aircraft will revert to backup 

aircraft inventory. The 186th Air Refueling Wing’s fire fighter positions move to the 172d Air 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 29

Wing at Jackson International Airport, MS, and the expeditionary combat support (ECS) will 

remain in place. 

Justification: Receiver locations General Mitchell (86) and McGhee-Tyson (74) ranked higher 

in military value rating for the tanker mission than Key Field (92). Bangor (123) also received 

aircraft within this recommendation. Military judgment argued for the increased unit size at 

Bangor because of its critical role as host base for Northeast Tanker Task Force support to the 

transatlantic air bridge. Key Field’s newer KC-135R aircraft help replace McGhee-Tyson’s 

older, higher maintenance KC-135E models, and help robust the unit size. The remainder of Key 

Field’s realigned aircraft help increase the squadron size at General Mitchell and maintain 

critical backup aircraft inventory levels. Bangor, McGhee-Tyson, and General Mitchell gain 

additional KC-135 aircraft to their maximum available capacity, increasing both effectiveness 

and unit capability. Key Field's ECS remains in place to support the Air Expeditionary Force 

and to retain trained, experienced Airmen. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $10.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $6.9M. Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$0.9M, with a payback expected in 13 years. The net present value of the cost to the Department 

over 20 years is a savings of $2.5M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 339 jobs (175 direct jobs and 164 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Meridian, MS, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is 

0.6 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes indicates no 

issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces 

and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of 

all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; land use constraints or 

sensitive resource areas; noise; and wetlands that may need to be considered during the 

implementation of this recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts to cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; 

threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; or water resources. 

Impacts of costs include $0.1M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. 

These costs were included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the 

costs of environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended 

BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are 

no known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 30 

Great Falls International Airport Air Guard Station, MT 

Recommendation: Realign Great Falls International Airport Air Guard Station, MT. Distribute 

the 120th Fighter Wing’s F-16s to the 187th Fighter Wing, Dannelly Field Air Guard Station, AL 

(three aircraft); the 132d Fighter Wing, Des Moines International Airport Air Guard Station, IA 

(three aircraft); and retire (nine aircraft). The wing’s expeditionary combat support (ECS) 

elements remain in place. 

Justification: Great Falls (117) ranked low in military value. The reduction in F-16 force 

structure and the need to align common versions of the F-16 at the same bases argued for 

realigning F-16s out of Great Falls. The F-16s realign to Dannelly (60) and Des Moines (137). 

Although Des Moines was somewhat lower in military value ranking that Great Falls, the 

realignment to Des Moines creates a more effective unit of 18 aircraft. The wing's ECS will 

remain in place to support the Air Expeditionary Force and to retain trained, experienced Air 

National Guard personnel. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $9.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $0.7M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $1.8M with a payback expected in four years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $18.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 174 jobs (107 direct jobs and 67 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Great Falls, MT, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which 

is 0.4 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support forces, missions, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; and wetlands that may 

need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; or water resources. Impacts of costs 

include $0.4M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 31

Reno-Tahoe International Airport Air Guard Station, NV 

Recommendation: Realign Reno-Tahoe International Airport Air Guard Station, NV. 

Distribute the eight C-130H aircraft of the 152d Airlift Wing (ANG) to the 189th Airlift Wing 

(ANG), Little Rock Air Force Base, AR. Flying related Expeditionary Combat Support (ECS) 

moves to Channel Islands Air Guard Station, CA (aerial port), and Fresno Air Guard Station, CA 

(fire fighters). The remaining ECS elements and the Distributed Common Ground System 

(DCGS) remain in place. 

 

Justification: This recommendation distributes C-130 force structure to a higher military value 

base. Because of limitations to land and ramp space, Reno was unable to expand beyond 10 C130s. This recommendation realigns Reno’s (101) C-130s to the Air National Guard at Little 

Rock Air Force Base (17), where a larger, more effective squadron size is possible. This larger 

squadron at Little Rock also creates the opportunity for an association between active duty and 

the Air National Guard, optimizing aircraft utilization. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $22.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $12.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $3.6M, with a payback expected in 9 years. The net present value of the cost 

and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $22.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 263 jobs (147 direct jobs and 116 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Reno-Sparks, NV, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, 

which is 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support forces, missions and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands that 

may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to dredging; or marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries. Impacts of costs 

include $0.09M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs 

were included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 32 

Cannon Air Force Base, NM 

Recommendation: Close Cannon Air Force Base, NM. Distribute the 27th Fighter Wing’s F16s to the 115th Fighter Wing, Dane County Regional Airport, Truax Field Air Guard Station, 

WI (three aircraft); 114th Fighter Wing, Joe Foss Field Air Guard Station, SD (three aircraft); 

150th Fighter Wing, Kirtland Air Force Base, NM (three aircraft); 113th Wing, Andrews Air 

Force Base, MD (nine aircraft); 57th Fighter Wing, Nellis Air Force Base, NV (seven aircraft), 

the 388th Wing at Hill Air Force Base, UT (six aircraft), and backup inventory (29 aircraft). 

Justification: Cannon has a unique F-16 force structure mix. The base has one F-16 Block 50 

squadron, one F-16 Block 40 squadron, and one F-16 Block 30 squadron. All active duty Block 

50 bases have higher military value than Cannon. Cannon’s Block 50s move to backup 

inventory using standard Air Force programming percentages for fighters. Cannon’s F-16 Block 

40s move to Nellis Air Force Base (seven aircraft) and Hill Air Force Base (six aircraft to right 

size the wing at 72 aircraft) and to backup inventory (11 aircraft). Nellis (12) and Hill (14) have 

a higher military value than Cannon (50). The remaining squadron of F-16 Block 30s (18 

aircraft) are distributed to Air National Guard units at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM (16), 

Andrews Air Force Base, MD (21), Joe Foss Air Guard Station, SD (112), and Dane-Truax Air 

Guard Station, WI (122). These moves sustain the active/Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve 

force mix by replacing aircraft that retire in the 2025 Force Structure Plan. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $90.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $815.6M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $200.5M with an immediate payback expected. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $2,706.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 4,780 jobs (2,824 direct jobs and 1,956 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Clovis, NM, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 20.5 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Nellis Air Force Base is in a National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (serious), particulate matter (PM10, serious), and ozone 

(8-hr, subpart 1). A preliminary assessment indicates that a conformity determination may be 

required to verify that positive conformity can be achieved. Costs to mitigate this potential 

impact have been included in the payback calculation and this is not expected to be an 

impediment to the implementation of this recommendation. There are also potential impacts to 

air quality; cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource 

areas; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 33

resources; and wetlands that may need to be considered during the implementation of this 

recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts to dredging; or marine mammals, resources, 

or sanctuaries. Impacts of costs include $2.8M in costs for environmental compliance and waste 

management. These costs were included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated 

impacts to the costs of environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all 

recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been 

reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to the implementation of this 

recommendation. 

Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, NY 

Recommendation: Close Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station (ARS), NY. Distribute the eight C130H aircraft of the 914th Airlift Wing (AFR) to the 314th Airlift Wing, Little Rock Air Force 

Base, AR. The 914th’s headquarters moves to Langley Air Force Base, VA, the Expeditionary 

Combat Support (ECS) realigns to the 310th Space Group (AFR) at Schriever Air Force Base, 

CO, and the Civil Engineering Squadron moves to Lackland Air Force Base, TX. Also at 

Niagara, distribute the eight KC-135R aircraft of the 107th Air Refueling Wing (ANG) to the 

101st Air Refueling Wing (ANG), Bangor International Airport Air Guard Station, ME. The 

101st will subsequently retire its eight KC-135E aircraft and no Air Force aircraft remain at 

Niagara. 

Justification: This recommendation distributes C-130 force structure to Little Rock (17-airlift), 

a base with higher military value. These transfers move C-130 force structure from the Air 

Force Reserve to the active duty--addressing a documented imbalance in the active/reserve 

manning mix for C-130s. Additionally, this recommendation distributes more capable KC-135R 

aircraft to Bangor (123), replacing the older, less capable KC-135E aircraft. Bangor supports the 

Northeast Tanker Task Force and the Atlantic air bridge. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $65.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $5.3M. Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$20.1M, with a payback period expected in two years. The net present value of the cost and 

savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $199.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,072 jobs (642 direct jobs and 430 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY, metropolitan statistical 

economic area, which is 0.2 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic 

impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: Review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 34 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands that 

may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to dredging; or marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries. Impacts of costs 

include $0.3M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Schenectady County Airport Air Guard Station, NY 

Recommendation: Realign Schenectady County Airport Air Guard Station (Air Guard Station), 

NY. The 109th Airlift Wing (ANG) will transfer four C-130H aircraft to the 189th Airlift Wing 

(ANG), Little Rock Air Force Base, AR. 

Justification: This recommendation distributes C-130 force structure to Little Rock (17), which 

has higher military value. Adding aircraft to the ANG unit at Little Rock creates a larger, more 

effective squadron. The LC-130 aircraft (ski-equipped) remain at Schenectady (117). 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $3.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $3.3M. Annual recurring savings after implementation are $ 

0.6M with payback expected in eight years. The net present value of the cost and savings to the 

Department over 20 years is a savings of $2.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 39 jobs (19 direct jobs and 20 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY, Metropolitan Statistical 

economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate 

economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was 

considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: Review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; land use constraints or 

sensitive resource areas; noise; waste management; water resources; and wetlands that may need 

to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no anticipated 

impacts to cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; or threatened and endangered species or critical habitat. Impacts of costs include 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 35

$0.04M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Pope Air Force Base, NC, Pittsburgh International Airport Air Reserve Station, PA, 

and Yeager Air Guard Station, WV 

Recommendation: Realign Pope Air Force Base (Air Force Base), NC. Distribute the 43d 

Airlift Wing’s C-130E aircraft (25 aircraft) to the 314th Airlift Wing, Little Rock Air Force 

Base, AR; realign the 23d Fighter Group’s A-10 aircraft (36 aircraft) to Moody Air Force Base, 

GA; transfer real property accountability to the Army; disestablish the 43rd Medical Group and 

establish a medical squadron. At Little Rock Air Force Base, AR, realign eight C-130E aircraft 

to backup inventory; retire 27 C-130Es; realign one C-130J aircraft to the 143d Airlift Wing 

(ANG), Quonset State Airport Air Guard Station, RI; two C-130Js to the 146th Airlift Wing 

(ANG), Channel Islands Air Guard Station, CA; and transfer four C-130Js from the 314th Airlift 

Wing (AD) to the 189th Airlift Wing (ANG), Little Rock Air Force Base. 

Realign Yeager Airport Air Guard Station (AGS), WV, by realigning eight C-130H aircraft to 

Pope/Fort Bragg to form a 16 aircraft Air Force Reserve/active duty associate unit, and by 

relocating flying-related expeditionary combat support (ECS) to Eastern West Virginia Regional 

Airport/Shepherd Field AGS (aerial port and fire fighters). Close Pittsburgh International 

Airport (IAP) Air Reserve Station (ARS), PA, and relocate 911th Airlift Wing’s (AFRC) eight 

C-130H aircraft to Pope/Fort Bragg to form a 16 aircraft Air Force Reserve/active duty associate 

unit. Relocate AFRC operations and maintenance manpower to Pope/Fort Bragg. Relocate 

flight related ECS (aeromedical squadron) to Youngstown-Warren Regional APT ARS. 

Relocate all remaining Pittsburgh ECS and headquarters manpower to Offutt Air Force Base, 

NE. Air National Guard units at Pittsburgh are unaffected. 

Justification: Downsizing Pope Air Force Base takes advantage of mission-specific 

consolidation opportunities to reduce operational costs, maintenance costs and the manpower 

footprint. The smaller manpower footprint facilitates transfer of the installation to the Army. 

Active duty C-130s and A-10s will move to Little Rock (17-airlift) and Moody (11-SOF/CSAR), 

respectively, to consolidate force structure at those two bases and enable Army recommendations 

at Pope. At Little Rock, older aircraft are retired or converted to back-up inventory and J-model 

C-130s are aligned under the Air National Guard. Little Rock grows to become the single major 

active duty C-130 unit, streamlining maintenance and operation of this aging weapon system. At 

Pope, the synergistic, multi-service relationship will continue between Army airborne and Air 

Force airlift forces with the creation of an active duty/Reserve associate unit. The C-130 unit 

remains as an Army tenant on an expanded Fort Bragg. With the disestablishment of the 43rd 

Medical Group, the AF will maintain the required manpower to provide primary care, flight and 

occupational medicine to support the Air Force active duty military members. The Army will 

maintain the required manpower necessary to provide primary care, flight, and occupational 

medicine to support the Army active duty military members. The Army will provide ancillary 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 36 

and specialty medical services for all assigned Army and Air Force military members (lab, x-ray, 

pharmacy, etc). 

The major command's capacity briefing reported Pittsburgh ARS land constraints prevented the 

installation from hosting more than 10 C-130 aircraft and Yeager AGS cannot support more than 

eight C-130s. Careful analysis of mission capability indicates that it is more appropriate to 

robust the proposed airlift mission at Fort Bragg to an optimal 16 aircraft C-130 squadron, which 

provides greater military value and offers unique opportunities for Jointness. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $218.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $652.5M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $197.0M, with an immediate payback expected. The net present value 

of the cost and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $2,515.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 7,840 jobs (4,700 direct jobs and 3,140 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Fayetteville, NC, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, 

which is 4.0 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 246 jobs (156 direct jobs and 90 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Charleston, WV, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 581 jobs (322 direct jobs and 259 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Pittsburgh, PA, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes indicates no 

issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support forces, missions 

and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of 

all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands that 

may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to dredging; or marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries. Impacts of costs 

include $1.3M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 37

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Grand Forks Air Force Base, ND 

Recommendation: Realign Grand Forks Air Force Base (AFB), ND. Distribute the 319th Air 

Refueling Wing’s KC-135R aircraft to the 126th Air Refueling Wing (ANG), Scott AFB, IL (12 

aircraft), which retires its eight KC-135E aircraft; the 916th Air Refueling Wing (AFR), 

Seymour-Johnson AFB, NC (eight aircraft), which will host an active duty associate unit; the 6th 

Air Mobility Wing, MacDill AFB, FL (four aircraft), which will host a Reserve association with 

927th Air Refueling Wing (AFR) manpower realigned from Selfridge ANGB, MI; the 154th 

Wing (ANG), Hickam AFB, HI (four aircraft), which will host an active duty associate unit; and 

the 22d Air Refueling Wing, McConnell AFB, KS (eight aircraft), which currently associates 

with the 931st Air Refueling Group (AFR). Grand Forks will remain an active Air Force 

installation with a new active duty/Air National Guard association unit created in anticipation of 

emerging missions at Grand Forks. 

Realign McConnell Air National Guard (ANG) Base by relocating the 184th Air Refueling Wing 

(ANG) nine KC-135R aircraft to the 190th Air Refueling Wing at Forbes Field AGS, KS, which 

will retire its eight assigned KC-135E aircraft. The 184th Air Refueling Wing 's operations and 

maintenance manpower will transfer with the aircraft to Forbes, while the wing's expeditionary 

combat support (ECS) elements will remain at McConnell. 

Justification: Grand Forks (40-tanker) ranked lowest in military value of all active duty KC135 bases. However, of Northern tier bases, Grand Forks ranked highest in military value for the 

UAV mission (43-UAV). Military judgment argued for a continued strategic presence in the 

north central U.S. (Grand Forks is one of the last remaining active military installations in the 

region). Military judgment also indicated the potential for emerging missions in homeland 

defense, particularly for border states. Therefore, Grand Forks is retained as an active 

installation, but realigned to distribute its KC-135R force structure to bases with higher value for 

the tanker mission--MacDill (36), McConnell (15), Seymour Johnson (25), and Scott (38). The 

additional aircraft at MacDill optimize the unit size, establish a new active duty/Air Force 

Reserve association to enhance unit capability, and preserve sufficient capacity for future 

beddown of the next generation tanker aircraft. Scott receives KC-135R model aircraft to 

replace older, higher maintenance KC-135E models, capture Scott's existing capacity, and 

increase its capability by robusting the ANG squadron. The additional aircraft at Seymour 

Johnson optimize the squadron, increase the wing's capability, and establish another new active 

duty/Air Force Reserve unit association. Additional aircraft at McConnell capitalize on available 

excess capacity at no cost and optimize three squadrons for greater total wing capability. The 

Air Force used military judgment in moving force structure from Grand Forks to Hickam (87), 

concluding that Hickam’s strategic location argued for a more robust global mobility capability 

in the western Pacific. Increasing tanker force structure at Hickam robusts the unit and 

establishes an active duty/Air Force Reserve association to maximize Reserve participation. 

Realigning ANG KC-135R aircraft from McConnell to Forbes (35) replaces aging, higher 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 38 

maintenance KC-135E aircraft with newer models while retaining the experienced personnel 

from one of the highest-ranking reserve component tanker bases. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $131.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $322.5M. Annual recurring savings after implementation 

are $173.3M, with payback expected in one year. The net present value of the cost and savings 

to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $1,982.0 million. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 4,929 jobs (2,645 direct jobs and 2,284 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Grand Forks, ND-MN, Metropolitan Statistical economic 

area, which is 7.4 percent of economic area employment. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands that 

may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries. Impacts of costs include 

$1.2M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Hector International Airport Air Guard Station, ND 

Recommendation: Realign Hector International Airport Air Guard Station, ND. The 119th 

Fighter Wing’s F-16s (15 aircraft) retire. The wing’s expeditionary combat support elements 

remain in place. 

Justification: Hector (125) ranked low in military value. The reduction in F-16 force structure 

and the need to align common versions of the F-16 at the same bases argued for realigning 

Hector to allow its aircraft to retire without a flying mission backfill. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $1.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $3.3M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $1.0M with a payback expected in two years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $12.9M. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 39

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will not result in any job reductions 

(direct or indirect) over the 2006-2011 period in the Fargo, ND-MN, Metropolitan Statistical 

economic area. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic 

region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are no anticipated impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, 

or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, 

resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste 

management; water resources; or wetlands. No impacts are anticipated for the costs of 

environmental restoration, environmental compliance, or waste management activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in 

this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

the implementation of this recommendation. 

Mansfield-Lahm Municipal Airport Air Guard Station, OH 

Recommendation: Close Mansfield-Lahm Municipal Airport Air Guard Station (AGS), OH. 

Distribute the eight C-130H aircraft of the 179th Airlift Wing (ANG) to the 908th Airlift Wing 

(AFR), Maxwell Air Force Base, AL (four aircraft), and the 314th Airlift Wing, Little Rock Air 

Force Base, AR (four aircraft). Flying related Expeditionary Combat Support (ECS) moves to 

Louisville International Airport AGS, KY (aerial port) and Toledo Express Airport AGS, OH 

(fire fighters). 

Justification: This recommendation distributes C-130 aircraft to two bases with higher military 

value, Little Rock Air Force Base (17) and Maxwell Air Force Base (21). The addition of 

aircraft at Maxwell Air Force Base creates an optimally sized Reserve Component squadron. 

Additionally, these transfers move C-130 force structure from the Air National Guard to the Air 

Force Reserve and active duty--addressing a documented imbalance in the active/Air National 

Guard/Air Force Reserve manning mix for C-130s. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $33.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $3.1M. Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$8.7M, with a payback period expected in three years. The net present value of the cost and 

savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $86.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 528 jobs (234 direct jobs and 294 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Mansfield, OH, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 40 

is 0.7 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; waste management; water 

resources; and wetlands that may need to be considered during the implementation of this 

recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; or threatened and endangered species or critical habitat. Impacts of costs include 

$0.2M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport Air Guard Station, OH 

Recommendation: Realign Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport Air Guard Station, OH. 

Distribute the 178th Fighter Wing’s F-16 aircraft to the 132d Fighter Wing, Des Moines 

International Airport Air Guard Station, IA (nine aircraft); the 140th Wing (ANG), Buckley Air 

Force Base, CO (three aircraft) and 149th Fighter Wing (ANG), Lackland Air Force Base, TX 

(six aircraft), but retain The wing’s expeditionary combat support (ECS) elements, the 251st 

Combat Communications Group (ANG) and 269th Combat Communications Squadron (ANG) 

in place, and relocate the wing's firefighter positions will move to Rickenbacker Air Guard 

Station, OH. 

Justification: The decision to realign Springfield-Beckley's F-16s and not replace force 

structure at Springfield-Beckley is based on considerations of military value and all other 

available information. Buckley (64) and Lackland (47) have higher military value than 

Springfield-Beckley (128), and Buckley has a role in the Homeland Defense mission. This 

recommendation optimizes the squadron size at Lackland, the only ANG F-16 Flying Training 

Unit. While not currently tasked with a Homeland Defense role, Des Moines (137) is located 

within the specified response timing criteria of a Homeland Security site of interest. The 132d 

Fighter Wing, Des Moines International Airport Air Guard Station will assume a role in the air 

sovereignty mission. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $11.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $8.4M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 41

implementation are $0.9M with a payback expected in 17 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $0.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 440 jobs (291 direct jobs and 149 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Dayton-Springfield, OH, Metropolitan Statistical economic 

area, which is 0.7 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; and wetlands that may 

need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; or water resources. Impacts of costs 

include $0.3M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Portland International Airport Air Guard Station, OR 

Recommendation: Realign Portland International Airport Air Guard Station, OR. Realign the 

939th Air Refueling Wing (AFR) by distributing the wing’s KC-135R aircraft to the 507th Air 

Refueling Wing (AFR), Tinker Air Force Base, OK (four aircraft); the 190th Air Refueling Wing 

(ANG), Forbes Field Air Guard Station, KS (three aircraft); and by reverting one aircraft to 

backup inventory. Operations and maintenance manpower for four aircraft from the 939th Air 

Refueling Wing is realigned with the aircraft to Tinker Air Force Base. The 939th Air Refueling 

Wing's remaining manpower, to include expeditionary combat support, is realigned to 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. Realign the 142d Fighter Wing (ANG) by distributing the 

wing's F-15 aircraft to the 177th Fighter Wing (ANG), Atlantic City, NJ (six aircraft) and the 

159th Fighter Wing (ANG), New Orleans ARS, LA (nine aircraft). The 142d Fighter Wing’s 

expeditionary combat support elements, along with the 244th and 272d Combat Communications 

Squadrons (ANG), will remain at Portland and Portland will continue to support a Homeland 

Defense alert commitment. The 304th Rescue Squadron (AFR) at Portland is realigned to 

McChord Air Force Base, WA, with no aircraft involved. The 214th Engineering Installation 

Squadron (ANG), a geographically separated unit at Jackson Barracks, LA, is relocated onto 

available facilities at New Orleans. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 42 

Justification: This recommendation realigns Portland's KC-135R tanker aircraft to Forbes Field 

and Tinker, installations with higher military value. Tinker (4) and Forbes (35) ranked higher 

than Portland (71) for the tanker mission, and both installations remain operationally effective 

due to their proximity to air refueling missions. This recommendation will robust the Reserve 

squadron size at Tinker and Air National Guard squadron size at Forbes, increasing these units' 

capability. An Air National Guard and Reserve KC-135 unit association will be established at 

Tinker to access Reserve experience and maximize regional Reserve participation in the aerial 

refueling mission. This recommendation will also ensure critical KC-135 backup aircraft 

inventory levels are preserved. 

This recommendation also realigns Portland's F-15 fighter aircraft to an installation of higher 

military value. Atlantic City (61) ranks higher than Portland (77) for the fighter mission, and 

realigning Portland's F-15 aircraft to Atlantic City helps create an optimum-sized fighter 

squadron (24 Primary Aircraft Assigned). While New Orleans (79) ranks slightly below 

Portland for the fighter mission, the Air Force used military judgment in realigning Portland's 

remaining F-15 aircraft to New Orleans. New Orleans has above average military value for 

reserve component bases, and realigning aircraft from Portland creates another optimum-sized 

fighter squadron at New Orleans. Although the ANG will continue to support an alert 

commitment at Portland, the Air Force determined it is also a priority to support North American 

Defense Command (NORAD) and United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) air 

sovereignty alert requirements at Atlantic City and New Orleans. Creating effective sized 

squadrons at these reserve component locations ensures the Air Force can maintain trained, 

experienced pilots and maintenance technicians, and is able to fulfill its Homeland Defense alert 

requirements. Portland's ECS remains in place to support the Air Expeditionary Force and to 

retain trained, experienced Airmen. 

By relocating the geographically separated Air National Guard squadron onto New Orleans, the 

Air Force best utilizes available facilities on the installation while reducing the cost to the 

government to lease facilities in the community. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $85.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $36.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation is $14.0M, with a payback expected in seven years. The net present value of the 

savings to the Department over 20 years is $100.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,018 jobs (564 direct jobs and 454 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA, Metropolitan 

Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The 

aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence 

was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 43

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation.

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; and wetlands that may need to be 

considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts 

to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; or water resources. Impacts of costs 

include $0.3M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Ellsworth Air Force Base, SD and Dyess Air Force Base, TX 

Recommendation: Close Ellsworth Air Force Base, SD. The 24 B-1 aircraft assigned to the 

28th Bomb Wing will be distributed to the 7th Bomb Wing, Dyess Air Force Base, TX. Realign 

Dyess Air Force Base, TX. The C-130 aircraft assigned to the 317th Airlift Group will be 

distributed to the active duty 314th Airlift Wing (22 aircraft) and Air National Guard 189th 

Airlift Wing (two aircraft), Little Rock Air Force Base, AR; the 176th Wing (ANG), Elmendorf 

Air Force Base, AK (four aircraft); and the 302d Airlift Wing (AFR), Peterson Air Force Base, 

CO (four aircraft). Peterson Air Force Base will have an active duty/Air Force Reserve 

association in the C-130 mission. Elmendorf Air Force Base will have an active duty/Air 

National Guard association in the C-130 mission. 

Justification: This recommendation consolidates the B-1 fleet at one installation to achieve 

operational efficiencies. Ellsworth (39) ranked lower in military value for the bomber mission 

than Dyess (20). To create an efficient, single-mission operation at Dyess, the Air Force 

realigned the tenant C-130s from Dyess to other Air Force installations. The majority of these 

aircraft went to Little Rock (17-airlift), which enables consolidation of the active duty C-130 

fleet into one stateside location at Little Rock, and robusts the Air National Guard squadron to 

facilitate an active duty association with the Guard unit. The other C-130s at Dyess were 

distributed to Elmendorf (51-airlift) and Peterson (30-airlift) to facilitate active duty associations 

with the Guard and Reserve units at these installations. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $299.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $316.4M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $161.3M, with a payback expected in one year. The net present value 

of the cost and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $1,853.3M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 6,768 jobs (3,852 direct jobs and 2,916 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Rapid City, SD, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 44 

which is 8.5 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; waste management; water 

resources; and wetlands that may need to be considered during the implementation of this 

recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; or threatened and endangered species or critical habitat. Impacts of costs include 

$3.2M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Nashville International Airport Air Guard Station, TN 

Recommendation: Realign Nashville International Airport (IAP) Air Guard Station (AGS), 

TN. This recommendation distributes the C-130H aircraft of the 118th Airlift Wing (ANG) to 

the 182d Airlift Wing (ANG), Greater Peoria Airport AGS, IL (four aircraft), and the 123d 

Airlift Wing (ANG), Louisville IAP AGS, KY (four aircraft). Flying related ECS (aerial port 

and fire fighters) moves to Memphis IAP AGS. The Aeromedical Squadron from Nashville 

moves to Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth. Other ECS remains in place at 

Nashville. 

Justification: Nashville (104) had a low military value ranking and was near other ANG bases 

keeping or gaining aircraft. Military judgment was the predominant factor in this 

recommendation--this realignment creates two right-sized squadrons, Peoria (127) and Louisville 

(79) from three undersized squadrons and retains experienced ANG personnel. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $25.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $16.7M. Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$13.7M, with payback expected in two years. The net present value of the cost and savings to 

the Department over 20 years is a savings of $120.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 328 jobs (191 direct jobs and 137 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Nashville, TN, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is 

less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 45

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; waste management; and 

wetlands that may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. 

There are no anticipated impacts to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; 

threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; or water resources. Impacts of costs 

include $0.1M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Ellington Air Guard Station, TX 

Recommendation: Realign Ellington Field Air Guard Station, TX. The 147th Fighter Wing’s 

F-16s (15 aircraft) will retire. The wing’s expeditionary combat support (ECS) elements will 

remain in place. Ellington retains the capability to support the Homeland Defense mission. The 

272d Engineering Installation Squadron, an ANG geographically separated unit moves into 

available space on Ellington. 

Justification: Ellington (80) ranked low in military value. The reduction in F-16 force structure 

and the need to align common versions of the F-16 at the same bases argued for allowing 

Ellington’s F-16s to retire in place with no fighter mission backfill. Ellington is realigned to 

preserve the homeland defense Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) site using aircraft assigned 

elsewhere and operating from Ellington on a rotational basis as tasked by US Northern 

Command. In a related recommendation, the Lackland Air Force Base, Texas Air National 

Guard F-16 initial training unit is increased in size to capitalize on Ellington's trained pilots and 

maintainers. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $1.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $0.1M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $0.4M with a payback expected in five years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $3.6M.

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 5 jobs (3 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006-2011 in the Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 46 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of 

all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are no anticipated impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, 

or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, 

resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste 

management; water resources; or wetlands. No impacts are anticipated for the costs of 

environmental restoration, environmental compliance, or waste management activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in 

this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

the implementation of this recommendation. 

Lackland Air Force Base, TX 

Recommendation: Realign Lackland Air Force Base, TX. Relocate the Standard Air 

Munitions Package (STAMP)/Standard Tank, Rack, Adaptor, and Pylon Packages (STRAPP) 

function from Lackland Air Force Base, Medina Annex to McConnell Air Force Base, KS, and 

transfer the mission to the Air National Guard. 

Justification: This recommendation enables Air Force Total Force participation by converting 

one of two Air Force STAMP/STRAPP missions from active duty to the Air National Guard. 

Lackland Air Force Base, Medina Annex is one of two STAMP mission locations within the Air 

Force; Hill Air Force Base, UT is the other. This action will still retain two geographically 

separated munitions sites to support the Air Force's Air Expeditionary Force construct, yet 

reduce the active duty manpower requirement. Current munitions out-load operations from 

Medina Annex to the airhead at Lackland (the former Kelly Air Force Base airfield) pose 

transportation challenges in that explosives shipments are moved over local and interstate 

highways, increasing the security threat. The Air Force does not fully control the Lackland 

airfield, thus access and future encroachment cannot be assured. McConnell Air Force Base has 

co-located munitions storage and hot-cargo handling capability on the base, enhancing out-load 

effectiveness with little projected interference on existing missions. The base has sufficient 1.1 

net explosive weight munitions storage capacity in existing structures that supported a former 

bomb wing mission, and ANG personnel at McConnell currently perform a function similar to 

the active duty STAMP mission. Because of this existing capability, mission conversion is 

expected to require fewer additional full-time ANG personnel at McConnell than active duty 

personnel at Medina.

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $8.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 47

implementation period is a savings of $4.7M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $2.9M, with a payback expected in two years. The net present value of the 

cost and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $32.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 198 jobs (107 direct jobs and 91 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the San Antonio, TX, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of 

all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands that 

may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to dredging; or marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries. Impacts of costs 

include $0.02M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs 

were included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Hill Air Force Base, UT, Edwards Air Force Base, CA, Mountain 

Home Air Force Base, ID, Luke Air Force Base, AZ, and Nellis Air Force Base, NV 

Recommendation: Realign Hill Air Force Base, UT. Distribute the 419th Fighter Wing F-16s 

to the 482d Fighter Wing, Homestead Air Reserve Base, FL (six aircraft) and the 301st Fighter 

Wing, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, TX (nine aircraft). The AFMC F-16s at 

Hill will remain in place. Realign Edwards Air Force Base, CA; Mountain Home Air Force 

Base, ID; and Luke Air Force Base, AZ, by relocating base-level LANTIRN intermediate 

maintenance to Hill, establishing a Centralized Intermediate Repair Facility (CIRF) for Low 

Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) pods at Hill. Realign Naval 

Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, TX, and Nellis Air Force Base, NV, by relocating 

base-level F110 engine intermediate maintenance to Hill, establishing a CIRF for F110 engines 

at Hill. 

Justification: The Air Force distributed Reserve aircraft to Homestead Air Reserve Base (31) to 

create an optimum sized squadron that supports the homeland defense Air Sovereignty Alert 

mission. The remaining Reserve aircraft are distributed to the only other remaining Reserve F16 squadron at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth (58). This laydown keeps the 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 48 

active/Air National Guard/ Air Force Reserve force structure mix constant. Creating CIRFs for 

LANTIRN pods and F110 engines establishes Hill as a maintenance workload center for these 

commodities. This recommendation compliments other CIRF recommendations as part of an Air 

Force effort to standardize stateside and deployed intermediate-level maintenance concepts, and 

will increase maintenance productivity and support to the warfighter. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $28.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $8.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $8.1M with a payback expected in four years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $85.9M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 245 jobs (121 direct jobs and 124 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Ogden-Clearfield, UT, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 4 jobs (2 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Bakersfield, CA, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 65 jobs (41 direct jobs and 24indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Mountain Home, ID, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is 0.5 percent of economic 

area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 53 jobs (30 direct jobs and 23 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Phoenix-Scottsdale-Mesa, AZ, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 31 jobs (19 direct jobs and 12 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Las 

Vegas-Paradise, NV, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates there are 

no issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support forces, 

missions, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 49

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands that 

may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to dredging; or marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries. Impacts of costs 

include $1.0M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Langley Air Force Base, VA 

Recommendation: Realign Langley Air Force Base, VA. Realign base-level F-15 avionics 

intermediate maintenance from Langley Air Force Base to Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, by 

establishing a Centralized Intermediate Repair Facility (CIRF) at Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, for 

F-15 avionics. 

Justification: This recommendation standardizes stateside and deployed intermediate-level 

maintenance concepts, and compliments other CIRF recommendations made by the Air Force. It 

will increase maintenance productivity and support to the warfighter by consolidating and 

smoothing dispersed, random workflows. As a result of other recommendations, Tyndall is 

expected to have two full squadrons (48 F-22s) as compared to only one squadron (24 F-15s) at 

Langley. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $1.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $1.5M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $0.7M, with a payback expected in three years. The net present value of the 

cost and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $8.3M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 39 jobs (19 direct jobs and 20 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC, Metropolitan 

Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The 

aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence 

was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; threatened and 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 50 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; and wetlands that may need to be 

considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts 

to marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; or water resources. Impacts of costs 

include $0.2M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Richmond Air Guard Station, VA, and Des Moines International 

Airport Air Guard Station, IA 

Recommendation: Realign Richmond International Airport Air Guard Station, VA. Distribute 

the 192d Fighter Wing’s F-16s to the 132d Fighter Wing, Des Moines International Airport Air 

Guard Station, IA (six aircraft); 482d Fighter Wing Homestead Air Reserve Base, FL (three 

aircraft) and to backup inventory (six aircraft). Richmond International Airport Air Guard 

Station real property accountability will transfer to the Department of the Army. The192d 

Fighter Wing’s manpower will associate with the 1st Fighter Wing. Realign Des Moines 

International Airport Air Guard Station, IA. The F-16 aircraft currently assigned to the 132d 

Fighter Wing at Des Moines are redistributed to the 180th Fighter Wing, Toledo Express Airport 

Air Guard Station, OH (nine aircraft) and 138th Fighter Wing, Tulsa International Airport Air 

Guard Station, OK (six aircraft). 

Justification: Prior to BRAC 2005, the USAF announced a plan for the 192d Fighter Wing 

(ANG) to associate at Langley Air Force Base. This announcement was made. To 

accommodate the association and the F-16 force structure plan, the Air Force distributed the F16s from Richmond to other F-16 bases using military value and judgment. The F-16s from 

Richmond (49) are distributed to Des Moines (137) and Homestead (31) to enable the capability 

to support the homeland defense Air Sovereignty Alert mission. Des Moines’ F-16s are 

distributed to Toledo (123) and Tulsa (114) to support the Homeland Defense Air Sovereignty 

Alert mission and to consolidate the precision-guided weapon employment capability that exists 

in the Air National Guard. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $24.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $11.6M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $2.5M with a payback expected in 10 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $13.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 219 jobs (126 direct jobs and 93 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Richmond, VA, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which 

is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 51

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 191 jobs (110 direct jobs and 81 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Des 

Moines, IA, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; and wetlands that may 

need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; or water resources. Impacts of costs 

include $0.1M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Fairchild Air Force Base, WA 

Recommendation: Realign Fairchild Air Force Base, WA. The 141st Air Refueling Wing 

(ANG) will associate with the 92d Air Refueling Wing at Fairchild Air Force Base, and the 141st 

Air Refueling Wing's eight KC-135R aircraft are distributed to the 185th Air Refueling Wing 

(ANG), Sioux Gateway Airport Air Guard Station, IA. The 256th Combat Communications 

Squadron and 242d Combat Communications Squadron, which are ANG geographically 

separated units at Four Lakes and Spokane, are relocated into available facilities at Fairchild Air 

Force Base. 

Justification: This recommendation realigns aircraft and streamlines operations at Fairchild by 

associating the Air National Guard KC-135 wing with the active duty wing. Fairchild Air Force 

Base (17) ranked just behind McConnell Air Force Base as the active duty tanker base with 

highest military value for a tanker mission. This realignment preserves remaining capacity for 

the next generation tanker aircraft, while maintaining the ANG experience and recruiting 

potential within the region. In distributing KC-135R force structure to Sioux Gateway Air Guard 

Station (67), the Air Force applied military judgment in replacing aging, higher maintenance 

KC-135E force structure at Sioux Gateway with newer models to increase the unit's capability 

and retain trained, experienced aircrews and maintenance technicians. By relocating two 

geographically separated units onto Fairchild, the Air Force best uses its available resources 

while reducing the cost to the government of leased facilities. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 52 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $6.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $1.6M. Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$1.0M, with a payback expected in seven years. The net present value savings to the Department 

over 20 years is $8.3M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 413 jobs (198 direct jobs and 215 indirect jobs) 

over 2006-2011 period in the Spokane, WA, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is 0.2 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation.

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to cultural, archeological, or tribal 

resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and endangered 

species or critical habitat; and wetlands that may need to be considered during the 

implementation of this recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts to air quality; 

dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; waste management; or water resources. 

No impacts are anticipated for the costs of environmental restoration, environmental compliance, 

or waste management activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended 

BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are 

no known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

General Mitchell Air Reserve Station, WI 

Recommendation: Close General Mitchell Air Reserve Station (ARS). Distribute the eight C130H aircraft of the 440th Airlift Wing to the 94th Airlift Wing (AFR), Dobbins Air Reserve 

Base (ARB), GA (four aircraft) and to the 314th Airlift Wing, Little Rock Air Force Base, AR 

(four aircraft). Realign the 440th Airlift Wing’s operations, maintenance and Expeditionary 

Combat Support (ECS) manpower to Fort Bragg, NC. Air National Guard units at Mitchell are 

unaffected by this recommendation. 

Justification: This recommendation distributes C-130 aircraft to two bases of higher military 

value, Little Rock Air Force Base (17) and Dobbins Air Reserve Base (71). Adding aircraft at 

Little Rock and Dobbins optimizes squadron size, creating larger, more effective squadrons. 

Additionally, these transfers move C-130 force structure from the Air Force Reserve to the active 

duty--addressing a documented imbalance in the active/Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve 

manning mix for C-130s. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 53

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $38.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $14.3M. Annual recurring savings after implementation 

are $6.5M, with payback expected in five years. The net present value of the cost and savings to 

the Department over 20 years is a savings of $50.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 617 jobs (346 direct jobs and 271 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI, Metropolitan Statistical 

economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate 

economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was 

considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands that 

may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to dredging; or marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries. Impacts of costs 

include $0.4M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

Air Force Logistics Support Centers 

Recommendation: Realign Altus Air Force Base, OK; Hickam Air Force Base, HI; Hurlburt 

Field, FL; Langley Air Force Base, VA; Little Rock Air Force Base, AR; Luke Air Force Base, 

AZ; and Scott Air Force Base, IL. Establish Air Force Logistics Support Centers (LSCs) at 

Langley Air Force Base and Scott Air Force Base by combining five major command 

(MAJCOM) Regional Supply Squadrons (RSS) into two LSCs. 

Combat Air Forces (CAF): Establish a CAF LSC at Langley Air Force Base by realigning RSS 

positions from Hickam Air Force Base and Sembach, Germany (non-BRAC programmatic) as 

well as base-level Logistics Readiness Squadron (LRS) positions from Luke Air Force Base. 

Mobility Air Forces (MAF): Establish a MAF LSC at Scott Air Force Base by realigning RSS 

positions from Hurlburt Field and Sembach (non-BRAC programmatic) and LRS positions from 

Little Rock Air Force Base and Altus Air Force Base. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 54 

Justification: This recommendation is a transformational opportunity consistent with eLog21 

initiatives that will standardize Air Force materiel management command and control. This 

recommendation realigns RSS manpower (from three MAJCOM locations) and base-level LRS 

manpower (from three installations) into two LSCs in support of Combat Air Forces and 

Mobility Air Forces. Consolidation will provide a seamless transition from peace to war for 

3,012 aircraft and weapons systems associated with CAF/MAF forces and the Airmen that use 

them. It also provides a single point of contact to the warfighter, whether at home station or 

deployed. This recommendation will also result in the disestablishment of the Air Force Special 

Operations Command Regional Supply Squadron, Pacific Air Forces Regional Supply Squadron, 

and the United States Air Forces in Europe Regional Supply Squadron. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $9.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $19.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $6.1M with a payback expected in one year. The net present value to the 

Department over 20 years is a savings of $77.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 26 jobs (16 direct jobs and 10 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Altus, OK, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is 0.2 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 269 jobs (151 direct jobs and 118 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Honolulu, HI, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 98 jobs (54 direct jobs and 44 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Fort 

Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment.

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 28 jobs (16 direct jobs and 12 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Little 

Rock-North Little Rock, AR, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 28 jobs (16 direct jobs and 12 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 55

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; threatened and endangered 

species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands that may need to be 

considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no anticipated impacts 

to dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; or noise. Impacts of costs include 

$0.08M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 

F100 Engine Centralized Intermediate Repair Facilities 

Recommendation: Realign Langley Air Force Base, VA; Tyndall Air Force Base, FL; and 

Jacksonville International Airport Air Guard Station, FL. Establish a Centralized Intermediate 

Repair Facility (CIRF) for F100 engines at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, NC by realigning 

base-level F100 engine intermediate maintenance from Langley Air Force Base. Establish a 

CIRF for F100 engines at New Orleans Air Reserve Station, LA (Air National Guard unit) by 

realigning base-level F100 engine intermediate maintenance from Tyndall Air Force Base and 

Jacksonville Air Guard Station. 

Justification: This recommendation standardizes stateside and deployed intermediate-level 

maintenance concepts, and compliments other CIRF recommendations made by the Air Force. 

These CIRFs increase maintenance productivity and support to the warfighter by consolidating 

dispersed and random workflows, improving reliability-centered maintenance. Realigning F100 

engine maintenance from Langley and establishing an eastern region CIRF at Seymour Johnson 

anticipates the installation as a maintenance workload center for F-15 engines. Seymour Johnson 

is projected to have up to 87 F-15 aircraft as compared to only 24 F-15 aircraft at Langley. 

Realigning F100 engine maintenance from Tyndall and Jacksonville into a CIRF at New Orleans 

(ANG unit) establishes a southeast region CIRF that will service F100 engines for up to 96 F-15 

aircraft of active duty and Air National Guard aircraft, complimenting other Air Force 

recommendations that increase New Orleans and Jacksonville to an optimum 24 aircraft 

squadron size. The Air Force considered both New Orleans and Jacksonville for the southeast 

CIRF, but analysis indicated New Orleans would require less construction than Jacksonville due 

to existing maintenance facilities. A CIRF at New Orleans can also potentially capitalize on 

capacity and recruitment of experienced maintenance technicians as a result of the recommended 

realignment of the New Orleans Reserve A-10 mission. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $9.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 
Section 3: Recommendations – Air Force 

 Air Force - 56 

implementation period is a cost of $3.8M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $1.1M, with a payback expected in nine years. The net present value of the 

cost and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $7.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 66 jobs (32 direct jobs and 34 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC, Metropolitan 

Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 66 jobs (33 direct jobs and 33 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 14 jobs (6 direct jobs and 8 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Jacksonville, FL, Metropolitan Statistical economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I.

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: There are potential impacts to air quality; cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; and wetlands that 

may need to be considered during the implementation of this recommendation. There are no 

anticipated impacts to dredging; or marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries. Impacts of costs 

include $0.4M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. There are no anticipated impacts to the costs of 

environmental restoration. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC 

actions affecting the installations in this recommendation have been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to the implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group E&T - 1

Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group 

Summary of Selection Process 

Introduction 

The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness) chaired the 

Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group (E&T JCSG). The E&T JCSG principals 

included senior members from each Military Department (MILDEP), the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense (OSD), and the Joint Staff. The E&T JCSG was chartered to review DoD common 

business-oriented education and training functions, which included flight training, professional 

development education, specialized skill training, and range activities. 

E&T JCSG Responsibilities and Strategy 

The E&T JCSG was responsible for comprehensive analyses of assigned functions, an evaluation 

of alternatives, and the development and documentation of realignment and closure 

recommendations for submission to the Secretary of Defense. In developing its analytical 

process, the JCSG established internal policies and procedures consistent with DoD policy 

memoranda, the force structure plan and installation inventory; BRAC selection criteria; and the 

requirements of Public Law 101-510, as amended. To facilitate the group’s efforts, categories of 

functions to be evaluated were developed, and the JCSG was organized into subgroups 

corresponding to these functions. A flag officer or civilian equivalent chaired each subgroup. 

Each Service and OSD appointed members to each subgroup. This structure provided an 

effective framework to evaluate the potential of cross-service, joint, and transformational 

opportunities to improve DoD’s education and training programs. 

The basic premise of the E&T JCSG was to ensure availability of world-class training to enhance 

readiness. The overarching strategies of the E&T JCSG included advancing joint and Total 

Force capabilities; eliminating redundancy, duplication, and excess capacity; achieving 

synergies; reducing costs by increasing effectiveness, efficiency, and interoperability; and 

exploiting best business practices. Operational strategies were then developed for evaluating 

functions performed by each subgroup. The subgroups, functions, and strategies are as follows: 

• Flight Training 

 Functions 

− Undergraduate fixed wing pilot training 

− Undergraduate rotary wing pilot training 

− Navigator/Naval Flight Officer 
E&T - 2 Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group 

− Joint Strike Fighter initial training site, and 

− Unmanned Aerial Vehicle operators. 

 Operational Strategy 

− Move toward fewer, more joint bases 

− Position DOD to conduct similar UFT across services with common aircraft 

− Enhance jointness while preserving Service-unique training and culture. 

• Professional Development Education

 Functions 

− Professional Military Education, 

− Joint Professional Military Education, 

− Other full-time education programs, and 

− Leader development. 

 Operational Strategy 

− Transfer appropriate functions to the private sector, 

− Create Joint Center of Excellence for common educational functions, and 

− Balance joint and Service competencies within the professional military education 

spectrum. 

• Ranges

 Functions 

− Unit, interoperable, and joint ranges, 

− Training support enablers for training ranges, 

− Test and Evaluation ranges, and 

− Simulation Centers. 

 Operational Strategy 

− Establish cross-functional/Service regional range complexes, 

− Preserve irreplaceable, one-of-a-kind facilities, and 

− Create new range capabilities for emerging joint needs. 
Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group E&T - 3

• Specialized Skill Training

 Functions 

− Initial skill training, 

− Skill progression training, and 

− Functional training. 

 Operational Strategy 

− Create Centers of Excellence for common training functions, 

− Rely on private sector for appropriate technical training, and 

− Preserve opportunities for continuing Service acculturation. 

The E&T JCSG Analytical Process 

The JCSG performed a detailed analysis of existing education and training capacity using certified 

data and developed recommendations that best satisfied current and future DoD requirements. The 

JCSG used military value as the primary consideration, while balancing other selection criteria and 

the future force structure to evaluate and document realignment and closure recommendations. 

Each subgroup calculated capacity for each function and sub-function using defined attributes and 

metrics. Questions, formulas, and filters were developed and tested for validity, adequacy, and 

quality. The Military Departments/Agencies issued controlled data calls, in question format, to 

their installations and the installations provided certified answers back to the JCSG via the Military 

Departments/Agencies. Each E&T subgroup analyzed the capacity at the installations, which 

included a review of potential surge requirements. Responses identified locations where the 

functions were performed which defined the full scope for each function. Subgroups assessed 

military value for each function using targeted installation lists. Military value data call questions 

allowed a value assessment of a facility’s capability to perform specific functions based upon 

BRAC selection criteria 1-4. These criteria deal directly with a facility’s mission capability, 

condition, potential for future contingencies, and cost of operation. The process allowed the subgroup to calculate the military value of facilities performing similar education and training 

functions. The results arrayed facilities performing similar functions in terms of military value. At 

each step, the DoD Inspector General (DoD IG) independently validated the data’s adequacy and 

quality. Each subgroup identified strategy-based, data-supported realignment or closure scenarios. 

After scenarios were developed, the E&T JCSG applied criteria 5-8, using DoD BRAC standard 

procedures and/or models. 

The E&T JCSG subgroups generated 295 ideas, which were refined into 164 proposals. The group 

narrowed the 164 proposals to 64 declared scenarios using a deliberative process. After detailed 

analysis, the E&T JCSG forwarded 17 fully developed candidate recommendations for 

consideration. The Infrastructure Steering Group (ISG) disapproved two candidate 
E&T - 4 Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group 

recommendations, and the Infrastructure Executive Council (IEC) disapproved two. During JCSG 

and MILDEP integration of candidate recommendations, four E&T candidate recommendations 

were rolled into Military Department recommendations resulting in nine E&T JCSG 

recommendations. 

The recommendations approved by the Secretary of Defense follow: 
Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group E&T - 5

Recommendations and Justifications 

Aviation Logistics School 

Recommendation: Realign Fort Eustis by relocating the Aviation Logistics School and 

consolidating it with the Aviation Center and School at Fort Rucker.

Justification: This recommendation consolidates Aviation training and doctrine development at 

a single location. Consolidating Aviation Logistics training with the Aviation Center and School 

fosters consistency, standardization and training proficiency. It consolidates both Aviation skill 

level I producing courses at one location, which allows the Army to reduce the total number of 

Military Occupational Skills (MOS) training locations (lessening the TRADOC footprint). 

Additionally, it enhances military value, supports the Army’s force structure plan, and maintains 

sufficient surge capability to address future unforeseen requirements. It improves training 

capabilities while eliminating excess capacity at institutional training installations. This provides 

the same or better level of service at a reduced cost. This recommendation supports Army 

Transformation by collocating institutional training, MTOE units, RDT&E organizations and 

other TDA units in large numbers on single installations to support force stabilization and engage 

training. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $492.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $348.1M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $42.9M with a payback expected in 13 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $77.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 5,000 jobs (2,410 direct jobs and 2,590 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA, 

metropolitan statistical area, which is 0.5 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate 

economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was 

considered. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.4M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included 
E&T - 6 Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group 

in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Combat Service Support Center 

Recommendation: Realign Fort Eustis, VA, by relocating the Transportation Center and School 

to Fort Lee, VA. Realign Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD by relocating the Ordnance Center and 

School to Fort Lee, VA. Realign Redstone Arsenal, AL, by relocating the Missile and Munitions 

Center to Fort Lee, VA. Consolidate the Transportation Center and School and the Ordnance 

Center and School with the Quartermaster Center & School, the Army Logistic Management 

College, and Combined Arms Support Command, to establish a Combat Service Support Center 

at Fort Lee, VA. 

Justification: This recommendation consolidates Combat Service Support (CSS) training and 

doctrine development at a single installation, which promotes training effectiveness and 

functional efficiencies. The moves advance the Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN) model, 

currently in place at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, which consolidates the Military Police, Engineer, 

and Chemical Centers and Schools. This recommendation improves the MANSCEN concept by 

consolidating functionally related Branch Centers & Schools. It enhances military value, 

supports the Army’s force structure plan, and maintains sufficient surge capability to address 

future unforeseen requirements. It improves training capabilities while eliminating excess 

capacity at institutional training installations. This provides the same or better level of service at 

a reduced cost. This recommendation supports Army Transformation by collocating institutional 

training, MTOE units, RDT&E organizations, and other TDA units in large numbers on single 

installations to support force stabilization and engage training. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $754.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a savings of $352.4M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $131.8M with a payback expected in 6 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $934.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 3,516 jobs (1,709 direct jobs and 1,807 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport New, VA-NC, 

metropolitan economic area, which is 0.4 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 7,386 jobs (4,200 direct jobs and 3,186 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in 

the Baltimore-Towson, MD, metropolitan economic area, which is 0.5 percent of economic area 

employment. 
Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group E&T - 7

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 2,120 jobs (1,443 direct jobs and 677 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Huntsville, AL, metropolitan economic area, which is 0.9 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation may impact air quality at Fort Lee. However, 

noise caused by Ordnance School operations may result in significant impacts at Fort Lee. A 

noise analysis and mitigation may be required. This recommendation will have some impact on 

water resources at Fort Lee due to the increased in demand from incoming personnel. This 

recommendation may require upgrade of wastewater treatment plan. This recommendation has 

no impact on cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or 

sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; threatened and endangered 

species or critical habitat; or wetlands. The recommendation will require spending 

approximately $1.2M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Joint Center for Consolidated Transportation Management Training 

Recommendation: Realign Lackland Air Force Base, TX, by relocating the Transportation 

Management training to Fort Lee, VA. 

Justification: Eliminates redundancy. “Train as we fight; jointly.” Consolidates like schools 

while preserving service unique culture. Although Lackland Air Force Base, TX, has a higher 

military value than Fort Lee, VA, it is the military judgment of the JCSG that consolidation at 

the location with the largest amount of transportation training produces the greatest overall 

Military Value to the Department. Uses Inter-service Training Review Organization (ITRO) as 

the baseline. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $1.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $5.8M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation is $1.3M with a payback expected in one year. The net present value of the 

costs and Department savings over 20 years is a savings of $18.0M. 
E&T - 8 Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 260 jobs (155 direct jobs and 105 indirect jobs) 

over 2006-2011 in the San Antonio, TX, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: Review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resources areas; 

marine mammals, resources or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation requires 

spending approximately $0.1M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included 

in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Joint Center of Excellence for Culinary Training 

Recommendation: Realign Lackland Air Force Base, TX, by relocating Culinary Training to 

Fort Lee, VA, establishing it as a Joint Center of Excellence for Culinary Training. 

Justification: Consolidates Culinary Training at the installation with the largest Service 

requirement. Eliminates redundancy and costs. Trains the Services culinary training under 

Inter-service Training Review Organization (ITRO). It is the military judgment of the JCSG that 

consolidation at the location with the largest amount of culinary training produces the greatest 

overall military value to the Department, through increased training efficiency at a lower cost. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $5.0. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $2.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation is $1.4M with a payback expected in four years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $16.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 471 jobs (291 direct jobs and 180 indirect jobs) 

over 2006-2011 in the San Antonio, TX, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on these economic regions of influence was considered. 
Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group E&T - 9

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resources areas; 

marine mammals, resources or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. The recommendation will require 

spending $0.1M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback 

calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Joint Center of Excellence for Religious Training & Education 

Recommendation: Realign Maxwell Air Force Base, AL; Naval Air Station Meridian, MS; and 

Naval Station Newport, RI, by relocating religious training and education to Fort Jackson, SC, 

establishing a Joint Center of Excellence for religious training and education. 

Justification: Consolidation at Fort Jackson, SC, creates a synergistic benefit by having each 

Services’ officer and enlisted programs conducted in close proximity to operational forces. Realized 

savings result from consolidation and alignment of similar officer and enlisted educational activities 

and the merging of common support functions. This recommendation supports the following DoD 

transformational options: 1) establish center of excellence for joint education and training by 

combining like schools; and 2) establish joint officer and enlisted specialized skills training. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $1.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings $4.0M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation is $0.8M, with a payback expected in one year. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $11.9M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 88 jobs (39 direct jobs and 49 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 32 jobs (17 direct jobs and 15 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Meridian, MS, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 
E&T - 10 Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 37 jobs (22 direct jobs and 15 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Montgomery, AL, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation will have a minimal impact on air quality at Fort 

Jackson. This recommendation has no impact on cultural, archaeological, or tribal resources; 

dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resources areas; marine mammals, resources or 

sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; 

water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.3M 

for waste management and environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Joint Strike Fighter Initial Joint Training Site 

Recommendation: Realign Luke Air Force Base, AZ, by relocating to Eglin Air Force Base, 

FL, a sufficient number of instructor pilots and operations support personnel to stand up the Air 

Force’s portion of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Initial Joint Training Site, hereby established at 

Eglin Air Force Base, FL. Realign Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA, by relocating to 

Eglin Air Force Base, FL, a sufficient number of instructor pilots and operations support 

personnel to stand up the Marine Corps’ portion of the JSF Initial Joint Training Site, hereby 

established at Eglin Air Force Base, FL. Realign Naval Air Station Oceana, VA, by relocating to 

Eglin Air Force Base, FL, a sufficient number of instructor pilots, operations, and maintenance 

support personnel to stand up the Navy’s portion of the JSF Initial Joint Training Site, hereby 

established at Eglin Air Force Base, FL. Realign Sheppard Air Force Base, TX, by relocating to 

Eglin Air Force Base, FL, a sufficient number of front-line and instructor-qualified maintenance 

technicians and logistics support personnel to stand up the Air Force’s portion of the JSF Initial 

Joint Training Site, hereby established at Eglin Air Force Base, FL. Realign Naval Air Station 

Pensacola, FL, by relocating to Eglin Air Force Base, FL, a sufficient number of front-line and 

instructor-qualified maintenance technicians and logistics support personnel to stand up the 

Department of the Navy’s portion of the JSF Initial Joint Training Site hereby established at 

Eglin Air Force Base, FL. 
Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group E&T - 11

Justification: This recommendation establishes Eglin Air Force Base, FL as an Initial Joint 

Training Site that teaches entry-level aviators and maintenance technicians how to safely operate 

and maintain the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) (F-35) aircraft. The Department is scheduled to 

take delivery of the F-35 beginning in 2008. This joint basing arrangement will allow the Interservice Training Review Organization (ITRO) process to establish a DoD baseline program in a 

consolidated/joint school with curricula that permit services latitude to preserve service-unique 

culture and a faculty and staff that brings a “Train as we fight; jointly” national perspective to the 

learning process. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $199.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $209.6M. Annual recurring costs to the Department after 

implementation are $3.3M with no payback expected. The net present value of the costs and 

savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $226.3M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 888 jobs (392 direct jobs and 496 indirect jobs) 

over 2008-2011 in the Pensacola-Ferry, Pass-Brent, FL, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 

0.4 percent of economic area employment. Assuming no economic recovery, this 

recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 85 jobs (48 direct jobs and 37 

indirect jobs) over 2006-2011 in the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ, Metropolitan Statistical 

Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 82 jobs (43 direct jobs and 39 indirect jobs) over 2006-2011 in the San DiegoCarlsbad-San Marcos, CA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 69 jobs (33 direct jobs and 36 indirect jobs) over 2006-2011 in the Virginia BeachNorfolk-Newport News, VA-NC, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 487 jobs (295 direct jobs and 192 indirect jobs) over 2006-2011 in the Wichita 

Falls, TX, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.5 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 
E&T - 12 Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation may require a significant air permit revision for 

Eglin Air Force Base. Additional operations at Eglin Air Force Base could impact cultural, 

archeological, or historic sites, which would then impact operations. DoD will need to reevaluate Eglin Air Force Base noise contours as a result of the change in mission. This 

recommendation will require Endangered Species Act Consultation for all T&E species at Eglin. 

This recommendation may require modifying the hazardous waste program and on-installation 

water treatment works permits. Additional operations may impact wetlands at Eglin. This 

recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; or water resources. This recommendation will 

require approximately $1.0M for waste management and environmental compliance activities. 

This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise 

impact the cost of environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Net Fires Center 

Recommendation: Realign Fort Bliss, TX, by relocating the Air Defense Artillery (ADA) 

Center & School to Fort Sill, OK. Consolidate the Air Defense Artillery Center & School with 

the Field Artillery Center & School to establish a Net Fires Center. 

Justification: This recommendation consolidates Net Fires training and doctrine development at 

a single location. The moves advance the Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN) model, 

currently in place at Ft. Leonard Wood, which consolidated the Military Police, Engineer, and 

Chemical Centers and Schools. This recommendation improves the MANSCEN concept by 

consolidating functionally related Branch Centers & Schools, which fosters consistency, 

standardization, and training proficiency. It also facilitates task force stabilization, by combining 

operational forces with institutional training. In addition, it consolidates both ADA and Field 

Artillery skill level I courses at one location, which allows the Army to reduce the total number 

of Military Occupational Skills training locations (reducing the TRADOC footprint). 

Additionally, it enhances military value, supports the Army’s force structure plan, and maintains 

sufficient surge capability to address future unforeseen requirements. It improves training 

capabilities while eliminating excess capacity at institutional training installations. This provides 

the same or better level of service at a reduced cost. This recommendation supports Army 

Transformation by collocating institutional training, Modification Table of organization and 

Equipment (MTOE) units, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) organizations 

and other TDA units in large numbers on single installations to support force stabilization and 

engage training.

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $247.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $93.0M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $42.6M with a payback expected in 6 years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $319.1M. 
Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group E&T - 13

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 6,020 jobs (3,369 direct jobs and 2,651 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the El Paso, TX, metropolitan economic area, which is 1.9 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes revealed no 

significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Development of a Programmatic Agreement will be necessary at Fort 

Sill to formalize mitigation measures and restrictions and evaluations to determine significance 

of cultural and historical resources. Tribal/government-to-government consultations may be 

required. A Noise Analysis and continuous monitoring efforts will likely be required at Fort Sill. 

Additional operations at Fort Sill may impact the Black-capped Vireo, possibly leading to 

restrictions on operations. Significant mitigation measures to limit releases may be required at 

Fort Sill to reduce impacts to water quality and achieve US EPA Water Quality Standards. This 

recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; waste management; or wetlands. This 

recommendation will require spending approximately $0.4M for environmental compliance 

costs. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Prime Power to Fort Leonard Wood, MO 

Recommendation: Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating Army Prime Power School training 

to Fort Leonard Wood, MO. 

Justification: The United States Army Prime Power School courses taught at Fort Belvoir, VA, 

are Engineer Branch courses. The United States Army Engineer Center at Fort Leonard Wood, 

MO, serves as the Service engineer proponent. The common-core phase of engineer courses are 

already taught at Fort Leonard Wood, MO. This realignment consolidates engineer courses at 

Fort Leonard Wood, MO. Consolidate like schools while preserving service unique culture. The 

United States Army Engineer School trains other services under Inter-service Training Review 

Organization (ITRO). 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $5.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $3.8M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation is $0.5M with a payback expected in 16 years. The net present value of the costs 

and Department savings over 20 years is a savings of $0.9M. 
E&T - 14 Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 170 jobs (102 direct jobs and 68 indirect jobs) 

over 2006-2011 in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, Metropolitan 

Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic 

impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: Review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resources areas; marine 

mammals, resources or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; 

waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require no 

spending for environmental compliance activities. This recommendation does not otherwise 

impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Undergraduate Pilot and Navigator Training 

Recommendation: Realign Moody Air Force Base, GA, as follows: relocate the Primary Phase 

of Fixed-wing Pilot Training to Columbus Air Force Base, MS, Laughlin Air Force Base, TX, 

and Vance Air Force Base, OK; relocate Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals Training for 

Pilots to Columbus Air Force Base, MS, Laughlin Air Force Base, TX, Randolph Air Force 

Base, TX, Sheppard Air Force Base, TX, and Vance Air Force Base, OK; relocate Introduction 

to Fighter Fundamentals Training for Weapons Systems Officers to Columbus Air Force Base, 

MS, Laughlin Air Force Base, TX, Sheppard Air Force Base, TX, and Vance Air Force Base, 

OK; and relocate Introduction to Fighter Fundaments Training for Instructor Pilots to Randolph 

Air Force Base, TX. 

Realign Randolph Air Force Base, TX, by relocating Undergraduate Navigator Training to Naval 

Air Station, Pensacola, FL. 

Justification: This recommendation will realign and consolidate USAF’s primary phase of 

undergraduate flight training functions to reduce excess/unused basing capacity to eliminate 

redundancy, enhance jointness for UNT/Naval Flight Officer (NFO) training, reduce excess 

capacity, and improve military value. 

The basing arrangement that flows from this recommendation will allow the Inter-service 

Training Review Organization (ITRO) process to establish a DoD baseline program in 

UNT/NFO with curricula that permit services latitude to preserve service-unique culture and a 
Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group E&T - 15

faculty and staff that brings a “Train as we fight; jointly” national perspective to the learning 

process. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $71.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $1.6M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $18.3M with a payback expected in four years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $174.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,079 jobs (571 direct jobs and 508 indirect 

jobs) over 2006-2011 in the San Antonio, TX, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent 

of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 1,170 jobs (702 direct jobs and 468 indirect jobs) over 2006-2011 in the Valdosta, 

GA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 1.3 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation may require significant air permit revisions for 

Columbus, Laughlin, Vance, and Sheppard Air Force Bases. This recommendation may impact 

cultural, archeological, or historical resources at Columbus, Sheppard, and Laughlin Air Force 

Bases. DoD will need to re-evaluate noise contours for Columbus, Laughlin, Vance, Sheppard, and 

Pensacola. Additional operations at Sheppard may impact threatened and endangered species 

and/or critical habitat. May need to modify the hazardous waste program for Columbus, Laughlin, 

Vance, and Sheppard Air Force Bases. Additional operations at Columbus, Laughlin, Vance, and 

Sheppard Air Force Bases may impact wetlands, which may restrict operations. This 

recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; or water resources. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $2.3M for waste management and environmental compliance activities. 

This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise 

impact the cost of environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments 

to implementation of this recommendation. 
E&T - 16 Section 4: Recommendations – Education and Training Joint Cross-Service Group 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 1

Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

Summary of Selection Process 

Introduction 

The Secretary of Defense established the Headquarters and Support Activities Joint CrossService Group (HSA JCSG) to address Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) implications for 

common business-related functions and processes across the Department of Defense, the Military 

Departments, and Defense agencies. The JCSG had no counterpart in previous BRAC rounds 

and therefore was charged with defining appropriate functions and sub-functions for analysis. 

The JCSG had six members representing the four services, OSD, and the Joint Staff. To focus its 

analyses, the HSA JCSG formed three subgroups: the Geographic Clusters and Functional 

(GC&F) Subgroup (Air Force lead), the Mobilization Subgroup (Marine Corps lead) and the 

Major Administration and Headquarters (MAH) Subgroup (Navy lead). The Army member 

chaired the JCSG. Analyses resulted in 21 BRAC recommendations. 

Responsibilities and Strategy 

The HSA JCSG was responsible for a comprehensive review of assigned functions, the 

evaluation of alternatives, and the development and documentation of realignment and closure 

recommendations for submission to the Secretary of Defense. In developing its analytical 

process, the JCSG established internal policies and procedures consistent with: Department of 

Defense (DoD) policy memoranda, the force structure plan and installation inventories; BRAC 

selection criteria; and the requirements of Public Law 101-510, as amended. To facilitate the 

JCSG efforts, the three subgroups were assigned specific functions for analysis. The GC&F 

Subgroup analyzed the common functions of financial management, 

communications/information technology, personnel and corrections, and installation 

management. The Mobilization Subgroup analyzed the function of joint mobilization. And the 

MAH Subgroup analyzed all headquarters located within 100 miles of the Pentagon (the “DC 

Area”), select headquarters outside the 100-mile radius, and common support functions 

(headquarters “back-shop” functions). 

The following guiding principles served as the foundation for the JCSG’s strategy: improve joint 

capabilities; eliminate redundancy, duplication and excess capacity; enhance force protection; 

exploit best business practices; increase effectiveness, efficiency, and interoperability; and 

reduce costs. 

Subgroups further interpreted this broader strategy to their functional assignments as follows: 

• Rationalize single function administrative installations, 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 2 

• Rationalize presence within a 100-mile radius of the Pentagon, 

• Eliminate leased space, 

• Consolidate headquarters and back-shop functions, 

• Consolidate/regionalize installation management, 

• Consolidate the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, 

• Create a joint corrections enterprise, 

• Consolidate military personnel functions, 

• Consolidate civilian personnel functions, and 

• Establish Joint pre-deployment/redeployment mobilization sites. 

Analytical Process 

The initial scope of the HSA JCSG required review and down-scoping to narrow its focus and 

maximize results. Capacity analyses served as the mechanism to guide scope refinements. The 

functions and activities with the highest potential for payoff, characterized as top tier, were the 

JCSG’s primary focus. Those functions and activities with less defined potential were initially 

placed into a middle tier. Through the analytical process, some middle-tier functions were fully 

analyzed, while others with less potential for payoff were placed in a lower tier and eliminated or 

remanded to the Military Departments for consideration. After capacity analyses were complete, 

the JCSG concluded that each functional area it reviewed had excess capacity. The analyses also 

facilitated the compilation of target lists for military value analyses. 

Military value (selection criteria 1-4) was a primary consideration in development of 

recommendations. The HSA JCSG developed quantitative methods to assess the military value 

of headquarters, organizations, and activities performing assigned functions at current locations. 

The group initially developed 11 scoring plans, which the Infrastructure Steering Group (ISG) 

approved for use in the military value analyses. Further refinement in the JCSG’s scope reduced 

the final number of scoring plans to seven. Throughout the process, the military value scoring 

plans were reviewed, and updated as necessary, to ensure that the quantitative results were 

robust, fair and able and that the entities in the model could be differentiated. The JCSG 

documented changes to scoring plans and provided them to the ISG for comment and approval. 

The initial military value analyses results served as the starting point for scenario development. 

The JCSG constructed scenarios with military value as a primary consideration. The results of 

optimization, consideration of the overarching strategy, and military judgment contributed to the 

family of strategy-driven, data-verified scenarios the JCSG brought forward to its members for 

deliberation. The three HSA JCSG subgroups developed 204 ideas, which generated 194 

proposals; 117 of these proposals were fully analyzed as scenarios using criteria 1-8. The 

JCSG’s members approved 50 scenarios and forwarded them to the ISG as candidate 

recommendations. The ISG and IEC approved 47 and disapproved 3 of the JCSG’s candidate 

recommendations. Following integration of the HSA JCSG’s recommendations with those of the 

Military Departments and the other JCSGs, the 21 recommendations that follow resulted from 

this collaborative process. 

The recommendations approved by the Secretary of Defense follow: 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 3

Recommendations and Justifications 

Co-locate Miscellaneous Air Force Leased Locations and 

National Guard Headquarters Leased Locations 

Recommendation: Close 1501 Wilson Blvd, a leased installation in Arlington, VA. Relocate 

the Air Force-Judge Advocate General to Andrews Air Force Base, MD. 

Close 1560 Wilson Blvd, a leased installation in Arlington, VA. Relocate the Secretary of the 

Air Force-Acquisition to Andrews Air Force Base, MD. 

Close Arlington Plaza, a leased installation in Arlington, VA. Relocate the Secretary of the Air 

Force-Auditor General to Andrews Air Force Base, MD. 

Realign 1401 Wilson Blvd, the Nash Street Building, and 1919 Eads Street, leased installations 

in Arlington, VA, by relocating Air Force-Operations to Andrews Air Force Base, MD. 

Realign 1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating Air 

Force-Operations, the Secretary of the Air Force-Administrative Assistant, and the Secretary of 

the Air Force-Auditor General to Andrews Air Force Base, MD. 

Realign Ballston Metro Center, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the 

Secretary of the Air Force-Public Affairs and the Secretary of the Air Force-Small Business to 

Andrews Air Force Base, MD. 

Realign Crystal Gateway 1, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating Air ForcePersonnel, Air Force-Installation and Logistics, Air Force-Operations, and Air Force-Personnel 

Operations to Andrews Air Force Base, MD. 

Realign Crystal Gateway 2 and Jefferson Plaza 2, leased installations in Arlington, VA, by 

relocating Air Force-Installation and Logistics to Andrews Air Force Base, MD. 

Realign Crystal Gateway North, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating Air ForceInstallation and Logistics and the Secretary of the Air Force-Financial Management to Andrews 

Air Force Base, MD. 

Realign Crystal Park 5 and Crystal Plaza 6, leased installations in Arlington, VA, by relocating 

the Secretary of the Air Force-Administrative Assistant to Andrews Air Force Base, MD. 

Realign Crystal Plaza 5, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Air Force-Chief 

Information Officer and Air Force-Operations to Andrews Air Force Base, MD. 

Realign Crystal Square 2, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating Air ForcePersonnel and Air Force-Personnel Operations to Andrews Air Force Base, MD. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 4 

Realign the Webb Building, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating Air ForcePersonnel and the Secretary of the Air Force/General Counsel to Andrews Air Force Base, MD. 

Realign Jefferson Plaza-1, Arlington, VA, by relocating the National Guard Bureau 

Headquarters, the Air National Guard Headquarters, and elements of the Army National Guard 

Headquarters to the Army National Guard Readiness Center, Arlington, VA, and Andrews Air 

Force Base, MD. 

Justification: This recommendation meets two important Department of Defense (DoD) 

objectives with regard to future use of leased space and enhanced security for DoD Activities. 

Additionally, the recommendation results in a significant improvement in military value as a 

result of the movement from leased space to a military installation. The average military value of 

the noted components of Headquarters Air Force (HAF) based on current locations ranges from 

230th to 333rd of 334 entities evaluated by the MAH military value model. Andrews Air Force 

Base is ranked 51st out of 334. Implementation will reduce the Department’s reliance on leased 

space which has historically higher overall costs than government-owned space and generally 

does not meet Anti-terrorism Force Protection standards as prescribed in UFC 04-010-01. The 

recommendation eliminates 190,000 Usable Square Feet of leased administrative space within 

the NCR. This, plus the immediate benefit of enhanced Force Protection afforded by a location 

within a military installation fence-line, will provide HAF components with immediate 

compliance with Force Protection Standards. HAF’s current leased locations are non-compliant 

with current Force Protection Standards. 

The collocation of National Guard Headquarters elements to two sites, Army National Guard 

Readiness Center, Arlington, VA and Andrews Air Force Base, MD, will enhance Joint Service 

interoperability. Currently, the National Guard Headquarters entities are housed in three 

locations in metropolitan Washington, DC, creating a disjointed hindrance to organizational and 

operational efficiency. By virtue of being located at two operating sites, the Guard commands 

would significantly increase interaction between themselves for improved force enhancement. A 

positive result of the co-location is a reduction in force manning levels by eliminating duplicative 

staff. Various common support functions; i.e., administrative support, contracting and supply 

functions, would be merged, resulting in a decrease in staffing size. The recommendation 

eliminates 237,000 Usable Square Feet of leased administrative space within the Washington, 

DC area. Leased cost expenditures of $11M per year and Anti-terrorism and Force Protection 

costs will significantly decrease through the construction of new facilities on a military 

reservation. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $90.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $10.8M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $30.8M with a one year payback. The net present value of the costs and 

savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $308.3M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 231 jobs (138 direct jobs and 93 indirect jobs) 

in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division Area, which 

is less than 0.1 percent of the economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 5

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has a potential impact on air quality at Andrews 

Air Force Base and Arlington Hall. An air permit revision and new source review may be 

needed. This scenario may impact a historic property at Andrews Air Force Base that is not in a 

historic district. This scenario may require building on constrained acreage at Andrews Air 

Force Base. Additional operations may impact threatened and endangered species and/or critical 

habitats at Andrews Air Force Base. Wetlands do not currently restrict operations at Andrews, 

but additional operations may impact wetlands, which may restrict operations. This 

recommendation has no impact on dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; 

waste management; or water resources. This recommendation will require spending 

approximately $0.3M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the cost of environmental 

restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Co-locate Defense/Military Department Adjudication Activities 

Recommendation: Close 21820 Burbank Boulevard, a leased installation in Woodland Hills, 

CA. Relocate all components of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Western Hearing 

Office to Fort Meade, MD. 

Close 800 Elkridge Landing Road, a leased installation in Linthicum, MD. Relocate all 

components of the National Security Agency Central Adjudication Facility to Fort Meade, MD. 

Realign 2780 Airport Drive, a leased installation in Columbus, OH, by relocating all components 

of the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office and the Defense Office of Hearings and 

Appeals Personal Security Division to Fort Meade, MD. 

Realign 1777 N. Kent Street, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating all components 

of the Washington Headquarters Service Central Adjudication Facility to Fort Meade, MD. 

Realign 875 N. Randolph Street, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating all 

components of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Headquarters to Fort Meade, MD. 

Realign 10050 North 25th Avenue, a leased installation in Phoenix, AZ, by relocating all 

components of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Arizona office to Fort Meade, MD. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 6 

Realign the Washington Navy Yard, DC, by relocating all components of the Navy Central 

Adjudication Facility Fort Meade, MD. 

Realign Bolling Air Force Base, DC, by relocating all components of the Air Force Central 

Adjudication Facility and the Defense Intelligence Agency Central Adjudication Facility Fort 

Meade, MD. 

Realign the Pentagon, Washington, DC, by relocating all components of the Joint Staff Central 

Adjudication Facility to Fort Meade, MD. 

Realign the U.S. Army Soldiers Systems Center Garrison, Natick, MA, by relocating all 

components of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Boston Hearing office to Fort 

Meade, MD. 

Justification: This recommendation collocates all Military Department (MILDEP) and 

Department of Defense (DoD) security clearance adjudication and appeals activities at Fort 

Meade, MD. It meets several important DoD objectives with regard to future use of leased 

space, enhanced security for DoD activities, and collocates National Capital Area intelligence 

community activities. It also enables the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act of 2004, the 

Administration’s counterintelligence strategy, and the Remodeling Defense Intelligence 

initiative. Additionally, this recommendation results in a significant improvement in military 

value due to a shift from predominately-leased space to a location on a military installation. The 

military value of adjudication activities current portfolio of locations ranges from 152-280 out of 

334 entities evaluated by the Major Administration and Headquarters (MAH) military value 

model. Fort Meade, MD, ranks 94 out of 334. 

Implementation will reduce the Department’s reliance on leased space, which has historically 

higher overall costs than government-owned space and generally does not meet Anti-terrorism 

Force Protection standards as prescribed in UFC 04-010-01. The benefit of enhanced Force 

Protection afforded by a location within a military installation fence-line will provide immediate 

compliance with Force Protection Standards. MILDEP and Defense adjudication activities 

located currently at leased locations are not compliant with current Force Protection Standards. 

This recommendation eliminates 136,930 Gross Square Feet (GSF) of leased administrative 

space. This action provides a collocation of these activities, and reduces the number of locations 

from 13 to one.

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $67.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $47.5M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $5.7M, with a payback expected in 13 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $11.3M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of two jobs (1 direct job and 1 indirect job) over 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 7

the 2006-2011 period in the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area, which 

is less than 0.1 percent of the economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of two jobs (1 direct job and 1 indirect job) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

the economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 25 jobs (14 direct jobs and 11 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Los 

Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of the 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 411 jobs (236 direct jobs and 175 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of the economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 867 jobs (501 direct jobs and 366 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division, which is less than 

0.1 percent of the economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation is likely to impact Air Quality at Fort Meade. 

Additional emissions from an increase of personnel will require Air Conformity Analysis, and 

New Source Review analysis, and permitting. This recommendation has no impact on cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging, land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise, threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.09M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was 

included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the cost of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environment compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 8 

Co-locate Military Department Investigation Agencies with DoD 

Counterintelligence and Security Agency 

Recommendation: Close 1919 South Eads Street, and 1801 South Bell Street, leased 

installations in Arlington, VA; 1340 Braddock Place, a leased installation in Alexandria, VA; 

and 938 Elridge Landing, a leased installation in Linthicum, MD. Relocate all components of 

the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) and Defense Security Service (DSS) to Marine 

Corps Base Quantico, VA. 

Realign Crystal Square 2, Crystal Square 4, and 251 18th Street South, leased installations in 

Arlington, VA; and 6845 and 6856 Deerpath Road, leased installations in Elkridge, MD; 1 

World Trade Center, a leased installation in Long Beach, California; 2300 Lake Park Drive, a 

leased installation in Smyrna, GA; and 2780 Airport Drive, a leased installation in Columbus, 

OH, by relocating all components of CIFA and DSS to Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA. 

Realign 121 Tejon, a leased installation in Colorado Springs, CO, by relocating all components 

of CIFA to Peterson Air Force Base, CO. 

Disestablish CIFA and DSS, and consolidate their components into the newly created 

Department of Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency. 

Realign Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC, by relocating the Naval Criminal 

Investigation Service (NCIS) to Marine Corp Base Quantico, VA. 

Realign Andrews Air Force Base, MD by relocating the Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations (AFOSI) to Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating the Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) to 

Marine Corp Base Quantico, VA. 

Justification: This recommendation produces operational synergies by locating entities with 

similar or related missions (CIFA, DSS, NCIS AFOSI, & CID) at one place. Proximity to 

nearby Federal Bureau of Investigations offices and training facilities will further enhance this 

effect. In addition, it collocates a CIFA component with headquarters U.S. Northern Command, 

to which the component provides direct war fighting and homeland security support. 

This recommendation also collapses CIFA and DSS and consolidates their activities into a new 

agency at Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA. It meets important DoD objectives with regard to 

future use of leased space, consolidation of headquarters operations at single locations, enhanced 

security for DoD activities, and consolidates National Capital Region (NCR) intelligence 

community activities. It also enables the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act of 2004 and the 

Remodeling Defense Intelligence initiative. 

Implementation of this recommendation will reduce the DoD’s reliance on leased space, which 

has historically higher overall costs than government-owned space and generally does not meet 

Anti-terrorism Force Protection standards as prescribed in UFC 04-010-01. The benefit of 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 9

enhanced force protection afforded by a location within a military installation fence-line will 

provide immediate compliance with Force Protection Standards. CIFA and DSS current leased 

locations are not compliant with current Force Protection Standards. The CIFA, DSS portion of 

this recommendation eliminates 427,097 Gross Square Feet (GSF) of leased administrative 

space, consolidates their activities, and reduces the number of locations from 13 to two. 

Co-location of military department investigation activities meets a primary DoD objective to 

rationalize the presence of DoD activities within the NCR. The relocation to a military 

installation that is largely outside the boundaries of the NCR provides a dispersion of DoD 

activities away from a dense concentration within the NCR. This action will free up 

approximately 510,000 Gross Square Feet of administrative space that can be reused by other 

DoD activities that require a location closer to the Pentagon. It reduces the number of locations 

from three to one. 

This recommendation results in a significant improvement in military value. As receiving 

locations, Peterson Air Force Base ranks 3 out of 334, and Marine Corps Base Quantico ranks 78 

out of 334, both ranked much higher than the collective portfolio of current locations. The 

military value of CIFA leased space is 279 out of 334 entities evaluated by the Major 

Administration and Headquarters (MAH) military value model. DSS military value of its 

locations is 334 out of 334. The military value of military department investigative activities 

locations evaluated by the MAH military value model is: Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations, 174 out of 334; Navy Criminal Investigation Agency, 180 out of 334; and the 

Army’s Criminal Investigation Command, 220 out of 334. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $174.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $88.0M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $26.3M, with a payback expected in seven years. The net present value of 

the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $172.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 14 jobs (8 direct jobs and 6 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006-2011 periods in the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area, 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 304 jobs (158 direct jobs and 146 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the 

Baltimore-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 18 jobs (10 direct jobs and 8 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the 

Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent percent of economic 

area employment. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 10 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 11 jobs (6 direct jobs and 5 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the Los 

Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA, Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent 

percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates that the 

nearest commercial airport to Marine Corp Base Quantico is Washington Reagan National 

Airport, located approximately 29 miles away, but this distance should not inconvenience 

personnel relocating to this area. This single issue does not affect the ability of the infrastructure 

of the communities to support missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community 

infrastructure impediments to implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations 

in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation will require some permit changes, a conformity 

determination may be required, and there may be a need to evaluate the impact of additional 

mobile emission sources (vehicles) on air quality at Marine Corps Base Quantico. This 

recommendation may impact air quality at Peterson AFB, CO. If the additional operations affect 

archeological or historic resources at Peterson AFB, consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) may be required. Additional operations may impact sensitive 

resource areas at Peterson AFB and therefore restrict operations. This recommendation has no 

impact on dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This 

recommendation will require spending approximately $0.3M for environmental compliance and 

waste management activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. 

There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Co-locate Miscellaneous Army Leased Locations 

Recommendation: Realign Ballston Metro Center, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by 

relocating the U.S. Army Legal Agency to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Park Center Office 1, a leased installation in Alexandria, VA, by relocating the U.S. 

Army Audit Agency to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Skyline VI, a leased installation in Falls Church, VA, by relocating the Administrative 

Assistant to the Secretary of the Army (SAAA) to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign the Zachary Taylor Building, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the 

U.S. Army G6/DISC4, the G8/Force Development, the G1/Army Research Institute, the U.S. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 11

Army Network Enterprise Technology Command, and the Administrative Assistant to the 

Secretary of the Army (SAAA) to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Square 2, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating U.S. Army NISAP, the U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute, and Senior Executive Public Affairs Training 

to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Gateway 2, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Deputy 

Under Secretary of the Army - Operations Research to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign the Hoffman 1 and 2 Buildings, leased installations in Alexandria, VA, by relocating 

U.S. Army G1/Civilian Personnel Office, G1/Personnel Transformation, the Administrative 

Assistant to the Secretary of the Army(SAAA), and the Communication and Electronics 

Command to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Rosslyn Metro Center, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the 

Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army (SAAA) to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Jefferson Plaza 1 and 2, leased installations in Arlington, VA, by relocating the U.S. 

Army Office of the Chief Army Reserve, Assistant Secretary of the Army Financial Management 

and Comptroller/CEAC, the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army(SAAA), and 

Chief of Chaplains to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Gateway North, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the U.S. 

Army G3/Army Simulation to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Plaza 5, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the U.S. Army 

Safety Office and OSAA to the Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Mall 4, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army Manpower and Reserve Affairs/Amy Review Board/Equal Opportunity 

Office to the Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Gateway 1, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating U.S. Army 

Office of Environmental Technology to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Justification: This recommendation meets two important Department of Defense (DoD) 

objectives with regard to future use of leased space and enhanced security for DoD Activities. 

Additionally, the recommendation results in a significant improvement in military value as a 

result of the movement from leased space to a military installation. The average military value of 

the noted components of Headquarters of the Department of the Army (HQDA) based on current 

locations ranges from 233rd to 327th out of 334 entities evaluated by the Major Administration 

and Headquarters (MAH) military value model. Fort Belvoir is ranked 57th out of 334. 

Implementation will reduce the Department’s reliance on leased space, which has historically 

higher overall costs than government-owned space and generally does not meet Anti-terrorism 

Force Protection standards as prescribed in UFC 04-010-01. The recommendation eliminates 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 12 

approximately 690,300 Usable Square Feet of leased administrative space within the NCR. This, 

plus the immediate benefit of enhanced Force Protection afforded by a location within a military 

installation fence-line, will provide HQDA components with immediate compliance with Force 

Protection Standards. HQDA’s current leased locations are non-compliant with current Force 

Protection Standards. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $44.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $59.5M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $27.8M, with a payback expected in 1 year. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $322.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will result in a job increase of 72 

(41 direct jobs and 31 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation may impact air quality at Fort Belvoir. An air 

conformity analysis and New Source Review permitting is required. Additional operations may 

further impact threatened/endangered species at Fort Belvoir leading to additional restrictions on 

training or operations. This recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use 

constraints/sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, noise; waste management; water 

resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.1M for 

environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. 

There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Co-locate Miscellaneous OSD, Defense Agency, and Field Activity Leased Locations 

Recommendation: Close 1010 North Glebe Road, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, 4850 Mark Center 

Drive, the Crown Ridge Building at 4035 Ridgetop, and 1901 N. Beauregard, leased installations 

in Northern VA, by relocating the Office of the Secretary of Defense to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Close North Tower at 2800 Crystal Drive, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating 

the DoD Inspector General to Fort Belvoir, VA. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 13

Close 1600 Wilson Boulevard, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Defense 

Human Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Close 1500 Wilson Boulevard and Presidential Towers, leased installations in Arlington, VA, by 

relocating offices accommodating Pentagon Renovation temporary space to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Close Metro Park III and IV (6350 and 6359 Walker Lane), a leased installation in Alexandria, 

VA, by relocating the Defense Contract Management Agency Headquarters to Fort Lee, VA. 

Realign 400 Army Navy Drive, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, and the DoD Inspector General to 

Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign the Webb Building, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Department 

of Defense Education Activity and the Defense Human Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Rosslyn Plaza North, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating offices 

accommodating Pentagon Renovation temporary space, Washington Headquarters Services and 

the Defense Human Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Gateway North, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, and the DoD Inspector General 

to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign 2001 North Beauregard Street, 621 North Payne Street, Ballston Metro Center, Crystal 

Square 4, Crystal Square 5, Crystal Plaza 6, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Skyline 5, and Skyline 6, 

leased installations in Northern VA, by relocating the Office of the Secretary of Defense to Fort 

Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Crystal Mall 3, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service at Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Hoffman 1, Crystal Gateway 1, Crystal Gateway 2, Crystal Gateway 3, and the James K. 

Polk Building, leased installations in Northern VA, by relocating the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense and Washington Headquarters Services to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign the Nash Street Building, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the 

Defense Human Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Alexandria Tech Center IV, a leased installation in Alexandria, VA, by relocating the 

Defense Technology Security Administration to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign 1400-1450 South Eads Street, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the 

DoD Inspector General to Fort Belvoir, VA. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 14 

Realign 1401 Wilson Boulevard, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, and Defense Human Resources 

Activity to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign 1555 Wilson Boulevard, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating offices of 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Defense Human Resources Activity to Fort Belvoir, 

VA. 

Realign Crystal Mall 2-3-4 and Skyline 4, leased installations in Northern VA, by relocating 

Washington Headquarters Services to Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Justification: This recommendation meets two important Department of Defense (DoD) 

objectives with regard to future use of leased space and enhanced security for DoD Activities. 

Additionally, the recommendation results in a significant improvement in military value as a 

result of the movement from leased space to a military installation. The average military value 

of the noted Department of Defense components based on current locations ranges from 272nd to 

332nd out of 334 entities evaluated by the Major Administration and Headquarters (MAH) 

military value model. Fort Belvoir is ranked 57th out of 334; and Fort Lee is ranked 96th. 

Implementation will reduce the Department’s reliance on leased space which has historically 

higher overall costs than government-owned space and generally does not meet Anti-terrorism 

Force Protection standards as prescribed in UFC 04-010-01. The recommendation eliminates 

approximately 1,850,000 Usable Square Feet of leased administrative space within the NCR. 

This, plus the immediate benefit of enhanced Force Protection afforded by a location within a 

military installation fence-line, will provide immediate compliance with Force Protection 

Standards. The leased installations affected by this recommendation are generally non-compliant 

with current Force Protection Standards. The relocation of the DCMA headquarters to a military 

installation that is farther than 100 miles from the Pentagon provides dispersion of DoD 

Activities away from a dense concentration within the National Capital Region. This 

recommendation has the added benefit of allowing DCMA to combine its headquarters facilities 

from two adjacent leased buildings into one facility that meets its current space requirements. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $539.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $376.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $63.3M, with a payback expected in 9 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $257.6M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 775 jobs (448 direct and 327 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006-2011 period in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan 

Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic 

impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at 

Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 15

personnel. Fort Lee reports no nationally-accredited child care facilities for the local 

community. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of 

all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: An impact is expected on Air Quality at Fort Belvoir. Added 

operations will require New Source Review permitting and Air Conformity Analysis. Potential 

impact may occur to historical / prehistoric archeological resources at Fort Belvoir since 

resources must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, thereby causing increased delays and costs. 

Additional operations may further impact threatened/endangered species at Fort Belvoir leading 

to additional restrictions on training or operations. This recommendation has no impact on 

dredging; land use restraints and sensitive resource areas, marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; noise; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will 

require spending approximately $0.5M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was 

included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs 

of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Co-locate Missile and Space Defense Agencies 

Recommendation: Close the Suffolk Building, a leased installation in Falls Church, VA. 

Relocate all Missile Defense Agency (MDA) functions, except the Ballistic Missile Defense 

System Sensors Directorate, to Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Close the Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) Building, a leased installation in 

Huntsville, AL. Relocate all functions of the Missile Defense Agency to Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Realign Federal Office Building 2, Arlington, VA, by relocating a Headquarters Command 

Center for the Missile Defense Agency to Fort Belvoir, VA, and by relocating all other functions 

of the Missile Defense Agency, except the Command and Control Battle Management and 

Communications Directorate, to Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Realign Crystal Square 2, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating all functions of 

the Missile Defense Agency and the Headquarters component of the USA Space and Missile 

Defense Command to Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Realign Crystal Mall 4, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Headquarters 

component of the USA Space and Missile Defense Command to Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Justification: This recommendation meets several important Department of Defense objectives 

with regard to future use of leased space, rationalization of the Department’s presence within 100 

miles of the Pentagon, and enhanced security for DoD Activities. Relocating MDA operations 

from the NCR and consolidating with existing MDA activities already in Huntsville will enhance 

jointness and establish an invaluable synergy with the principal DoD expertise in ground-based 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 16 

missile research and development as well as with expertise in missile-related test and evaluation. 

Additionally, the recommendation results in a significant improvement in military value due to 

the shift from primarily leased space to locations on military installations. The military value of 

MDA based on its current portfolio of locations is 329 out of 334 entities evaluated by the Major 

Administration and Headquarters (MAH) military value model, and SMDC’s headquarters is 299 

out of 334. Redstone Arsenal is ranked 48 out of 334, and Fort Belvoir is ranked 57 out of 334. 

Implementation will reduce the Department’s reliance on leased space which has historically 

higher overall costs than government-owned space and generally does not meet Anti-terrorism 

Force Protection standards as prescribed in UFC 04-010-01. The recommendation will eliminate 

approximately 227,000 GSF of leased space. It also provides space for the consolidation of 

MDA contractors with the appropriate MDA elements at Redstone Arsenal. The relocation of 

two activities to a military installation that is farther than 100 miles from the Pentagon provides 

dispersion of DoD Activities away from a dense concentration within the National Capital 

Region. This, plus the immediate benefit of enhanced Force Protection afforded by a location 

within a military installation fence-line, will provide immediate compliance with Force 

Protection Standards. The vast majority of MDA’s and SMDC’s present leased locations are not 

compliant with current Force Protection Standards. This action provides a consolidation for 

MDA’s DC Area operations and Huntsville locations and continues movement of MDA onto 

Redstone Arsenal that is expected to occur with the completion in FY07 of the Von Braun 2 

building, which will house approximately 800 MDA personnel. Similarly, SMDC is 

consolidating its headquarters office with existing activities recently moved on to Redstone 

Arsenal. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $178.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $13.0M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $36.1M, with a payback expected in 1 year. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $359.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 2,782 jobs (1,644 direct jobs and 1,138 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 

Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The 

aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this region of influence was 

considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of the community attributes indicates 

relocation to Redstone Arsenal will result in fewer graduate and PhD education programs and 

available for-sale housing units. The Department expects that the private market will respond for 

the increased need for certain community goods and services. These issues do not materially 

affect the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. A review of the community attributes for Fort Belvoir indicates no issues. There are 

no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all recommendations 

affecting the installations in this recommendation. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 17

Environmental Impact: This recommendation may impact air quality at Fort Belvoir. An air 

conformity analysis and New Source Review is required. A potential impact may occur to 

historic resources at Fort Belvoir and Redstone Arsenal since resources must be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis, thereby causing increased delays and costs. Additional operations may 

further impact threatened/endangered species at Fort Belvoir and Redstone Arsenal, leading to 

additional restrictions on training or operations. Additional operations may impact wetlands at 

Redstone Arsenal which may lead to operations that are restricted. This recommendation has no 

impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources 

or sanctuaries; noise; waste management; or water resources. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.2M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included 

in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Co-locate Navy Education and Training Command and Navy Education and Training 

Professional Development & Technology Center 

Recommendation: Realign Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL, by relocating Navy Education and 

Training Command to Naval Support Activity Millington, TN. 

Realign Saufley Field, FL, by relocating Navy Education and Training Professional 

Development & Technology Center to Naval Support Activity Millington, TN. 

Justification: Realignment of Navy Education and Training Command (NETC) and Navy 

Education and Training Professional Development & Technology Center (NETPDTC) to Naval 

Support Activity Millington will collocate these activities with common functions (Bureau of 

Naval Personnel, Navy Manpower Analysis Center, and Navy Personnel Research and 

Development Center) and facilitate creation of a Navy Human Resources Center of Excellence. 

By relocating NETC and NETPDTC within the hub of naval personnel activities, this 

recommendation eliminates personnel redundancies and excess infrastructure capacity. NETC 

and NETPDTC will require 50,400 GSF of military construction (MILCON) and will utilize 

102,400 GSF of existing administrative space and warehouse space at Millington; the parking lot 

additions will be new MILCON. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $33.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $23.6M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $3.7M, with a payback expected in 10 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $14.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,878 jobs (738 direct jobs and 1,140 indirect 

jobs) in the Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.9 percent of 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 18 

economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this 

economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation.

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has the potential to impact air quality at 

Millington, which is in moderate non-attainment for Ozone (8-hr.). Construction associated with 

this recommendation has the potential to impact Historical sites identified at Millington. This 

recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation does not impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Consolidate Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) Headquarters

Recommendation: Realign Park Center Four, a leased installation in Alexandria, VA, by 

relocating and consolidating Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) with its subcomponents at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), MD. 

Justification: This recommendation meets several important Department of Defense (DoD) 

objectives with regard to future use of leased space, rationalization of the Department’s presence 

within the National Capital Region (NCR), and enhanced security for DoD Activities. 

Additionally, the scenario results in a significant improvement in military value. The military 

value of ATEC’s headquarters based on its current location is ranked 319 out of 334 entities 

evaluated by the MAH military value model, while APG is ranked 128 out of 334. 

Implementation will reduce the Department’s reliance on leased space, which has historically 

higher overall costs than government-owned space and generally does not meet Anti-terrorism 

Force Protection standards as prescribed in UFC 04-010-01. The recommendation eliminates 

83,000 Usable Square Feet of leased administrative space within the NCR. The relocation to a 

military installation outside of the NCR provides dispersion of DoD Activities away from a 

dense concentration within the NCR. This, plus the immediate benefit of enhanced Force 

Protection afforded by a location within a military installation fence-line, will provide ATEC’s 

Headquarters with immediate compliance with Force Protection Standards. Its current location 

is non-compliant with current Force Protection Standards. APG has available, vacant 

administrative space that can support this space requirement without the need for need for new 

MILCON. This recommendation has the added benefit of allowing ATEC to consolidate its 

headquarters facilities with its subcomponents that are currently operating at APG: the Army 

Developmental Test Command and the Army Evaluation Center. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 19

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $7.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $44.0M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $8.7M, with a payback expected immediately. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $125.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 796 jobs (470 direct jobs and 326 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 time period in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 

Metropolitan Division economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent percent of economic area 

employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic 

region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. While the nearest city and airport to APG is Baltimore, approximately 32 miles away, 

this distance should not inconvenience personnel relocating to this area. There are no known 

community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all recommendations affecting the 

installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has a potential impact on air quality at APG. At 

a minimum, New Source Review and permit modifications may be required. This 

recommendation has no impact on cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use 

constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; 

threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; or 

wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.4M for environmental 

compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation 

does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and 

environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended 

BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Consolidate Civilian Personnel Offices (CPOs) within each Military Department 

and the Defense Agencies 

Recommendation: Realign Fort Richardson, AK, by relocating the Civilian Personnel 

Operations Center to Fort Huachuca, AZ, and consolidating it with the Civilian Personnel 

Operations Center at Fort Huachuca, AZ. Realign Rock Island Arsenal, IL, by relocating the 

Civilian Personnel Operations Center to Fort Riley, KS, and Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and 

consolidating with the Civilian Personnel Operations Center at Fort Riley, KS, and Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, MD. 

Realign Human Resource Service Center-Northeast, 111 S. Independence Mall, East, Bourse 

Bldg, a leased installation in Philadelphia, PA, by relocating the Civilian Personnel Office to the 

Naval Support Activity Philadelphia, PA. Realign Human Resource Service Center-Southeast, 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 20 

9110 Leonard Kimble Road, a leased installation at Stennis Space Center, MS, by relocating the 

Civilian Personnel Office to the Naval Support Activity Philadelphia, PA, and consolidating it 

with the relocated Human Resource Service Center-Northeast at the Naval Support Activity, 

Philadelphia, PA. Realign Human Resource Service Center-Southwest, 525 B Street, Suite 600, 

a leased installation in San Diego, CA, by relocating the Civilian Personnel Office to Naval Air 

Station North Island or Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA. Realign Human Resource 

Service Center-Pacific, 178 Main Street, Bldg 499, Honolulu, HI, by relocating the Civilian 

Personnel Office to the Human Resource Service Center-Northwest, 3230 NW Randall Way, 

Silverdale, WA, and Naval Air Station North Island or Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA 

and consolidating with the Human Resource Service Centers at Silverdale, WA and Naval Air 

Station North Island or Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA. 

Realign Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, by relocating the Civilian Personnel Office to 

Randolph Air Force Base, TX. Realign Robins Air Force Base, GA, by relocating the Civilian 

Personnel Office to Randolph Air Force Base, TX. Realign Hill Air Force Base, UT, by 

relocating the Civilian Personnel Office to Randolph Air Force Base, TX. Realign Tinker Air 

Force Base, OK, by relocating the Civilian Personnel Office to Randolph Air Force Base, TX. 

Realign Bolling Air Force Base, DC, by relocating the Civilian Personnel Office to Randolph Air 

Force Base, TX. Consolidate the relocated civilian personnel offices with the Civilian Personnel 

Office at Randolph Air Force Base, TX. 

Realign 2521 Jefferson Davis Hwy, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the 

transactional functions of the Defense Commissary Agency Human Resource Division and the 

Washington Headquarters Services Civilian Personnel Office to the Defense Logistics Agency, 

3990 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH, and consolidating them with the Customer Support 

Office of the Defense Logistics Agency. Realign the Department of Defense Education Activity, 

4040 North Fairfax Drive, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the transactional 

functions of the Civilian Personnel Office to the Defense Logistics Agency 3990 East Broad 

Street, Columbus, OH, and consolidating them with the Customer Support Office of the Defense 

Logistics Agency. Realign the Defense Information Systems Agency, 701 S. Courthouse Road, 

Arlington, VA, by relocating the transactional functions of the Civilian Personnel Office to the 

Defense Finance and Accounting Service, 8899 E. 56th Street, Indianapolis, IN, and 

consolidating them with the Civilian Personnel Office of the Defense Finance and Accounting 

Service at Indianapolis, IN. 

Justification: The consolidation of Civilian Personnel Offices within each Military Department 

and the transactional functions among the Defense Agencies reduces excess capacity, reduces the 

use of leased facilities, and achieves manpower savings through consolidation and elimination of 

duplicate functions. This recommendation supports the Administration’s urging of federal 

agencies to consolidate personnel services. During the implementation of this recommendation 

it is important to partner with the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). NSPS provides 

the opportunity to improve the effectiveness of the Department through a simplified personnel 

management system that will improve the way it hires and assigns employees. This 

recommendation will be an effective tool for NSPS and provide the flexibility and 

responsiveness that supports the implementation of this system. Since NSPS will define a new 

human resource system featuring streamlined hiring, simplified job changes, and a less complex 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 21

classification system, it covers all functions that would be supported by Civilian Personnel 

Offices. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $97.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $46.4M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $24.4M with a payback expected in four years. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $196.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in maximum potential job reductions (direct and indirect) over the 2006-2011 period 

in the respective economic areas as listed in the table below: 

Region of Influence Total Job 

Reductions 

Direct Job 

Reductions 

Indirect Job 

Reductions 

% of Economic 

Area Employment 

Anchorage, AK 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

118 62 56 Less Than 0.1 

Davenport-Moline-Rock 

Island, IA – IL 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

471 251 220 0.2 

Dayton, OH 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

235 127 108 Less Than 0.1 

Gulfport-Biloxi, MS 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

280 148 132 0.2 

Honolulu, HI 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

136 68 68 Less Than 0.1 

Ogden-Clearfield, UT 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

168 85 83 Less Than 0.1 

Oklahoma City, OK 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

252 111 141 Less Than 0.1 

Warner Robins, GA 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

155 95 60 0.2 

Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria, DC-VAMD-WV Metropolitan 

Division 

643 366 277 Less Than 0.1 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 22 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates: Fort 

Riley has a lack of graduate and PhD programs, Median House Values below the US average, a 

low number of vacant rental and sale units, and a higher than average Population per Physician 

ratio; Aberdeen Proving Ground is 46 miles to the nearest airport; Randolph Air Force Base has 

Median House Values below the US Average and a Crime Rate Index 65 percent higher than the 

National average; DFAS Indianapolis is located more than 25 miles from the nearest airport; and 

DSC Columbus has a Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Index higher than the national average. 

These issues do not affect the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: New Source Review permitting and air conformity analyses may be 

required at Aberdeen, NSA Philadelphia, NAS North Island, and MCAS Miramar. Additional 

operations at Randolph may impact threatened and endangered species and/or critical habitats. 

Significant mitigation measures to limit releases may be required at Aberdeen to reduce impacts 

to water quality and achieve US EPA water quality standards. Increased missions may result in 

additional water restrictions or mitigation requirements at Fort Huachuca. Minimal impact 

expected. This recommendation has no impact on cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; 

dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; noise; waste management; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending 

approximately $0.2M for waste management and environmental compliance activities. This cost 

was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the 

costs of environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance activities. 

The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Consolidate Correctional Facilities into Joint Regional Correctional Facilities 

Recommendation: Realign Edwards Air Force Base, CA, Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, and 

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA, by relocating the correctional function of each to 

Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, CA, and consolidating them with the correctional function 

already at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA, to form a single Level II Southwest Joint 

Regional Correctional Facility. 

Realign Lackland Air Force Base, TX, Fort Knox, KY, and Fort Sill, OK by relocating the 

correctional function of each to Fort Leavenworth, KS, and consolidating them with the 

correctional function already at Fort Leavenworth, KS, to form a single Level II Midwest Joint 

Regional Correctional Facility. 

Realign Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL, and Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL, by relocating 

the correctional function of each to Naval Weapons Station Charleston, SC, and consolidating 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 23

them with the correctional function already at Naval Weapons Station Charleston, SC, to form a 

single Level II Southeastern Joint Regional Correctional Facility. 

Realign Naval Support Activity Norfolk, VA, Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA, and Camp 

LeJeune, NC, by relocating the correctional function of each and consolidating them at Naval 

Support Activity, Northwest Annex, Chesapeake, VA, to form a single Level II Mid-Atlantic 

Joint Regional Correctional Facility. 

Realign Fort Lewis, WA, by relocating the management of correctional functions to Submarine 

Base Bangor, WA. The correctional facilities at Submarine Base Bangor, WA, and Fort Lewis, 

WA, will together form the Level II Northwestern Joint Regional Correctional Facility. 

Justification: The Department of Defense (DoD) Correctional program exists to enforce the 

military justice system, ensuring the safety, security, administration, and good order and 

discipline of its prisoners under guidance of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The 

UCMJ is legislation that is contained in Title 10 of the United States Code. It comprises a 

complete set of criminal military law and code. The DoD Correctional program currently 

consists of 17 DoD correctional facilities, which incorporate three facility classifications and 

four custody levels. There are eight Level I, eight Level II and one Level III correctional 

facilities. Level I is capable of providing pretrial and post-trial confinement up to 1-year. Level 

II is capable of providing pretrial and post-trial confinement for prisoners/inmates with sentences 

to confinement of five years or less and Level III provides post-trial confinement exceeding five 

years, one day, to include life and death sentences. 

This recommendation creates five, Level II Joint Regional Correctional Facilities. The 

Southwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility consolidates the Naval Consolidated Brig 

Miramar, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar; the Edwards Confinement Facility, Edwards Air 

Force Base, CA; the Kirtland Confinement Facility, Kirtland Air Force Base, NM; and the 

Marine Corps Base Brig, Camp Pendleton Camp Pendleton to a single Level II Joint Regional 

Correctional Facility at Miramar. The Midwestern Joint Regional Correctional Facility 

consolidates the Lackland Confinement Facility, Lackland Air Force Base, TX; the Army 

Regional Correctional Facility, Fort Knox, KY; the Army Regional Correctional Facility, Fort 

Sill, OK, and the components of the US Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, KS, into a 

single Level II Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Leavenworth. The Southeastern Joint 

Regional Correctional Facility consolidates the Naval Consolidated Brig Charleston, Naval 

Weapons Station, Charleston, SC; the Waterfront Brig Jacksonville, Naval Air Station 

Jacksonville, FL; and the Waterfront Brig Pensacola, Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL, to a 

single Level II Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Charleston. The Mid-Atlantic Joint 

Regional Correctional Facility consolidates the Naval Brig Norfolk, Naval Support Activity, 

Norfolk, VA; Marine Corps Base Brig, Quantico, VA; and Marine Corps Base Brig Camp 

LeJeune, NC; to a single Level II Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Chesapeake. The 

Northwestern Joint Regional Correctional Facility consolidates the Army Regional Correctional 

Facility at Fort Lewis, WA and the Waterfront Brig Puget Sound, Silverdale, Submarine Base 

Bangor, WA, to a single Level II Joint Regional Correctional Facility with correctional facilities 

at both locations. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 24 

This realignment and consolidation facilitates the creation of a Joint DoD Correctional system, 

improves jointness, reduces footprint, centralizes joint corrections training; builds new facilities 

which will provide significant improvements in terms of safety, security, efficiency and costs. 

Within this construct, policies and operations become standardized, facilities modernized, 

ultimately reducing manpower and decreasing operational costs through economies of scale. 

The construction of new facilities provides the opportunity to eliminate or dramatically reduce 

operational and maintenance costs of older inefficient facilities in addition to facilitating 

accreditation by the American Corrections Association (ACA). Additionally, reengineering 

efforts may provide an opportunity to eliminate redundancy in treatment programs, create a DoD 

versus military service specific Clemency and Parole Board and a Joint Enterprise for common 

functions; benefits not capture through the Cost of Base Realignment and Closure Actions 

(COBRA). This recommendation is designed to confine inmates/prisoners based on sentence 

length, geographical location and rehabilitation/treatment programs. The skills and expertise 

developed by military correctional specialists and personnel in operating confinement facilities 

are critical in operating detention camps (enemy prisoners of war) during the current global war 

on terrorism and future military conflicts. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $178.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a cost of $149.4M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department of Defense after implementation are $14.6M with a payback expected in 16 years. 

The net present value of the costs and savings to the Department of Defense over 20 years is a 

savings of $2.3M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 23 jobs (12 direct and 11 indirect jobs) over the 

2006-2011 periods in the Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 22 jobs (12 direct and 10 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the 

Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 122 jobs (64 direct and 58 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the San 

Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 2 jobs (1 direct and 1 indirect job) over the 2006-2011 periods in the BremertonSilverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 25

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 17 jobs (9 direct and 8 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the San Antonio, 

TX Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 204 jobs (123 direct and 81 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the Lawton, 

OK Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.3 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 169 jobs (105 direct and 64 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the 

Elizabethtown, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.3 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 78 jobs (36 direct and 42 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the 

Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 74 jobs (30 direct and 44 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the PensacolaFerry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 91 jobs (56 direct and 35 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, District of Columbia-VA-MD-West VA Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 326 jobs (207 direct and 119 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the 

Jacksonville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.4 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 6 jobs (3 direct and 3 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the Tacoma, WA 

Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 26 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation may impact air quality and will require New 

Source Review and conformity analyses. This recommendation may impact cultural, 

archeological or tribal resources. Tribal negotiations may be required to expand use (or 

construction) near listed areas. Threatened and endangered species or critical habitat may be 

impacted at Fort Lewis and Marine Corps Air Station Miramar depending on the site of new 

military construction. Solid waste change orders are necessary at Naval Support Activity 

Northwest Annex to accommodate the new mission. New construction at Naval Support 

Activity Northwest Annex may impact wetlands. This recommendation has no impact on 

dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; noise; or water resources. This recommendation will require spending 

approximately $0.4M for waste management and environmental compliance activities. This cost 

was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the 

costs of the environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Consolidate Defense Commissary Agency Eastern, Midwestern Regional, 

and Hopewell, VA Offices 

Recommendation: Close 300 AFCOMS Way, a leased installation in San Antonio, TX; 5258 

Oaklawn Boulevard, a leased installation in Hopewell, VA; and 5151 Bonney Road, a leased 

installation in Virginia Beach, VA. Relocate all components of the Defense Commissary 

Agency (DeCA) to Fort Lee, VA. 

Justification: This recommendation consolidates the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) 

Eastern Region (Virginia Beach, VA), Midwest Region (San Antonio, TX), and headquarters 

element in leased space in Hopewell, VA, with DeCA’s main headquarters at Fort Lee, VA. It 

meets several important Department of Defense objectives with regard to future use of leased 

space, consolidation of Headquarters operations at single locations, and enhanced security for 

DoD Activities. Additionally, the recommendation significantly improves military value due to 

the shift from leased space to a location on a military installation. The military value of DeCA 

leased space based on its current portfolio of locations is 216 out of 334 entities evaluated by the 

Major Administration and Headquarters (MAH) military value model. Fort Lee ranks 96 out of 

334. 

Implementation will reduce the Department’s reliance on leased space, which has historically 

higher overall costs than government-owned space and generally does not meet Anti-terrorism 

Force Protection standards as prescribed in UFC 04-010-01. The benefit of enhanced Force 

Protection afforded by a location within a military installation fence-line will provide immediate 

compliance with Force Protection Standards. DeCA’s current leased locations are not compliant 

with current Force Protection Standards. The recommendation eliminates 99,915 Gross Square 

Feet (GSF) of leased administrative space. This action provides a consolidation of these DeCA 

regional and headquarters activities from three to two, and reduces the number of buildings from 

four to one.
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 27

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $47.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $35.4M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $3.9M, with a payback expected in 14 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $4.9M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 260 jobs (109 direct jobs and 151 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 periods in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 176 jobs (83 direct jobs and 93 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the San 

Antonio, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. The proximity of Fort Lee to the City of Richmond (30 miles), where some personnel 

may choose to reside, mitigates a lack of nationally-accredited child chare facilities reported for 

the local community. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has the potential for a minimal impact on 

cultural/archeological sites and historical properties at Fort Lee. This recommendation could 

have a limited impact on Threatened and Endangered species or critical habitat at Fort Lee. This 

recommendation has no impact on air quality, dredging, land use constraints/sensitivity, marine 

mammals, noise, waste management, water resources, or wetlands. This recommendation will 

require spending approximately $0.05M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was 

included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs 

of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Consolidate Defense Information Systems Agency and Establish 

Joint C4ISR D&A Capability 

Recommendation: Close 5600 Columbia Pike and Skyline Place (Skyline VII), leased 

installations in Falls Church, VA, and 1010 Gause Boulevard, a leased installation in Slidell, LA. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 28 

Relocate all components of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to Fort Meade, 

MD. 

Close the Logicon Building, a leased installation in Arlington, Virginia. Relocate the Joint Task 

Force-Global Network Operation (JTF-GNO) to Fort Meade, MD. 

Realign Skyline IV and Skyline V, leased installations in Falls Church, VA, and GSA Franconia 

Warehouse Depot, a leased installation in Springfield, VA, by relocating all components of 

DISA to Fort Meade, MD. 

Realign Arlington Service Center, VA, by relocating all components of DISA and the JTF-GNO 

to Fort Meade, MD. 

Realign Naval Support Activity Panama City, Florida by relocating the Deployable Joint 

Command and Control (DJC2) Program Office of the Naval Surface Warfare Center to Fort 

Meade, MD. 

Realign Rosslyn Plaza North, a leased location in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Joint Tactical 

Radio System (JTRS) Program Office to Fort Meade, MD. 

Justification: This recommendation consolidates headquarters components of DISA and the 

JTF-GNO, a related organization with a dual-hatted command and shared facilities, at Fort 

Meade. This recommendation also realigns the scattered Combatant Commander Development 

and Acquisition activities, of which certain DISA components are a part, into a single activity at 

Fort Meade. These DISA components include Global Information Grid-Bandwidth Expansion 

(GIG-BE), Global Command and Control System (GCCS), Network Centric Enterprise Services 

(NCES), and Teleport Program Offices. This realignment will provide for the delivery of 

integrated, interoperable C4ISR systems to the warfighters with increased efficiency at less cost. 

The Army’s recommendation to close Fort Monmouth relocates the Joint Network Management 

System (JNMS) Program Office from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey to Fort Meade in a 

complementary action to those described herein. 

This recommendation meets several important Department of Defense objectives with regard to 

future use of leased space, rationalizing the presence of DoD Activities within the National 

Capital Region (NCR), consolidation of Headquarters operations at single locations, and 

enhanced security for DoD Activities. 

Implementation will reduce the Department’s reliance on leased space, which has historically 

higher overall costs than government-owned space and generally does not meet Anti-terrorism 

Force Protection standards as prescribed in UFC 04-010-01. The recommendation eliminates 

over 720,000 Usable Square Feet (USF) of leased administrative space. The relocation of a 

DOD Agency headquarters to a military installation that is outside of the NCR provides 

dispersion of DoD Activities away from a dense concentration within the NCR. This, plus the 

immediate benefit of enhanced Force Protection afforded by a location within a military 

installation fence-line, will provide immediate compliance with Force Protection Standards. 

DISA’s current leased locations are not compliant with current Force Protection Standards. This 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 29

action provides a consolidation for DISA’s headquarters reducing the number of buildings from 

eight to two. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $220.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $102.1M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $59.4M, with a payback expected in 2 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $491.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 6,880 jobs (4,026 direct jobs and 2,854 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 time period in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MDWV Metropolitan Division economic area, which is 0.3 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 296 jobs (151 direct jobs and 145 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 time period in 

the New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1% 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 49 jobs (24 direct jobs and 25 indirect job) over the 2006-2011 time period in the 

Panama-Lynn Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1% percent of 

economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. While the community surrounding Fort Meade has a lack of accredited childcare 

facilities, the Department anticipates that the private sector will respond to any increased demand 

for such. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Added operations will require New Source Review permitting and air 

conformity analysis at Fort Meade. Additional operations may impact cultural/archeological 

sites at Fort Meade and may further impact sensitive habitats leading to additional restrictions on 

training or operations. This recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use restraints and 

sensitive resource areas, marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; waste management; 

water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.4M 

for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. 

There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 30 

Consolidate Media Organizations into a New Agency for Media and Publications 

Recommendation: Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating Soldier Magazine to Fort Meade, 

MD. Realign Anacostia Annex, District of Columbia, by relocating the Naval Media Center to 

Fort Meade, MD. Realign 2320 Mill Road, a leased installation in Alexandria, VA, by relocating 

Army Broadcasting-Soldier Radio/TV to Fort Meade, MD. Realign 103 Norton Street, a leased 

installation in San Antonio, TX, by relocating Air Force News Agency-Army/Air Force 

Hometown News Service (a combined entity) to Fort Meade, MD. Close 601 North Fairfax 

Street, a leased installation in Alexandria, VA, by relocating the American Forces Information 

Service and the Army Broadcasting-Soldier Radio/TV to Fort Meade, MD. Consolidate Soldier 

Magazine, Naval Media Center, Army Broadcasting-Soldier Radio/TV, and the Air Force News 

Agency-Army/Air Force Hometown News Service into a single DoD Media Activity at Fort 

Meade, MD. 

Justification: This recommendation creates a new DoD Media Activity by consolidating a 

number of military department media organizations with similar missions into a new 

organization. It also collocates the American Forces Information Service (AFIS) with the new 

DoD Media Activity and the existing Defense Information School. 

This recommendation meets several important Department of Defense objectives with regard to 

future use of leased space, rationalizing the presence of DoD Activities within the NCR, and 

enhanced security for DoD Activities. The creation of a new DoD Media Activity as the result 

of consolidating a number of entities with similar missions promotes “jointness” and creates 

opportunities for cost savings and operational synergy. The co-location of AFIS with the new 

Activity will facilitate further consolidation of common support functions. 

Implementation will reduce the Department’s reliance on leased space, which has historically 

higher overall costs than government-owned space and generally does not meet antiterrorism 

force protection standards as prescribed in UFC 04-010-01. The recommendation eliminates 

approximately 75,000 Usable Square Feet (USF) of leased administrative space. The relocation 

to a military installation that is outside the boundaries of the NCR provides a dispersion of DoD 

Activities away from a dense concentration with the NCR. This, plus the immediate benefit of 

enhanced force protection afforded by a location within a military installation fence-line for 

those activities currently in leased space, will provide immediate compliance with force 

protection standards. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $42.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $2.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $9.5M, with a payback expected in 4 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $89.0M. 

 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 786 jobs (466 direct jobs and 320 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 time period in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 31

Metropolitan Division economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 516 jobs (273 direct jobs and 243 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 time period in 

the San Antonio, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. While the community surrounding Fort Meade has a comparative lack of nationally 

accredited childcare centers, the Department anticipates that the private sector will respond to 

any increased demand for childcare. There are no known community infrastructure impediments 

to implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Fort Meade is in moderate non-attainment for 8-hour Ozone and PM 

2.5, which will likely require air conformity analysis, New Source Review analysis, and 

associated permitting. This recommendation has no impact on cultural, archeological, and tribal 

resources; dredging; land use constraints and sensitive resources; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; 

water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately 

$0.07M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback 

calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Consolidate Transportation Command Components 

Recommendation: Realign Fort Eustis, VA, by relocating the Army Surface Deployment and 

Distribution Command to Scott Air Force Base, IL, and consolidating it with the Air Force Air 

Mobility Command Headquarters and Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) Headquarters 

at Scott Air Force Base, IL. 

Realign Hoffman 2, a leased installation in Alexandria, VA, by relocating the US Army Surface 

Deployment and Distribution Command to Scott Air Force Base, IL, and consolidating it with 

the Air Force Air Mobility Command Headquarters and Transportation Command Headquarters 

at Scott Air Force Base, IL. 

Realign US Army Surface Deployment and Distribution Command -Transportation Engineering 

Agency facility in Newport News, VA, by relocating US Army Surface Deployment and 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 32 

Distribution Command – Transportation Engineering Agency to Scott Air Force Base, IL, and 

consolidating it with the Air Force Air Mobility Command Headquarters and Transportation 

Command Headquarters at Scott Air Force Base, IL. 

Justification: Collocation of TRANSCOM and Service components will (1) collocate activities 

with common functions and facilitate large-scale transformation proposed by the TRANSCOM 

Commander, and (2) reduce personnel to realize long-term savings. The realignment will also 

terminate leased space operations in the National Capital Region (143,540 GSF in Alexandria, 

VA) and near Norfolk, VA (40,013 GSF in Newport News, VA). The scenario will terminate a 

total of 183,553 GSF in both locations. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $101.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $339.3M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $99.3M, with an immediate payback expected. The net present value of 

the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $1,278.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,472 jobs (857 direct jobs and 615 indirect 

jobs) in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division, which 

is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 1,133 jobs (484 direct jobs and 649 indirect jobs) in the Virginia Beach-NorfolkNewport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates that 

although Scott AFB job growth rates have on occasion fallen just below the national growth 

rates, there are no issues that affect the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support 

missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has the potential to impact air quality at Scott 

AFB. An air permit revision may be needed. Scott AFB has a 79 acre historic district that may 

be impacted by future development. Additional operations may further impact threatened and 

endangered species and/or critical habitats on Scott AFB and impact operations. Modification of 

the on-installation treatment works at Scott AFB may be necessary. This recommendation has 

no impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, 

resources, or sanctuaries; noise; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.4M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included 

in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 33

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Consolidate/Co-locate Active and Reserve 

Personnel & Recruiting Centers for Army and Air Force 

Recommendation: Realign Army Human Resources Command leased facilities in Alexandria, 

VA, Indianapolis, IN, and St. Louis, MO. Relocate and consolidate all functions at Fort Knox, 

KY. 

Realign the Air Reserve Personnel Center (Buckley Annex), CO, by relocating the Air Reserve 

Personnel Center processing functions to Randolph Air Force Base, TX, and consolidating them 

with the Air Force Personnel Center at Randolph Air Force Base, TX, and by relocating the 

Individual Mobilization Augmentee operational management functions to Robins Air Force 

Base, GA, and consolidating them with the Air Force Reserve Command at Robins Air Force 

Base, GA. 

Realign Robins Air Force Base, GA, by relocating Air Force Reserve Recruiting Service to 

Randolph Air Force Base, TX. 

Justification: The collocation of military personnel and recruiting functions for Army and Air 

Force creates Service Human Resources Centers for Excellence and improves personnel lifecycle management. This recommendation enables Business Process Reengineering 

transformation to support several significant Department of Defense initiatives such as 

increasing Active and Reserve Component Total Force integration and effectiveness and 

supporting the Department’s goals for the Continuum of Service concept which permits a range 

of participation to assist in force management and relieve stress on military skills that have been 

in high demand during recent operations and also supporting the ongoing development and 

implementation of the Defense Integrated Military Human Resource System (DIMHRS). 

For the Army, this recommendation eliminates over 1,100,000 square feet of leased space with 

annual lease savings of over $31.0M and a one-time cost avoidance of over $30.0M. In addition, 

it eliminates over 248,000 gross square feet of current excess capacity and moves a large support 

organization of over 2,000 personnel out of the National Capital Region. For the Air Force, this 

recommendation eliminates over 100,000 gross square feet of current excess capacity. The Air 

Force reserve Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) operational command and management 

functions will be relocated and consolidated with the Air Force Reserve Command at Robins Air 

Force Base, GA for improved command management of Reserve forces assigned to the 

Command. The HSA JCSG agrees with the Air Force that the operational alignment of 

personnel would benefit the Department and this action creates a similar organizational construct 

with the Marine Corps. The Air Force Recruiting Service is currently located at Randolph Air 

Force Base; this scenario will collocate Active and Reserve Component headquarters functions 

in a single location and assist with overall Total Air Force Recruiting management. Randolph 

Air Force Base is also the current location of the Air Education and Training Command further 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 34 

improving opportunities to coordinate personnel life-cycle planning. The overarching strategy 

for these consolidated human resources and recruiting centers extends to other organizations 

within the Army and Navy. The relocation of Army Accessions Command and Cadet Command 

from Fort Monroe, VA, and their co-location with the US Army Recruiting Command 

Headquarters at Fort Knox, KY, is captured in the installation closure recommendation for Fort 

Monroe. The relocation of the Navy Reserve Personnel Center, the Enlisted Placement and 

Management Center and the Navy Recruiting Command Headquarters from Naval Support 

Activity, New Orleans, LA, and their consolidation with the Navy Personnel Command and 

Navy Recruiting Command Headquarters at Naval Support Activity Millington, TN, is captured 

in the installation closure recommendation for Naval Support Activity New Orleans. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $119.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a savings of $463.0M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $152.8M with an immediate payback expected. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $1,913.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in maximum potential job reductions (direct and indirect) over the 2006-2011 period 

as follows: 

Region of Influence Total Job 

Reductions 

Direct Job 

Reductions 

Indirect Job 

Reductions 

% of Economic 

Area Employment 

Denver-Aurora, CO 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

828 465 363 Less Than 0.1 

Indianapolis, IN 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

227 137 90 Less Than 0.1 

St. Louis, MO-IL 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

4,171 2,093 2,078 0.3 

Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria, DC-VAMD-WV Metropolitan 

Division 

3,735 2,177 1,558 0.1 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates some 

minor issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, 

forces and personnel at Fort Knox, KY. These issues include no nationally accredited child-care 

centers reported for the local community, the current quantity of rental and sale units available 

(adequate military housing exits on Fort Knox), and the population to physician ratio of 1 to 8 

versus the national ratio of 1 to 4. These issues are mitigated, in part, by the recommendation 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 35

itself under the expectation that an influx of personnel will result in a growth in community 

services such as child care centers and the building of housing to support increasing market 

demand. In addition, the proximity of Fort Knox to the City of Louisville (29 miles) where some 

personnel may choose to reside mitigates this issue. Overall, we find that the community 

infrastructure at Fort Knox can support this recommendation. At Randolph Air Force Base, TX, 

a review of community attributes indicates the Uniform Crime Reports Index is approximately 

64 percent higher than the national average. This is significantly higher for those relocating from 

the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, CO, but is not significantly higher for those 

relocating from Robins Air Force Base, GA. There are no other issues regarding the ability of 

the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces and personnel. Overall, we find 

that the community infrastructure can support this recommendation, and it should proceed 

notwithstanding the crime index at Randolph Air Force Base. There are no known community 

infrastructure impediments to implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations 

in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: At Randolph Air Force Base, TX, there are historical properties that 

may be impacted as well as the Military Munitions Response Program that may represent a 

safety hazard for future site development. Additionally, threatened and endangered species or 

critical habitat may be impacted and will require a Biological Opinion to ensure the 

recommendation conforms. This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.5M for waste management and environmental compliance activities. 

This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise 

impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Create Joint Mobilization Sites 

Recommendation: Realign Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Washington Navy Yard, DC, and 

Naval Submarine Base New London, CT, by relocating all mobilization functions to Fort Dix, 

NJ, designating it as Joint Pre-Deployment/Mobilization Site Dix/McGuire/Lakehurst. Realign 

Submarine Base Bangor, WA, by relocating all mobilization processing functions to Ft Lewis, 

WA, designating it as Joint Pre-Deployment/Mobilization Site Lewis/McChord. Realign Ft 

Huachuca, AZ, by relocating all mobilization processing functions to Ft Bliss, TX, designating it 

as Joint Pre-Deployment/Mobilization Site Bliss/Holloman. Realign Ft Eustis, VA, Ft Jackson, 

SC, and Ft Lee, VA, by relocating all mobilization processing functions to Ft Bragg, NC, 

designating it as Joint Pre-Deployment/Mobilization Site Bragg/Pope. 

Justification: This recommendation realigns eight lower threshold mobilization sites to four 

existing large capacity sites and transforms them into Joint Pre-Deployment/ Mobilization 

Platforms. This action is expected to have the long-term effect of creating pre-
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 36 

deployment/mobilization centers of excellence, leverage economies of scale, reduce costs, and 

improve service to mobilized service members. This recommendation specifically targets four of 

the larger capacity mobilization centers located in higher density Reserve Component (RC) 

personnel areas. These platforms have the added military value of strategic location, Power 

Projection Platform (PPP) and deployment capabilities. The gaining bases all have an adjoining 

installation from another service(s), thereby gaining the opportunity to increase partnership and 

enhance existing joint service facilities and capabilities. The eight realigned, lower thresholds 

mobilization sites have significantly less capacity and many less mobilizations. The realignment 

of these pre-deployment/mobilization missions to the other joint pre-deployment/mobilization 

sites will not overload the gaining joint mobilization installations. These new joint regional predeployment/redeployment mobilization processing sites, Fort Dix, Fort Lewis, Fort Bliss and 

Fort Bragg have the capability to adequately prepare, train and deploy members from all services 

while reducing overall mobilization processing site manpower and facilities requirements. 

Numerous other intangible savings are expected to result from transformation opportunities by 

consolidating all services’ mobilization operations and optimizing existing and future personnel 

requirements. Additional opportunities for savings are also expected from the establishment of a 

single space mobilization site capable of supporting pre-deployment/mobilization operations 

from centralized facilities and infrastructure. The establishment of these Joint PreDeployment/Mobilization Sites will not preclude the services from using any/all of their other 

existing mobilization sites, nor will they affect any service rapid mobilization units/wings. 

These joint platforms will not effect any of the services units that a have specific unit 

personnel/equipment requirements necessitating their mobilization from a specified installation. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $0.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings $30.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $0.8M with a payback expected immediately. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $37.9M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 5 jobs (3 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006-2011 period in the Norwich-New London, CT, metropolitan statistical area, which is 

less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 2 jobs (1 direct job and 1 indirect job) over the 2006-2011 period in the Virginia 

Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC metropolitan statistical area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 2 jobs (1 direct job and 1 indirect job) over the 2006-2011 period in the Columbia, 

SC metropolitan statistical area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 37

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resources areas; 

marine mammals, resources or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation does not impact 

the costs of waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Defense Finance and Accounting Service 

Recommendation: Close the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) sites at Rock 

Island IL; Pensacola Saufley Field, FL; Norfolk Naval Station, VA; Lawton, OK; Pensacola 

Naval Air Station, FL; Omaha, NE; Dayton, OH; St. Louis, MO; San Antonio, TX; San Diego, 

CA; Pacific Ford Island, HI; Patuxent River, MD; Limestone, ME; Charleston, SC; Orlando, FL; 

Rome, NY; Lexington, KY; Kansas City, MO; Seaside, CA; San Bernardino, CA; and Oakland, 

CA. Relocate and consolidate business, corporate and administrative functions to the Defense 

Supply Center-Columbus, OH, the Buckley Air Force Base Annex, Denver, CO, or the MG 

Emmett J. Bean Federal Center, Indianapolis, IN. 

Realign DFAS Arlington, VA, by relocating and consolidating business, corporate, and 

administrative functions to the Defense Supply Center-Columbus, OH, the Buckley Air Force 

Base Annex, Denver, CO, or the MG Emmett J. Bean Federal Center, Indianapolis, IN. Retain a 

minimum essential DFAS liaison staff to support the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, Military Service Chief Financial Officers, and 

Congressional requirements. 

Realign DFAS Cleveland, OH, by relocating and consolidating business, corporate, and 

administrative functions to the Defense Supply Center-Columbus, OH, the Buckley Air Force 

Base Annex, Denver, CO, or the MG Emmett J. Bean Federal Center, Indianapolis, IN. Retain 

an enclave for the Military Retired and Annuitant Pay Services contract function and government 

oversight. 

Realign DFAS Columbus, OH, by relocating up to 55 percent of the Accounting Operation 

functions and associated corporate and administrative functions to DFAS Denver, CO, or DFAS 

Indianapolis, IN, and up to 30 percent of the Commercial Pay function and associated corporate 

and administrative functions to DFAS Indianapolis, IN, for strategic redundancy. 

Realign DFAS Denver, CO, by relocating up to 25 percent of the Accounting Operation 

functions and associated corporate and administrative functions to DFAS Columbus, OH, or 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 38 

DFAS Indianapolis, IN, and up to 35 percent of the Military Pay function and associated 

corporate and administrative functions to DFAS Indianapolis, IN, for strategic redundancy. 

Realign DFAS Indianapolis, IN, by relocating up to 10 percent of the Accounting Operation 

functions and associated corporate and administrative functions to DFAS Columbus, OH or 

DFAS Denver, CO, and up to 20 percent of the Commercial Pay function and associated 

corporate and administrative functions to DFAS Columbus, OH, for strategic redundancy. 

Justification: This action accomplishes a major facilities reduction and business line mission 

realignment, transforming the current DFAS organization into an optimum facilities configuration, 

which includes strategic redundancy to minimize risks associated with man-made or natural 

disasters/challenges. All three of the gaining sites meet DoD Antiterrorism/Force Protection 

(AT/FP) Standards. The current number of business line operating locations (26) inhibits the ability 

of DFAS to reduce unnecessary redundancy and leverage benefits from economies of scale and 

synergistic efficiencies. Overall excess facility capacity includes approximately 43 percent or 

1,776,000 Gross Square Feet (GSF) in administrative space and 69 percent or 526,000 GSF in 

warehouse space with many locations lacking adequate threat protection as defined in DoD AT/FP 

Standards. Finally, the three locations have potential to evolve into separate Business Line Centers 

of Excellence and further enhance “unit cost” reductions beyond the BRAC facilities/personnel 

savings aspect. 

The three gaining locations were identified through a process that used Capacity Analysis, Military 

Value, Optimization Modeling, and knowledge of the DFAS organization, and business line mission 

functions. The Military Value analysis, of 26 business operating locations, ranked the Buckley AF 

Base Annex, CO, the Defense Supply Center-Columbus, OH, and the MG Emmett J. Bean Federal 

Center, Indianapolis, IN, as 3, 7, and 9 respectively. The Optimization analysis not only included 

the factors of available capacity and expansion capability, but also included business line process 

and business operational considerations in identifying the three-location combination as providing 

the optimal facilities approach to hosting DFAS business line missions/functions. 

Subject matter knowledge of DFAS’s three business line missions and its operational components, 

along with business process review considerations and scenario basing strategy, was used to focus 

reduction of the 26 locations and identification of the three gaining locations. The scenario basing 

strategy included reducing the number of locations to the maximum extent possible, while balancing 

the requirements for an environment meeting DoD Antiterrorist and Force Protection standards, 

strategic business line redundancy, area workforce availability, and to include an anchor entity for 

each business line and thus retain necessary organizational integrity to support DoD customer needs 

while the DFAS organization relocation is executed. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $282.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period (FY06-FY11) is a savings of $158.1M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $120.5M, with an immediate payback expected. The Net 

Present Value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of 

$1,313.8M. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 39

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in the maximum potential job reductions (direct and indirect) over the 2006-2011 

period, as follows: 

Region of Influence Direct Job 

Reductions 

Indirect 

Job 

Reductions 

Total Job 

Reductions 

% of Economic 

Area Employment 

Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria, DC-VA-MDWV Metropolitan Division 

408 308 716 Less Than 0.1 

Charleston-North 

Charleston, SC 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

368 607 975 0.3 

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, 

OH Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 

1,028 847 1,875 0.1 

Dayton, OH Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 230 195 425 Less Than 0.1 

Kansas City, MO-KS 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

613 549 1,162 Less Than 0.1 

Lawton, OK Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 233 207 440 0.7 

Lexington-Fayette, KY 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

45 27 72 Less Than 0.1 

Aroostook County, ME 241 150 391 1.0 

Virginia Beach-NorfolkNewport News, VA-NC 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

314 435 749 Less Than 0.1 

Oakland-FremontHayward, CA Metropolitan 

Division 

50 41 91 Less Than 0.1 

Omaha-Council Bluffs, 

NE-IA Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 

235 259 494 Less Than 0.1 

Orlando, FL Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 209 205 414 Less Than 0.1 

Honolulu, HI Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 206 199 405 Less Than 0.1 

Lexington Park, MD 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

53 70 123 0.2 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 40 

Region of Influence Direct Job 

Reductions 

Indirect 

Job 

Reductions 

Total Job 

Reductions 

% of Economic 

Area Employment 

Pensacola-Ferry PassBrent, FL Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 

637 1,100 1,737 0.8 

Davenport-Moline-Rock 

Island, IA Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 

235 206 441 0.2 

Utica-Rome, NY 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

291 275 566 0.4 

San Antonio, TX 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

335 367 702 Less Than 0.1 

Riverside-San BernardinoOntario, CA Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 

120 122 242 Less Than 0.1 

San Diego-Carlsbad-San 

Marcos, CA Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 

240 257 497 Less Than 0.1 

Salinas, CA Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 61 62 123 Less Than 0.1 

St Louis, MO-IL 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

293 318 611 Less Than 0.1 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noises; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; or wetlands. An air conformity analysis may be needed at Buckley 

AF Base Annex. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.01M for 

environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. 

There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 41

Joint Basing 

Recommendation: Realign McChord Air Force Base (AFB), WA, by relocating the installation 

management functions to Fort Lewis, WA, establishing Joint Base Lewis-McChord. 

Realign Fort Dix, NJ, and Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, NJ, by relocating the 

installation management functions to McGuire AFB, NJ, establishing Joint Base McGuire-DixLakehurst. 

Realign Naval Air Facility Washington, MD, by relocating the installation management 

functions to Andrews AFB, MD, establishing Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility 

Washington, MD. 

Realign Bolling AFB, DC, by relocating the installation management functions to Naval District 

Washington at the Washington Navy Yard, DC, establishing Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling-Naval 

Research Laboratory (NRL), DC. 

Realign Henderson Hall, VA, by relocating the installation management functions to Fort Myer, 

VA, establishing Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, VA. 

Realign Fort Richardson, AK, by relocating the installation management functions to Elmendorf 

AFB, AK, establishing Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK. 

Realign Hickam AFB, HI, by relocating the installation management functions to Naval Station 

Pearl Harbor, HI, establishing Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI. 

Realign Fort Sam Houston, TX, and Randolph AFB, TX, by relocating the installation 

management functions to Lackland AFB, TX. 

Realign Naval Weapons Station Charleston, SC, by relocating the installation management 

functions to Charleston AFB, SC. 

Realign Fort Eustis, VA, by relocating the installation management functions to Langley AFB, 

VA. 

Realign Fort Story, VA, by relocating the installation management functions to Commander 

Naval Mid-Atlantic Region at Naval Station Norfolk, VA. 

Realign Andersen AFB, Guam, by relocating the installation management functions to 

Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Marianas Islands, Guam. 

Justification: All installations employ military, civilian, and contractor personnel to perform 

common functions in support of installation facilities and personnel. All installations execute 

these functions using similar or near similar processes. Because these installations share a 

common boundary with minimal distance between the major facilities or are in near proximity, 

there is significant opportunity to reduce duplication of efforts with resulting reduction of overall 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 42 

manpower and facilities requirements capable of generating savings, which will be realized by 

paring unnecessary management personnel and achieving greater efficiencies through economies 

of scale. Intangible savings are expected to result from opportunities to consolidate and optimize 

existing and future service contract requirements. Additional opportunities for savings are also 

expected to result from establishment of a single space management authority capable of 

generating greater overall utilization of facilities and infrastructure. Further savings are expected 

to result from opportunities to reduce and correctly size both owned and contracted commercial 

fleets of base support vehicles and equipment consistent with the size of the combined facilities 

and supported populations. Regional efficiencies achieved as a result of Service regionalization 

of installation management will provide additional opportunities for overall savings as the 

designated installations are consolidated under regional management structures. 

Specific exceptions not included in the functions to relocate are Health and Military Personnel 

Services. In general, the Department anticipates transferring responsibility for all other Base 

Operating Support (BOS) functions and the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) portion of 

Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM), to the designated receiving location. 

However, because of the variety of circumstances at each location, the Department 

requires flexibility to tailor implementation to the unique requirements at each location. 

In all but three realignments, discussed below, the quantitative military value score validated by 

military judgment was the primary basis for determining which installation was designated as the 

receiving location. 

McGuire’s quantitative military value compared to the Fort Dix quantitative military value score 

was too close to be the sole factor for determining the receiving installation for installation 

management functions. Military judgment favored McGuire AFB as the receiving installation 

for the installation management functions because of its mission in support of operational forces 

compared to Fort Dix, which has a primary mission of support for Reserve Component training. 

As an installation accustomed to supporting operational forces, it was the military judgment of 

the JCSG that McGuire was better able to perform those functions for both locations. 

Similarly, the quantitative military value score of Charleston AFB compared to that of Naval 

Weapons Station Charleston was too close to be the sole factor for determining the receiving 

installation for installation management functions. Military judgment favored Charleston AFB 

as the receiving installation for the installation management functions because of its mission in 

support of operational forces compared to Naval Weapons Station Charleston, which has a 

primary mission to support training and industrial activities. As an installation accustomed to 

supporting operational forces, it was the military judgment of the JCSG that Charleston AFB was 

better able to perform those functions for both locations. 

Langley AFB’s quantitative military value score compared to the Fort Eustis quantitative 

military value score was a clear margin for Fort Eustis. However, pending changes to Fort Eustis 

resulting from other BRAC recommendations causes military judgment to favor Langley AFB as 

the receiving installation for the installation management functions. Relocations of organizations 

currently based at Fort Eustis will cause a significant population decline and overall reduction in 

the scope of the installation’s supporting mission. Based on these changes, it was the military 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 43

judgment of the JCSG that Langley AFB was better able to perform these functions for both 

locations. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $50.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $601.3M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $183.8M with an immediate payback expected. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $2,342.5M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 776 jobs (422 direct jobs and 354 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Tacoma, WA Metropolitan Division, which is 0.2 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 285 jobs (173 direct jobs and 112 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Edison, NJ Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 182 jobs (89 direct jobs and 93 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Camden, NJ Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 253 jobs (150 direct jobs and 103 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division economic area, 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 412 jobs (224 direct jobs and 188 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area economic area, which is 0.2 percent of economic 

area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 511 jobs (277 direct jobs and 234 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is a less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 382 jobs (189 direct jobs and 193 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

San Antonio, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 657 jobs (264 direct jobs and 393 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 44 

Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.2 percent of economic 

area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 546 jobs (238 direct jobs and 306 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less 

than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 174 jobs (95 direct jobs and 79 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Guam County, GU economic area, which is .3 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: Review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst is in severe non-attainment 

for ozone (1hr). Some permit changes are possible. This recommendation has no impact on 

cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resources 

areas; marine mammals, resources or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or 

critical habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will 

require spending approximately $0.4M cost for waste management and environmental 

compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation 

does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, or 

environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended 

BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Relocate Air Force Real Property Agency (AFRPA) 

Recommendation: Realign Rosslyn Center and the Nash Street Building, leased installations in 

Arlington, VA, by relocating the Air Force Real Property Agency to Lackland Air Force Base, 

San Antonio, TX. 

Justification: This recommendation meets two important Department of Defense (DoD) 

objectives with regard to rationalization of the Department’s presence within 100 miles of the 

Pentagon and enhanced security for DoD Activities. Additionally, the recommendation results in 

a significant improvement in military value. The military value of the Air Force Real Property 

Agency (AFRPA) is 302nd of 334 entities evaluated by the Major Administration and 

Headquarters (MAH) military value model. Lackland Air Force Base is ranked 25th out of 334. 

The recommendation eliminates over 16,000 Usable Square Feet of leased administrative space 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 45

within the National Capital Region and relocates the involved offices to a military installation 

that will provide immediate compliance with Force Protection Standards. AFRPA’s current 

leased location is non-compliant with current Force Protection Standards. The relocation of a 

headquarters activity to an installation that is farther than 100 miles from the Pentagon provides 

dispersion of DoD Activities away from a dense concentration within the National Capital 

Region. This recommendation provides for operational efficiency and enhanced synergy by colocating AFRPA with a related Activity, the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, 

which is also relocating to Lackland Air Force Base. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $4.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $0.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $0.9M, with a payback expected in 5 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $7.9M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 109 jobs (62 direct jobs and 47 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 time period in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 

Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. The community surrounding Lackland Air Force Base reports a crime index (UCR) 

above the national average, but the Department does not believe that this factor will impact the 

community’s ability to support this action. 

Environmental Impact: Lackland Air Force Base has prehistoric sites, as well as two historic 

districts that may be impacted by this recommendation. Lackland Air Force Base has Military 

Munitions Response Program sites that may represent a safety hazard for future development. 

Less than 3db increase in noise contours can be expected from future development. The AICUZ 

reflects the current mission, local land use, and current noise levels. 7,029 acres off-base within 

the noise contours are zoned by the local community. 3,299 of these acres are residentiallyzoned. The community has not purchased easements for area surrounding the installation. 

Wetlands restrict 0.004 percent of the base and 0.008 percent of the range. Additional operations 

at the installation may impact wetlands, which may restrict operations. This recommendation 

has no impact on air quality; dredging; marine mammals, resources or sanctuaries; threatened 

and endangered species and critical habitat; waste management; or water resources. This 

recommendation will require spending approximately $0.05M to complete necessary National 

Environmental Policy Act documentation at the receiving installation. This cost was included in 

the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 46 

Relocate Army Headquarters and Field Operating Agencies 

Recommendation: Realign the Zachary Taylor Building, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, 

by relocating the Army Installation Management Agency headquarters to Fort Sam Houston, TX. 

Realign Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, as follows: relocate the Army Installation Management 

Agency Northwest Region headquarters to Fort Sam Houston, TX, and consolidate it with the 

Army Installation Management Agency Southwest Region headquarters to form the Army 

Installation Management Agency Western Region; and relocate the Army Network Enterprise 

Technology Command Northwest Region headquarters to Fort Sam Houston, TX, and 

consolidate it with the Army Network Enterprise Technology Command Southwest Region 

headquarters to form the Army Network Enterprise Technology Command Western Region. 

Realign Crystal Square 2, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Army HR XXI 

office to Fort Knox, KY. 

 

Realign the Park Center IV Building, a leased installation in Falls Church, VA, by relocating the 

Army Center for Substance Abuse to Fort Knox, KY. 

Realign Seven Corners Corporate Center, a leased installation in Falls Church, VA, and 4700 

King Street, a leased installation in Alexandria, VA, by relocating the Army Community and 

Family Support Center to Fort Sam Houston, TX. 

Realign Rosslyn Metro Center, a leased installation in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Army 

Family Liaison Office to Fort Sam Houston, TX. 

Realign Skyline Six, a leased installation in Falls Church, VA, by relocating the Army 

Contracting Agency headquarters to Fort Sam Houston, TX. 

Realign the Hoffman 1 Building, a leased installation in Alexandria, VA, by relocating the Army 

Contracting Agency E-Commerce Region headquarters to Fort Sam Houston, TX. 

Realign Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, by relocating the Army Contracting Agency Southern 

Hemisphere Region headquarters to Fort Sam Houston, TX. 

Realign Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, by relocating the Army Environmental Center to Fort 

Sam Houston, TX. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA by relocating Army Materiel Command (AMC) and the Security 

Assistance Command (USASAC, an AMC major subordinate command) to Redstone Arsenal, 

AL. 

Justification: This recommendation relocates several Army Service Provider headquarters and 

regional offices in order to create operating efficiencies via co-location and/or consolidation. A 

new Installation Management Agency (IMA) Western Region office is created at Fort Sam 

Houston by relocating the IMA Northwest Region headquarters from Rock Island Arsenal; it 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 47

collocates the IMA Headquarters with the IMA Western Region. Separate Army 

recommendations relocate other IMA regional offices to create the IMA Eastern Region at Fort 

Eustis. 

This recommendation creates a new Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM) 

Western Region at Fort Sam Houston by relocating the NETCOM Northwest Region 

headquarters from Rock Island Arsenal. Separate Army recommendations relocate other 

NETCOM Region headquarters to create the NETCOM Eastern Region at Fort Eustis. 

The Army Contracting Agency (ACA) is relocating the ACA Southern Region office to Fort 

Sam Houston where it will consolidate with the ACA Southern Hemisphere Region office that is 

relocating from Fort Buchanan. The ACA Headquarters and ACA E-Commerce Region will 

collocate with the ACA Southern Region at Fort Sam Houston. By a separate Army 

recommendation, the ACA Northern Region headquarters will relocate from Fort Monroe to Fort 

Eustis in order to collocate with the ACA Northern Contracting Center. 

Several other Army entities will relocate in order to collocate with the aforementioned 

organizations at Fort Sam Houston: the Army Community and Family Support Center, the Army 

Family Liaison Office, and the Army Environmental Center. The Army Center for Substance 

Abuse and the Army HR XXI office are relocating to Fort Knox. Finally, the Army Materiel 

Command (AMC) and the Security Assistance Command will relocate to Redstone Arsenal in 

order to collocate with one of AMC’s major subordinate commands, the USA Aviation and 

Missile Command. 

 

This recommendation meets several important Department of Defense objectives with regard to 

future use of leased space, rationalization of the Department’s presence within 100 miles of the 

Pentagon, consolidation of Headquarters operations at single locations, and enhanced security for 

DoD Activities. It collocates the Headquarters of the Army’s regional service providers that 

typically interact daily. It results in improvement in military value due to the shift from leased 

space to locations on military installations and from re-location of organizations from 

installations lying outside of the Army’s portfolio of installations they intend to keep to 

installations with higher military value. The military value of the affected Army Activities range 

from 219th to 303rd of 334 entities evaluated by the Major Administration and Headquarters 

(MAH) military value model. Fort Sam Houston is ranked 19th out of 334; Fort Knox is ranked 

32nd, and Redstone Arsenal is ranked 48th. 

Implementation will reduce the Department’s reliance on leased space which has historically 

higher overall costs than government-owned space and generally does not meet Anti-terrorism 

Force Protection standards as prescribed in UFC 04-010-01. The recommendation eliminates 

approximately 234,000 Usable Square Feet (USF) of leased administrative space within the 

National Capital Region (NCR) by relocating 8 organizations to military installations that are 

farther than 100 miles from the Pentagon thereby providing dispersion of DoD Activities away 

from a dense concentration within the NCR. This, plus the immediate benefit of enhanced Force 

Protection afforded by locating service providers within a military installation fence-line, will 

provide immediate compliance with Force Protection Standards. Operational synergies and 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 48 

efficiencies gained by co-locating Headquarters and newly consolidated Regional offices will 

likely result in additional operational efficiency and/or personnel reductions in the future. 

The relocation of AMC and USASAC to Redstone Arsenal will result in the avoidance of future 

military construction costs; this future cost avoidance is not reflected in the payback calculation 

because it is planned for post-FY05. This military construction would provide for a new 

headquarters building for AMC and USASAC on Fort Belvoir; the majority of AMC’s current 

space on Fort Belvoir is currently in temporary structures. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $199.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $111.8M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $23.9M, with a payback expected in 10 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $122.9M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 3,791 jobs (2,167 direct jobs and 1,624 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 

Metropolitan Division, which is 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 351 jobs (180 direct jobs and 171 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Baltimore-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 248 jobs (133 direct jobs and 115 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 111 jobs (56 direct jobs and 55 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the San 

Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo, PR Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: Fort Sam Houston’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR) 

index is slightly higher than the national average and Fort Knox lacks nationally-accredited child 

care facilities; has an unemployment rate that is higher than the national average; has a low ratio 

of physicians and hospital beds to population; distance to nearest city (Louisville) is greater than 

25 miles; and distance to nearest commercial airport is greater than 25 miles. The community 

surrounding Redstone Arsenal reports a lack of available graduate and PhD programs. These 

issues do not affect the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, 
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 49

forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation will impact air quality at Fort Sam Houston. 

New Source Review permitting is required. Several tribal burial grounds have been identified at 

Redstone Arsenal, which could result in time delays and unidentified cost associated with 

construction and the need for agreements, consultations, and negotiated restrictions with affected 

constituents. Additional operations may further impact threatened/endangered species at Fort 

Sam Houston and Redstone Arsenal leading to restrictions on training or operations. Significant 

mitigation measures to limit releases at Fort Sam Houston may be required to reduce impacts to 

water quality and achieve US EPA water quality standards. Projected growth in the population 

at Redstone Arsenal from this action may require infrastructure upgrades for water and sewer 

services. This recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use constraints/sensitive 

resource areas; marine mammals, resources or sanctuaries; noise; or wetlands. This 

recommendation will require spending approximately $0.6M for environmental compliance 

activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Relocate Miscellaneous Department of Navy Leased Locations 

Recommendation: Close Crystal Park 3 and Crystal Square 3, leased installations in Arlington, 

VA, and 214191 Great Mills Road and 21535 Pacific Drive, leased installations in Lexington 

Park, MD. Relocate all Department of the Navy organizations to DoD owned space in the 

National Capital Region. Realign Crystal Gateway 3, Crystal Gateway 4, Crystal Mall 2, Crystal 

Mall 3, Crystal Park 1, Crystal Park 5, Crystal Square 2, 1400-1450 S. Eads Street, and 2300 

Clarendon Blvd, all leased installations in Arlington, VA, and any other Department of the Navy 

occupied leased space in the National Capital Region, by relocating all Department of the Navy 

organizations to DoD owned space in the National Capital Region. Realign Federal Office 

Building 2, Arlington, VA, by relocating all Department of the Navy organizations to DoD 

owned space in the National Capital Region. 

Justification: This recommendation meets two important Department of Defense (DoD) 

objectives with regard to future use of leased space and enhanced security for DoD Activities. 

Implementation will reduce the Department’s reliance on leased space which has historically 

higher overall costs than government-owned space and generally does not meet Anti-terrorism 

Force Protection standards as prescribed in UFC 04-010-01. This, plus the immediate benefit of 

enhanced Force Protection afforded by locations within a military installation fence-line, will 

provide the Department of the Navy (DON) Activities with immediate compliance with Force 

Protection Standards. DON’s current leased locations are non-compliant with current Force 

Protection Standards. Additionally, the recommendation results in a significant improvement in 

military value as a result of the movement from leased space to military installations. The 

average military value of DON Activities based on current locations ranges from 192nd to 326th
Section 5: Recommendations – Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group 

H&SA - 50 

out of 334 entities evaluated by the MAH military value model. All military installations to 

which the DON Activities would relocate have higher military values. 

The payback calculation in this recommendation reflects the relocation of approximately 228,000 

GSF of leased space in the NCR, along with 284,000 GSF of administrative space in FOB-2, 

which is scheduled for closure, to locations identified by DON as the most likely relocation sites: 

Arlington Service Center, Anacostia Annex, and the Washington Navy Yard. This 

recommendation also reflects Naval Air Systems Command consolidating its headquarters 

operation at NAS Patuxent River by moving two locations from leased space to be contiguous 

with its main office. However, the recommendation is written broadly enough to relocate Navy 

organizations currently in leased space to any other DoD leased space in the NCR. Our analysis 

indicates that such alternative relocation sites will not have a significant or material impact on 

any of the BRAC selection criteria. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $61.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $12.8M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $18.0M, with a payback expected in 1 year. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $164.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will not result in any job 

reductions (direct or indirect) over the 2006-2011 period in the Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division or the Lexington Park, MD Micropolitan 

Statistical Area. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic 

region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Both Arlington Service and Washington Navy Yard have 0 

unconstrained acres for development. Anacostia Annex has 32 unconstrained acres for 

development. Because the NAS Patuxent River installation is located within the Chesapeake 

Bay Critical Area, the State may require that mitigation measures be obtained for new 

construction (e.g., storm water management). This recommendation has no impact on air 

quality; cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; marine mammals, resources or 

sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; 

water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately 

$0.05M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback 

calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. 
Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind - 1

Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 

Summary of Selection Process 

Introduction 

The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) 

chaired the Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group (JCSG). The group principals included 

members from each military service and the Joint Staff. The Industrial JCSG was chartered to 

review the Department of Defense (DoD) industrial functions, which include maintenance (depot 

and intermediate), munitions and armaments (including their storage), and ship overhaul and 

repair. 

Responsibilities and Strategy 

The Industrial JCSG was responsible for comprehensive analyses of assigned functions, the 

evaluation of alternatives, and the development and documentation of realignment and closure 

recommendations for submission to the Secretary of Defense. In developing its analytical 

process, the JCSG established internal policies and procedures consistent with DoD policy 

memoranda, the force structure plan, and installation inventories; BRAC selection criteria; and 

the requirements of Public Law 101-510, as amended. 

To facilitate the group’s efforts, the JCSG established three subgroups based on the three main 

functions being analyzed, and subordinate functions were identified for each subgroup. The 

chair of each subgroup was a principal member of the Industrial JSCG and a subject matter 

expert. The subgroups comprised members from each service and, as needed for support, 

contract personnel. 

The Industrial JCSG and the Infrastructure Steering Group (ISG) approved the following 

subgroups and subordinate functions: 

• Maintenance 

 Depot support and 

 Combat field support. 

• Munitions and Armaments

 Munitions production, 

 Munitions maintenance, 
Ind - 2 Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 

 Munitions storage, 

 Munitions demilitarization, and 

 Armaments production/manufacturing. 

• Ship Overhaul and Repair

 Depot and 

 Intermediate. 

Analytical Process 

Each industrial subgroup identified installations related to its assigned functions and developed 

defined capacity measure attributes and metric questions related to the assigned functions. The 

Military Departments reviewed all of the questions, and the Infrastructure Steering Group 

approved them. The subgroups then provided the questions to each installation in the form of a 

controlled data call, and the installations responded to the questions in the form of certified data. 

The subgroups used the certified data to analyze the capacity, including surge requirements, for 

their assigned functions. The responses to the capacity data call were also used to create an 

inventory of installations performing industrial functions. 

The JCSG subgroups developed measurable characteristics, or attributes, for each identified 

function based on the BRAC 2005 selection criteria and then developed targeted data calls based 

on those characteristics. The Military Departments reviewed the data calls, and the ISG 

approved the submission of the calls to the installations that had responded to the capacity data 

call. Using the installations’ responses to questions related to certified military value data, the 

subgroups assessed the military value of each function and subfunction at each installation. 

The subgroups then developed strategy-based, data-supported realignment or closure scenarios 

that would advance joint capabilities, maximize the use of capacity, align infrastructure with 

operations, save money, provide for future expansion capability, and maximize military value. 

The subgroups then assessed the scenarios based on the remaining selection criteria (5-8) and 

using DOD’s standard procedures and/or models. 

The disparate nature of the functions did not lend itself to a “one-size-fits-all” analytic approach, 

or strategy. The throughput of a manufacturing entity is viewed and measured very differently 

from that of a maintenance facility, and ship repair and overhaul offer yet another set of unique 

functions. The functions overlap somewhat, but to analyze the industrial functions in a 

meaningful way, the JCSG initially analyzed ammunition and armaments, maintenance, and ship 

repair as discrete functions. 

To fulfill the goals set forth by the Secretary of Defense, the Maintenance subgroup established a 

strategy based upon minimizing the number of sites performing maintenance while retaining 

sufficient redundancy within the industrial base and maximizing military value at the commodity 

level. 
Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind - 3

The Munitions and Armaments Subgroup addressed, excepting RDT&E, the entire life cycle of 

munitions. The subgroup sought to create multi-functional installations while eliminating excess 

capacity through closures versus realignments and avoiding single-point failures. These actions 

will result in an industrial base that is efficient, effective, flexible, and multifunctional. 

The Ship Overhaul and Repair subgroup ensured that ship maintenance requirements were met 

effectively and efficiently as the Navy reallocated fleet forces. The subgroup also ensured that 

the number of organic shipyards and the workloads dictated by the 2025 force structure were 

rationalized. Finally, the subgroup sought to consolidate ship maintenance support functions and 

to consolidate and regionalize intermediate-level ship maintenance within geographic regions. 

The ultimate outcome of these efforts resulted in reduced excess capacity. 

The three subgroups developed numerous strategy-driven scenario proposals. The JCSG 

reviewed the proposals, selected the most promising, and reduced the number to 120 scenarios 

for further analysis. After further analyses of the 120 proposals, the JCSG fully developed 34 

candidate recommendations and presented them to the Infrastructure Steering Group (ISG). 

After review, the ISG forwarded all 34 candidate recommendations to the Infrastructure 

Executive Council (IEC). The IEC reviewed and approved all but three of the candidate 

recommendations. Subsequent to IEC approval, several candidate recommendations were 

integrated into larger Military Department candidate recommendations or were combined for 

purposes of clarity. 

The recommendations approved by the Secretary of Defense follow: 
Ind - 4 Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 

Recommendations and Justifications 

Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, CA 

Recommendation: Realign Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, CA, as follows: relocate the 

depot maintenance of Electronic Components (Non-Airborne), Fire Control Systems and 

Components, Radar, and Radio to Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA; relocate the depot maintenance 

of Material Handling to Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, GA; relocate the depot 

maintenance of Other Components to Anniston Army Depot, AL; and relocate the depot 

maintenance of Tactical Missiles to Letterkenny Army Depot, PA. 

Justification: This recommendation supports depot maintenance function elimination at Naval 

Weapons Station Seal Beach and follows the strategy of minimizing sites using maximum 

capacity at 1.5 shifts. This recommendation eliminates over 243,000 square feet of depot 

maintenance production space with annual facility sustainment and recapitalization savings of 

$1.1M. Required capacity to support workloads and Core requirements for the Department of 

Defense (DoD) is relocated to other DoD Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence, thereby 

increasing the military value of depot maintenance performed at these sites. This 

recommendation decreases the cost of depot maintenance operations across DoD by 

consolidation and elimination of 30 percent of duplicate overhead structures required to operate 

multiple depot maintenance activities. Additionally, this recommendation supports 

transformation of the Department’s depot maintenance operations by increasing the utilization of 

existing capacity by up to 150 percent while maintaining capability to support future force 

structure. Another benefit of this recommendation includes utilization of DoD capacity to 

facilitate performance of interservice workload. 

 

Payback: The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $4.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during 

implementation period is a savings $2.3M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $1.6M with payback expected in 1 year. The net present value of the costs 

and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $17.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 85 jobs (47 direct jobs and 38 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division, which 

is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 
Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind - 5

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has the potential to impact air quality at MCLB 

Albany, and Tobyhanna AD; and an expected impact at Letterkenny AD. This recommendation 

has a possible impact on historic properties at MCLB Albany. This recommendation has the 

potential to impact threatened and endangered species or critical habitat at MCLB Albany and 

Anniston AD. Anniston AD may require additional mitigation and pollution prevention 

measures with increased depot maintenance activities. Anniston may also require upgrades to its 

industrial wastewater treatment plant due to increased depot maintenance activities. This 

recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; or 

marine mammals, marine resources, or marine sanctuaries; noise; waste management; or 

wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.1M for environmental 

compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation 

does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, or 

environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended 

BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, CA 

Recommendation: Close Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, CA. Relocate the artillery 

cartridge case metal parts functions to Rock Island Arsenal, IL. 

Justification: There are 4 sites within the Industrial Base producing Metal Parts. To remove 

excess from the Industrial Base, the closure allows DoD to generate efficiencies and nurture 

partnership with multiple sources in the private sector. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $25.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $10.4M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $6.5M with a payback expected within 3 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $53.3M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 106 jobs (89 direct jobs and 17 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Modesto, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has the potential to impact air quality at Rock 

Island Arsenal. A new Source Review will be needed for new construction and the added 

operations will require an Air Conformity analysis to determine the impact. Continued 
Ind - 6 Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 

management and/or deed restrictions at Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant will be necessary to 

ensure future protection of federally listed species. Restoration, monitoring/sweeps, access 

controls, and/or deed restrictions may be required at Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant to 

prevent disturbance, health and safety risks, and/or long-term release of toxins to environmental 

media. Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant also has a domestic wastewater treatment facility 

that may require cleanup. This recommendation has the potential for a minor impact on water 

resources at Rock Island Arsenal. This recommendation has no impact on cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; or 

wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $2.5M for environmental 

compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. Riverbank Army 

Ammunition Plant reports approximately $10.5M in environmental restoration costs. Because 

the Department of Defense has a legal obligation to perform environmental restoration regardless 

of whether an installation is closed, realigned, or remains open, this cost was not included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Sierra Army Depot, CA 

Recommendation: Realign Sierra Army Depot, CA. Relocate Storage to Tooele Army Depot, 

NV and Demilitarization to Crane Army Ammunition Activity, IN, and McAlester Army 

Ammunition Plant, OK. 

Justification: Capacity and capability for storage exists at numerous munitions sites. To reduce 

redundancy and remove excess from the Industrial Base, the realignment allows DoD to create 

centers of excellence and remove inefficiencies. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $33.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $7.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $7.5M with a payback expected within 7 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $66.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 17 jobs (12 direct jobs and 5 indirect jobs) over 

the period 2006-2011 in the Susanville, CA Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent of 

the economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on 

this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 
Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind - 7

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.3M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included 

in the payback calculation. This recommendation does otherwise not impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and other environmental compliance activities. 

The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Rock Island Arsenal, IL 

Recommendation: Realign Rock Island Arsenal, IL, by relocating the depot maintenance of 

Combat Vehicles and Other to Anniston Army Depot, AL, and the depot maintenance of Other 

Equipment and Tactical Vehicles to Letterkenny Army Depot, PA. 

Justification: This recommendation supports minimizing the number of depot maintenance 

sites through the consolidation of Rock Island’s remaining Combat Vehicle workload and 

capacity at Anniston Army Depot, the Army’s Center for Industrial and Technical Excellence for 

Combat Vehicles. The recommendation also increases overall depot capability utilization by 

consolidating Rock Island’s remaining Tactical Vehicle workload and capability at Letterkenny, 

the depot with the highest Military Value for Tactical Vehicle maintenance. This 

recommendation eliminates over 160,000 square feet of depot maintenance production space 

with annual facility sustainment and recapitalization savings of $0.6M. This recommendation 

also decreases the cost of depot maintenance operations across DoD by consolidation and 

elimination of 30 percent of duplicate overhead structures required to operate multiple depot 

maintenance activities. Finally, this recommendation facilitates future interservice utilization of 

DoD depot maintenance capacity. 

Payback: The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $27.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during 

implementation period is a cost of $16.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $3.1M with payback expected in 9 years. The net present value of the costs 

and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $13.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 339 jobs (181 direct jobs and 158 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical 

Area, which is 0.2 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 
Ind - 8 Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has an expected impact to air quality at 

Letterkenny AD. Additional operations may impact TES, candidate species, and/or critical 

habitats at Anniston, possibly leading to restrictions on operations. Increased depot maintenance 

activities at Anniston may require mitigation and pollution prevention measures to protect the 

aquifer and upgrades to the industrial wastewater treatment plant. This recommendation has no 

impact on cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive 

resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; waste management; or wetlands. 

This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.2M cost for environmental 

compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculations. This recommendation 

does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, or 

environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended 

BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Newport Chemical Depot, IN 

Recommendation: Close Newport Chemical Depot, IN. 

Justification: There is no additional chemical demilitarization workload slated to go to Newport 

Chemical Depot. The projected date for completion of existing workload is 2nd quarter of 2008. 

There is no further use for Newport Chemical Depot. 

Payback: The total one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $7.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $95.6M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $35.7M with a payback expected immediately. The Net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $436.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 838 jobs (571 direct jobs and 267 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Terre Haute, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.9 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 
Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind - 9

Environmental Impact: Continued management and/or deed restrictions will be necessary to 

ensure future protection of the Federally listed species. Restoration, monitoring, access control, 

and deed restrictions may be required for former waste management areas to prevent disturbance, 

health and safety risks, and/or long term release of toxins to environmental media. Restoration 

and monitoring of contaminated sites will likely be required after closure to prevent significant 

long-term impacts to the environment. This recommendation has no impact on air quality; 

cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; 

noise; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $1.3M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included 

in the payback calculation. Newport Chemical Depot reports approximately $1.2M in 

environmental restoration costs. Because the Department of Defense has a legal obligation to 

perform environmental restoration regardless of whether an installation is closed, realigned, or 

remains open, this cost was not included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does 

not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and 

environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended 

BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Kansas Army Ammunition Plant, KS 

Recommendation: Close Kansas Army Ammunition Plant (AAP), KS. Relocate Sensor Fuzed 

Weapon/Cluster Bomb function and Missile warhead production to McAlester AAP, OK; 

155MM ICM Artillery and 60MM, 81MM, and 120MM Mortar functions to Milan, TN; 105MM 

HE, 155MM HE, and Missile Warhead functions to Iowa AAP, IA; and Detonators/relays/delays 

to Crane Army Ammunition Activity, IN. 

Justification: Capacity and capability for Artillery, Mortars, Missiles, and Pyro/Demo exists at 

numerous munitions sites. There are 8 sites producing Artillery, 5 producing Mortars, 9 

producing Pyro/Demo, and 13 performing Demilitarization. To reduce redundancy and remove 

excess from the Industrial Base, the closure allows DoD to create centers of excellence, avoid 

single point failure, and generate efficiencies. 

 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $25.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $2.1M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $10.3M with a payback expected within 2 years. The net present value of 

the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $101.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 276 jobs (167 direct jobs and 109 indirect jobs) 

over the period 2006-2011 in the Parsons, KS Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is 1.8 percent 

of the economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions 

on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 
Ind - 10 Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has possible water resources impact at 

McAlester and Crane. Significant mitigation measures must be taken to limit releases into 

waterway. This recommendation has potential impact on air quality at Crane AAA. Crane 

AAA may need upgrades to industrial wastewater treatment to handle additional lead wastes. 

Kansas AAP has domestic and industrial wastewater treatments plants that may require closure. 

This recommendation has no impact on dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; 

noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; 

or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $5.2M for 

environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. Kansas 

reports approximately $33.2M in environmental restoration costs. Because the Department of 

Defense has a legal obligation to perform environmental restoration regardless of whether an 

installation is closed, realigned, or remains open, this cost was not included in the payback 

calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental 

restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate 

environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Lima Tank Plant, OH 

Recommendation: Realign Lima Tank Plant, OH. Retain the portion required to support the 

manufacturing of armored combat vehicles to include Army Future Combat System (FCS) 

program, Marine Corps Expeditionary Force Vehicle (EFV) chassis, and M1 Tank 

recapitalization program. 

 

Justification: Capacity and capability for armored combat vehicles exists at three sites with 

little redundancy among the sites. The acquisition strategy for the Army Future Combat System 

(FCS) and Marine Corps Expeditionary Force Vehicle includes the manufacturing of manned 

vehicle chassis at Lima Army Tank Plant. The impact of establishing this capability elsewhere 

would hinder the Department’s ability to meet the USA and USMC future production schedule. 

This recommendation to retain only the portion of Lima Army Tank Plant required to support the 

FCS, EFV, and M1 tank recap, reduces the footprint. This allows the Department of Defense to 

remove excess from the Industrial Base, create centers of excellence, avoid single point failure, 

and generate efficiencies within the manufacture and maintenance of combat vehicles. 

 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $0.2M. The net of all savings to the Department during the implementation 

period is a savings of $5.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after implementation 

are $1.7M with payback expected immediately. The net present value of the costs and savings to 

the Department over 20 years is a savings of $22.3M. 
Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind - 11

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will not result in any job reductions 

(direct or indirect) over the period 2006-2011 in the Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation does not impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, MS 

Recommendation: Close Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, MS. Relocate the 155MM ICM 

artillery metal parts functions to Rock Island Arsenal, IL. 

Justification: There are 4 sites within the Industrial Base producing Metal Parts. To remove 

excess from the Industrial Base, the closure allows DoD to generate efficiencies and nurture 

partnership with multiple sources in the private sector. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $32.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $10.8M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $5.1M with a payback expected in 7 years. The Net Present Value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $38.6M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 88 jobs (54 direct jobs and 34 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006 – 2011period in the Picayune, MS Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.5 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 
Ind - 12 Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has potential impact to water resources at 

Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant. The installation has both domestic and industrial 

wastewater treatment plants that may require closure. Significant mitigation measures must be 

taken at Rock Island to limit release of pollutants during loadings. This recommendation has no 

impact on air quality; cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints 

or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending 

approximately $1.4M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the 

payback calculation. Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant reports $2.3M in environmental 

restoration costs. Because the Department has a legal obligation to perform environmental 

restoration regardless of whether a base is closed, realigned, or remains open, this cost was not 

included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs 

of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Hawthorne Army Depot, NV 

Recommendation: Close Hawthorne Army Depot, NV. Relocate Storage and Demilitarization 

functions to Tooele Army Depot, UT. 

Justification: Capacity and capability for Storage and Demilitarization exists at numerous 

munitions sites. To reduce redundancy and remove excess from the Industrial Base, the closure 

allows DoD to create centers of excellence and establish deployment networks that support 

readiness. Hawthorne Army Depot has infrastructure problems that severely limit the ability to 

offload. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $180.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $59.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $73.4M with a payback beginning immediately. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $777.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 326 jobs (199 direct jobs and 127 indirect jobs) 

over the period 2006-2011 in the Reno-Sparks, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less 

than 0.1 percent of the economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces, and 
Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind - 13

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has expected impact on air quality at Tooele 

Army Depot. Air Conformity analysis will likely be necessary. Surveys and consultation with 

the State Historic Preservation Officer will be required at Hawthorne Army Depot. Restoration 

monitoring/sweeps, access controls and/or deed restrictions may be required at Hawthorne to 

prevent disturbance and health/safety risks, and/or long-term release of toxins to environmental 

media. Restoration and/or monitoring of contaminated media may be required after closure. 

Hawthorne also has domestic and industrial wastewater treatment plants that may require 

closure. This recommendation has no impact on dredging; cultural, archeological, or tribal 

resources; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; or wetlands. This recommendation 

will require spending approximately $1.5M for environmental compliance activities. This cost 

was included in the payback calculation. Hawthorne reports approximately $383.2M in 

environmental restoration costs. Because the Department of Defense has a legal obligation to 

perform environmental restoration regardless of whether an installation is closed, realigned, or 

remains open, this cost was not included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does 

not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and 

environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended 

BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Watervliet Arsenal, NY 

Recommendation: Realign Watervliet Arsenal, NY, by disestablishing all capabilities for Other 

Field Artillery Components. 

 

Justification: The Department no longer requires the capability for Other Field Artillery 

Components at Watervliet Arsenal. The Department will require and will retain at Watervliet 

Arsenal the capability to support core cannon tube, rotary forge, and swage. Disestablishing the 

Other Field Artillery Components capability will allow the Department to reduce its overall 

footprint at Watervliet Arsenal. It will also allow the Department to explore partnering with the 

local community, perhaps through a leaseback arrangement. This type of partnering could allow 

the government to reduce its footprint while maintaining that portion of Watervliet Arsenal 

needed to fulfill core capabilities. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $63.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $46.8M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $5.2M with a payback expected in 18 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $5.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will not result in any job reductions 

over the period 2006-2011 in the Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area. The aggregate 
Ind - 14 Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 

economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was 

considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

 

Environmental Impact: Surveys and consultation with SHPO will be required to ensure 

protection of cultural resources on Watervliet Arsenal. Restoration and monitoring of 

contaminated groundwater sites at Watervliet Arsenal will likely be required after to prevent 

significant long-term impacts to the environment. This recommendation has no impact on air 

quality; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, 

or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; 

or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $1.3M for 

environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, or environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all 

recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. 

There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR 

Recommendation: Close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR. 

Justification: There is no additional chemical demilitarization workload slated to go to Umatilla 

Chemical Depot. The projected date for completion of its existing workload is 2nd quarter of 

2011. There is no further use for Umatilla Chemical Depot. 

Payback: The total one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $15.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $89.1M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $61.0M with a payback expected immediately. The Net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $681.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 884 jobs (512 direct jobs and 372 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Pendleton-Hermiston, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area, 

which is 2.0 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces, and 
Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind - 15

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Surveys and consultation with the SHPO will be required to determine 

disposition of archaeological and historical resources. Restoration, monitoring, access control, 

and deed restrictions may be required for former waste management areas to prevent disturbance, 

health and safety risks, and/or long term release of toxins to environmental media. Restoration 

and monitoring of contaminated sites will likely be required after closure to prevent significant 

long-term impacts to the environment. This recommendation has no impact on air quality; 

dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species 

or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will 

require spending approximately $1.3M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was 

included in the payback calculation. Umatilla reports approximately $10.3M in environmental 

restoration costs. Because the Department of Defense has a legal obligation to perform 

environmental restoration regardless of whether an installation is closed, realigned, or remains 

open, this cost was not included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Lackland Air Force Base, TX 

Recommendation: Realign Lackland Air Force Base, TX, by relocating the depot maintenance 

of Computers, Crypto, Electronic Components (Non-Airborne), and Radio to Tobyhanna Army 

Depot, PA; and disestablishing all depot maintenance capabilities. 

Justification: This recommendation supports depot maintenance function elimination at 

Lackland Air Force Base, TX and follows the strategy of minimizing sites using maximum 

capacity at 1.5 shifts. This recommendation eliminates over 36,200 square feet of depot 

maintenance production space with annual facility sustainment and recapitalization savings of 

$0.1M. Required capacity to support workloads and Core requirements for the Department of 

Defense (DoD) is relocated to other DoD Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence, thereby 

increasing the military value of depot maintenance performed at these sites. This 

recommendation decreases the cost of depot maintenance operations across DoD by 

consolidation and elimination of 30 percent of duplicate overhead structures required to operate 

multiple depot maintenance activities. Additionally, this recommendation supports 

transformation of the Department’s depot maintenance operations by increasing the utilization of 

existing capacity by 150 percent while maintaining capability to support future force structure. 

Another benefit of this recommendation includes utilization of DoD capacity to facilitate 

performance of interservice workload. 

 

Payback: The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $10.2M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during 

implementation period is a cost of $0.07M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 
Ind - 16 Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 

implementation are $2.9M with payback expected in 3 years. The net present value of the costs 

and savings to the Department over 20 years is a saving of $28.0 M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 376 jobs (177 direct jobs and 199 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the San Antonio, TX, Metropolitan Statistical Area which is less 

than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has a potential to impact air quality at 

Tobyhanna. This recommendation has no impact on cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; 

dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; 

water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.4M 

for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. 

This recommendation does otherwise not impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. 

There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, TX 

Recommendation: Close Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant (AAP), TX. Relocate the Storage 

and Demilitarization functions to McAlester AAP, IL. Relocate the 105MM and 155MM ICM 

Artillery, MLRS Artillery, Hand Grenades, 60MM and 81MM Mortars functions to Milan AAP, 

TN. Relocate Mines and Detonators/Relays/Delays functions to Iowa AAP, IA. Relocate 

Demolition Charges functions to Crane Army Ammunition Activity (AAA), IN. 

Justification: Capacity and capability for Artillery, Mortars, Missiles, Pyro/Demo, and Storage 

exists at numerous munitions sites. There are 8 sites producing Artillery, 5 producing Mortars, 9 

producing Pyro-Demo, 15 performing storage, and 13 performing Demilitarization. To reduce 

redundancy and remove excess from the Industrial Base, the closure allows DoD to create 

centers of excellence, avoid single point failure, and generate efficiencies. Goal is to establish 

multi-functional sites performing Demilitarization, Production, Maintenance, and Storage. Lone 

Star primarily performs only one of the 4 functions. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $29.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $4.7M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 
Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind - 17

implementation are $17.3M with a payback expected within 1 year. The Net Present Value of 

the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $164.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 229 jobs (149 direct jobs and 80 indirect jobs) 

over the period of 2006-2011 in the Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR Metropolitan Statistical 

Area, which is 0.3 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Surveys and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

will be required at Lone Star to ensure protection of cultural resources. Remediation of 

munitions contaminants on three operational ranges may be required at Lone Star. Continued 

management and/or deed restrictions at Lone Star may be necessary to ensure future protection 

of federally listed species. Restoration, monitoring/sweeps, access controls, and/or deed 

restrictions may be required to prevent disturbance and health/safety risks and/or long-term 

release of toxins to environmental media. Restoration and/or monitoring of contaminated media 

may be required after closure in order to prevent significant long-term impacts to the 

environment. Lone Star has an industrial wastewater treatment plan that may require closure. 

This recommendation has no impact on air quality; dredging; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; noise; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately 

$5.4M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback 

calculation. Lone Star reports approximately $2.7M in environmental restoration costs. Because 

the Department of Defense has a legal obligation to perform environmental restoration regardless 

of whether an installation is closed, realigned, or remains open, this cost was not included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Deseret Chemical Depot, UT 

Recommendation: Close Deseret Chemical Depot, UT. Transfer the storage igloos and 

magazines to Tooele Army Depot, UT. 

Justification: There is no additional chemical demilitarization workload slated to go to Deseret 

Chemical Depot. The projected date for completion of its existing workload is 2nd quarter of 

2008. Because of the close proximity of Deseret Chemical Depot to Tooele Army Depot, the 

sophistication of the security system, the number and conditions of igloos and magazines, this 
Ind - 18 Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 

recommendation increases the storage and distribution deployment network capability at Tooele 

Army Depot at a minimal cost. 

Payback: The total one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $4.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $65.1M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $30.3M with a payback expected immediately. The Net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $356.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 391 jobs (248 direct jobs and 143 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Salt Lake City, UT metropolitan statistical area, which is less 

than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Surveys and consultation with the SHPO will be required to determine 

disposition of archaeological and historical resources. Continued management and or deed 

restrictions will be necessary to ensure future protection of the federally listed species. 

Restoration, monitoring, access control, and deed restrictions may be required for former waste 

management areas to prevent disturbance, health and safety risks, and/or long term release of 

toxins to environmental media. Restoration and monitoring of contaminated sites will likely be 

required after closure to prevent significant long-term impacts to the environment. This 

recommendation has no impact on air quality; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive 

resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered 

species or critical habitat; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $1.3M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included 

in the payback calculation. Deseret Chemical Depot reports approximately $66.9M in 

environmental restoration costs. Because the Department of Defense has a legal obligation to 

perform environmental restoration regardless of whether an installation is closed, realigned, or 

remains open, this cost was not included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does 

not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and 

environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended 

BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation.

Ship Intermediate Maintenance Activity Norfolk, VA 

Recommendation: Realign Ship Intermediate Maintenance Activity (SIMA) Norfolk, VA, by 

relocating intermediate ship maintenance function to Naval Shipyard Norfolk, VA. 
Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind - 19

Justification: This recommendation supports capacity reduction at the SIMA Norfolk, VA, and 

reduces excess ship repair capacity. This consolidation matches the ship maintenance 

infrastructure at the other major Fleet concentrations where depot and intermediate level 

activities are collocated. This consolidation will lead to synergy and efficiency in ship 

maintenance. This recommendation assumes that Norfolk Naval Shipyard becomes a Direct or 

Mission Funded activity. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $10.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $26.8M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $8.2M with a payback expected in one year. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $104.3M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 209 jobs (95 direct jobs and 114 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 

Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The 

aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence 

was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation does not impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Fleet Readiness Centers 

Recommendation: Realign Naval Air Station Oceana, VA, by disestablishing the Aircraft 

Intermediate Maintenance Department Oceana, the Naval Air Depot Cherry Point Detachment, 

and the Naval Air Depot Jacksonville Detachment; establishing Fleet Readiness Center Mid 

Atlantic, Naval Air Station Oceana, VA; and transferring all intermediate maintenance workload 

and capacity to Fleet Readiness Center Mid Atlantic, Naval Air Station Oceana, VA. 

Realign Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, by disestablishing the Aircraft Intermediate 

Maintenance Department at Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division; establishing Fleet 
Ind - 20 Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 

Readiness Center Mid Atlantic Site Patuxent River, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD; and 

transferring all intermediate maintenance workload and capacity to Fleet Readiness Center Mid 

Atlantic Site Patuxent River, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD. 

Realign Naval Air Station Norfolk, VA, by disestablishing the Aircraft Intermediate 

Maintenance Department Norfolk VA, the Naval Air Depot Jacksonville Detachment, and Naval 

Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Lakehurst Detachment; establishing Fleet Readiness Center 

Mid Atlantic Site Norfolk, Naval Air Station Norfolk, VA; and transferring all intermediate and 

depot maintenance workload and capacity to Fleet Readiness Center Mid Atlantic Site Norfolk, 

Naval Air Station Norfolk, VA. 

Realign Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, LA, by disestablishing the Aircraft 

Intermediate Maintenance Department, establishing Fleet Readiness Center Mid Atlantic Site 

New Orleans, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, LA; and transfer all 

intermediate maintenance workload and capacity to Fleet Readiness Center Mid Atlantic Site 

New Orleans, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, LA. 

Realign Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC, as follows: disestablish Naval Air Depot 

Cherry Point; establish Fleet Readiness Center East, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC; 

relocate depot maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft Avionics/Electronics 

Components (approximately 39 K DLHs), Aircraft Hydraulic Components (approximately 69 K 

DLHs), Aircraft Landing Gear Components (approximately 8 K DLHs), Aircraft Other 

Components (approximately 23 K DLHs), and Aircraft Structural Components (approximately 

126 K DLHs) to Fleet Readiness Center Mid Atlantic, Naval Air Station Oceana, VA; relocate 

depot maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft Avionics/Electronics Components 

(approximately 11 K DLHs), Aircraft Hydraulic Components (approximately 19 K DLHs), 

Aircraft Landing Gear Components (approximately 2 K DLHs), Aircraft Structural Components 

(approximately 35 K DLHs), and Aircraft Other Components (approximately 6 K DLHs) to Fleet 

Readiness Center Mid Atlantic Site Norfolk, Naval Air Station Norfolk, VA; relocate depot 

maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft Avionics/Electronics Components 

(approximately 6 K DLHs), Aircraft Hydraulic Components (approximately 10 K DLHs), 

Aircraft Landing Gear Components (approximately 1 K DLHs), Aircraft Other Components 

(approximately 3 K DLHs), and Aircraft Structural Components (approximately 18 K DLHs) to 

Fleet Readiness Center Mid Atlantic Site Patuxent River, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD; 

relocate depot maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft Avionics/Electronics 

Components (approximately 2 K DLHs), Aircraft Hydraulic Components (approximately 3 K 

DLHs), Aircraft Landing Gear Components (approximately 0.4K DLHs), Aircraft Other 

Components (approximately 1 K DLHs), and Aircraft Structural Components (approximately 6 

K DLHs) to FRC Mid Atlantic Site New Orleans, Naval Air Station JRB New Orleans, LA.; 

relocate depot maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft Avionics/Electronics 

Components (approximately 9 K DLHs), Aircraft Hydraulic Components (approximately 16 K 

DLHs), Aircraft Landing Gear Components (approximately 2 K DLHs), Aircraft Other 

Components (approximately 6 K DLHs) and Aircraft Structural Components (approximately 30 

K DLHs) to the Fleet Readiness Center East Site Beaufort, hereby established at Marine Corps 

Air Station Beaufort, SC; relocate depot maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft 

Avionics/Electronics Components (approximately 11 K DLHs), Aircraft Hydraulic Components 
Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind - 21

(approximately 20 K DLHs), Aircraft Landing Gear Components (approximately 2 K DLHs), 

Aircraft Other Components (approximately 6 K DLHs), Aircraft Structural Components 

(approximately 36 K DLHs), Aircraft Rotary (approximately 1 K DLHs), Aircraft VSTOL 

(approximately 2 K DLHs), Aircraft Cargo/Tanker (approximately 0.02K DLHs,), Aircraft Other 

(approximately 18 K DLHs), Aircraft Structural Components (approximately 0.001K DLHs), 

Calibration (approximately 0.15 K DLHs) and "Other" Commodity (approximately 0.3 K DLHs) 

to Fleet Readiness Center East Site New River, hereby established at Marine Corps Air Station 

New River, Camp Lejeune, NC; and transfer all remaining depot maintenance workload and 

capacity to Fleet Readiness Center East, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC. 

Realign Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC, by disestablishing Naval Air Depot Jacksonville 

Detachment Beaufort and transferring all depot maintenance workload and capacity to Fleet 

Readiness Center East Site Beaufort, Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC. 

Realign Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL, as follows: disestablish Naval Air Depot 

Jacksonville, Naval Air Depot Jacksonville Detachment Jacksonville, and Aircraft Intermediate 

Maintenance Department Jacksonville; establish Fleet Readiness Center Southeast, Naval Air 

Station, Jacksonville, FL; relocate depot maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft 

Avionics/Electronics Components (approximately 8 K DLHs), Aircraft Hydraulic Components 

(approximately 6 K DLHs), Aircraft Landing Gear Components (approximately 3 K DLHs), 

Aircraft Other Components (approximately 27 K DLHs), and Aircraft Structural Components 

(approximately 9 K DLHs) to Fleet Readiness Center Southeast Site Mayport, hereby established 

at Naval Air Station, Mayport, FL; transfer all remaining intermediate and depot maintenance 

workload and capacity to Fleet Readiness Center Southeast, Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL. 

Realign Naval Air Station Mayport, FL, by disestablishing Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance 

Department, Naval Air Depot Jacksonville Detachment Mayport, and Naval Air Warfare Center 

Aircraft Division Lakehurst Voyage Repair Team Detachment Mayport and transferring all 

intermediate maintenance workload and capacity to Fleet Readiness Center Southeast Site 

Mayport, Naval Air Station Mayport, FL. 

Realign Naval Air Station Lemoore, CA, by disestablishing Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance 

Department Lemoore and Naval Air Depot North Island Detachment; establishing Fleet 

Readiness Center West, Naval Air Station Lemoore, CA; and transferring all intermediate and 

depot maintenance workload and capacity to Fleet Readiness Center West, Naval Air Station 

Lemoore, CA. 

Realign Naval Air Station Fallon, NV, by disestablishing the Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance 

Department Fallon and the Naval Air Depot North Island Detachment Fallon; establishing Fleet 

Readiness Center West Site Fallon, Naval Air Station Fallon, NV; and transferring all 

intermediate and depot maintenance workload and capacity to Fleet Readiness Center West Site 

Fallon, Naval Air Station Fallon, NV. 

Realign Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division China Lake, CA, by disestablishing the 

Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Department and relocating its maintenance workload and 

capacity for Aircraft (approximately 3 K DLHs), Aircraft Components (approximately 45 K 
Ind - 22 Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 

DLHs), Fabrication & Manufacturing (approximately 6 K DLHs) and Support Equipment 

(approximately 16 K DLHs) to Fleet Readiness Center West, Naval Air Station Lemoore, CA. 

Realign Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, TX, by disestablishing the Aircraft 

Intermediate Maintenance Department, establishing Fleet Readiness Center West Site Fort 

Worth, Naval Air Station Fort Worth, TX, and transferring all intermediate maintenance 

workload and capacity to Fleet Readiness Center West Site Fort Worth, Naval Air Station Joint 

Reserve Base Fort Worth, TX. 

Realign Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA, by disestablishing the Aircraft Intermediate 

Maintenance Department, establishing Fleet Readiness Center Northwest, Naval Air Station 

Whidbey Island, WA, and transferring all intermediate maintenance workload and capacity to 

Fleet Readiness Center Northwest, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA. 

Realign Naval Support Activity Crane, IN, by relocating the depot maintenance workload and 

capacity for ALQ-99 Electronic Warfare to Fleet Readiness Center Northwest, Naval Air Station 

Whidbey Island, WA. 

Realign Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base Coronado, CA, as follows: disestablish 

Naval Air Depot North Island, COMSEACONWINGPAC (AIMD), and NADEP North Island 

Detachment North Island; establish Fleet Readiness Center Southwest, Naval Air Station North 

Island, Naval Base Coronado, CA; relocate depot maintenance workload and capacity for 

Aircraft Avionics/Electronics Components (approximately 6 K DLHs), Aircraft Hydraulic 

Components (approximately 2 K DLHs), Aircraft Landing Gear Components (approximately 3 K 

DLHs), Aircraft Other Components (approximately 13 K DLHs), and Aircraft Structural 

Components (approximately 4 K DLHs) from Naval Air Depot North Island to Fleet Readiness 

Center Southwest Site Point Mugu, hereby established at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, Naval 

Base Ventura, CA; relocate depot maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft 

Avionics/Electronics Components (approximately 26 K DLHs), Aircraft Hydraulic Component 

(approximately 8 K DLHs), Aircraft Landing Gear Components (approximately 13 K DLHs), 

Aircraft Other Components (approximately 55 K DLHs), Aircraft Structural Components 

(approximately 16 K DLHs) from Naval Air Depot North Island to Fleet Readiness Center 

Southwest Site Miramar, hereby established at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA; relocate 

depot maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft Avionics/Electronics Components 

(approximately 8 K DLHs), Aircraft Hydraulic Components (approximately 2 K DLHs), 

Aircraft Landing Gear Components (approximately 4 K DLHs), Aircraft Other Components 

(approximately 17 K DLHs), and Aircraft Structural Components (approximately 5 K DLHs) 

from Naval Air Depot North Island to Fleet Readiness Center Southwest Site Pendleton, hereby 

established at Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton, CA; relocate depot maintenance 

workload and capacity for Aircraft Avionics/Electronics Components (approximately 6 K 

DLHs), Aircraft Hydraulic Components (approximately 2 K DLHs), Aircraft Landing Gear 

Components (approximately 3 K DLHs), Aircraft Other Components (approximately 12 K 

DLHs), Aircraft Structural Components (approximately 3 K DLHs) from Naval Air Depot North 

Island to Fleet Readiness Southwest Site Yuma, hereby established at Marine Corps Air Station 

Yuma, AZ; relocate depot maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft Avionics/Electronics 

Components (approximately 6 K DLHs), Aircraft Hydraulic Components ( approximately 2 K 
Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind - 23

DLHs), Aircraft Landing Gear Components (approximately 3 K DLHs), Aircraft Other 

Components (approximately 12 K DLHs), and Aircraft Structural Components (approximately 3 

K DLHs) from Naval Air Depot North Island to Fleet Readiness Center West Site Fort Worth, 

Fort Worth TX; relocate depot maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft 

Avionics/Electronics Components (approximately 25 K DLHs), Aircraft Hydraulic Components 

(approximately 8 K DLHs), Aircraft Landing Gear Components (approximately 13 K DLHs), 

Aircraft Other Components (approximately 53 K DLHs), and Aircraft Structural Components 

(approximately 15 K DLHs), from Naval Air Depot North Island to Fleet Readiness Center 

Northwest, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA; and transfer all remaining intermediate and 

depot maintenance workload and capacity to Fleet Readiness Center Southwest, Naval Air 

Station North Island, Naval Base Coronado, CA. 

Realign Naval Air Station Point Mugu, Naval Base Ventura, CA, by disestablishing the Aircraft 

Intermediate Maintenance Department and transferring all intermediate maintenance workload 

and capacity to Fleet Readiness Center Southwest Site Point Mugu, Naval Base Ventura, CA. 

Realign Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA, by transferring depot maintenance workload 

and capacity for Aircraft Other (approximately 28 K DLHs) and Aircraft Fighter/Attack 

(approximately 39 K DLHs) and intermediate maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft 

Components, Aircraft Engines, Fabrication & Manufacturing and Support Equipment from 

Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron (MALS)-11 and 16 to Fleet Readiness Center Southwest 

Site Miramar, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA. 

Realign Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton, CA, by transferring depot maintenance 

workload and capacity for Aircraft Other (approximately 22 K DLHs) and Aircraft Rotary 

(approximately 102 K DLHs) and intermediate maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft 

Components, Aircraft Engines, Fabrication & Manufacturing and Support Equipment from 

MALS-39 to Fleet Readiness Center Southwest Site Camp Pendleton, Marine Corps Air Station 

Camp Pendleton, CA. 

Realign Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, AZ, by transferring depot maintenance workload and 

capacity for Aircraft Fighter/Attack, Aircraft Other and Aircraft Rotary and intermediate 

maintenance workload and capacity for Aircraft Components, Aircraft Engines, 

Communication/Electronics Equipment, Ordnance Weapons & Missiles, Software and Support 

Equipment from MALS-13 to Fleet Readiness Center Southwest Site Yuma, Marine Corps Air 

Station Yuma, AZ. 

Justification: This recommendation realigns and merges depot and intermediate maintenance 

activities. It creates 6 Fleet Readiness Centers (FRCs), with 13 affiliated FRC Sites at satellite 

locations. FRC Mid-Atlantic will be located on NAS Oceana, VA, with affiliated FRC Sites at 

NAS Patuxent River, MD, NAS Norfolk, VA, and JRB New Orleans, LA. FRC East is located 

at Cherry Point, NC, with affiliated FRC Sites at MCAS Beaufort, SC, and MCAS New River, 

NC. The existing intermediate level activity associated with HMX-1 at MCB Quantico, VA, will 

also be affiliated with FRC East. FRC Southeast will be located on NAS Jacksonville, FL, and 

will have an affiliated FRC Site at NAS Mayport, FL. FRC West will be located on NAS 

Lemoore, CA, and will have FRC affiliated sites at NAS JRB Fort Worth, TX, and NAS Fallon, 
Ind - 24 Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 

NV. FRC Southwest will be located on Naval Station Coronado, CA, and will have affiliated 

sites at MCAS Miramar, CA, MCAS Pendleton, CA, MCAS Yuma, AZ, and NAS Point Mugu, 

CA. FRC Northwest will be located on NAS Whidbey, WA, with no affiliated FRC Sites. 

This recommendation supports both DoD and Navy transformation goals by reducing the number 

of maintenance levels and streamlining the way maintenance is accomplished with associated 

significant cost reductions. It supports the Naval Aviation Enterprise’s (NAE’s) goal of 

transforming to fewer maintenance levels, i.e., from 3 to 2 levels; and it supports the NAE’s 

strategy of positioning maintenance activities closer to fleet concentrations when doing so will 

result in enhanced effectiveness and efficiency, greater agility, and allows Naval Aviation to 

achieve the right readiness at the least cost. This transformation to FRCs produces significant 

reductions in the total cost of maintenance, repair and overhaul plus the associated Supply 

system PHS&T (Packaging, Handling, Storage and Transportation) as well as reparables 

inventory stocking levels as a result of reduced total repair turn-around times, reduced 

transportation, lower spares inventories, less manpower, and more highly utilized infrastructure. 

It requires integration and collaboration between Depot level Civil Service personnel and 

Military Intermediate level Sailors and Marines. At those FRCs involving Marine Corps MALS 

(Marine Aviation Logistics Squadrons), because the MALS remain deployable commands, they 

will affiliate with their FRC organizations, but will remain operationally distinct and severable in 

all respects. The FRC D-level functions within the MALS fall under the Commanding Officer of 

each MALS. The FRC Commander is the provider of embedded depot personnel, as well as Dlevel technical and logistics support within the MALS. For all FRCs, there is a combined 

annual facility sustainment savings of $1.1M; elimination of a total of 529,000 square feet of 

depot/intermediate maintenance production space and military construction cost avoidances of 

$0.2M. This recommendation also includes a military construction cost of $85.7M. 

In addition to the actions described in this recommendation, there are four additional actions 

involved in the comprehensive merger of depot and intermediate maintenance: Naval Air 

Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove, PA, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, TX, Naval Air 

Station Brunswick, ME, and Naval Air Station Atlanta, GA. The actions at these installations are 

described in separate installation closure recommendations in the Department of the Navy 

section of the BRAC Report. 

 

Payback: The total estimated one time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $298.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during 

implementation period is a savings of $1,528.2M Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $341.2M with a payback expected immediately. The net present value 

of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $4,724.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 104 jobs (53 direct jobs and 51 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less 

than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 
Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind - 25

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 221 jobs (152 direct jobs and 69 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Martin County, IN, economic area, which is 2.6 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 13 jobs (7 direct jobs and 6 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Fallon, 

NV Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 512 jobs (218 direct jobs and 294 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 1,190 jobs (632 direct jobs and 558 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

New Bern, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is 1.8 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 12 jobs (7 direct jobs and 5 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the OxnardThousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 1,279 jobs (623 direct jobs and 656 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 68 jobs (44 direct jobs and 24 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation may impact air quality at NAS Lemoore and 

NAS JRB Fort Worth. A conformity determination may be required. This recommendation has 

the potential to impact cultural, archeological, or tribal resources at NAS Lemoore, NAS Fallon, 

and NAS Whidbey Island, WA, if construction is required. There is a possible impact to water 

resources at NAS Whidbey Island and NAS Fallon. This recommendation has no impact on 
Ind - 26 Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 

dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; or 

wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.4M for waste 

management and environmental compliance activities. This recommendation does not otherwise 

impact the cost of environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Naval Shipyard Detachments 

Recommendation: Realign Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Detachment Boston, MA, by 

relocating the ship repair function to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, WA. 

Realign Naval Station Annapolis, MD, by relocating the Norfolk Naval Shipyard Detachment, 

Naval Sea Systems Command Plant Equipment Support Office ship repair function to Norfolk 

Naval Shipyard, VA. 

Realign the Navy Philadelphia Business Center, PA, by relocating the Norfolk Naval Shipyard 

Detachment, Naval Sea Systems Command Shipbuilding Support Office ship repair function to 

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, VA. 

Justification: This recommendation supports mission elimination at Puget Sound Naval 

Shipyard Detachment Boston, MA, Norfolk Naval Shipyard Detachment, Naval Sea Systems 

Command Plant Equipment Support Office, Annapolis, MD, and Norfolk Naval Shipyard 

Detachment, Naval Sea Systems Command Shipbuilding Support Office, Philadelphia, PA, and 

reduces excess ship repair capacity. This relocation will create synergy among like functions at 

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Although this expected synergy is 

not captured in the payback calculations, experience has shown that it will produce additional 

long-term savings. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $12.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $0.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $2.3M with a payback expected in four (4) years. The net present value of 

the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $20.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 213 jobs (108 direct jobs and 105 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the in the Boston-Quincy, MA Metropolitan Division, which is less 

than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 25 jobs (13 direct jobs and 12 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the in the 
Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group Ind - 27

Baltimore-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 114 jobs (63 direct jobs and 51 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the in the 

Philadelphia, PA Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation does not impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 
Ind - 28 Section 6: Recommendations – Industrial Joint Cross-Service Group 
Section 7: Recommendations – Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group Int - 1

Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group 

Summary of Selection Process 

Introduction 

The Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group was chaired by the Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense (Counterintelligence & Security). The Group’s principals included senior members 

from the Defense Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National 

Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, each Military Department, the Joint Staff/J2, 

and representation from the Director of Central Intelligence Community Management Staff. 

Counterintelligence Field Activity and the Under Secretary of Defense, Intelligence elements 

were represented by the Chair, Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group. The Intelligence Joint 

Cross-Service Group was chartered to conduct a review of the intelligence function. 

Responsibilities and Strategy 

The Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group was responsible for a comprehensive review of the 

intelligence function, less those intelligence activities that were evaluated by the Military 

Departments and other Joint Cross-Service Groups. In addition, the Group evaluated 

alternatives, and developed and documented realignment and closure recommendations for 

submission to the Secretary of Defense. In developing its analytical process, the Intelligence 

Joint Cross-Service Group established internal policies and procedures consistent with 

Department of Defense policy memoranda, 20-year Force Structure Plan, BRAC selection 

criteria, and the requirements of Public Law 101-510, as amended. To facilitate the Group’s 

efforts, the four analytical frameworks below provided the construct to evaluate the intelligence 

function. 

• Locate and upgrade facilities on protected installations as appropriate 

• Reduce vulnerable commercial leased space 

• Realign selected intelligence functions/activities and establish facilities to support 

Continuity of Operations and Mission Assurance requirements 

• Provide infrastructure to facilitate robust information flow between analysts, collectors 

and operators at all echelons and achieve mission synergy 

Analytical Process 

In developing its analytical process, the Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group established 

procedures to facilitate its review of the intelligence function. The Intelligence Joint CrossService Group identified facilities performing the intelligence function and developed attributes, 
Int - 2 Section 7: Recommendations – Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group 

metrics and questions for analysis. Data calls were issued to the defense intelligence agencies 

and military departments to gather certified data on intelligence facilities. The approach to 

capacity analysis led to identification of excess capacity/shortage. The approach to military 

value led to the development of a scoring plan for the intelligence function consistent with final 

BRAC Selection Criteria 1-4. Military value scores were computed for each facility. The 

Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group then identified strategy-based, data supported, 

realignment or closure scenarios consistent with the analytical frameworks and with the 20-year 

Force Structure Plan. Once scenarios were registered, the remaining selection criteria (5-8) were 

assessed using Department of Defense’s standard procedures and models. 

The Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group developed a total of 21 ideas which led to 18 

proposals. From these proposals, 13 scenarios were declared. After further analysis, using 

selection criteria one through eight and military judgment, six candidate recommendations were 

presented to the Infrastructure Steering Group. The Infrastructure Steering Group and 

Infrastructure Executive Council approved three candidate recommendations. During the 

integration process, one of these recommendations was incorporated into a recommendation 

authored by the Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group. 

The recommendations approved by the Secretary of Defense follow: 
Section 7: Recommendations – Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group Int - 3

Recommendations and Justifications 

Defense Intelligence Agency 

(A classified version of this recommendation 

identifies specific functions to be moved.) 

Recommendation: Realign Defense Intelligence Analysis Center, Bolling Air Force Base, DC, 

by relocating select Defense Intelligence Agency intelligence analysis functions to a new facility 

at Rivanna Station, VA. Realign Crystal Park 5, a leased facility in Arlington, VA, by relocating 

the Defense Intelligence Agency analysis function to the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center, 

Bolling Air Force Base, DC. 

Justification: This recommendation is a realignment of select personnel, equipment and 

intelligence analysis functions of the Defense Intelligence Agency. It co-locates select 

intelligence analysis functions and personnel with the National Ground Intelligence Center into a 

new facility at Rivanna Station. This recommendation improves information flow/mission 

synergy; addresses capacity shortage at the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center; meets the spirit 

of the Secretary of Defense’s guidelines for relocation outside the National Capital Region, and 

improves Continuity of Operations (COOP)/Mission Assurance by locating functions on a secure 

Department of Defense-owned location. The realignment of personnel from Crystal Park 5 to 

the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center, Bolling Air Force Base, DC, reduces vulnerable leased 

space while addressing Antiterrorism/Force Protection deficiencies by locating functions onto a 

secure Department of Defense-owned location. This recommendation accommodates current 

and surge requirements and is consistent with the 20-year Force Structure Plan. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $96.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $48.8M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $10.1M with a payback expected in eight years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $52.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,337 jobs (777 direct jobs and 560 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 

Metropolitan Division economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic 

region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the communities’ infrastructure to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installation in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: No specific environmental data at the gaining site is available, because 

the land is pending acquisition. However, no impacts are expected to air quality; cultural, 
Int - 4 Section 7: Recommendations – Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints, or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands based on the administrative nature of 

added mission and the requirement that the government purchase land free of environmental 

liabilities. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.4M for environmental 

compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation 

does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and 

environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended 

BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Activities 

Recommendation: Close National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) Dalecarlia and Sumner 

sites, Bethesda, MD; Reston 1, 2 and 3, leased installations in Reston, VA; Newington buildings 

8510, 8520, and 8530, Newington, VA; and Building 213 a leased installation at the South East 

Federal Center, Washington, DC. Relocate all functions to a new facility at Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign the National Reconnaissance Office facility, Westfields, VA, by relocating all NGA 

functions to a new facility at the Fort Belvoir, VA. Consolidate all NGA National GeospatialIntelligence College functions on Fort Belvoir into the new facility at Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Justification: This recommendation is a strategic consolidation of the personnel, equipment and 

functions of NGA’s 22 legacy organizations into a new geospatial intelligence consolidated 

campus. It consolidates multiple NGA National Capital Region-based intelligence community 

activities now occupying small, government facilities and privately-owned leased space, to a 

secure Department of Defense-owned location, reducing excess capacity and increasing overall 

military value. It optimizes mission efficiencies, improves readiness, and enhances mission 

partner coordination, while addressing Antiterrorism/Force Protection deficiencies. This 

recommendation accommodates current and surge requirements and is consistent with the 20-

year Force Structure Plan. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the 

recommendation is $1,117.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $796.7M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $127.7M with a payback expected in 8 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $535.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 5,260 jobs (2,833 direct and 2,427 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Bethesda-Frederick-Gaithersburg MD Metropolitan 

Division, which is approximately 0.7 percent of economic area employment. 

The economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was 

considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 
Section 7: Recommendations – Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group Int - 5

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates there are 

no issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, 

forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to 

implementation of all recommendations affecting the installation in this recommendation. 

 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has a moderate impact on air quality at Fort 

Belvoir. This recommendation has the potential to impact historic properties at Fort Belvoir. A 

minimal impact on cultural/historic resources is expected at the Sumner and Dalecarlia sites. 

Surveys and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office may be required. 

Additional operations at Fort Belvoir may further impact threatened and endangered species, 

leading to additional restrictions on training or operations. This recommendation has no impact 

on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; noise; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will 

require spending approximately $1.7M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was 

included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs 

of environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the base in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 
Int - 6 Section 7: Recommendations – Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group 
Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group Med - 1

Medical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Summary of Selection Process 

Introduction 

The Medical Joint Cross-Service Group (JCSG) was chartered to review Department of Defense 

healthcare functions and to provide base closure and realignment (BRAC) recommendations 

based on that review. Assigned functions included Department of Defense (DoD) Healthcare 

Education and Training; Healthcare Services; and Medical and Dental Research, Development 

and Acquisition (RD&A). The Air Force Surgeon General chaired the Medical JCSG, and other 

principal members included senior medical members from the Military Departments, the Joint 

Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The summary that follows details the 

group’s strategies, processes, and recommendations for consideration for of 2005 BRAC 

Commission. 

Responsibilities and Strategy 

The Medical JCSG was responsible for a comprehensive review of its assigned functional areas, 

an evaluation of alternatives, and the subsequent development and documentation of realignment 

and closure recommendations for the Secretary of Defense. In developing its analytical process, 

the Medical JCSG established internal policies and procedures consistent with DoD policy 

memoranda, the force structure plan prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, an 

installation inventory, BRAC final selection criteria, and the requirements of the Defense Base 

Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended. 

The Military Healthcare System (MHS) must ensure that DoD has trained, proficient, and 

deployable medics to support the warfighter. In addition, DoD must foster and deliver research, 

development and acquisition of unique military medical and dental technology and techniques. 

In its current form, the DoD healthcare delivery system accomplishes this mission through two 

complementary organizations: the Direct Care System which includes military treatment 

facilities, and the TRICARE health benefit program which provides access for beneficiaries to 

the civilian healthcare system. 

The Medical JCSG developed key strategies to guide deliberations based on the key objectives 

above. These strategies came from an analysis of the BRAC final selection criteria criteria. The 

Medical JCSG focused its efforts on: 

• Supporting the warfighter and their families in-garrison and deployed; 

• Maximizing military value while reducing infrastructure footprint, while maintaining an 

adequate surge capability; 
Med - 2 Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group 

• Maintaining or improving access to care for all beneficiaries, including retirees, using 

combinations of the Direct Care and TRICARE systems; 

• Enhancing jointness, taking full advantage of the commonality in the Services’ healthcare 

delivery, healthcare education and training, and medical/dental research, development 

and acquisition functions; 

• Identifying and maximizing synergies gained from collocation or consolidation 

opportunities; and 

• Examining out-sourcing opportunities that allow DoD to better leverage the large U.S. 

health care system investments. 

The group’s final recommendations were based on a review of the entire Military Healthcare 

System, including the TRICARE program, with a view towards advancing these strategies. To 

facilitate efforts, the group developed categories of functions for evaluation and organized into 

subgroups corresponding to these functions. Each subgroup, in turn, developed strategies for 

evaluating its functions. These strategies were based on the Medical JCSG key focus areas and 

guided by BRAC selection criteria 1-8. 

Analytical Process 

The Medical JCSG approach to the BRAC process involved iterative and concurrent actions in 

close collaboration with the Military Departments and the other Joint Cross Service Groups. The 

Medical JCSG Principals formed the deliberative body; subgroups generated ideas, proposed 

overall scope for analyses and brought forth recommendations for consideration. All data 

collection was conducted and certified in accordance with BRAC process guidance. 

The Medical JCSG developed attributes and metrics proposed by subgroups to determine the 

capacity of all installations for its assigned functions. The metrics were used to develop 

questions designed to solicit necessary data, which were subsequently issued to all DoD 

installations in the form of a controlled data call. 

The Medical JCSG used the responses from the installations (submitted in the form of certified 

data) to perform a capacity analysis and review surge requirements. At each step in the process, 

adequacy and quality of the data was independently validated by the DoD Inspector General. 

Once the group acquired capacity information, it conducted a military value assessment of each 

function at each installation. The group developed military value data call questions from BRAC 

selection criteria 1-4 to generate data for the quantitative portion of military value which includes 

both quantitative data, as well as military judgment. Using each installation’s responses, the 

Medical JCSG subgroups identified realignment or closure scenarios that corroborated their 

strategies and were supported by data. The Medical JCSG believed these scenarios would 

advance jointness, achieve synergy, capitalize on technology, exploit best practices, and 

minimize redundancy, while maintaining the fundamental healthcare mission of the DoD. Once 

scenarios were developed, the remaining selection criteria (criteria 5-8) were assessed, using 

standard DoD’s procedures and/or models. 
Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group Med - 3

The Medical JCSG approved 22 candidate recommendations for presentation to the 

Infrastructure Steering Group (ISG) and Infrastructure Executive Council (IEC). All Medical 

JCSG decisions were made by vote, and dissenting opinions were entered into the meeting 

minutes and presented to the ISG/IEC. Review and adjudication by the ISG and IEC resulted in 

the recommendations. 

The recommendations approved by the Secretary of Defense follow: 
Med - 4 Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Recommendations and Justifications 

Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD 

Recommendation: Realign Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC, as follows: 

relocate all tertiary (sub-specialty and complex care) medical services to National Naval Medical 

Center, Bethesda, MD, establishing it as the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center 

Bethesda, MD; relocate Legal Medicine to the new Walter Reed National Military Medical 

Center Bethesda, MD; relocate sufficient personnel to the new Walter Reed National Military 

Medical Center Bethesda, MD, to establish a Program Management Office that will coordinate 

pathology results, contract administration, and quality assurance and control of DoD second 

opinion consults worldwide; relocate all non-tertiary (primary and specialty) patient care 

functions to a new community hospital at Ft Belvoir, VA; relocate the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense supporting unit to Fort Belvoir, VA; disestablish all elements of the Armed Forces 

Institute of Pathology except the National Medical Museum and the Tissue Repository; relocate 

the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, DNA Registry, and Accident Investigation to Dover Air 

Force Base, DE; relocate enlisted histology technician training to Fort Sam Houston, TX; 

relocate the Combat Casualty Care Research sub-function (with the exception of those 

organizational elements performing neuroprotection research) of the Walter Reed Army Institute 

of Research (Forest Glen Annex) and the Combat Casualty Care Research sub-function of the 

Naval Medical Research Center (Forest Glen Annex) to the Army Institute of Surgical Research, 

Fort Sam Houston, TX; relocate Medical Biological Defense Research of the Walter Reed Army 

Institute of Research (Forest Glen Annex) and Naval Medical Research Center (Forest Glen 

Annex) to Fort Detrick, MD, and consolidate it with US Army Medical Research Institute of 

Infectious Diseases; relocate Medical Chemical Defense Research of the Walter Reed Army 

Institute of Research (Forest Glen Annex) to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and consolidate it 

with the US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense; and close the main post. 

Justification: This recommendation will transform legacy medical infrastructure into a premier, 

modernized joint operational medicine platform. This recommendation reduces excess capacity 

within the National Capital Region (NCR) Multi-Service Market (MSM: two or more facilities colocated geographically with “shared” beneficiary population) while maintaining the same level of 

care for the beneficiaries. Walter Reed Army Medical Center (AMC) has a military value of 54.46 

in contrast to the higher military values of National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) Bethesda 

(63.19) and DeWitt Hospital (58). This action relocates medical care into facilities of higher military 

value and capacity. By making use of the design capacity inherent in NNMC Bethesda (18K RWPs) 

and an expansion of the inpatient care at DeWitt Hospital (13K RWPs), the entire inpatient care 

produced at Walter Reed AMC (17K RWPs) can be relocated into these facilities along with their 

current workload (11K RWPs and 1.9K RWPs, respectively). This strategically relocates healthcare 

in better proximity to the beneficiary base, which census data indicates is concentrating in the 

southern area of the region. As a part of this action, approximately 2,069 authorizations (military and 

civilian) will be realigned to DeWitt Hospital and 797 authorizations will be realigned to NNMC 

Bethesda in order to maintain the current level of effort in providing care to the NCR beneficiary 

population. DeWitt Hospital will assume all patient care missions with the exception of the specific 

tertiary care missions that will go to the newly established Walter Reed National Military Medical 
Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group Med - 5

Center at Bethesda. Specialty units, such as the Amputee Center at WRAMC, will be relocated 

within the National Capitol Region. Casualty care is not impacted. Development of a premier 

National Military Medical Center will provide enhanced visibility, as well as recruiting and retention 

advantages to the Military Health System. The remaining civilian authorizations and contractors at 

Walter Reed AMC that represent unnecessary overhead will be eliminated. Military personnel 

filling similar “overhead positions” are available to be redistributed by the Service to replace civilian 

and contract medical personnel elsewhere in Military Healthcare System activities of higher military 

value. 

Co-location of combat casualty care research activities with related military clinical activities of the 

trauma center currently located at Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX, promotes 

translational research that fosters rapid application of research findings to health care delivery, and 

provides synergistic opportunities to bring clinical insight into bench research through sharing of 

staff across the research and health care delivery functions. 

This action will co-locate Army, Navy, Air Force and Defense Agency program management 

expertise for non-medical chemical and biological defense research, development and acquisition 

(each at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD) and two separate aspects of medical chemical and 

biological research: medical biological defense research (at Ft. Detrick, MD) and medical chemical 

defense research (at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD). It will: 

 promote beneficial technical interaction in planning and headquarters-level oversight of 

all defense biomedical R&D, fostering a joint perspective and sharing of expertise and 

work in areas of joint interest; 

 create opportunities for synergies and efficiencies by facilitating integrated program 

planning to build joint economies and eliminate undesired redundancy, and by optimizing 

use of a limited pool of critical professional personnel with expertise in medical product 

development and acquisition; 

 foster the development of common practices for DoD regulatory interactions with the 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration; and 

 facilitate coordinated medical systems lifecycle management with the medical logistics 

organizations of the Military Departments, already co-located at Fort Detrick. 

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) was originally established as the Army Medical 

Museum in 1862 as a public and professional repository for injuries and disease specimens of 

Civil War soldiers. In 1888, educational facilities of the Museum were made available to 

civilian medical professions on a cooperative basis. In 1976, Congress established AFIP as a 

joint entity of the Military Departments subject to the authority, control, and direction of the 

Secretary of Defense. As a result of this recommendation, in the future the Department will rely 

on the civilian market for second opinion pathology consults and initial diagnosis when the local 

pathology labs capabilities are exceeded. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $988.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $724.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 
Med - 6 Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group 

implementation are $99.6M with a payback expected in 10 years. The net present value (NPV) of 

the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $301.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 6,011 (3,567 direct jobs and 2,444 indirect 

jobs) in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division, which 

is 0.2 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. Civilian inpatient capacity exists in the area to provide services to the eligible 

population. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has a potential impact on air quality at NNMC 

Bethesda, MD, Fort Belvoir, VA, Dover AFB, DE, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD and Fort 

Detrick, MD. New source review permitting and air conformity analyses may be required. 

Additional operations at Dover may impact archaeological resources and historic properties. 

New construction could impact historic resources at Fort Sam Houston, Fort Belvoir, and 

Aberdeen Resources must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at Fort Belvoir, Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, and Fort Detrick. Consultation with SHPO will be required to ensure 

protection of cultural resources at Walter Reed. Additional operations may impact sensitive 

resources at Dover and constrain operations. Additional operations at Aberdeen may further 

impact threatened/endangered species leading to additional restrictions on training or operations. 

Modification to the hazardous waste program at Dover may be required. Significant mitigation 

measures to limit releases may be required at Aberdeen to reduce impacts to water quality and 

achieve US EPA water quality standards. Additional operations may impact wetlands at Dover, 

which may restrict operations. This recommendation has no impact on dredging; marine 

mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $2.8M for waste management and environmental compliance activities. 

This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise 

impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Brooks City Base, TX 

Recommendation: Close Brooks City Base, San Antonio, TX. Relocate the Air Force Audit 

Agency and 341st Recruiting Squadron to Randolph AFB. Relocate the United States Air Force 

School of Aerospace Medicine, the Air Force Institute of Occupational Health, the Naval Health 

Research Center Electro-Magnetic Energy Detachment, the Human Systems Development and 

Acquisition function, and the Human Effectiveness Directorate of the Air Force Research 
Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group Med - 7

Laboratory to Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH. Consolidate the Human Effectiveness 

Directorate with the Air Force Research Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate at Wright 

Patterson Air Force Base, OH. Relocate the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, the 

Air Force Medical Support Agency, Air Force Medical Operations Agency, Air Force Element 

Medical Defense Agency, Air Force Element Medical-DoD, Air Force-Wide Support Element, 

710th Information Operations Flight and the 68th Information Operations Squadron to Lackland 

Air Force Base, TX. Relocate the Army Medical Research Detachment to the Army Institute of 

Surgical Research, Fort Sam Houston, TX. Relocate the Non-Medical Chemical Biological 

Defense Development and Acquisition to Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, MD. Disestablish any remaining organizations. 

Realign Holloman AFB by disestablishing the high-onset gravitational force centrifuge and 

relocating the physiological training unit (49 ADOS/SGGT) to Wright-Patterson AFB. 

Justification: This recommendation enables technical synergy, and positions the Department of 

the Air Force to exploit a center-of-mass of scientific, technical, and acquisition expertise 

required by the 20-year Force Structure Plan. Greater synergy across technical capabilities and 

functions will be achieved by consolidating geographically separate units of the Air Force 

Research Laboratory. 

The end state will co-locate the Human Systems Development & Acquisition function and the 

Human Systems Research function with Air Force Aerospace Medicine and Occupational Health 

education and training. This action will co-locate the Development & Acquisition for Human 

Systems with the Research function and will concentrate acquisition expertise for Human 

Systems at one site. Additionally, the relocation of the physiological training unit from 

Holloman AFB with the relocation of the high-onset gravitational-force centrifuge, enables the 

continued use of a critical piece of equipment required for both Human Systems Research and 

Aerospace Medicine Education and Training. This end state will also increase synergy with the 

Air Platform Research and Development & Acquisition functions and continue the efficient use 

of equipment and facilities implemented under Biomedical Reliance and BRAC 91 at Wright 

Patterson AFB, OH. 

Co-location of combat casualty care research activities with related military clinical activities of 

the trauma center currently located at Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston TX, 

promotes translational research that fosters rapid application of research findings to health care 

delivery, and provides synergistic opportunities to bring clinical insight into bench research 

through sharing of staff across the research and health care delivery functions. The availability 

of a co-located military trauma center also provides incentives for recruitment and retention of 

military physicians as researchers, and is a model that has proven highly successful in civilian 

academic research centers. 

Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, is home to the military’s 

most robust infrastructure supporting research utilizing hazardous chemical agents. Relocation 

of the Non-medical Chemical Biological Defense Development and Acquisition to Aberdeen 

Proving Ground will increase synergy, focus on joint needs, and efficient use of equipment and 
Med - 8 Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group 

facilities by co-locating Tri-Service and Defense activities performing functions in chemicalbiological defense and medical RDA. 

This recommendation also moves the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) 

to Lackland AFB, where it will be co-located the Air Force Real Property Agency (AFRPA) that 

is being relocated to Lackland in a separate recommendation. The military value of AFCEE is 

265th out of 336 entities evaluated by the Major Administrative and Headquarters (MAH) 

military value model. Lackland Air Force Base is ranked 25th out of 336. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $325.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $45.9M. The annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation is $102.1M, with a payback expected in 2 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $940.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 29 jobs (17 direct jobs and 12 indirect jobs) in 

the Alamogordo, NM Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 4,081 jobs (2,097 direct jobs and 1,984 indirect jobs) in the San Antonio, TX 

Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.4 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation is expected to impact air quality at Fort Sam 

Houston, Wright-Patterson, and Aberdeen Proving Ground. New source review permitting and 

permit modifications may be required. This recommendation has the potential to impact cultural 

or historic resources at Fort Sam Houston, Randolph, Lackland, Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

Brooks, and Wright-Patterson. Additional operations at Fort Sam Houston and Wright-Patterson 

may further impact threatened and endangered species leading to additional restrictions on 

training or operations. Significant mitigation measures to limit releases at Fort Sam Houston 

may be required to reduce impacts to water quality and achieve US EPA water quality standards. 

Increases in population and operations at Aberdeen Proving Ground may require 

upgrades/purchase of additional waste management services. Modification of the hazardous 

waste program at Randolph and Wright-Patterson may be necessary. Additional operations may 

impact wetlands at Wright-Patterson and Lackland AFB, which may restrict operations. This 

recommendation has no impact on dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; land 

use constraints or sensitive resource areas; or noise. This recommendation will require spending 
Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group Med - 9

approximately $0.5M for waste management and environmental compliance activities. This cost 

was included in the payback calculation. Brooks City Base reports $4.2M in environmental 

restoration costs. Because the Department has a legal obligation to perform environmental 

restoration regardless of whether an installation is closed, realigned, or remains open, this cost 

was not included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

McChord Air Force Base, WA 

Recommendation: Realign McChord Air Force Base, WA, by relocating all medical functions 

to Fort Lewis, WA. 

Justification: The primary rationale for this recommendation is to promote jointness and reduce 

excess capacity. This recommendation supports strategies of reducing excess capacity and locating 

military medical personnel in areas with enhanced opportunities for medical practice. McChord 

AFB’s medical facility produced 44,283 Relative Value Units (RVUs) in FY02, which is well below 

the Military Health System average of 166,692 RVUs. Its Healthcare Services Functional Military 

Value of 51.45, is much lower than that of Ft Lewis (73.30). Military personnel stationed at 

McChord AFB’s Medical Facility can be placed in activities of higher military value with a more 

diverse workload, providing them with enhanced opportunities to maintain their medical currency 

and making them better able to support Army medical readiness requirements. Approximately 169 

military and civilian authorizations will be realigned to Fort Lewis in order to maintain the current 

level of effort in providing care to the McChord AFB beneficiary population. The remaining civilian 

authorizations and contractors at McChord AFB that represent unnecessary overhead will be 

eliminated. Military personnel that are filling similar “overhead positions” will be redistributed by 

the Service to replace civilian and contract medical personnel elsewhere in the Military Health 

System activities of higher military value. The large savings along with the reduction of 

inefficiencies and workload available supports this action. While the jobs are lost in the military 

system the same type of job is available in the community. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $1.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $55.1M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $11.6M with a payback expected immediately. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $164.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 101 jobs (55 direct jobs and 46 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Tacoma, WA Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 
Med - 10 Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces and 

personnel. Civilian inpatient capacity exists in the area to provide services to the eligible 

population. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; and use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.1M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included 

in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

San Antonio Regional Medical Center, TX 

Recommendation: Realign Lackland Air Force Base, TX, by relocating the inpatient medical 

function of the 59th Medical Wing (Wilford Hall Medical Center) to the Brooke Army Medical 

Center, Ft Sam Houston, TX, establishing it as the San Antonio Regional Military Medical 

Center, and converting Wilford Hall Medical Center into an ambulatory care center. 

Realign Naval Air Station Great Lakes, IL, Sheppard Air Force Base, TX, Naval Medical Center 

Portsmouth, Naval Medical Center San Diego, CA, by relocating basic and specialty enlisted 

medical training to Fort Sam Houston, TX. 

Justification: The primary rationale for this recommendation is to transform legacy medical 

infrastructure into a modernized joint operational medicine platform. This recommendation reduces 

excess capacity within the San Antonio Multi-Service Market (MSM: two or more facilities colocated geographically with “shared” beneficiary population) while maintaining the level of care for 

the beneficiaries, enhancing opportunities for provider currency, and maintaining surge capacity. By 

making use of the design capacity inherent in Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC), the entire 

inpatient care produced at WHMC can be relocated into this facility. In terms of military value, 

while BAMC had a slightly lower quantitative military value score than WHMC, the difference was 

so small as to not be a meaningful discriminator. Additionally, the small difference is primarily 

attributable to the efficiency of the Dental Clinic at WHMC, a facility that is excluded from this 

recommendation. It was the military judgment of the MJCSG that in the context of this 

recommendation, the condition of the facilities and their average weighted age were the most 

important elements of the military value of the two locations. In this area, BAMC received a 

significantly higher score than WHMC. Additionally, it is more cost effective and timely to return 

BAMC to it’s inherent design capacity and convert WHMC to an ambulatory care center, than to do 

the reverse. BAMC is located in a more centralized location, enabling it to better support the 

broader population area. WHMC and BAMC support Level 1 Trauma Centers, this capability is 
Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group Med - 11

maintained in this recommendation by expanding the BAMC Level 1 Trauma Center to the capacity 

of both trauma centers. It was therefore the military judgment of the MJCSG that regionalization at 

BAMC provided the highest overall military value to the Department. Development of a premier 

Regional Military Medical Center will provide enhanced visibility, as well as, recruiting and 

retention advantages to the Military Health System. The remaining civilian authorizations and 

contractors at Wilford Hall Medical Center that represent unnecessary overhead will be eliminated. 

Military personnel filling similar “overhead positions” are available to be redistributed by the 

Service to replace civilian and contract medical personnel elsewhere in Military Healthcare System 

activities of higher military value. While the jobs are lost in the military system the same type of job 

is available in the community. 

This recommendation also co-locates all (except Aerospace Medicine) medical basic and 

specialty enlisted training at Fort Sam Houston, TX, with the potential of transitioning to a joint 

training effort. This will result in reduced infrastructure and excess system capacity, while 

capitalizing on the synergy of the co-location similar training conducted by each of the three 

Services. In addition, the development of a joint training center will result in standardized 

training for medical enlisted specialties enhancing interoperability and joint deployability. 

Co-location of medical enlisted training with related military clinical activities of the San 

Antonio Regional Medical Center at Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX, 

provides synergistic opportunities to bring clinical insight into the training environment, realtime. As a result, both the healthcare delivery and training experiences are exponentially 

enhanced. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $1,040.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $826.7M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $129.0M with a payback expected in 10 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $476.2M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 4,373 jobs (1,926 direct jobs and 2,447 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metropolitan 

Division, which is 0.88 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 3,101 jobs (1,630 direct jobs and 1,471 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in 

the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.17 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 3,963 jobs (2,378 direct jobs and 1,585 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in 

the Wichita Falls, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 4.26 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 1,013 jobs (489 direct jobs and 524 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 
Med - 12 Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent 

of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. Civilian inpatient capacity exists in the area to provide services to the eligible 

population. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation is expected to impact air quality at Fort Sam 

Houston. Title V permit, permit modification, and a New Source Review may be required. This 

recommendation has the potential to impact cultural or historic resources at Fort Sam Houston 

and Lackland AFB. Additional operations at Fort Sam Houston may further impact federally 

listed species leading to additional restrictions on training or operations. A hazardous waste 

program modification may be required at Lackland AFB. Significant mitigation measures to 

limit releases may be required at Fort Sam Houston to reduce impacts to water quality and 

achieve US EPA water quality standards. This recommendation has no impact on dredging; land 

use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; or 

wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $1.2M for environmental 

compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation 

does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and 

environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended 

BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Convert Inpatient Services to Clinics 

Recommendation: Realign Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC by disestablishing the 

inpatient mission at Naval Hospital Cherry Point; converting the hospital to a clinic with an 

ambulatory surgery center. 

Realign Fort Eustis, VA, by disestablishing the inpatient mission at the Fort Eustis Medical 

Facility; converting the hospital to a clinic with an ambulatory surgery center. 

Realign the United States Air Force Academy, CO, by relocating the inpatient mission of the 10th

Medical Group to Fort Carson Medical Facility, CO; converting the 10th Medical Group into a clinic 

with an ambulatory surgery center. 

Realign Andrews Air Force Base, MD, by disestablishing the inpatient mission at the 89th 

Medical Group; converting the hospital to a clinic with an ambulatory surgery center. 
Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group Med - 13

Realign MacDill Air Force Base, FL, by disestablishing the inpatient mission at the 6th Medical 

Group; converting the hospital to a clinic with an ambulatory surgery center. 

Realign Keesler Air Force Base, MS, by disestablishing the inpatient mission at the 81st Medical 

Group; converting the medical center to a clinic with an ambulatory surgery center. 

Realign Scott Air Force Base, IL, by disestablishing the inpatient mission at the 375th Medical 

Group; converting the hospital to a clinic with an ambulatory surgery center. 

Realign Naval Station Great Lakes, IL, by disestablishing the inpatient mission at Naval Hospital 

Great Lakes; converting the hospital to a clinic with an ambulatory surgery center. 

Realign Fort Knox, KY, by disestablishing the inpatient mission at Fort Knox’s Medical Facility; 

converting the hospital to a clinic with an ambulatory surgery center. 

Justification: The Department will rely on the civilian medical network for inpatient services at 

these installations. This recommendation supports strategies of reducing excess capacity and 

locating military personnel in activities with higher military value with a more diverse workload, 

providing them with enhanced opportunities to maintain their medical currency to meet COCOM 

requirements. Additionally, a robust network with available inpatient capacity of Joint Accreditation 

of Hospital Organizations (JCAHO) and/or Medicare accredited civilian/Veterans Affairs hospitals 

is located within 40 miles of the referenced facilities. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $12.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $250.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $60.2M with payback expected immediately. The net present value of 

the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $818.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 69 jobs (38 direct jobs and 31 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the New Bern, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 78 jobs (34 direct jobs and 44 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less 

than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 11 jobs (6 direct jobs and 5 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Colorado 

Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 265 jobs (160 direct jobs and 105 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 
Med - 14 Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 35 jobs (19 direct jobs and 16 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 352 jobs (212 direct jobs and 140 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Gulfport-Biloxi, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.2 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 143 jobs (77 direct jobs and 66 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the St. 

Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 122 jobs (45 direct jobs and 77 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Lake 

County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 147 jobs (85 direct jobs and 62 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Elizabethtown, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.2 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the community to support missions, forces and 

personnel. Civilian inpatient capacity exists in the area to provide services to the eligible 

population. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation could have a minimal impact on water resources 

at Fort Carson where increased installation population may require upgrade of water 

infrastructure. This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, archeological, or 

tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, 

resources, or sanctuaries; noise; waste management; or wetlands. This recommendation will 

require spending approximately $0.1M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was 

included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs 

of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 
Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group Med - 15

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Joint Centers of Excellence for Chemical, Biological, and Medical Research 

and Development and Acquisition 

 

Recommendation: Realign Building 42, 8901 Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD, by relocating the 

Combat Casualty Care Research sub-function of the Naval Medical Research Center to the Army 

Institute of Surgical Research, Fort Sam Houston, TX. 

Realign Naval Station Great Lakes, IL, by relocating the Army Dental Research Detachment, the 

Air Force Dental Investigative Service, and the Naval Institute for Dental and Biomedical 

Research to the Army Institute of Surgical Research, Fort Sam Houston, TX. 

Realign 13 Taft Court and 1600 E. Gude Drive, Rockville, MD, by relocating the Walter Reed 

Army Institute of Research, Division of Retrovirology to the Walter Reed Army Institute of 

Research, Walter Reed Army Medical Center – Forest Glen Annex, MD, establishing it as a 

Center of Excellence for Infectious Disease. 

Realign Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL, by relocating the Naval Aeromedical Research 

Laboratory to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. 

Realign 12300 Washington Ave, Rockville, MD, by relocating the Medical Biological Defense 

Research sub-function to the U. S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Ft. 

Detrick, MD. 

Realign Potomac Annex-Washington, DC, by relocating Naval Bureau of Medicine, Code M2, 

headquarters-level planning, investment portfolio management and program and regulatory 

oversight of DoD Biomedical Science and Technology programs and FDA-regulated medical 

product development within the biomedical RDA function to a new Joint Biomedical Research, 

Development and Acquisition Management Center at Fort Detrick, MD. 

Realign 64 Thomas Jefferson Drive, Frederick, MD, by relocating the Joint Program Executive 

Office for Chemical Biological Defense, Joint Project Manager for Chemical Biological Medical 

Systems headquarters-level planning, investment portfolio management and program and 

regulatory oversight of DoD Biomedical Science and Technology programs and FDA-regulated 

medical product development within the RDA function to a new Joint Biomedical Research, 

Development and Acquisition Management Center at Fort Detrick, MD. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating the Chemical Biological Defense Research component 

of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, MD. 
Med - 16 Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Realign Tyndall AFB, FL, by relocating Non-medical Chemical Biological Defense Research to 

Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and consolidating it 

with Air Force Research Laboratory. 

Realign Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, VA, by relocating Non-medical 

Chemical Biological Defense Research and Development & Acquisition to Edgewood Chemical 

Biological Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

Realign Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, IN, by relocating the Non-medical 

Chemical Biological Defense Development and Acquisition to Edgewood Chemical Biological 

Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

Realign Skyline 2 and 6, Falls Church, VA, by relocating the Joint Program Executive Office for 

Chemical Biological Defense to Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, MD. 

Justification: This recommendation creates Joint Centers of Excellence for Battlefield Health 

and Trauma research at Fort Sam Houston, TX; Infectious Disease research at Walter Reed – 

Forest Glenn Annex, MD; Aerospace Medicine research at Wright Patterson AFB, OH; 

Regulated Medical Project development & acquisition at Fort Detrick, MD; Medical Biological 

Defense research at Fort Detrick, MD; and Chemical Biological Defense research, development 

& acquisition at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. These actions will increase synergy, focus on 

joint needs, and efficient use of equipment and facilities by co-locating Tri-Service and Defense 

activities performing functions in chemical-biological defense and medical RDA. Fort Sam 

Houston is the best location for the Center for Battlefield Health and Trauma because it is the 

only current biomedical S&T location that also includes a military trauma center, providing 

enhanced translational research opportunities and ability to recruit and retain physicianscientists. Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Forest Glen Annex, is the CONUS hub of the 

worldwide Army and Navy activities in infectious diseases of military significance. Fort 

Detrick, MD, is the site of an Interagency Biodefense Campus and the military’s only Bio-Safety 

Level 4 containment facilities for medical research. The realignment of Air Force Aerospace 

medical and non-medical R&D to Wright Patterson AFB, OH, with co-location of associated 

education and training activities relocated in another recommendation, makes this location most 

suitable for a joint center for Aerospace Medical Research. Fort Detrick, MD is home of TriService medical logistics as well the Department’s largest Medical RDA management activity. 

Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, is home to the military’s 

most robust infrastructure supporting research utilizing hazardous chemical agents. These 

actions will also reduce the use of leased space within the National Capital Region, and increase 

the force protection posture of the realigning activities. Specific benefits occurring as a result of 

this recommendation include: 

• Promote beneficial technical and management interaction in the functional research areas 

of combat casualty care including combat dentistry and maxillofacial care, infectious 

disease, aerospace medicine, medical and non-medical chemical and biological defense 

research, as well as in the functional area of medical development and acquisition, 

fostering a joint perspective and sharing of expertise and work in areas of joint interest. 
Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group Med - 17

• Build joint economies and optimize use of limited pools of critical professional personnel 

with expertise in unique mission areas. 

• Co-location of combat casualty care research activities with related military clinical 

activities of the trauma center currently located at Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort 

Sam Houston, TX, promotes translational research that fosters rapid application of 

research findings to health care delivery, and provides synergistic opportunities to bring 

clinical insight into bench research through sharing of staff across the research and health 

care delivery functions. The availability of a co-located military trauma center also 

provides incentives for recruitment and retention of military physicians as researchers, 

and is a model that has proven highly successful in civilian academic research centers. 

• Reduce the number of DoD animal facilities. 

• Provide increased opportunities to share management and scientific support functions 

across Services and reduce costs. 

• Foster the development of common practices for DoD regulatory interactions with the 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

• Facilitate coordinated medical systems lifecycle management with the medical logistics 

organizations of the Military Departments, already co-located at Fort Detrick. 

• Promote jointness, enable technical synergy, and position the Department of Defense to 

exploit a center-of-mass of scientific, technical, and acquisition expertise with the 

personnel necessary to provide defense against current and emerging chemical and 

biological warfare threats. 

• Complete earlier consolidations of military Service Chemical Biological Defense 

programs into a joint, consolidated Chemical Biological Defense program. 

• Directly support the Department’s Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $ 73.9M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $45.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implantation are $ 9.2M with a payback expected in 7 years. The net present value of the costs 

and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $46.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 269 jobs (151 direct jobs and 118 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Bethesda-Frederick-Gaithersburg, MD Metropolitan Division, 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 
Med - 18 Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 99 jobs (68 direct and 31 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Martin 

County, IN economic area, which is 1.2 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 250 jobs (99 direct and 151 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Lake 

County-Kenosha County IL-WI Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 69 jobs (34 direct jobs and 35 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 95 jobs (40 direct jobs and 55 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 38 jobs (19 direct jobs and 19 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 321 jobs (148 direct jobs and 173 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

King George County, VA economic area, which is 2.3 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation may impact air quality at Fort Detrick, Fort Sam 

Houston, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Wright-Patterson AFB, NAS Great Lakes, and BUMED 

(Potomac Annex). This recommendation may impact cultural, archeological, or tribal resources 

at Fort Detrick, Fort Sam Houston, Aberdeen Proving Ground, and Wright-Patterson. 

Additional operations may further impact threatened and endangered species at Wright-Patterson 

and Aberdeen leading to additional restrictions on training or operations. Significant mitigation 

measures to limit releases at both Fort Sam Houston and Aberdeen Proving Ground may be 

required to reduce impacts to water quality and achieve US EPA water quality standards. 

Additional operations at Wright-Patterson, may impact wetlands, which could restrict operations. 
Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group Med - 19

This recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource 

areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; or waste management. This 

recommendation will require spending $7.0M for environmental compliance activities. This cost 

was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the 

costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. 

The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 
Med - 20 Section 8: Recommendations – Medical Joint Cross-Service Group 
Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group S&S - 1

Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group 

Summary of Selection Process 

Introduction

The Director, Defense Logistics Agency chaired the Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service 

Group (S&S JCSG). The group consisted of a deliberative body of senior Flag and General 

Officer logisticians representing each Military Department, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) (the Principals). A staff of military personnel, Department of 

Defense (DoD) civilians, and private contractors supported the group. The S&S JCSG was 

chartered to conduct a comprehensive review of DoD’s common business-oriented Supply and 

Storage logistics functions. Supply functions include such sub-functions as procurement and 

supply inventory management; storage includes such sub-functions as receipt processing; storage 

and issue. Distribution was added as a distinct function by the S&S JCSG Principals to 

acknowledge the strategic role distribution plays in the storage and distribution process. 

Responsibilities and Strategy 

The overarching strategy of the S&S JCSG was, “to pursue those logistics economies and 

efficiencies that enhance the effectiveness of operational forces as traditional forces and logistics 

processes transition to more joint and more expeditionary aspects.” Additionally, the JCSG 

sought to transition traditional military logistics’ linear processes to a networked, force-focused 

construct which reduces both the number of sites and related excess capacity, while providing a 

more effective and efficient DoD logistics base. 

One of the group’s major challenges was pursuing a course of action that acknowledged the S&S 

JCSG’s position as a “follower activity.” These follower activity conditions exist when the DoD 

supply, storage, and distribution activities/functions that take place on a military installation are 

primarily in support of the installations’ specific functions and infrastructure. As a result, the 

rationale for the continuation of supply and storage functions at some specific locations could 

depend on the BRAC actions of another JCSG or Defense Component towards that particular 

installation. The exceptions to this are the Defense Distribution Center, Susquehanna, PA, and 

Defense Distribution Center, San Joaquin, CA, which each function as major distribution hubs. 

For example, in cases where a distribution depot was co-located with a DoD industrial 

maintenance depot, the distribution depot’s existence at that location was primarily to support 

that particular industrial maintenance depot. If a scenario were developed by the Industrial 

JCSG to close, disestablish, or otherwise realign one of these industrial maintenance depots, the 

S&S JCSG was required to develop a scenario that reflected the appropriate realignments of 
S&S - 2 Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group 

logistics support. The same was also true if defense components wanted to recommend total 

closure of an installation, commonly referred to as “fence-line” closures, and activities under 

S&S JCSG purview were located at that site. 

The follower activity status and chartered areas of responsibility posed great challenges for the 

S&S JCSG. Too aggressive an approach in pursuing BRAC scenarios that impacted businessoriented logistics functions could inadvertently and adversely impact operational efficiencies of 

operational forces. Of course, this was unacceptable and had to be avoided. Consequently, the 

thrust of S&S and the scenarios that it would eventually develop considered closing and 

realigning activities and their consequences, but primarily focused on business-related logistics 

economies and efficiencies that enhanced the effectiveness of operational forces; hence, the S&S 

overarching strategy. 

This duality of scenario-impacting decisions made by other JCSGs and the Military Departments 

and transformation requirements demanded a heightened application of military judgment in 

S&S JCSG deliberations and scenario development. This placed a premium on the professional 

knowledge of the members of the JCSG. These senior level officials were acknowledged 

logistics experts within their respective defense components and were fully capable of arriving at 

accepted solutions where the application of military judgment was required. Though military 

judgment played a key role in the S&S JCSG deliberative process, the group used other tools that 

were available, such as the Installation Visualization Tool (IVT) and Optimization Model to 

develop scenarios, support its analysis, and formulate recommendations. 

Analytical Process 

As part of the analytic process the S&S JCSG was provided with an optimization model which 

incorporated capacity and military value analysis and force structure capabilities to identify 

scenarios that maximized military value and minimized the amount of excess capacity retained. 

The S&S JCSG used the Optimization Model to the extent that the output of the model could be 

useful. Because its activities, in most cases, were tenant organizations on defense component 

installations, the JCSG made unique demands on the tool to enable an adequate assessment of its 

activities. The goal was to take full advantage of the tool and use its product to the extent that 

the model output could assist deliberations. As the computer-based Optimization Modeling was 

not the optimal tool set for achieving resolution for all decision sets, the S&S JCSG explored 

ancillary methodologies to expand business models with an eye towards business process 

improvements, better fiscal management, and reducing excess infrastructure within the DoD. 

Certified capacity analysis and military value data were integral parts of the S&S decisionmaking process and were used in all sets of tools. 

To determine capacity, the S&S JCSG analyzed an individual activity’s infrastructure by 

examining the productivity of key resource inputs, e.g., labor (man hours) and actual space 

(office, warehouse, etc.). S&S assumed that a low rate of productivity for key resource inputs 

indicated either an inefficient use of resources and/or excess resource capacities. This would 

eventually become a very important issue in deliberations, as the S&S JCSG considered 

scenarios where DoD could divest itself of excess infrastructure while maintaining operational 

efficiencies. In all cases, S&S focused on FY 2003 data responses as being the most complete 
Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group S&S - 3

and current of the data collected. The S&S JCSG calculated capacity for all functions. 

Questions, formulas and filters were developed and tested for validity, adequacy and data 

quality. Questions were issued to installations in the form of a controlled data call and the 

installations responded in the form of certified data. Additional capacity information was later 

obtained from specific activities via a data clarification effort based on the earlier capacity data 

call, and by responses to targeted COBRA data calls during the scenario development phase. 

For the military value analysis, the S&S JCSG Principals designed attributes, metrics, data call 

questions, and a quantitative scoring plan to array the relative Military Value of supply and 

storage activities across DoD using the assessed operational and physical characteristics outlined 

in BRAC selection criterion 1-4. The group conducted Military Value analyses within 

categorical groupings of activities: Inventory Control Points (ICPs), Defense Distribution Depots 

(DDDs), and Defense Reutilization and Marketing Offices (DRMOs). 

 

For scenario development, the S&S JCSG followed a process that took advantage of 

transformational strategies and capacity and military value data analyses. The group identified 

strategy-based, data-supported business realignment scenarios that would advance jointness, 

achieve synergy, capitalize on technology, exploit best business practices, and/or minimize 

redundancy. This worked to pose and examine ideas that were in line with its overarching 

strategy, that were transformational, and that applied good business sense. After the scenarios 

were developed, selection criteria 5-8 were then assessed using DoD’s standard procedures 

and/or models. 

In accordance with the BRAC statute and per Secretary of Defense guidance, the S&S JCSG 

assessed the relationship between the 20-Year Force Structure Plan and required supporting 

supply and storage capabilities. This analysis was conducted as a formal part of the S&S JCSG 

deliberative process. The correlation between the plan and actual supply and storage capabilities 

is indirect, making direct correlation and formal measurement of the impacts of 

recommendations difficult to ascertain. However, the group spent significant time evaluating, 

through the use of military judgment, the known and potential impact of candidate 

recommendations on transformational initiatives and related future force structure. Additionally, 

the S&S JCSG considered the 20-Year Force Structure Plan comments submitted to S&S JCSG 

by the Military Departments and JCS concerning supply, storage, and distribution requirements. 

The surge requirement was another important factor to be examined. At the outset of the process, 

OSD’s position on surge was that the specific application of surge differed for each JCSG, 

therefore OSD left it up to each JCSG to define and apply. The S&S JCSG originally defined 

surge as operating 24-hours per day, 7 days per week, using 100 percent of existing facilities and 

equipment. This definition was included in the initial capacity data call released in January 

2004. Specific questions were asked in that data call to capture surge data using this definition. 

Upon the development of Capacity Analysis methodology in the early spring of 2004, the group 

refined its definition of surge. The S&S JCSG defined surge as using existing infrastructure 

resources to quickly respond to a short duration sudden increase in demand. Ten percent and 20 

percent of system demand requirements were selected to conduct sensitivity analysis as 

reasonable short term increases on system demand that could be expected above and beyond the 

current increases being seen due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was the view of the S&S 
S&S - 4 Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group 

deliberative body that demand on the system as a result of the global war on terrorism 

represented an extraordinary demand on surge. It was therefore assumed that 20 percent at the 

high end of surge was sufficient for the 20-year planning horizon associated with the force 

structure plan. These percentages were repeated in all subsequent Capacity Analysis reports. 

The two rates were used to show how increases in demand would affect capacity at different 

levels. Even after performance was calculated at these rates, excess capacity was still visible. 

This in turn allowed S&S to ensure that the supply and storage system that remained after all 

BRAC actions were complete would be able to handle future surge demands. 

As a result, the recommendations presented were a culmination of many factors. These included 

application of BRAC Criteria, capacity and military value analysis, assessment of requirements 

to support the 20-year force structure plan and the use of military judgment. In addition, an 

overarching strategy considering transformational ideas, and meeting challenges as a follower 

activity, were significant factors. 

The S&S JCSG believes it has arrived at a supply storage and distribution structure which 

enables DoD to more efficiently and effectively support our joint and coalition forces in a 

transformed global environment while at the same time introducing new world class business 

processes. These changes in sum are expected to have an immediate payback, an annual 

recurring savings of over $400M and an estimated Department savings (20-year Net Present 

Value) of about $5,500M. 

The recommendations approved by the Secretary of Defense follow: 
Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group S&S - 5

Recommendations and Justifications 

Commodity Management Privatization 

Recommendation: Realign Detroit Arsenal, MI, by relocating the supply contracting function 

for tires to the Inventory Control Point at Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, and 

disestablishing all other supply functions for tires. 

Realign Hill Air Force Base, UT, as follows: relocate the supply contracting function for tires to 

the Inventory Control Point at Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH; disestablish all other 

supply functions for tires; and disestablish the storage, and distribution functions for tires, 

packaged petroleum, oils, and lubricants, and compressed gases. 

Realign Naval Support Activity, Mechanicsburg, PA, by relocating the supply contracting 

function for packaged petroleum, oils, and lubricants to the Inventory Control Point at Defense 

Supply Center, Richmond, VA, and disestablishing all other supply functions for packaged 

petroleum, oils, and lubricants. 

Realign Defense Supply Center, Richmond, VA by disestablishing storage and distribution 

functions for tires, and the supply, storage, and distribution functions for packaged petroleum, 

oils, and lubricants, and compressed gases. Retain the supply contracting function for packaged 

petroleum, oils, and lubricants, and compressed gases. 

Realign Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA, Defense 

Distribution Depot Susquehanna, PA, Naval Station Norfolk, VA, Marine Corps Air Station 

Cherry Point, NC, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, GA, Robins Air Force Base, GA, 

Anniston Army Depot, AL, Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL, Tinker Air Force Base, OK, 

Corpus Christi Army Depot, TX, Naval Station Bremerton, WA, Naval Station San Diego, CA, 

Defense Distribution Depot Barstow, CA, Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, CA, and 

Naval Station Pearl Harbor, HI, by disestablishing storage and distribution functions for tires, 

packaged petroleum, oils, and lubricants, and compressed gases at each location. 

Justification: This recommendation achieves economies and efficiencies that enhance the 

effectiveness of logistics support to forces as they transition to more joint and expeditionary 

operations. This recommendation disestablishes the wholesale supply, storage, and distribution 

functions for all tires; packaged petroleum, oils and lubricants; and compressed gases used by the 

Department of Defense, retaining only the supply contracting function for each commodity. The 

Department will privatize these functions and will rely on private industry for the performance of 

supply, storage, and distribution of these commodities. By doing so, the Department can divest 

itself of inventories and can eliminate infrastructure and personnel associated with these 

functions. This recommendation results in more responsive supply support to user organizations 

and thus adds to capabilities of the future force. The recommendation provides improved 

support during mobilization and deployment, and the sustainment of forces when deployed 

worldwide. Privatization enables the Department to take advantage of the latest technologies, 

expertise, and business practices, which translates to improved support to customers at less cost. 
S&S - 6 Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group 

It centralizes management of tires; packaged petroleum, oils, and lubricants; and compressed 

gases and eliminates unnecessary duplication of functions within the Department. Finally, this 

recommendation supports transformation by privatizing the wholesale storage and distribution 

processes from DoD activities. 

In addition to the actions described in this recommendation, the Department is also 

disestablishing storage and distribution functions for tires, packaged petroleum, oils, and 

lubricants, and compressed gases at Red River Army Depot, TX. The storage and distribution 

functions at this additional location are now being disestablished as part of a recommendation for 

the full closure of the Red River Army Depot installation. The recommendation to close the 

installation fully supports all objectives intended by this recommendation. 

 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $6.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $333.6M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $43.7M with a payback expected immediately. The net present value of 

the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $735.3M.

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in the maximum potential job reductions (direct and indirect) over the 2006-2011 

period, as follows: 

Region of Influence 

Direct Job 

Reductions 

Indirect 

Job 

Reductions 

Total Job 

Reductions 

% of Economic 

Area Employment 

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

16 15 31 Less than 0.1 

Richmond, VA, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

32 25 57 Less than 0.1 

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

1 1 2 Less than 0.1 

Virginia Beach-NorfolkNewport News, VA, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

7 10 17 Less than 0.1 

Oklahoma City, OK, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

1 1 2 Less than 0.1 

Stockton, CA, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 31 20 51 Less than 0.1 

Honolulu, HI Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 1 1 2 Less than 0.1 
Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group S&S - 7

Region of Influence 

Direct Job 

Reductions 

Indirect 

Job 

Reductions 

Total Job 

Reductions 

% of Economic 

Area Employment 

Anniston-Oxford, AL, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

1 1 2 Less than 0.1 

Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, 

MI, Metropolitan Division 30 19 49 Less than 0.1 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.2M for waste management and environmental compliance activities. 

This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise 

impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Depot Level Reparable Procurement Management Consolidation 

Recommendation: Realign Lackland Air Force Base, TX, as follows: relocate the 

Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item 

Management, Stock Control, Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements 

Determination, Integrated Materiel Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point 

functions for Consumable Items to Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, and reestablish them 

as Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control Point functions; relocate the procurement 

management and related support functions for Depot Level Reparables to Robins Air Force Base, 

GA, and designate them as Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, Inventory Control Point 

functions; relocate the remaining integrated materiel management, user, and related support 

functions to Robins Air Force Base, GA. 

Realign Soldier Systems Center, Natick, MA, by relocating the Budget/Funding, Contracting, 

Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, 

Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel 

Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items to 
S&S - 8 Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group 

Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, PA, and reestablishing them as Defense Logistics Agency 

Inventory Control Point functions and by disestablishing the procurement management and 

related support functions for Depot Level Reparables and designating them as Defense Supply 

Center Philadelphia, PA, Inventory Control Point functions. 

Realign Detroit Arsenal, MI, by relocating the Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, 

Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon System 

Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management 

Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items to Defense Supply 

Center Columbus, OH, and reestablishing them as Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control 

Point functions, and by disestablishing the procurement management and related support 

functions for Depot Level Reparables and designating them as Defense Supply Center 

Columbus, OH, Inventory Control Point functions. 

Realign Rock Island Arsenal, IL, as follows: relocate the Budget/Funding, Contracting, 

Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, 

Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel 

Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items to 

Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, and reestablish them as Defense Logistics Agency 

Inventory Control Point functions; relocate the procurement management and related support 

functions for Depot Level Reparables to Detroit Arsenal, MI, and designate them as Defense 

Supply Center Columbus, OH, Inventory Control Point functions; and relocate the remaining 

integrated materiel management, user, and related support functions to Detroit Arsenal, MI. 

Realign Ft. Huachuca, AZ, as follows: relocate the Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, 

Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon System 

Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management 

Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items to Defense Supply 

Center Columbus, OH, and designate them as Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control Point 

functions; relocate the procurement management and related support functions for Depot Level 

Reparables to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and designate them as Defense Supply Center 

Columbus, OH, Inventory Control Point functions; and relocate the remaining integrated 

materiel management, user, and related support functions to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

 

Realign Naval Support Activity Mechanicsburg, PA, as follows: relocate the Budget/Funding, 

Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock 

Control, Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated 

Materiel Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable 

Items, except those Navy items associated with Nuclear Propulsion Support, Level 1/Subsafe and 

Deep Submergence System Program (DSSP) Management, Strategic Weapon Systems 

Management, Design Unstable/Preproduction Test, Special Waivers, Major End Items and 

Fabricated or Reclaimed items to Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, and reestablish them as 

Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control Point functions; disestablish the procurement 

management and related support functions for Depot Level Reparables and designate them as 

Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, Inventory Control Point functions; and relocate the 

oversight of Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer 
Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group S&S - 9

Services, Item Management, Stock Control, Weapon System Secondary Item Support, 

Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel Management Technical Support Inventory 

Control Point functions for Consumable Items and the oversight of procurement management 

and related support functions for Depot Level Reparables to the Defense Logistics Agency, Fort 

Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Marine Corps Base, Albany, GA, as follows: relocate the Budget/Funding, Contracting, 

Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, 

Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel 

Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for any residual Consumable 

Items to Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, and reestablish them as Defense Logistics 

Agency Inventory Control Point functions; disestablish the procurement management and related 

support functions for Depot Level Reparables and designate them as Defense Supply Center 

Columbus, OH, Inventory Control Point functions; and relocate the oversight of Budget/Funding, 

Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock 

Control, Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated 

Materiel Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable 

Items and the oversight of procurement management and related support functions for Depot 

Level Reparables to the Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Naval Support Activity Philadelphia, PA, Tinker Air Force Base, OK, Hill Air Force 

Base, UT, and Robins Air Force Base, GA, by relocating the Budget/Funding, Contracting, 

Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, 

Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel 

Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items, except 

those Navy items associated with Design Unstable/Preproduction Test, Special Waivers and 

Major End Items to Defense Supply Center Richmond, VA, and reestablishing them as Defense 

Logistics Agency Inventory Control Point functions, and by disestablishing the procurement 

management and related support functions for Depot Level Reparables and designating them as 

Defense Supply Center Richmond, VA, Inventory Control Point functions. 

Realign Redstone Arsenal, AL, as follows: relocate the Budget/Funding, Contracting, 

Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, 

Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel 

Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Aviation Consumable 

Items to Defense Supply Center Richmond, VA, and reestablish them as Defense Logistics 

Agency Aviation Inventory Control Point functions; disestablish the procurement management 

and related support functions for Aviation Depot Level Reparables and designate them as 

Defense Supply Center Richmond, VA, Aviation Inventory Control Point functions; relocate the 

Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item 

Management, Stock Control, Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements 

Determination, Integrated Materiel Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point 

functions for Missile Consumable Items to Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH; reestablish 

them as Defense Logistics Agency Missile Inventory Control Point functions; disestablish the 

procurement management and related support functions for Missile Depot Level Reparables and 

designate them as Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, Missile Inventory Control Point 
S&S - 10 Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group 

functions; and realign a portion of the remaining integrated materiel management, user, and 

related support functions necessary to oversee the Inventory Control Point activities at Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, MD, Detroit Arsenal, MI, Soldier System Center, Natick, MA, and Redstone 

Arsenal, AL, to Headquarters Army Materiel Command (AMC). 

Realign Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, by relocating the oversight of Budget/Funding, 

Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock 

Control, Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated 

Materiel Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable 

Items and the oversight of procurement management and related support functions for Depot 

Level Reparables to the Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by assigning the oversight of Budget/Funding, Contracting, 

Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, 

Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel 

Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items and the 

oversight of procurement management and related support functions for Depot Level Reparables 

to the Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Justification: The Supply & Storage Joint Cross Service Group looked at the responsibility for 

consumable and depot level reparable item management across the Department of Defense. 

This recommendation, together with elements of a base closure recommendation, supports the 

migration of the remaining Service Consumable Items to the oversight and management of a 

single DoD agency/activity. This proposal moves select Inventory Control Point functions 

(Budget/Funding, Contracting, Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item 

Management, Stock Control, Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements 

Determination, and Integrated Materiel Management Technical Support) to DLA. A number of 

Inventory Control Point functions (Allowance/Initial Supply Support List Development, 

Configuration Management, User Engineering Support, Provisioning, and User Technical 

Support) will be retained by the Services to maintain the appropriate critical mass to perform 

requirements and engineering. In addition, this recommendation realigns or relocates the 

procurement management and related support functions for the procurement of DLRs to DLA. 

For both consumable items and the procurement management of DLRs, this recommendation 

provides the opportunity to further consolidate Service and DLA Inventory Control Points by 

supply chain type. Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH (DSCC), manages the Maritime and 

Land supply chain, the Defense Supply Center Richmond, VA (DSCR), manages the Aviation 

supply chain, and Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, PA (DSCP), manages the Troop Support 

supply chain. The realignment should provide labor savings through transfer in place 

(application of standard labor rates across Inventory Control Points, headquarters staff 

reductions, and consolidation of support functions), reduce labor and support costs (from site 

consolidation) and business process improvements, such as consolidation of procurement under a 

single inventory materiel manager, reduction of disposal costs, and improved stock positioning. 

Savings related to overhead/support functions, especially at those locations where physical 

realignments occur at a lead center can be anticipated. Finally, this recommendation supports 

transformation by transferring procurement management of all Service DLRs to a single DoD 

agency/activity. 
Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group S&S - 11

This recommendation also allows for the relocation of the remaining Army ICP functions at Fort 

Huachuca (integrated materiel management, user, and related support functions) to be collocated 

with its respective Life Cycle Management Command. 

This recommendation relocates Air Force ICP functions from Lackland AFB to Robins AFB to 

provide for the continuation of secure facilities required by the Lackland ICP. 

 

In addition while this recommendation incorporates most of the actions required to complete the 

transfer of management to DLA, one element is captured in the closure recommendation 

associated Fort Monmouth, NJ, as noted below: 

 

The realignment of Fort Monmouth, NJ, which relocates the Budget/Funding, Contracting, 

Cataloging, Requisition Processing, Customer Services, Item Management, Stock Control, 

Weapon System Secondary Item Support, Requirements Determination, Integrated Materiel 

Management Technical Support Inventory Control Point functions for Consumable Items to 

Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, and reestablishes them as Defense Logistics Agency 

Inventory Control Point functions; relocates the procurement management and related support 

functions for Depot Level Reparables to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and designates them as 

Defense Supply Center, Columbus, OH, Inventory Control Point functions; and relocates the 

remaining integrated materiel management, user, and related support functions to Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, MD, has been incorporated into the closure of Fort Monmouth, NJ. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $127.0M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a savings of $369.8M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $159.3M with a payback expected immediately. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $1,889.6M. 

 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in the maximum potential job reductions (direct and indirect) over the 2006-2011 

period, as follows: 

Region of Influence 

Direct Job 

Reductions 

Indirect 

Job 

Reductions 

Total Job 

Reductions 

% of Economic 

Area Employment 

Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

212 159 371 0.72 

Cambridge-NewtonFramingham, MA, 

Metropolitan 

18 12 30 Less than 0.1 

San Antonio, TX, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

293 302 595 Less than 0.1 
S&S - 12 Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group 

Region of Influence 

Direct Job 

Reductions 

Indirect 

Job 

Reductions 

Total Job 

Reductions 

% of Economic 

Area Employment 

Davenport-Moline-Rock 

Island, IA-IL, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 

740 647 1,387 0.61 

Albany, GA, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 7 6 13 Less than 0.1 

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

10 9 19 Less than 0.1 

Huntsville, AL, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

71 55 126 Less than 0.1 

Ogden-Clearfield, UT, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

47 46 93 Less than 0.1 

Oklahoma City, OK, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

38 48 86 Less than 0.1 

 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation will impact air quality at Aberdeen. Added 

operations will require New Source Review permitting and Air Conformity Analysis. Potential 

impacts to cultural resources may occur at Aberdeen as a result of increased times delays and 

negotiated restrictions, due to tribal government interest, and the fact that resources must be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Eighteen historic properties are identified at Detroit Arsenal 

to date, but no restrictions to mission reported. Potential impacts may occur to historic resources 

at Detroit Arsenal, since resource must be valuated on a case-by-case basis, thereby causing 

increased delays and costs. Additional operations may impact cultural resources and sensitive 

resource areas at Robins, which may impact operations. Noise contours at Robins may need to 

be reevaluated due to the change in mission. Additional operations at Aberdeen may further 

impact threatened/endangered species leading to additional restrictions on training or operations. 

Modification of on-installation treatment works may be necessary at Robins to accommodate the 

change in mission. Significant mitigation measures to limit releases may be required at 

Aberdeen and Detroit Arsenal to reduce impacts to water quality and achieve US EPA water 

quality standards. A wetlands survey may be needed at Detroit Arsenal. This recommendation 

has no impact on dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; or wetlands. This 

recommendation will require spending approximately $0.8M for environmental compliance 
Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group S&S - 13

activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation.

Supply, Storage, and Distribution Management Reconfiguration

Recommendation: Realign Defense Supply Center Columbus, OH, by disestablishing the 

Defense Distribution Depot Columbus, OH. Relocate the storage and distribution functions and 

associated inventories to the Defense Distribution Depot Susquehanna, PA, hereby designated 

the Susquehanna Strategic Distribution Platform. 

Realign Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA, by consolidating the supply, storage, and distribution 

functions and associated inventories of the Defense Distribution Depot Tobyhanna, PA, with all 

other supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories that exist at Tobyhanna Army 

Depot to support depot operations, maintenance, and production. Retain the minimum necessary 

supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories required to support Tobyhanna Army 

Depot, and to serve as a wholesale Forward Distribution Point. Relocate all other wholesale 

storage and distribution functions and associated inventories to the Susquehanna Strategic 

Distribution Platform. 

Realign Naval Station Norfolk, VA, by consolidating the supply, storage, and distribution 

functions and associated inventories of the Defense Distribution Depot Norfolk, VA, with all 

other supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories that exist at Norfolk Naval Base 

and at Norfolk Naval Shipyard to support shipyard operations, maintenance, and production. 

Retain the minimum necessary supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories 

required to support Norfolk Naval Shipyard operations, maintenance and production, and to 

serve as a wholesale Forward Distribution Point. Relocate all other wholesale storage and 

distribution functions and associated inventories to the Susquehanna Strategic Distribution 

Platform. 

Realign Defense Supply Center Richmond, VA, by relocating the storage and distribution 

functions and associated inventories of the Defense Distribution Depot Richmond, VA, to the 

Susquehanna Strategic Distribution Platform. Retain the minimum necessary storage and 

distribution functions and associated inventories at Defense Distribution Depot Richmond, VA, 

to serve as a wholesale Forward Distribution Point. 

Realign Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC by consolidating the supply, storage, and 

distribution functions and associated inventories of the Defense Distribution Depot, Cherry 

Point, NC, with all other supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories that exist at 

Naval Aviation Depot Cherry Point, NC, to support depot operations, maintenance and 

production. Retain the minimum necessary supply, storage, and distribution functions and 

inventories required to support Naval Air Depot Cherry Point, and to serve as a wholesale 

Forward Distribution Point. Relocate all other wholesale storage and distribution functions and 
S&S - 14 Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group 

associated inventories to the Defense Distribution Depot Warner Robins, GA, hereby designated 

the Warner Robins Strategic Distribution Platform. 

Realign Robins Air Force Base, GA, by consolidating the supply, storage, and distribution 

functions and associated inventories supporting depot operations, maintenance, and production at 

the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center with the supply, storage, and distribution functions at the 

Warner Robins Strategic Distribution Platform. 

Realign Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, GA, by consolidating the supply, storage, and 

distribution functions and associated inventories of the Defense Distribution Depot Albany, GA, 

with all other supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories that exist at the 

Maintenance Center Albany, GA, to support depot operations, maintenance, and production. 

Retain the minimum necessary supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories 

required to support the Maintenance Center Albany, GA, and to serve as a wholesale Forward 

Distribution Point. Relocate all other wholesale storage and distribution functions and associated 

inventories to the Warner Robins Strategic Distribution Platform. 

Realign Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL, by consolidating the supply, storage, and distribution 

functions and associated inventories of the Defense Distribution Depot, Jacksonville, FL, with all 

other supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories that exist at the Naval Aviation 

Depot, Jacksonville, FL, to support depot operations, maintenance, and production. Retain the 

minimum necessary supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories required to 

support the Naval Aviation Depot, Jacksonville, FL, and to serve as a wholesale Forward 

Distribution Point. Relocate all other wholesale storage and distribution functions and associated 

inventories to the Warner Robins Strategic Distribution Platform. 

Realign Anniston Army Depot, AL, by consolidating the supply, storage, and distribution 

functions and associated inventories of the Defense Distribution Depot Anniston, AL, with all 

other supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories that exist at Anniston Army 

Depot, AL, to support depot operations, maintenance, and production. Retain the minimum 

necessary supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories required to support 

Anniston Army Depot, AL, and to serve as a wholesale Forward Distribution Point. Relocate all 

other wholesale storage and distribution functions and associated inventories to the Warner 

Robins Strategic Distribution Platform. 

Realign Corpus Christi Army Depot, TX, by consolidating the supply, storage, and distribution 

functions and associated inventories of the Defense Distribution Depot, Corpus Christi, TX, with 

all other supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories that exist at Corpus Christi 

Army Depot, TX, to support depot operations, maintenance, and production. Retain the 

minimum necessary supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories required to 

support Corpus Christi Army Depot, TX, and to serve as a wholesale Forward Distribution Point. 

Relocate all other wholesale storage and distribution functions and associated inventories to the 

Defense Distribution Depot Oklahoma City, hereby designated the Oklahoma City Strategic 

Distribution Platform. 
Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group S&S - 15

Realign Tinker AFB, OK, by consolidating the supply, storage, and distribution functions and 

associated inventories supporting depot operations, maintenance, and production at the Air 

Logistics Center, Oklahoma City, OK, with the supply, storage, and distribution functions and 

inventories at the Oklahoma City Strategic Distribution Platform. 

Realign Hill AFB, UT, by consolidating the supply, storage, and distribution functions and 

associated inventories of the Defense Distribution Depot, Hill, UT, with all other supply, storage, 

and distribution functions and inventories that exist at the Ogden Air Logistics Center, UT, to 

support depot operations, maintenance, and production. Retain the necessary supply, storage, 

and distribution functions and inventories required to support the Ogden Air Logistics Center, 

UT, and to serve as a wholesale Forward Distribution Point. Relocate all other wholesale storage 

and distribution functions and associated inventories to the Defense Distribution Depot, San 

Joaquin, CA, hereby designated the San Joaquin Strategic Distribution Platform. 

Realign Naval Station Bremerton, WA, by consolidating the supply, storage, and distribution 

functions and associated inventories of the Defense Distribution Depot, Puget Sound, WA, with 

all other supply, storage and distribution functions and inventories that exist at Puget Sound 

Naval Shipyard, WA, to support shipyard operations, maintenance, and production. Retain the 

minimum necessary supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories required to 

support Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, WA, and to serve as a wholesale Forward Distribution 

Point. Relocate all other wholesale storage and distribution functions and associated inventories 

to the San Joaquin Strategic Distribution Platform. 

Realign Naval Station, San Diego, CA, by consolidating the supply, storage, and distribution 

functions and associated inventories of the Defense Distribution Depot, San Diego, CA, with all 

other supply, storage and distribution functions and inventories that exist at Naval Aviation 

Depot, North Island, CA, to support depot operations, maintenance, and production. Retain the 

minimum necessary supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories required to 

support Naval Aviation Depot, North Island, CA, and to serve as a wholesale Forward 

Distribution Point. Relocate all other wholesale storage and distribution functions and associated 

inventories to the San Joaquin Strategic Distribution Platform. 

Realign Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, CA, by consolidating the supply, storage, and 

distribution functions and associated inventories of the Defense Distribution Depot Barstow CA, 

with all other supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories that exist at the 

Maintenance Center Barstow, CA, to support depot operations, maintenance, and production. 

Retain the minimum necessary supply, storage, and distribution functions and inventories at 

Defense Distribution Depot Barstow, CA, that are required to support the Maintenance Center 

Barstow, CA, and to serve as a wholesale Forward Distribution Point. Relocate all other 

wholesale storage and distribution functions and associated inventories to the San Joaquin 

Strategic Distribution Platform. 

Justification: This recommendation achieves economies and efficiencies that enhance the 

effectiveness of logistics support to operational joint and expeditionary forces. It reconfigures 

the Department's wholesale storage and distribution infrastructure to improve support to the 

future force, whether home-based or deployed. It transforms existing logistics processes by 
S&S - 16 Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group 

creating four CONUS support regions, with each having one Strategic Distribution Platform and 

multiple Forward Distribution Points. Each Strategic Distribution Platform will be equipped 

with state-of-the-art consolidation, containerization and palletization capabilities, and the entire 

structure will provide for in-transit cargo visibility and real-time accountability. Distribution 

Depots, no longer needed for regional supply, will be realigned as Forward Distribution Points 

and will provide dedicated receiving, storing, and issuing functions, solely in support of on-base 

industrial customers such as maintenance depots, shipyards and air logistics centers. Forward 

Distribution Points will consolidate all supply and storage functions supporting industrial 

activities, to include those internal to depots and shipyards, and those at any intermediate levels 

that may exist. This consolidation eliminates unnecessary redundancies and duplication, and 

streamlines supply and storage processes. 

In addition to the actions in this recommendation, the Department is abolishing the Defense 

Distribution Depot at Red River Army Depot. This action is included as part of a 

recommendation to close the Red River Army Depot installation. The recommendation to fully 

close the installation achieves the objective of disestablishing the Defense Distribution Depot 

and is consistent with the intent of this recommendation. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $192.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense 

during the implementation period is a savings of $1,047.3M. Annual recurring savings to the 

Department after implementation are $203.2M with a payback expected immediately. The net 

present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $2,925.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in the maximum potential job reductions (direct and indirect) over the 2006-2011 

period, as follows: 

Region of Influence 

Direct Job 

Reductions 

Indirect 

Job 

Reductions 

Total Job 

Reductions 

% of Economic 

Area Employment 

Columbus, OH, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

21 16 37 Less than 0.1 

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

86 60 146 Less than 0.1 

Virginia Beach-NorfolkNewport News, VA-NC, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

307 426 733 Less than 0.1 

Richmond, VA, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

47 36 83 Less than 0.1 
Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group S&S - 17

Region of Influence 

Direct Job 

Reductions 

Indirect 

Job 

Reductions 

Total Job 

Reductions 

% of Economic 

Area Employment 

New Bern, NC, 

Micropolitan Statistical 

Area 

10 9 19 Less than 0.1 

Albany, GA, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 40 31 71 Less than 0.1 

Jacksonville, FL, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

29 40 69 Less than 0.1 

Anniston-Oxford, AL, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

90 67 157 0.3 

Corpus Christi, TX, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

92 133 225 0.1 

Ogden-Clearfield, UT, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

64 62 126 Less than 0.1 

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA, 

Metropolitan Statistical 

Area 

59 62 121 0.1 

Riverside-San BernadinoOntario, CA, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 

10 8 18 Less than 0.1 

San Diego-Carlsbad-San 

Marcos, CA, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 

3 3 6 Less than 0.1 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates there are 

no issues regarding the ability of infrastructure of communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Additional operations at Tinker may impact wetlands and may restrict 

operations. At Susquehanna and San Joaquin, permits may be required for new boilers, 

generators, and paint booths. Increased solid and hazardous waste may also require new permits. 

Drinking water consumption will increase at these two locations and MILCON projects require 

storm water permits. This recommendation has no impact on cultural, archeological, or tribal 

resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, 

resources, or sanctuaries; noise; or threatened and endangered species or critical habitat. This 

recommendation will require spending approximately $0.7M for waste management and 
S&S - 18 Section 9: Recommendations – Supply and Storage Joint Cross-Service Group 

environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. 

There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 
Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech - 1

Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Summary of Selection Process 

Introduction 

The Director, Defense Research and Engineering, chaired the Technical Joint Cross-Service 

Group (TJCSG). The TJCSG principals included senior members from each Military 

Department and the Joint Staff. The TJCSG was chartered to review the following DoD 

technical functions: Research; Development and Acquisition; and Test and Evaluation 

(RDAT&E). As required, the TJCSG formally coordinated its work with the other joint crossservice groups to consider outdoor ranges, medical research, some intelligence functions, and 

headquarters functions. 

Responsibilities and Strategy 

The TJCSG evaluated DoD installations that performed the RDAT&E functions. The research 

function included basic research, exploratory development, and advanced development. The 

development/acquisition function included system development and demonstration, systems 

modifications, experimentation and concept demonstration, product/in-service life-cycle support 

and acquisition. The test and evaluation function included the formal developmental test and 

evaluation (DT&E) and the formal operational test and evaluation (OT&E). 

To guide its analysis and recommendation development, the TJCSG established two principles 

and an overarching strategic framework. The two principles were: 

• Provide efficiency of operations by consolidating technical facilities to enhance synergy 

and reduce excess capacity, and 

• Maintain competition of ideas by retaining at least two geographically separated sites, each 

of which would have similar combination of technologies and functions. This would also 

provide continuity of operations in the event of an unexpected disruption. 

Consistent with these two principles, the TJCSG used the strategic framework to establish 

multifunctional and multidisciplinary technical (RDAT&E) Centers of Excellence which should 

provide the scientific and technical advances to enable the Department to develop capabilities 

and weapons that are technologically superior to those of potential adversaries into the future. 

The multifunctional and multidisciplinary nature of the Centers of Excellence should allow more 

rapid transition of technology and enhance integration of multiple technologies. The Centers of 
Tech - 2 Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Excellence will be complemented by the Department’s existing technical facilities that have a 

disciplinary focus.1 

The TJCSG also recognized that to effectively accomplish the Department’s RDAT&E 

functions, key partners outside of the Department of Defense are essential, and include other 

government organizations, industry, universities, and the international community. Finally, the 

rapidly changing and uncertain environment of the 21st century required that the TJCSG analysis 

and recommendations ensure that surge capability would be available for the future Defense 

RDAT&E infrastructure. 

TJCSG recommendations provide the Department Centers of Excellence in the following three 

areas: Defense Research Laboratories; RDAT&E Centers; and Integrated Command, Control, 

Communications, and Computers and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) 

Centers. 

Analytical Process 

To organize its efforts, the TJCSG established five subgroups, each of which took responsibility 

for evaluating a set of technical activities. The subgroups are: Command, Control, 

Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (C4ISR); Air, Land, 

Sea, and Space Systems (ALSS); Weapons and Armaments (W&A); Innovative Systems (IS); 

and Enabling Technology (ET). As directed by the TJCSG, the subgroups conducted the 

detailed analysis for capacity, military value, scenario development and analysis, and finally, the 

development and evaluation of candidate recommendations for review by the ISG. At each 

stage of the analysis, the TJCSG reviewed the subgroups findings and provided oversight and 

direction that shaped subsequent analysis. A Capability Integration Team (CIT) and an 

Analytical Team also supported the efforts of the subgroups. The TJCSG also coordinated with 

the other JCSGs. The most frequent coordination was with the Education and Training (E&T) 

JCSG, the Headquarters and Support Activity (H&SA) JCSG, the Medical JCSG, and the 

Intelligence (Intel) JCSG. 

The TJCSG further delineated its RDAT&E functions by using the FY 2003 Defense Technical 

Area Plan (DTAP) to identify discrete technical facilities that could be appropriately compared 

to one another throughout the analysis. The DTAP has twelve technical capability areas. The 

TJCSG expanded this to thirteen technical capability areas because it was analytically useful to 

divide the single “land and sea vehicles” DTAP area into separate technical capability areas. 

The 13 technical areas are: air platforms; battlespace environments; biomedical; chemical and 

biological defense; ground vehicles; human systems; information systems; materials and 

processes; nuclear technology; sea vehicles; sensors, electronics, and electronic warfare; space 

platforms; and weapons and armaments. The result of this approach was the creation of 39 

 

1

 Multifunction refers to those activities that perform more than one function (research, development and 

acquisition, and test and evaluation). Thus, a center that performs research and development and acquisition 

(RD&A) is multifunctional. Multidisciplinary refers to activities that operate in more than one technical discipline. 

For example, a center that conducts electronics, materials, and human factors research is a multidisciplinary research 

center. The BRAC recommendations enhance the multidisciplinary nature of the research laboratories. 
Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech - 3

technical facility categories defined as “a collection of people and physical infrastructure that 

performs a technical function (or functions) in a specific technical capability area at a specific 

location.” 

The TJCSG performed a detailed analysis of technical capacity for each of these 39 technical 

facility categories. The TJCSG considered current capacity, surge capacity estimates, and future 

capacity estimates that may be imposed by possible force structure changes or other unknown 

causes. The group generated questions, issued standardized data calls to installations, and 

created a DoD database for comparative analyses of responses to the data call. A similar 

analysis was performed for military value. The TJCSG generated different questions and 

expanded the database to accommodate final BRAC 2005 Selection Criteria. For both the 

military value and capacity analyses, the general attributes of people, physical environments, 

physical structures and equipment, operational impact, and synergy were used to characterize the 

capacity and military value of technical functions. 

The TJCSG subgroups identified strategy-driven scenarios that were analyzed using military 

value and the technical capacity required to meet current and future needs, and presented them to 

the TJCSG principals for deliberation and approval. After approval, the subgroups applied final 

BRAC 2005 Selection Criteria 5-8 to each scenario using BRAC standard procedures. The 

TJCSG deliberated and approved all assumptions prior to conducting analyses. 

Through its deliberative process the TJCSG generated over 100 ideas and from these, developed 

69 declared scenarios. Through further analysis, the group narrowed this to 23 candidate 

recommendations. In the recommendation coordination process, nine candidate 

recommendations associated with closures or other proposed actions were transferred to the 

Military Departments or other JCSGs for inclusion in their recommendations. One candidate 

recommendation was disapproved at the IEC level. This report summarizes the 13 approved 

TJCSG recommendations. These recommendations provide the Department Centers of 

Excellence in the following three areas: 

• Defense Research Laboratories, whose functions include, but are not limited to, basic and 

applied research. Combined research laboratories are inherently multidisciplinary. 

• Integrated Research (R), Development and Acquisition (D&A), and Test and Evaluation 

(T&E) Centers across DoD technology areas that are involved with maturing platforms and 

capabilities. This includes Land, Maritime, Air, and Space platforms; Weapons and 

Armaments; and Chemical-Biological Defense Systems. 

• Integrated Command, Control, Communications, and Computers and Intelligence, 

Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Centers intended to enable advances to joint 

battlespace awareness capability with a joint program management office and RDAT&E 

domain centers for land, maritime, air and space. This infrastructure should enable a future 

joint management structure. 
Tech - 4 Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

The recommendations contained herein detail the changes to the Department’s technical 

infrastructure necessary to create these Centers of Excellence. 

 

The recommendations approved by the Secretary of Defense follow: 
Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech - 5

Recommendations and Justifications 

Co-locate Extramural Research Program Managers 

Recommendation: Close the Office of Naval Research facility, Arlington, VA; the Air Force 

Office of Scientific Research facility, Arlington, VA; the Army Research Office facilities, 

Durham, NC, and Arlington, VA; and the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency facility, 

Arlington, VA. Relocate all functions to the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD. 

Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating the Army Research Office to the National Naval 

Medical Center, Bethesda, MD. Realign the Defense Threat Reduction Agency Telegraph Road 

facility, Alexandria, VA, by relocating the Extramural Research Program Management function 

(except conventional armaments and chemical biological defense research) to the National Naval 

Medical Center, Bethesda, MD. 

Justification: This recommendation co-locates the managers of externally funded research in 

one campus. Currently, these program managers are at seven separate locations. The relocation 

allows technical synergy by bringing research managers from disparate locations together to one 

place. The end state will be co-location of the named organizations at a single location in a 

single facility, or a cluster of facilities. This “Co-Located Center of Excellence” will foster 

additional coordination among the extramural research activities of OSD and the Military 

Departments. Further it will enhance the Force Protection posture of the organizations by 

relocating them from leased space onto a traditional military installation. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $153.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $107.1M. Annual recurring savings to the Department 

after implementation are $49.4M with a payback expected in 2 years. The net present value of 

the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $572.7M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 193 jobs (122 direct jobs and 71 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Durham, NC, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended 

actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: An Air Conformity determination may be required at National Naval 

Medical Center, Bethesda, MD. This recommendation has no impact on cultural, archeological, 

or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, 

resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste 

management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending 
Tech - 6 Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

approximately $0.5M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the 

payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of 

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The 

aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this 

recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Consolidate Air and Space C4ISR 

Research, Development & Acquisition, Test & Evaluation 

Recommendation: Realign Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, Maxwell Air Force Base, 

AL, and Lackland Air Force Base, TX, by relocating Air & Space Information Systems Research 

and Development & Acquisition to Hanscom Air Force Base, MA. Realign Eglin Air Force 

Base, FL, by relocating Air & Space Sensors, Electronic Warfare & Electronics and Information 

Systems Test & Evaluation to Edwards Air Force Base, CA. 

Justification: This recommendation will reduce the number of technical facilities engaged in 

Air & Space Sensors, Electronic Warfare, and Electronics and Information Systems RDAT&E 

from 6 to 2. Through this consolidation, the Department will increase efficiency of RDAT&E 

operations resulting, in a multi-functional center of excellence in the rapidly changing 

technology area of C4ISR. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $254.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $115.3M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $36.2M with a payback expected in 8 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $238.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 2,250 jobs (1,262 direct jobs and 988 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Dayton, OH, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.44 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 384 jobs (220 direct jobs and 164 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.32 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 3,254 jobs (1,971 direct jobs and 1,283 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in 

the Montgomery, AL, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 1.6 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 212 jobs (110 direct jobs and 102 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 
Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech - 7

San Antonio, TX, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has the potential to impact air quality at 

Hanscom and Edwards. Additional operations at Hanscom and Edwards may impact 

archeological sites, which may constrain operations. This recommendation may require building 

on constrained acreage at Hanscom. Additional operations on Edwards may impact threatened 

and endangered species and/or critical habitats. The hazardous waste program at Hanscom will 

need modification. Additional operations may impact wetlands at Hanscom, which may restrict 

operations. This recommendation has no impact on dredging; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; noise; waste management; or water resources. This recommendation will require 

spending approximately $0.5M cost for waste management and environmental compliance 

activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Consolidate Ground Vehicle Development & Acquisition in a Joint Center 

Recommendation: Realign Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL, by relocating the joint robotics 

program development and acquisition activities to Detroit Arsenal, Warren, MI, and 

consolidating them with the Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems, Program 

Executive Office Combat Support and Combat Service Support and Tank Automotive Research 

Development Engineering Center. Realign the USMC Direct Reporting Program Manager 

Advanced Amphibious Assault (DRPM AAA) facilities in Woodbridge, VA, by relocating the 

Ground Forces initiative D&A activities to Detroit Arsenal, Warren, MI. 

Justification: This recommendation consolidates those USMC and Army facilities that are 

primarily focused on ground vehicle activities in development and acquisition (D&A) at Detroit 

Arsenal in Warren, MI, to increase joint activity in ground vehicle development & acquisition. 

The D&A being consolidated is centered on manned and unmanned ground vehicle program 

management. In Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), 

effectiveness in combat depends heavily on "jointness," or how well the different branches of our 

military can communicate and coordinate their efforts on the battlefield. This collection of D&A 

expertise will not only foster a healthy mix of ideas, but will increase the ground vehicle 

community’s ability to develop the kinds of capabilities that can position us for the future as well 
Tech - 8 Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

as adapt quickly to new challenges and to unexpected circumstances. The ability to adapt is 

critical where surprise and uncertainty are the defining characteristics of the new threats. 

The Joint Center for Ground Vehicle D&A located at Detroit Arsenal will be the Department of 

Defense’s premier facility for ground vehicle D&A. Detroit Arsenal is located in southeastern 

Michigan where the Research and Development headquarters reside for General Motors, Ford, 

Chrysler, General Dynamics Land Systems, Toyota-North America, Nissan-North America, 

Hino, Hyundai, Suzuki, Visteon, Delphi, Johnson Controls, Dana, and many others. The 

synergies gained from having a critical mass located in southeastern Michigan, and being able to 

leverage the world’s intellectual capital for automotive/ground vehicle Research and 

Development & Acquisition, will ensure the Department is prepared to meet the future demands. 

The end state of this recommendation is to consolidate Department of Defense expertise in 

Ground Vehicle D&A activities at Detroit Arsenal. It promotes jointness, enables technical 

synergy, and positions the Department of Defense to exploit a center-of-mass of scientific, 

technical, and acquisition expertise with the personnel involved in ground vehicle Research, 

Development & Acquisition that currently resides at Detroit Arsenal. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $3.8M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $1.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $1.9M with a payback expected in 2 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $17.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 56 jobs (32 direct jobs and 24 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC VA-MD-WV 

Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 135 jobs (77 direct jobs and 58 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Huntsville, AL, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require 
Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech - 9

spending approximately $0.1M for National Environmental Policy Act documentation at the 

receiving installation. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation 

does not otherwise impact the cost of environmental restoration, waste management, and 

environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended 

BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation.

Consolidate Maritime C4ISR Research, Development & Acquisition, Test & Evaluation 

Recommendation: Realign Washington Navy Yard, DC, by disestablishing the Space Warfare 

Systems Center Charleston, SC, detachment Washington Navy Yard and assign functions to the 

new Space Warfare Systems Command Atlantic Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, VA. 

Realign Naval Station, Norfolk, VA, by disestablishing the Space Warfare Systems Center 

Norfolk, VA, and the Space Warfare Systems Center Charleston, SC, detachment Norfolk, VA, 

and assign functions to the new Space Warfare Systems Command Atlantic Naval Amphibious 

Base, Little Creek, VA. 

Realign Naval Weapons Station Charleston, SC, as follows: relocate Surface Maritime Sensors, 

Electronic Warfare, and Electronics Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & 

Evaluation of the Space Warfare Center to Naval Surface Warfare Center Division, Dahlgren, 

VA; relocate Subsurface Maritime Sensors, Electronic Warfare, and Electronics Research, 

Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation of the Space Warfare Center to Naval 

Station Newport, RI; and relocate the Command Structure of the Space Warfare Center to Naval 

Amphibious Base, Little Creek, VA, and consolidate it with billets from Space Warfare Systems 

Command San Diego to create the Space Warfare Systems Command Atlantic, Naval 

Amphibious Base, Little Creek, VA. The remaining Maritime Information Systems Research, 

Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation functions at Naval Weapons Station 

Charleston, SC, are assigned to Space Warfare Systems Command Atlantic, Naval Amphibious 

Base, Little Creek, VA. 

Realign Naval Base Ventura County, CA, Naval Surface Warfare Center Division, Dahlgren, 

VA, and Naval Station Newport, RI, by relocating Maritime Information Systems Research, 

Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation to Naval Submarine Base Point Loma, San 

Diego, CA, and consolidating with the Space Warfare Center to create the new Space Warfare 

Systems Command Pacific, Naval Submarine Base Point Loma, San Diego, CA. 

Realign Naval Submarine Base Point Loma, San Diego, CA, as follows: relocate Surface 

Maritime Sensors, Electronic Warfare, and Electronics Research, Development & Acquisition, 

and Test & Evaluation of the Space Warfare Center to Naval Surface Warfare Center Division, 

Dahlgren, VA; relocate Subsurface Maritime Sensors, Electronic Warfare, and Electronics 

Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation of the Space Warfare Center to 

Naval Station Newport, RI; disestablish Space Warfare Systems Center Norfolk, VA, 

detachment San Diego, CA, and assign functions to the new Space Warfare Systems Command 

Pacific, Naval Submarine Base Point Loma, San Diego, CA; disestablish Naval Center for 
Tech - 10 Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Tactical Systems Interoperability, San Diego, CA, and assign functions to the new Space 

Warfare Systems Command Pacific, Naval Submarine Base Point Loma, San Diego, CA; and 

disestablish Space Warfare Systems Command San Diego, CA, detachment Norfolk, VA, and 

assign functions to the new Space Warfare Systems Command Atlantic, Naval Amphibious 

Base, Little Creek , VA. 

Realign Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, by relocating Subsurface Maritime Sensors, 

Electronic Warfare, and Electronics Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & 

Evaluation of the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division to Naval Station Newport, RI. 

Realign Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL, by disestablishing the Space Warfare Systems 

Center Charleston, SC, detachment Jacksonville, FL. 

Realign Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL, by relocating the Space Warfare Systems Center 

Charleston, SC, detachment Pensacola, FL, to Naval Weapons Station Charleston, SC. 

Realign Naval Weapons Station Yorktown, VA, by relocating the Space Warfare Systems Center 

Charleston, SC, detachment Yorktown, VA, to Naval Station Norfolk, VA, and consolidating it 

into the new Space Warfare Systems Command Atlantic detachment, Naval Station Norfolk, 

VA. 

Justification: These recommended realignments and consolidations provide for multifunctional 

and multidisciplinary Centers of Excellence in Maritime C4ISR. This recommendation will also 

reduce the number of technical facilities engaged in Maritime Sensors, Electronic Warfare, & 

Electronics and Information Systems RDAT&E from twelve to five. This, in turn, will reduce 

overlapping infrastructure increase the efficiency of operations and support an integrated 

approach to RDAT&E for maritime C4ISR. Another result would also be reduced cycle time for 

fielding systems to the warfighter. 

 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $106.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $88.6M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $38.7M with a payback expected in 1 year. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $455.1M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 74 jobs (28 direct jobs and 46 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in Charleston-North Charleston, SC, Metropolitan Statistical Area, 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 81 jobs (34 direct jobs and 47 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in 

Jacksonville, FL, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 
Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech - 11

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 78 jobs (34 direct jobs and 44 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Lexington Park, MD, Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.2 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 286 jobs (127 direct jobs and 159 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 278 jobs (102 direct jobs and 176 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 4 jobs (2 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in ProvidenceNew Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 88 jobs (44 direct jobs and 44 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the San 

Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 211 jobs (87 direct jobs and 124 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less 

than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 302 jobs (172 direct jobs and 130 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, Metropolitan Division, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport is in serious non-attainment 

for Ozone (1hr) and proposed to be in serious non-attainment for Ozone (8hr). San Diego is in 

attainment for all criteria pollutants. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA, is in 
Tech - 12 Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

attainment for all criteria pollutants with the exception of 8 hour and 1 hour O3 and Pb, which 

are Unclassifiable. Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, VA, Naval Station Norfolk, VA, and 

Naval Weapons Station Charleston, SC, are in attainment for all Criteria Pollutants. It is in a 

proposed non-attainment for Ozone (1 hour). Archeological and historical sites have been 

identified on Dahlgren that may impact current construction or current operations. 

Norfolk has potential archeological restrictions to future construction. Threatened and 

endangered species are present at Newport and have delayed or diverted testing. There is a 

potential impact regarding the bald eagle at Dahlgren. This recommendation has the potential to 

impact the hazardous waste and solid waste program at Dahlgren. Newport, Dahlgren, Little 

Creek, Charleston, Norfolk, and San Diego all discharge to impaired waterways, and 

groundwater and surface water contamination are reported. This recommendation has no impact 

on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or 

sanctuaries; noise; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will 

require spending approximately $0.1M for waste management and environmental compliance 

activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not 

otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental 

compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions 

affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known 

environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Consolidate Navy Strategic Test & Evaluation 

Recommendation: Realign Patrick Air Force Base, Cape Canaveral, FL, by relocating Nuclear 

Test and Evaluation at the Naval Ordnance Test Unit to Strategic Weapons Facility Atlantic, 

Kings Bay, GA. 

Justification: This recommendation realigns the stand-alone east coast facility working in fullscale Nuclear Test & Evaluation at Cape Canaveral into a fully supported Navy nuclear 

operational site at Kings Bay to gain synergy in security (Anti-Terrorism Force ProtectionATFP), Fleet operational support and mission support infrastructure. Since 1956, the Fleet 

Ballistic Missile (FBM) Program, in support of the TRIDENT (D-Series) Missile, has executed 

land-based (pad) as well as sea-based (SSBN) test launches supported by the Naval Ordnance 

Test Unit (NOTU) at Cape Canaveral, FL. This facility provided both the launch support 

infrastructure as well as docking for sea-based pre- and post-launch events. Recent changes in 

ATFP requirements, the recent establishment of the Western Test Range in the Pacific, and the 

programmatic decision to no longer require land based (pad) launches at Cape Canaveral all lead 

to the realignment/relocation of this function to Kings Bay. This action aligns nicely with the 

overall Weapons and Armaments strategy to move smaller activities at remote sites into larger 

facilities to realize a significant synergy in support functions and costs while maintaining 

mission capability. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $86.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $76.7M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 
Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech - 13

implementation are $13.4M with a return on investment expected in 7 years. The net present 

value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $61.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,013 jobs (571 direct jobs and 442 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL, Metropolitan Statistical 

Area which is 0.4 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has the potential to impact cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine 

mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; water 

resources; and wetlands at Kings Bay. This recommendation has no impact on air quality; 

dredging; or noise. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.1M on 

environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This 

recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. 

There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Consolidate Sea Vehicle Development & Acquisition 

Recommendation: Realign Detroit Arsenal, MI, by relocating Sea Vehicle Development and 

Acquisition to Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, Bethesda, MD, and Program 

Management and Direction of Sea Vehicle Development and Acquisition to Naval Sea Systems 

Command, Washington Navy Yard, DC. 

Justification: This recommendation positions technical sites for jointness through co-location 

with functions at the receiving locations. It also increases efficiency by consolidating program 

management of Sea Vehicle Development and Acquisition (D&A) from three sites to two 

principal sites; the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEASYSCOM) at the Washington Navy 

Yard (WNY), DC, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Carderock Division, 

Bethesda, MD. 

The consolidation and co-location leverages existing concentration of research, design and 

development, and acquisition support capabilities residing within the US Navy Headquarters and 

Warfare Center RD&A infrastructure. Program management for D&A will be at the Naval Sea 

Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard. In support of joint and transformational initiatives, 

this recommendation relocates management and direction of Theater Support Vessels (TSV) and 
Tech - 14 Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

other Sea Vehicle/Watercraft programs for US Army to the Naval Sea Systems Command, 

Washington Navy Yard. Consolidation of all program management of Sea Vehicle Programs at 

the Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard co-locates these functions and aligns 

with related program offices supporting Sea Vehicle Weapons and Combat systems, Hull 

Mechanical and Electrical, C4I integration and related sea vehicle equipment and support 

functions. This also places it near the principal technical direction and development agent for 

sea vehicles located at Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division in Bethesda, MD. This 

recommendation is consistent with the existing partnership collaboration between the USA and 

the USN on Theater Support Vessels as reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding between 

the US Army Program Executive Office (PEO) for Combat Support and Combat Service Support 

(PEO CS & CSS) and the US Navy PEO for Ships Systems. 

The recommendation will enhance synergy by consolidating Sea Vehicle functions to major 

sites, preserve healthy competition, leverage existing infrastructure, minimize environmental 

impact, and effect reasonable homeland security risk dispersal. The recommendation will 

increase efficiency by making a robust acquisition organization available to all DoD Sea Vehicle 

and watercraft program requirements and will increase efficiency by reducing overall manpower 

requirements. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $1.5M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $0.1M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $0.2M with a payback expected in 7 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $2.0M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 57 jobs (36 direct jobs and 21 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI, Metropolitan Division, which is 

less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all 

recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B 

of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the community’s infrastructure to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has no impact on air quality; cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation does not impact 

the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance 

activities. 
Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech - 15

Create a Naval Integrated Weapons & Armaments 

Research, Development & Acquisition, Test & Evaluation Center 

Recommendation: Realign Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane, IN, by relocating all Weapons 

and Armaments Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation, except 

gun/ammo, combat system security, and energetic materials to Naval Air Weapons Station China 

Lake, CA. 

Realign Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head, MD, by relocating all Weapons and 

Armaments Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation, except gun/ammo, 

underwater weapons, and energetic materials, to Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA. 

Realign Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, by relocating all Weapons and Armaments 

Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation, except the Program Executive 

Office and Program Management Offices in Naval Air Systems Command, to Naval Air 

Weapons Station China Lake, CA. 

Realign Naval Base Ventura County, Point Mugu, CA, by relocating all Weapons and 

Armaments Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation to Naval Air 

Weapons Station China Lake, CA. 

Realign Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, CA, by relocating all Weapons and Armaments 

Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation, except underwater weapons and 

energetic materials, to Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA. 

Realign Naval Surface Warfare Center, Yorktown, VA, by relocating all Weapons and 

Armaments Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation to Naval Surface 

Warfare Center Indian Head, MD. 

Realign Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, CA, by relocating all Weapons and 

Armaments Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation, except weapon 

system integration, to Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA. 

Realign Fleet Combat Training Center, CA (Port Hueneme Detachment, San Diego, CA), by 

relocating all Weapons and Armaments weapon system integration Research, Development & 

Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation to Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren, VA. 

Realign Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren, VA, by relocating all Weapons & Armaments 

Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation, except guns/ammo and weapon 

systems integration to Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA. 

Justification: This recommendation realigns and consolidates those facilities working in 

Weapons & Armaments (W&A) Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test and Evaluation 

(RDAT&E) into a Naval Integrated RDAT&E center at the Naval Air Warfare Center, China 

Lake, CA. Additional synergistic realignments for W&A was achieved at two receiver sites for 

specific focus. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA, is a receiver specialty site for 
Tech - 16 Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Naval surface weapons systems integration and receives a west coast site for consolidation. This 

construct creates an integrated W&A RDAT&E center in China Lake, CA, energetics center at 

Indian Head, MD, and consolidates Navy surface weapons system integration at Dahlgren, VA. 

All actions relocate technical facilities with lower overall quantitative Military Value (across 

Research, Development & Acquisition and Test & Evaluation) into the Integrated RDAT&E 

center and other receiver sites with greater quantitative Military Value. 

Consolidating the Navy’s air-to-air, air-to-ground, and surface launched missile RD&A, and 

T&E activities at China Lake, CA, would create an efficient integrated RDAT&E center. China 

Lake is able to accommodate with minor modification/addition both mission and lifecycle/sustainment functions to create synergies between these traditionally independent 

communities. 

During the other large scale movements of W&A capabilities noted above, Weapon System 

Integration was specifically addressed to preserve the synergies between large highly integrated 

control system developments (Weapon Systems Integration) and the weapon system 

developments themselves. A specialty site for Naval Surface Warfare was identified at 

Dahlgren, VA, that was unique to the services and a centroid for Navy surface ship 

developments. A satellite unit from the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme, San 

Diego Detachment will be relocated to Dahlgren. 

The Integrated RDAT&E Center at China Lake provides a diverse set of open-air range and test 

environments (desert, mountain, forest) for W&A RDAT&E functions. Synergy will be realized 

in air-to-air, air-to-ground, and surface launched mission areas. 

This recommendation enables technical synergy, and positions the Department of Defense to 

exploit center-of-mass scientific, technical and acquisition expertise with weapons and armament 

Research, Development & Acquisition that currently resides at 10 locations into the one 

Integrated RDAT&E site, one specialty site, and an energetics site. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $358.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $148.7M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $59.7M with a payback expected in 7 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $433.4M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 375 jobs (258 direct jobs and 117 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Martin County, IN, economic area, which is 4.4 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 543 jobs (258 direct jobs and 285 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Lexington Park, MD, Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is 1.0 percent of economic area 

employment. 
Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech - 17

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 5,012 jobs (2,250 direct jobs and 2,762 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in 

the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 1.2 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 97 jobs (47 direct jobs and 50 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the San 

Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 76 jobs (45 direct jobs and 31 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Santa 

Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA, Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 142 jobs (61 direct jobs and 81 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less 

than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 91 jobs (52 direct jobs and 39 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, Metropolitan Division, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 333 jobs (155 direct jobs and 178 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

King George County, VA, economic area, which is 2.4 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation has the potential to impact air quality at Indian 

Head and China Lake. Archeological and historical sites exist on NSWC Dahlgren, which may 

impact current construction and operations. This recommendation has the potential to impact 

land use constraints or sensitive resource areas at Indian Head and China Lake. This 

recommendation has no impact on dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; 

threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; or 

wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.2M for waste 

management activities and $1.1M for environmental compliance activities. These costs were 

included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs 
Tech - 18 Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. 

The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Create an Air Integrated Weapons & Armaments 

Research, Development & Acquisition, Test & Evaluation Center 

Recommendation: Realign Hill Air Force Base, UT, by relocating Weapons and Armaments 

In-Service Engineering Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test and Evaluation to Eglin 

Air Force Base, FL. Realign Fort Belvoir, VA, by relocating Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

National Command Region conventional armament Research to Eglin Air Force Base, FL. 

Justification: Eglin is one of three core integrated weapons and armaments RDAT&E centers 

(with China Lake, CA, and Redstone Arsenal, AL) with high MV and the largest concentration 

of integrated technical facilities across all three functional areas. Eglin AFB has a full spectrum 

array of Weapons & Armaments (W&A) Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & 

Evaluation (RDAT&E) capabilities. Accordingly, relocation of Hill AFB and DTRA NCR 

W&A capabilities will further complement and strengthen Eglin as a full spectrum W&A 

RDAT&E Center. 

The overall impact of this recommendation will be to: increase W&A life cycle and mission 

related synergies/integration; increase efficiency; reduce operational costs; retain the required 

diversity of test environments; and facilitate multiple uses of equipment, facilities, ranges, and 

people. Hill AFB and DTRA NCR technical facilities recommended for relocation have lower 

quantitative MV than Eglin AFB in all functional areas. 

This recommendation includes Research, D&A, and T&E conventional armament capabilities in 

the Air Force and DTRA NCR. It consolidates armament activities within the Air Force and 

promotes jointness with DTRA NCR. It also enables technical synergy, and positions the DoD 

to exploit center-of-mass scientific, technical, and acquisition expertise within the RDAT&E 

community that currently resides as DoD specialty locations. This recommendation directly 

supports the Department’s strategy for transformation by moving and consolidating smaller 

W&A efforts into high military value integrated centers, and by leveraging synergy among 

RD&A, and T&E activities. Capacity and military value data established that Eglin AFB is 

already a full-service, integrated W&A RDAT&E center. Relocation of W&A D&A In-Service 

Engineering (ISE) from Hill AFB to Eglin AFB will increase life cycle synergy and integration. 

ISE encompasses those engineering activities that provide for an “increase in capability” of a 

system/sub-system/component after Full Operational Capability has been declared. ISE 

activities mesh directly with on-going RDAT&E at Eglin AFB. 

Relocation of DTRA NCR W&A technical capabilities will increase life cycle synergy and 

integration at Eglin AFB. Conventional armament capabilities possessed by DTRA NCR 

directly complement on-going RDAT&E at Eglin AFB. Cost savings from the relocation of 

DTRA NCR to Eglin AFB will accrue largely through the elimination of the need for leased 
Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech - 19

space, and by virtue of the fact that Eglin AFB can absorb the DTRA NCR (and Hill AFB) 

functions without the need for MILCON. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $2.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a savings of $4.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $1.4M with payback expected in 2 years. The net present value of the costs 

and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $17.9M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 64 jobs (33 direct jobs and 31 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Ogden-Clearfield, UT, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 

less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 114 jobs (67 direct and 47 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, Metropolitan Division, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: Additional operations may impact archeological sites at Eglin AFB 

and restrict operations. Additional operations may compound the need for explosive safety 

waivers at Eglin AFB. Additional operations may further impact threatened and endangered 

species and/or critical habitats at Eglin AFB. Modification of Eglin AFB’s treatment works may 

be necessary. This recommendation may impact wetlands at Eglin AFB. This recommendation 

has no impact on air quality; dredging; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; or 

water resources. This recommendation will require spending approximately less than $0.05M 

for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. 

This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. 

There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Create an Integrated Weapons & Armaments Specialty Site for Guns and Ammunition 

Recommendation: Realign the Adelphi Laboratory Center, MD, by relocating gun and 

ammunition Research and Development & Acquisition to Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. 
Tech - 20 Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Realign Naval Surface Warfare Center Division Crane, IN, by relocating gun and ammunition 

Research and Development & Acquisition to Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. 

Realign the Fallbrook, CA, detachment of Naval Surface Warfare Center Division Crane, IN, by 

relocating gun and ammunition Research and Development & Acquisition to Picatinny Arsenal, 

NJ. 

Realign Naval Surface Warfare Center Division Dahlgren, VA, by relocating gun and 

ammunition Research and Development & Acquisition to Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. 

Realign the Louisville, KY, detachment of Naval Surface Warfare Center Division Port 

Hueneme, CA, by relocating gun and ammunition Research and Development & Acquisition to 

Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. 

Realign Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division China Lake, CA, by relocating gun and 

ammunition Research and Development & Acquisition to Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. 

Realign Naval Surface Warfare Center Division Indian Head, MD, by relocating gun and 

ammunition Research and Development & Acquisition to Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. 

Realign Naval Surface Warfare Center Division Earle, NJ, by relocating weapon and armament 

packaging Research and Development & Acquisition to Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. 

Justification: This recommendation realigns and consolidates those gun and ammunition 

facilities working in Weapons and Armaments (W&A) Research (R), Development & 

Acquisition (D&A). This realignment would result in a more robust joint center for gun and 

ammunition Research, Development & Acquisition at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. This location is 

already the greatest concentration of military value in gun and ammunition W&A RD&A. 

Picatinny Arsenal is the center-of-mass for DoD’s Research, Development & Acquisition of 

guns and ammunition, with a workload more than an order of magnitude greater than any other 

DoD facility in this area. It also is home to the DoD’s Single Manager for Conventional 

Ammunition. Movement of all the Services’ guns and ammunition work to Picatinny Arsenal 

will create a joint center of excellence and provide synergy in armament development for the 

near future and beyond, featuring a Joint Packaging, Handling, Shipping and Transportation 

(PHS&T) Center, particularly important in this current time of high demand for guns and 

ammunition by all the services. Technical facilities with lower quantitative military value are 

relocated to Picatinny Arsenal. 

This recommendation includes Research, Development & Acquisition activities in the Army and 

Navy. It promotes jointness, enables technical synergy, and positions the Department of Defense 

to exploit center-of-mass scientific, technical, and acquisition expertise within the weapons and 

armament Research, Development & Acquisition community that currently resides at this DoD 

specialty location. 
Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech - 21

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $116.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is cost of $81.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $11.3M with a payback expected in 13 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $32.6M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 11 jobs (5 direct jobs and 6 indirect jobs) over 

the 2006-2011 period in Bakersfield, CA, Metropolitan Statistical Area which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 83 jobs (43 direct jobs and 40 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Bethesda-Frederick-Gaithersburg, MD, Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 421 jobs (289 direct jobs and 132 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in Martin 

County, IN, economic area, which is 4.9 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 126 jobs (67 direct jobs and 59 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the 

Edison, NJ, Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 506 jobs (296 direct jobs and 210 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the 

Louisville, KY-IN, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 302 jobs (146 direct jobs and 156 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the 

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 76 jobs (43 direct jobs and 33 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, Metropolitan Division, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 202 jobs (93 direct jobs and 109 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 periods in the 

King George County, VA, economic area, which is 1.4 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 
Tech - 22 Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation is expected to impact air quality at Picatinny, 

which is in severe non-attainment for Ozone. This recommendation may have a minimal effect 

on cultural resources at Picatinny. Additional operations may further impact 

threatened/endangered species at Picatinny, leading to additional restrictions on training or 

operations. This recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive 

resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; waste management; or 

wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.3M for environmental 

compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation 

does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and 

environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended 

BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no 

known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation.

Defense Research Service Led Laboratories 

Recommendation: Close the Air Force Research Laboratory, Mesa City, AZ. Relocate all 

functions to Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH. 

Realign Air Force Research Laboratory, Hanscom, MA, by relocating the Sensors Directorate to 

Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH, and the Space Vehicles Directorate to Kirtland Air Force 

Base, NM. 

 

Realign Rome Laboratory, NY, by relocating the Sensor Directorate to Wright Patterson Air 

Force Base, OH, and consolidating it with the Air Force Research Laboratory, Sensor Directorate 

at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH. 

Realign Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH, by relocating the 

Information Systems Directorate to Hanscom Air Force Base, MA. 

Realign Army Research Laboratory Langley, VA, and Army Research Laboratory Glenn, OH, 

by relocating the Vehicle Technology Directorates to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

Realign the Army Research Laboratory White Sands Missile Range, NM, by relocating all Army 

Research Laboratory activities except the minimum detachment required to maintain the Test 

and Evaluation functions at White Sands Missile Range, NM, to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

Justification: This recommendation realigns and consolidates portions of the Air Force and 

Army Research Laboratories to provide greater synergy across technical disciplines and 

functions. It does this by consolidating geographically separate units of the Air Force and Army 

Research Laboratories. 
Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech - 23

A realignment of Air Force Research Laboratory Human Factors Division from Brooks City 

Base, TX, research to Wright Patterson AFB was initially part of this recommendation, and still 

exists, but is presented in the recommendation to close Brooks City Base, TX. 

This recommendation enables technical synergy, and positions the Department of the Defense to 

exploit a center-of-mass of scientific, technical, and acquisition expertise. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $164.6M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is cost of $45.0M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $41.1M, with a payback expected in 4 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $357.3M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 465 jobs (237 direct jobs and 228 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area, 

which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 362 jobs (201 direct jobs and 161 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Utica-Rome, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.2 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 362 jobs (225 direct jobs and 137 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 

percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 92 jobs (50 direct jobs and 42 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of 

economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 382 jobs (186 direct jobs and 196 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.5 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 118 jobs (50 direct jobs and 68 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less 

than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 
Tech - 24 Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: An Air Conformity Analysis and a New Source Review and 

permitting effort is required at Aberdeen. This recommendation may impact cultural resources 

and threatened and endangered species at Aberdeen. Additional operations at Hanscom and 

Kirtland may impact cultural sites, which may constrain operations. This recommendation may 

require building on constrained acreage at Hanscom. Additional operations at Wright Patterson 

may further impact the Indiana Bat, a threatened and endangered species. Additional operations 

at Hanscom, Kirtland, and Wright Patterson may impact wetlands, which may restrict operations. 

This recommendation has no impact on air quality; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive 

resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; waste management; or water 

resources. This recommendation requires spending approximately $0.4M for waste management 

and environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. 

This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste 

management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of 

all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. 

There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 

Establish Centers for Fixed Wing Air Platform 

Research, Development & Acquisition, Test & Evaluation 

 

Recommendation: Realign Tinker Air Force Base, OK, Robins, Air Force Base, GA, and Hill 

Air Force Base, UT, by relocating fixed wing related Air Platform Development and Acquisition 

to Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH. 

Realign Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH, by relocating fixed wing related Live Fire Test 

and Evaluation to Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA. 

Justification: This recommendation completes the consolidation of all Fixed Wing Air Platform 

RDAT&E, begun during the previous BRAC rounds, at two principal sites: Naval Air Station 

(NAS) Patuxent River, MD, and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), OH, while retaining 

several specialty sites. Research and Development & Acquisition will be performed at NAS 

Patuxent River and Wright-Patterson AFB. Lakehurst will be retained as a dedicated RDAT&E 

facility for Navy Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment and Aviation Support Equipment. 

This recommendation includes Research, Development & Acquisition and Test & Evaluation 

activities in Fixed Wing Air Platforms across the Navy and Air Force. The planned component 

moves will enhance synergy by consolidating to major sites, preserve healthy competition, 

leverage existing infrastructure, minimize environmental impact, and effect reasonable homeland 

security risk dispersal. The relocation of Fixed Wing Air Platform Research was previously 

accomplished in response to the S&T Reliance Agreements resulting in the consolidation at 
Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech - 25

Wright Patterson AFB with the maritime related Fixed Wing Air Platform Research consolidated 

at NAS Patuxent River. 

This recommendation consolidates Air Force Development & Acquisition functions currently 

resident at Logistic Centers (Hill AFB, Tinker AFB, and Robbins AFB) at Wright-Patterson 

AFB. These moves will increase efficiency by creating RD&A centers with all attendant support 

activity and a robust acquisition organization available to all Air Force Fixed Wing Air Platform 

D&A functions. 

The consolidation of all Fixed Wing Air Platform Survivability Live Fire T&E at China Lake is 

driven by the inefficiencies that currently exist between the two sites (Wright Patterson AFB and 

China Lake), and the potential savings afforded by establishing a single live fire test range for 

fixed wing air platforms. China Lake has this capability and has been doing similar work related 

to weapons lethality for many years. This action will increase efficiency by reducing overall 

manpower requirements while also reducing redundancies that exist across the Live Fire Testing 

domain. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $17.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $7.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $2.7M with a payback expected in 9 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $17.9M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 43 jobs (22 direct jobs and 21 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Ogden-Clearfield, UT, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 

less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 33 jobs (15 direct jobs and 18 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Oklahoma City, OK, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic 

area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 67 jobs (41 direct jobs and 26 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Warner Robins, GA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 1 job (3 direct jobs lost and 2 indirect jobs gained) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Dayton, OH, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 
Tech - 26 Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. 

Environmental Impact: A conformity analysis is required at Wright-Patterson. An initial 

analysis indicates a conformity determination is not required. Additional operations may impact 

archeological or historic areas, which may restrict operations. Additional operations at Wright 

Patterson may further impact the Indiana Bat, a threatened and endangered species. The 

hazardous waste program at Wright-Patterson will require modification. Additional operations at 

Wright Patterson may impact wetlands, which may restrict operations. This recommendation has 

no impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, 

resources, or sanctuaries; noise; or water resources. This recommendation will require spending 

approximately $0.2M for waste management and environmental compliance activities. This cost 

was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the 

costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. 

The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the bases in 

this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to 

implementation of this recommendation. 

Establish Centers for Rotary Wing Air Platform Development & 

Acquisition, Test & Evaluation 

Recommendation: Realign Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH, by relocating Air Force 

Materiel Command V-22 activities in rotary wing air platform development and acquisition to 

Patuxent River, MD. Realign the Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, NJ, by relocating 

activities in rotary wing air platform development, acquisition, test and evaluation to Patuxent 

River, MD. Realign Ft. Rucker, AL, by relocating the Aviation Technical Test Center to 

Redstone Arsenal, AL, and consolidating it with the Technical Test Center at Redstone Arsenal, 

AL. Realign Warner-Robins Air Force Base, GA, by relocating activities in rotary wing air 

platform development and acquisition to Redstone Arsenal, AL. 

Justification: This Air Land Sea & Space (ALSS) recommendation realigns and consolidates 

those activities that are primarily focused on Rotary Wing Air Platform activities in 

Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation (DAT&E). This action creates the Joint Center 

for Rotary Wing Air Platform DAT&E at the Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL, and enhances 

the Joint Center at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), Patuxent River, 

MD. The end state of this recommendation builds upon existing rotary wing air platform 

technical expertise and facilities in place at the two principal sites and provides focused support 

for future aviation technological advances in rotorcraft development. 

The planned component moves enhance synergy by consolidating rotary wing work to major 

sites, preserving healthy competition, and leveraging climatic/geographic conditions and existing 

infrastructure, minimize environmental impact. These consolidations co-locate aircraft and 

aircraft support systems with development and acquisition personnel to enhance efficiency and 

effectiveness of rotary wing air platform design and development activities. 
Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group Tech - 27

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this 

recommendation is $49.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the 

implementation period is a cost of $40.2M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after 

implementation are $2.8M with a payback expected in 26 years. The net present value of the 

costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a cost of $11.8M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 108 jobs (59 direct jobs and 49 indirect jobs) 

over the 2006-2011 period in the Dayton, OH, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment; 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 24 jobs (13 direct jobs and 11 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period, in the 

Edison, NJ, Metropolitan Division, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 607 jobs (327 direct jobs and 280 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period, in the 

Enterprise-Ozark, AL, Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is 1.3 percent of economic area 

employment. 

Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential 

reduction of 82 jobs (50 direct jobs and 32 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the 

Warner Robins, GA, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area 

employment. 

The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on these economic regions of 

influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. 

Environmental Impact: This recommendation may have a minimal impact on cultural, 

archeological, and tribal resources and threatened and endangered species at both Patuxent River 

and Redstone Arsenal. Increased noise from aviation operations may result in operational 

restrictions on Redstone. Further evaluation is required. This recommendation has no impact on 

air quality; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, 

resources, or sanctuaries; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This 

recommendation will require spending approximately $0.5M for environmental compliance 

activities. The payback calculation includes this cost. This recommendation does not otherwise 

impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 
Tech - 28 Section 10: Recommendations – Technical Joint Cross-Service Group 

Navy Sensors, Electronic Warfare, and Electronics 

Research, Development & Acquisition, Test & Evaluation 

Recommendation: Realign Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, Point Mugu, CA. 

Relocate the Sensors, Electronic Warfare (EW), and Electronics Research, Development, 

Acquisition, Test & Evaluation (RDAT&E) functions to Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons 

Division, China Lake, CA. 

Justification: Consolidating the Sensors, EW, and Electronics RDAT&E functions at China 

Lake will eliminate redundant infrastructure between Point Mugu and China Lake and provide 

for the more efficient use of the remaining assets including the Electronic Combat Range and 

other integration laboratories at China Lake. 

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $72.7M. The 

net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense during the implementation period is a 

cost of $50.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after implementation are $6.7M 

with a payback expected in 12 years. The net present value of the costs and savings to the 

Department over 20 years is a savings to the Department of $16.9M. 

Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation 

could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,075 jobs (479 direct jobs and 596 indirect 

jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area economic area, which is 0.3 percent of economic area employment. The 

aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence 

was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I. 

Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues 

regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and 

personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all 

recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation. 

Environmental Impact: An air conformity determination will be needed. Industrial waste 

management permits may need to be amended and additional water resources may be necessary 

at China Lake to accommodate new mission. This recommendation has no impact on cultural, 

archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; 

marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat; waste management; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending 

approximately less than $0.04M for waste management and environmental compliance activities. 

These costs were included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise 

impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance 

activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the 

bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental 

impediments to implementation of this recommendation. 
Index - 1

Index of Recommendations 

Recommendation Title Page Number

Air Force Logistics Support Centers...........................................................................Air Force - 53 

Andrews Air Force Base, MD ....................................................................................Air Force - 23 

Atlantic City Air Guard Station, NJ............................................................................Air Force - 25 

Aviation Logistics School.................................................................................................... E&T - 5 

Barnes Air Guard Station, MA ...................................................................................Air Force - 14 

Beale Air Force Base, CA...........................................................................................Air Force - 10 

Birmingham International Airport Air Guard Station, AL ...........................................Air Force - 5 

Boise Air Terminal Air Guard Station, ID..................................................................Air Force - 17 

Bradley International Airport Air Guard Station, CT.................................................Air Force - 14 

Brooks City Base, TX...........................................................................................................Med - 6 

Cambria Regional Airport, Johnstown, PA ....................................................................... DoN - 21 

Cannon Air Force Base, NM ......................................................................................Air Force - 32 

Capital Air Guard Station, IL......................................................................................Air Force - 20 

Co-locate Defense/Military Department Adjudication Activities ...................................... H&SA-5 

Co-locate Extramural Research Program Managers............................................................ Tech - 5 

Co-locate Military Department Investigation Agencies with DoD 

Counterintelligence and Security Agency ............................................................... H&SA - 8 

Co-locate Miscellaneous Air Force Leased Locations and National Guard 

Headquarters Leased Locations ............................................................................... H&SA - 3 

Co-locate Miscellaneous Army Leased Locations ......................................................... H&SA - 10 

Co-locate Miscellaneous OSD, Defense Agency, and Field Activity Leased 

Locations................................................................................................................ H&SA - 12 

Co-locate Missile and Space Defense Agencies............................................................. H&SA - 15 

Co-locate Navy Education and Training Command and Navy Education and 

Training Professional Development & Technology Center................................... H&SA - 17 

Combat Service Support Center........................................................................................... E&T - 6

Commodity Management Privatization ................................................................................S&S - 5 

Consolidate Air and Space C4ISR Research, Development and Acquisition, 

Test and Evaluation..................................................................................................... Tech - 6 

Consolidate Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) Headquarters.................... H&SA - 18 

Consolidate Civilian Personnel Offices (CPOs) within each Military 

Department and the Defense Agencies.................................................................. H&SA - 19 

Consolidate Correctional Facilities into Joint Regional Correctional 

Facilities................................................................................................................. H&SA - 22 

Consolidate Defense Commissary Agency Eastern, Midwestern Regional, 

and Hopewell, VA Offices..................................................................................... H&SA - 26 

Consolidate Defense Information Systems Agency and Establish Joint 

C4ISR D&A Capability ......................................................................................... H&SA - 27 
Index - 2

Recommendation Title Page Number

Consolidate Ground Vehicle Development & Acquisition in a Joint Center ...................... Tech - 7 

Consolidate Maritime C4ISR Research, Development and Acquisition, Test 

and Evaluation .......................................................................................................... ..Tech - 9 

Consolidate Media Organizations into a New Agency for Media and 

Publications............................................................................................................ H&SA - 30 

Consolidate Navy Strategic Test & Evaluation ................................................................. Tech - 12 

Consolidate Sea Vehicle Development & Acquisition...................................................... Tech - 13 

Consolidate Transportation Command Components...................................................... H&SA - 31 

Consolidate/Co-locate Active and Reserve Personnel & Recruiting Centers 

for Army and Air Force ......................................................................................... H&SA - 33 

Convert Inpatient Services to Clinics .................................................................................Med - 12 

Create a Naval Integrated Weapons & Armaments Research, Development 

and Acquisition, Test and Evaluation Center ........................................................... Tech - 15 

Create an Air Integrated Weapons & Armaments Research, Development 

and Acquisition, Test and Evaluation Center ........................................................... Tech - 18 

Create an Integrated Weapons & Armaments Specialty Site for Guns and 

Ammunition .............................................................................................................. Tech - 19 

Create Joint Mobilization Sites....................................................................................... H&SA - 35 

Defense Finance and Accounting Service ...................................................................... H&SA - 37 

Defense Intelligence Agency ...................................................................................................Int - 3 

Defense Research Service Led Laboratories ..................................................................... Tech - 22 

Depot Level Reparable Procurement Management Consolidation.......................................S&S - 7 

Des Moines International Airport Air Guard Station, IA ...........................................Air Force - 50 

Deseret Chemical Depot, UT................................................................................................Ind - 17 

Duluth International Airport Air Guard Station, MN .................................................Air Force - 28 

Dyess Air Force Base, TX ..........................................................................................Air Force - 43 

Edwards Air Force Base, CA......................................................................................Air Force - 47 

Eielson Air Force Base, AK..........................................................................................Air Force - 6 

Ellington Air Guard Station, TX.................................................................................Air Force - 45 

Ellsworth Air Force Base, SD.....................................................................................Air Force - 43

Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK ..............................................................................Air Force - 7, 18 

Engineering Field Division/Activity.................................................................................. DoN - 28 

Establish Centers for Fixed Wing Air Platform Research, Development and 

Acquisition, Test and Evaluation.............................................................................. Tech - 24 

Establish Centers for Rotary Wing Air Platform Development and 

Acquisition, Test and Evaluation.............................................................................. Tech - 26 

F100 Engine Centralized Intermediate Repair Facilities............................................Air Force - 55 

Fairchild Air Force Base, WA ....................................................................................Air Force - 51 

Fleet Readiness Centers ........................................................................................................Ind - 19 

Fort Bragg, NC..................................................................................................................Army - 10 

Fort Gillem, GA..................................................................................................................Army - 6 

Fort Hood, TX...................................................................................................................Army - 15 

Fort McPherson, GA...........................................................................................................Army - 8 

Fort Monmouth, NJ...........................................................................................................Army - 11 
Index - 3

Recommendation Title Page Number

Fort Monroe, VA ..............................................................................................................Army - 19 

Fort Smith Air Guard Station, AR ................................................................................Air Force - 8 

Fort Wainwright, AK..........................................................................................................Army - 5 

General Mitchell Air Reserve Station, WI..................................................................Air Force - 52 

Grand Forks Air Force Base, ND ...............................................................................Air Force - 37 

Great Falls International Airport Air Guard Station, MT...........................................Air Force - 30 

Hawthorne Army Depot, NV................................................................................................Ind - 12 

Hector International Airport Air Guard Station, ND..................................................Air Force - 38 

Hill Air Force Base, UT..............................................................................................Air Force - 47 

Hulman Regional Airport Air Guard Station, IN........................................................Air Force - 20 

Joint Basing..................................................................................................................... H&SA - 41 

Joint Center for Consolidated Transportation Management Training ................................ .E&T - 7 

Joint Center of Excellence for Culinary Training................................................................ E&T - 8 

Joint Center of Excellence for Religious Training & Education ......................................... E&T - 9 

Joint Centers of Excellence For Chemical, Biological, and Medical Research 

and Development and Acquisition.............................................................................Med - 15 

Joint Strike Fighter Initial Joint Training Site .................................................................. E&T - 10 

Kansas Army Ammunition Plant, KS.....................................................................................Ind - 9 

Key Field Air Guard Station, MS ...............................................................................Air Force - 28 

Kulis Air Guard Station, AK ........................................................................................Air Force - 7 

Lackland Air Force Base, TX ...............................................................................................Ind - 15 

Lackland Air Force Base, TX .....................................................................................Air Force - 46 

Lambert St. Louis International Airport, Air Guard Station, MO ..............................Air Force - 25 

Langley Air Force Base, VA ......................................................................................Air Force - 49 

Lima Tank Plant, OH............................................................................................................Ind - 10 

Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, TX ..............................................................................Ind - 16 

Luke Air Force Base, AZ........................................................................................Air Force - 8, 47 

Maneuver Training............................................................................................................Army - 20 

Mansfield-Lahm Municipal Airport Air Guard Station, OH......................................Air Force - 39 

March Air Reserve Base, CA......................................................................................Air Force - 11 

Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, CA ........................................................................ DoN - 6 

Marine Corps Support Activity Kansas City, MO............................................................. DoN - 19 

Martin State Air Guard Station, MD.....................................................................Air Force - 14, 24 

McChord Air Force Base, WA .............................................................................................Med - 9 

Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, MS............................................................................Ind - 11 

Moody Air Force Base, GA..........................................................................................Air Force - 6

Mountain Home Air Force Base, ID.....................................................................Air Force - 18, 47 

Nashville International Airport Air Guard Station, TN..............................................Air Force - 44 

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Activities ...............................................................Int - 4 

Naval Air Station Atlanta, GA........................................................................................... DoN - 13 

Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME..................................................................................... DoN - 18 

Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, TX................................................................................ DoN - 26 

Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove, PA................................................. DoN - 21 

Naval Shipyard Detachments................................................................................................Ind - 26 
Index - 4

Recommendation Title Page Number

Naval Shipyard Portsmouth, Kittery, ME.......................................................................... DoN - 23 

Naval Station Ingleside, TX............................................................................................... DoN - 26 

Naval Station Newport, RI................................................................................................. DoN - 25 

Naval Station Pascagoula, MS........................................................................................... DoN - 20 

Naval Support Activity Corona, CA.................................................................................... DoN - 7 

Naval Support Activity New Orleans, LA......................................................................... DoN - 15 

Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment, Concord, CA ......................................... DoN - 9 

Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, CA ................................................................................Ind - 4 

Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Centers........................................................................... DoN -29 

Navy Recruiting Districts .................................................................................................. DoN - 34 

Navy Regions..................................................................................................................... DoN - 35 

Navy Reserve Centers........................................................................................................ DoN - 37 

Navy Reserve Readiness Commands................................................................................. DoN - 44 

Navy Sensors, Electronic Warfare, and Electronics Research, Development 

and Acquisition, Test and Evaluation ....................................................................... Tech - 28 

Navy Supply Corps School Athens, GA............................................................................ DoN - 14 

Nellis Air Force Base, NV....................................................................................Air Force - 18, 47

Net Fires Center ................................................................................................................. E&T - 12 

New Castle Airport Air Guard Station, DE ................................................................Air Force - 15 

New Orleans Air Reserve Station, LA........................................................................Air Force - 22 

Newport Chemical Depot, IN .................................................................................................Ind - 8 

Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, NY.......................................................................Air Force - 33 

Officer Training Command, Pensacola, FL....................................................................... DoN - 12 

Onizuka Air Force Station, CA...................................................................................Air Force - 12 

Operational Army (IGPBS) ..............................................................................................Army - 22

Otis Air National Guard Base, MA.............................................................................Air Force - 25 

Pittsburgh International Airport Air Reserve Station, PA ..........................................Air Force - 35 

Pope Air Force Base, NC............................................................................................Air Force - 35 

Portland International Airport Air Guard Station, OR................................................Air Force - 41 

Prime Power to Fort Leonard Wood, MO ......................................................................... E&T - 13 

Randolph Air Force Base TX .....................................................................................Air Force - 23 

RC Transformation in Alabama........................................................................................Army - 25 

RC Transformation in Arizona .........................................................................................Army - 28 

RC Transformation in Arkansas .......................................................................................Army - 30 

RC Transformation in California......................................................................................Army - 33 

RC Transformation in Connecticut...................................................................................Army - 35 

RC Transformation in Delaware.......................................................................................Army - 37 

RC Transformation in Georgia .........................................................................................Army - 39 

RC Transformation in Hawaii...........................................................................................Army - 40 

RC Transformation in Illinois...........................................................................................Army - 42 

RC Transformation in Indiana ..........................................................................................Army - 44

RC Transformation in Iowa ..............................................................................................Army - 46 

RC Transformation in Kentucky.......................................................................................Army - 48 

RC Transformation in Louisiana ......................................................................................Army - 50 
Index - 5

Recommendation Title Page Number

RC Transformation in Maryland.......................................................................................Army - 52 

RC Transformation in Massachusetts ...............................................................................Army - 54 

RC Transformation in Michigan.......................................................................................Army - 55 

RC Transformation in Minnesota .....................................................................................Army - 57 

RC Transformation in Missouri........................................................................................Army - 58 

RC Transformation in Montana........................................................................................Army - 60 

RC Transformation in Nebraska .......................................................................................Army - 62 

RC Transformation in New Hampshire ............................................................................Army - 65 

RC Transformation in New Jersey....................................................................................Army - 66 

RC Transformation in New Mexico .................................................................................Army - 68 

RC Transformation in New York .....................................................................................Army - 69 

RC Transformation in North Carolina ..............................................................................Army - 72 

RC Transformation in North Dakota ................................................................................Army - 73 

RC Transformation in Ohio ..............................................................................................Army - 75 

RC Transformation in Oklahoma......................................................................................Army - 77 

RC Transformation in Oregon ..........................................................................................Army - 80 

RC Transformation in Pennsylvania.................................................................................Army - 82 

RC Transformation in Puerto Rico ...................................................................................Army - 85 

RC Transformation in Rhode Island.................................................................................Army - 87 

RC Transformation in Tennessee......................................................................................Army - 89 

RC Transformation in Texas.............................................................................................Army - 91 

RC Transformation in Vermont........................................................................................Army - 95 

RC Transformation in Washington...................................................................................Army - 97 

RC Transformation in West Virginia................................................................................Army - 99 

RC Transformation in Wisconsin ...................................................................................Army - 102 

RC Transformation in Wyoming ....................................................................................Army - 103 

Red River Army Depot, TX..............................................................................................Army - 16

Relocate Air Force Real Property Agency (AFRPA)..................................................... H&SA - 44 

Relocate Army Headquarters and Field Operating Agencies......................................... H&SA - 46 

Relocate Miscellaneous Department of Navy Leased Locations ................................... H&SA - 49 

Reno-Tahoe International Airport Air Guard Station, NV .........................................Air Force - 31 

Richmond Air Guard Station, VA ..............................................................................Air Force - 50 

Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, CA ...............................................................................Ind - 5 

Robins Air Force Base, GA ........................................................................................Air Force - 16

Rock Island Arsenal, IL ..........................................................................................................Ind - 7 

San Antonio Regional Medical Center, TX........................................................................Med - 10 

Schenectady County Airport Air Guard Station, NY .................................................Air Force - 34 

Selfridge Air National Guard Base, MI ................................................................Air Force - 10, 14 

Shaw Air Force Base, SC........................................................................................Air Force - 6, 14 

Ship Intermediate Maintenance Activity Norfolk, VA.........................................................Ind - 18 

Sierra Army Depot, CA ..........................................................................................................Ind - 6 

Single Drill Sergeant School...........................................................................................Army - 105 

Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport Air Guard Station, OH, ...............................Air Force - 40 

Submarine Base New London, CT ....................................................................................DoN – 10 
Index - 6

Recommendation Title Page Number

Supply, Storage, and Distribution Management Reconfiguration........................................S&S-13 

Tinker Air Force Base, OK.........................................................................................Air Force - 23 

U.S. Army Garrison Michigan (Selfridge) .....................................................................Army - 106 

Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR..............................................................................................Ind - 14 

Undergraduate Pilot and Navigator Training..................................................................... E&T - 14 

USAR Command and Control – Northeast.....................................................................Army - 109 

USAR Command and Control – Northwest....................................................................Army - 112 

USAR Command and Control – Southeast.....................................................................Army - 115 

USAR Command and Control – Southwest....................................................................Army - 117 

USAR Command and Control New England .................................................................Army - 107 

W.K. Kellogg Airport Air Guard Station, MI.............................................................Air Force - 27 

Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD...........................................Med - 4 

Watervliet Arsenal, NY ....................................................................................................... Ind – 13 

Will Rogers Air Guard Station, OK,...........................................................................Air Force - 23 

Yeager Air Guard Station, WV...................................................................................Air Force - 35