DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEBILLING CODE 5000-04

Office of the Secretary

Base Closure and Realignments

AGENCY:  Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD

ACTION:  Notice of Recommended Base Closures and Realignments

SUMMARY:  The Secretary of Defense is authorized to recommend military installations inside the United States for closure and realignment in accordance with Title XXIX, Part A of the FY 1991 National Defense Authorization Act, as amended.  The Secretary is required to publish his recommendations in the Federal Register by March 1.  The recommendations follow.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  March 1, 1995

FOR A REPORT ON THE DOD RECOMMENDATIONS CONTACT:  The Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, Directorate of Public Communication, (703) 697-5737.

L.M. Bynum

Alternate OSD Federal Register 

    Liason Officer

Department of Defense

February 27, 1995

Recommendations of the

Secretary of Defense for

Closure or Realignment of Military Installations

Inside the United States

In developing the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101- 510), as amended, Congress provided mechanisms to ensure that the process would be fair, objective, and open.  The Act requires that closures and realignments of military installations in the United States must be recommended on the basis of a six-year force structure plan and public selection criteria.  

The procedures are continually subject to review by the DoD Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, as well as by the BRAC Commission and the public.  This section describes them in detail.  

Policy Guidance

The Deputy Secretary established the policy, procedures, authorities and responsibilities for selecting bases for realignment or closure (BRAC) by memorandum dated January 7, 1994.  This policy guidance provided the Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Directors of the Defense Agencies with the responsibility to provide the Secretary of Defense with recommendations for closures and realignments.  This policy also required the Secretaries of the Military Departments and Defense Agencies to develop recommendations based exclusively upon the force structure plan and final selection criteria; consider all military installations inside the United States (as defined in the law) equally; analyze their base structure using like categories of bases; use objective measures for the selection criteria wherever possible; and allow for the exercise of military judgement in selecting bases for closure and realignment.  

The Deputy Secretary also established the BRAC 95 Review Group and the BRAC 95 Steering Group to oversee the entire BRAC process.  The BRAC 95 Review Group was composed of senior level representatives from each of the Military Departments, Chairpersons of the BRAC 95 Steering Group and each Joint Cross-Service Group, and other senior officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff and Defense Logistics Agency.  It provided oversight and policy for the entire BRAC process.  The BRAC 95 Steering Group assisted the Review Group in exercising its authorities. 

The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security was given the responsibility to oversee the 1995 process, and was delegated authority to issue additional instructions.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs issued the interim force structure plan, as directed by the Deputy Secretary's January 7, 1994 memorandum, on February 7, 1994.  The Deputy Secretary issued the final selection criteria on November 2, 1994.  The Deputy Secretary provided the final force structure plan on January 11, 1995.  This Plan was updated on 

February 22, 1995, by the Deputy Secretary to reflect budget decisions, and was provided to Congress and the Commission on the same day.

Joint Cross-Service Functions

The 1993 BRAC Commission recommended that the Department develop procedures for considering potential joint or common activities among the Military Departments.  For BRAC 95, the Deputy Secretary directed the creation of Joint Cross-Service Groups (JCSGs) to consider these issues in conjunction with the Military Departments.  

As announced in the Deputy Secretary's January 7, 1994, BRAC policy guidance, and further addressed in BRAC Policy Memorandum Number Two, issued on November 2, 1994, a process, involving both Joint Cross-Service Groups (JCSGs) and the individual Military Departments, was established to develop closure and realignment alternatives in situations involving common support functions for five functional areas. The five functional areas were:  Depot Maintenance, Military Medical Treatment Facilities, Test and Evaluation, Undergraduate Pilot Training and Laboratories.  

Each of the Joint Cross-Service Groups developed excess capacity reduction goals; established data collection procedures and milestone schedules for cross-service analysis of common support functions; and presented alternatives to the Military Departments for their consideration in developing recommendations.  The JCSGs issued their alternatives to the Military Departments in November of 1994, and they considered them as part of their ongoing BRAC analysis.  

In some instances, the Departments adopted the alternatives and recommended them, as made or modified, to the Secretary of Defense.  In other instances, the Services declined to endorse them, because the particular alternative was considered to not be cost effective or for other reasons.  

A summary of each of the joint cross-service functional reviews follows:

Depot Maintenance

In depot maintenance, the overall capacity reduction goals were attained, and data has been collected which will facilitate cross-service workload transfers after BRAC.  Major cross- service recommendations include the realignment of missile guidance work to Tobyhanna Army Depot, the plating of Naval guns at Watervliet Army Arsenal, and the collocation of DLA storage functions in excess facilities at Air Force logistics centers.  The groundwork for at least one future joint depot has also been established.  While there was limited cross-servicing directly attributable to JCSG recommendations, the services considered the alternatives presented and have developed what they believe to be more cost effective in-house solutions.  Overall results achieved a cost effective reduction in excess capacity, even if cross-servicing was not maximized.  The process laid the foundation for further cross-servicing downstream, outside the BRAC process.

Laboratories

There were some significant cross-service actions taken as a result of the JCSG alternatives. The package includes some C4I cross-service consolidation at Fort Monmouth, NJ, as well as medical research consolidation in Washington, DC.  Excess capacity was reduced; however, capacity reduction was less than desired by the JCSG.  Many of the workload transfers proposed by the JCSG were too small to influence installation decisions and were therefore not considered cost effective by the Military Departments.  Since lab consolidations often appear most attractive on installations devoted to testing, lack of joint consolidation in the T&E area affected laboratory recommendations.  As with Depots, potential workload consolidation opportunities were identified which may occur in the future outside of BRAC.

Test and Evaluation

Cross-servicing and downsizing of the test and evaluation infrastructure proved to be a considerable challenge.  In general, the Military Departments concluded that preservation of core test facilities, which have irreplaceable land, air and water ranges, precluded closures of major facilities and that cross-servicing of T&E functions would not be cost effective.  However, there was some success in the closure of a number of small test functions, and consolidations within each Service's technical infrastructure. 

Medical Facilities

The Military Medical Treatment Facilities group established and generally achieved its overall cross-service and excess capacity reduction goals.  This was in large measure due to the cross-servicing policies already in affect in this function.  Since location of military medical facilities is largely dependent on the major military installations which provide their patient load, they generally followed the realignment and closure actions of the Military Departments.  As with several of the other groups, the medical JCSG group identified and is planning for future actions for consolidation and downsizing of medical facilities through programmatic actions.  BRAC 95 did provide an opportunity to close one major teaching hospital, while rationalizing other graduate medical training.  It also provided an avenue to down-size many large, full service hospitals to smaller hospitals or clinics.   Cross-servicing will continue in this vital field. 

Undergraduate Pilot Training 

The JCSG alternatives were incorporated in the work of the Military Departments and provided a basis for carrying out the Department's policies for cross-service flight training.  The Air Force and Navy's earlier agreement to consolidate fixed-wing training through a joint syllabus was critical to this group's success.  The recommendations developed reduce excess capacity and maintain a capacity buffer to ensure meeting projected requirements during the turmoil associated with multiple base closures and fielding the new JPATS trainers.  However,

there was no agreement on the collocation or consolidation of helicopter training.  Like other core activities, this issue needs to be resolved before BRAC real estate alternatives are addressed.  Overall, the Military Departments reduced this training infrastructure by three bases. 

OSD/JCS Review

Using certified data, the Secretaries of the Military Departments and Directors of the Defense Agencies developed their recommendations based on the approved final criteria and force structure plan, and submitted their base closure and realignment recommendations to the Secretary of Defense for review and approval.  As part of the Secretary's review, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security provided for Joint Staff and OSD review of the recommendations received from the Military Departments and Defense Agencies.

The Joint Staff reviewed the recommendations from a warfighting perspective to ensure they would not adversely affect the military readiness capabilities of the armed services.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed all the Military Department and Defense Agency recommendations without objection.

Key staff elements of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff also reviewed the recommendations to ensure they would not sacrifice necessary capabilities and resources.  The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security reviewed the recommendations to ensure all eight selection criteria were considered and the recommendations were consistent with the force structure plan.  This review also assured that DoD policies and procedures were followed and that the analyses were objective and rigorous.

The Secretary approved the recommendations of the Military Departments and Defense Agencies and the list of military installations approved by the Secretary of Defense for closure or realignment is herein forwarded, as required, to the 1995 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.  

Summaries of the Military Department and Defense Agency selection processes precede their recommendations and justifications.  

Economic Impact in the BRAC Process

The Department recognizes that base closure imposes severe strains on local communtities.  These economic impacts are recognized and considered in the BRAC process.

For BRAC 95, the Department created the Joint Cross-Service Group on Economic Impact to ensure more consistent application of the economic impact criterion in BRAC 95.  This Group included representatives from the Military Departments and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.  For a year the Group reviewed methods for analyzing economic impact, established common measures and approaches, and developed a computer-based system to facilitate the analysis of economic impact, including cumulative economic impact.  

Under the law, the Department developed its BRAC recommendations based on consistent application of eight final selection criteria and the force structure plan.  Under the approved selection criteria, the first four selection criteria pertain to military value and are accorded priority consideration.  "The economic impact on communities" is the sixth criterion.

The Department considered cumulative economic impact as part of the economic impact criterion.  In response to concerns raised by the 1993 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and the General Accounting Office, DoD analyzed economic impact and cumulative economic impact as relative measures for comparing alternatives.  DoD did not establish threshold values above which, for example, it would remove bases from consideration. 

Economic impact was considered at two stages in the process.  The Military Departments, in developing their recommendations, developed and analyzed data reflecting the economic impacts of prior BRAC rounds as well as that particular Department’s actions in BRAC 1995.  Once the Service recommendations were made to the Secretary of Defense, the economic impacts were reviewed again, to determine whether there were instances in which separate Service actions might have affected the same locality.  

The Department sponsored an independent review of its plans for BRAC 95 economic analysis in May 1994.  Six experts from government, academia, and the private sector participated in the review.  The reviewers agreed that our proposed measures of economic impact were reasonable and supported our approach to defining economic impact areas.  They emphasized that DoD's estimates tend to overstate economic impact, and that the Department should stress this in its presentations to the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission, the Congress, and the public.  In addition, the Department asked the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce to review our methodology for estimating indirect jobs.  They responded that the method was of "good, sound quality, consistent with good regional economic impact estimation practices."  

1995 List of Military Installations

Inside the United States for Closure or Realignment

Part I:  Major Base Closures

Army

Fort McClellan, Alabama

Fort Chaffee, Arkansas

Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Colorado

Price Support Center, Illinois

Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois

Fort Ritchie, Maryland

Selfridge Army Garrison,  Michigan

Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal, New Jersey

Seneca Army Depot, New York

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

Red River Army Depot, Texas

Fort Pickett, Virginia

Navy

Naval Air Facility, Adak, Alaska 

Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California 

Ship Repair Facility, Guam 

Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Indianapolis, Indiana

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division Detachment, Louisville, Kentucky 

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division Detachment, White Oak, Maryland 

Naval Air Station, South Weymouth, Massachusetts 

Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi

Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey 

Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Warminster, Pennsylvania

Air Force

North Highlands Air Guard Station, California

Ontario IAP Air Guard Station, California

Rome Laboratory,  Rome, New York

Roslyn Air Guard Station, New York

Springfield-Beckley MAP, Air Guard Station, Ohio

Greater Pittsburgh IAP Air Reserve Station, Pennsylvania

Bergstrom Air Reserve Base, Texas

Brooks Air Force Base, Texas

Reese Air Force Base, Texas

Defense Logistics Agency

Defense Distribution Depot Memphis, Tennessee

Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Utah

Part II:  Major Base Realignments

Army

Fort Greely, Alaska

Fort Hunter Liggett, California

Sierra Army Depot, California

Fort Meade, Maryland

Detroit Arsenal,  Michigan

Fort Dix, New Jersey

Fort Hamilton, New York

Charles E. Kelly Support Center, Pennsylvania

Letterkenny Army Depot, Pennsylvania

Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico

Dugway Proving Ground, Utah

Fort Lee, Virginia

Navy

Naval Air Station, Key West, Florida 

Naval Activities, Guam 

Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas

Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Keyport, Washington

Air Force

McClellan Air Force Base, California

Onizuka Air Station, California

Eglin Air Force Base, Florida

Robins Air Force Base, Georgia

Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana

Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota

Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma

Kelly Air Force Base, Texas

Hill Air Force Base, Utah

Part III:  Smaller Base or Activity Closures, Realignments,

  Disestablishments or Relocations

Army

Branch U.S. Disciplinary Barracks,  California

East Fort Baker, California

Rio Vista Army Reserve Center, California

Stratford Army Engine Plant, Connecticut

Big Coppett Key, Florida

Concepts Analysis Agency,  Maryland

Publications Distribution Center Baltimore, Maryland

Hingham Cohasset, Massachusetts

Sudbury Training Annex, Massachusetts

Aviation-Troop Command (ATCOM), Missouri

Fort Missoula,  Montana

Camp Kilmer, New Jersey

Caven Point Reserve Center, New Jersey

Camp Pedricktown, New Jersey

Bellmore Logistics Activity, New York

Fort Totten, New York

Recreation Center #2,  Fayettville, North Carolina

Information Systems Software Command (ISSC), Virginia

Camp Bonneville, Washington

Valley Grove Area Maintenance Support Activity (AMSA), West Virginia

Navy

Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, In-Service Engineering West Coast Division, San Diego, California

Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, California 

Naval Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, California 

Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN, Long Beach, California

Naval Undersea Warfare Center-Newport Division, New London Detachment, New London, Connecticut 

Naval Research Laboratory, Underwater Sound Reference Detachment, Orlando, Florida 

Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Guam

Naval Biodynamics Laboratory, New Orleans, Louisiana 

Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Detachment, Annapolis, Maryland  

Naval Technical Training Center, Meridian, Mississippi

Naval Aviation Engineering Support Unit, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Naval Air Technical Services Facility, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Open Water Test Facility, Oreland, Pennsylvania 

Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division Detachment, Warminster, Pennsylvania 

Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Charleston, South Carolina 

Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, In-Service Engineering East Coast Detachment, Norfolk, Virginia 

Naval Information Systems Management Center, Arlington, Virginia

Naval Management Systems Support Office, Chesapeake, Virginia

Navy/Marine Reserve Activities

Naval Reserve Centers at:

Huntsville, Alabama

Stockton, California

Santa Ana, Irvine, California

Pomona, California

Cadillac, Michigan

Staten Island, New York

Laredo, Texas

Sheboygan, Wisconsin

Naval Air Reserve Center at:

Olathe, Kansas

Naval Reserve Readiness Commands at:

New Orleans, Louisiana (Region 10)

Charleston, South Carolina (Region 7)

Air Force

Moffett Federal Airfield AGS, California

Real-Time Digitally Controlled Analyzer Processor Activity, Buffalo, New York

Air Force Electronic Warfare Evaluation Simulator Activity, Fort Worth, Texas

Defense Logistics Agency

Defense Contract Management District South, Marietta, Georgia

Defense Contract Management Command International, Dayton, Ohio

Defense Distribution Depot Columbus, Ohio

Defense Distribution Depot Letterkenny, Pennsylvania

Defense Industrial Supply Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Defense Distribution Depot Red River, Texas

Defense Investigative Service

Investigations Control and Automation Directorate, Fort Holabird, Maryland

Part IV:  Changes to Previously Approved BRAC Recommendations

Army

Army Bio-Medical Research Laboratory, Fort Detrick, Maryland

Navy

Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro, California

Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, California

Naval Air Station Alameda, California 

Naval Recruiting District, San Diego, California

Naval Training Center, San Diego, California

Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, Florida 

Naval Aviation Depot, Pensacola, Florida

Navy Nuclear Power Propulsion Training Center, Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida

Naval Training Center Orlando, Florida

Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam 

Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii

Naval Air Facility, Detroit, Michigan 

Naval Shipyard, Norfolk Detachment, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Naval Sea Systems Command, Arlington, Virginia 

Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia 

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Arlington, Virginia 

Naval Recruiting Command, Washington, D.C. 

Naval Security Group Command Detachment Potomac, Washington, D.C. 

Air Force

Williams AFB, Arizona

Lowry AFB, Colorado

Homestead AFB, Florida (301st Rescue Squadron)

Homestead AFB, Florida (726th Air Control Squadron)

MacDill AFB, Florida

Griffiss AFB, New York (Airfield Support for 10th Infantry (Light) Division)

Griffiss AFB, New York (485th Engineering Installation Group)

Defense Logistics Agency

Defense Contract Management District West, El Segundo, California

Department of the Army Selection Process

Introduction

The Army's efforts to reduce unnecessary infrastructure began with the Defense Secretary's Commission on Base Realignments and Closures in 1988.  Since that Commission, the Army has reduced its force of 770,000 active duty soldiers to 540,000 and active divisions from 18 to 12.  The Army has closed 77 installations in the U.S. and is in the process of closing six others.  Over 500 sites overseas, mostly in Europe, have been returned to their host nation.  The Army is planning to return about 150 more.  Last December, the Army announced further reductions in end strength to 495,000 personnel and a further restructuring of the active Army to 10 divisions by the end of fiscal year 1996.  Available resources have declined with the $90 billion budget of the 1980s dropping to approximately $60 billion, necessitating major reductions in base operating costs.  While these latest recommendations were difficult, the Army has kept its sights focused on the future in order to lay a foundation for a smaller, more capable Army, one that is able to project power and support national strategy into the 21st century.

The Selection Process

To provide an operational context for planning and analysis, the Army developed a stationing strategy.  Derived from the National Military Strategy, the Army developed guidelines to govern the stationing of forces and influence the types of installations needed for the future.  This operational blueprint described parameters for reducing infrastructure without jeopardizing future requirements.

As in previous studies, the Army conducted a comprehensive review of all installations.  To facilitate a fair comparison, the Army grouped installations into categories with similar missions, capabilities and characteristics.  After developing a set of measurable attributes related to DoD's four selection criteria for military value, the Army then assigned weights to reflect the relative importance of each measure.  Next, the Army collected data on its installations and estimated their relative importance, using established quantitative techniques to assemble installation assessments.

Using both the installation assessments and the stationing strategy, the Army determined the military value of each installation.  These appraisals represented the Army's best judgment on the relative merit of each installation and were the basis for selecting installations that were studied further for closure or realignment.  

Once the list of final study candidates received approval by the Secretary of the Army, a variety of alternatives were examined in an effort to identify the most feasible and cost-effective way to close or realign.  Subsequently, the Army reviewed alternatives recommended by DoD's Joint Cross Service Groups and incorporated those that made sense and saved money.  The Army applied DoD's remaining four selection criteria by analyzing the financial, economic, community and environmental impacts of each alternative, using DoD's standard models.  The Army's senior leaders reviewed the results of these analyses and discontinued studies of alternatives that were financially or operationally infeasible.

During the course of the study effort, the Army Audit Agency performed independent tests and evaluations to check mathematical computations and ensure the accuracy of data and reasonableness of assumptions throughout every step of analysis.  The General Accounting Office  monitored the Army's process from the very beginning and met regularly with the Army's auditors as well as officials from The Army Basing Study (TABS).

The Secretary of the Army, with advice from the Chief of Staff, recommended installations for closure or realignment to the Secretary of Defense based upon the DoD Force Structure Plan and the selection criteria established under Public Law 101-510, as amended.

Fort McClellan, Alabama

Recommendation:  Close Fort McClellan, except minimum essential land and facilities for a  Reserve Component enclave and minimum essential facilities, as necessary, to provide auxiliary support to the chemical demilitarization operation at Anniston Army Depot.  Relocate the U. S. Army Chemical and Military Police Schools to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, upon receipt of the required permits.  Relocate the Defense Polygraph Institute (DODPI) to Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  License Pelham Range and current Guard facilities to the Alabama Army National Guard.

Justification:  This closure recommendation is based upon the assumption that requisite permits can be granted to allow operation of the Chemical Defense Training Facility at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  The Governor of the State of Missouri has indicated that an expeditious review of the permit application can be accomplished.

 Collocation allows the Army to focus on the doctrinal and force development re quirements of Engineers, Military Police, and the Chemical Corps.  The synergistic advantages of training and development programs are:  coordination, employment, and removal of obstacles; conduct of river crossing operations; operations in rear areas or along main supply routes; and counter-drug operations.  The missions of the three branches will be more effectively integrated.

This recommendation differs from the Army's prior closure recommendations submitted to the 1991 and 1993 Commissions.  The Army will relocate the Chemical Defense Training Facility (CDTF) to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  By relocating the CDTF, the Army can continue providing live-agent training to all levels of command.  The Army is the only Service that conducts live agent training, and it will continue this training at Fort Leonard Wood.  

The Army has considered the use of some Fort McClellan assets for support of the chemical demilitarization mission at Anniston Army Depot.  The Army will use the best available assets to provide the necessary support to Anniston's demilitarization mission.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$259 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of 

$122 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $45 million with a return on investment expected in six years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $316 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 10,720 jobs (8,536 direct jobs and 2,184 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the Anniston, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents 

17.3 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 14.7 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.

Fort Chaffee, Arkansas

Recommendation:  Close Fort Chaffee, except minimum essential buildings, and ranges for Reserve Component (RC) training as an enclave.  

Justification:  In the past ten years, the Army has significantly reduced its active and reserve forces.  The Army must reduce excess infrastructure to meet future requirements.

Fort Chaffee is the former home of the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC).  In 1991, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission approved the JRTC's relocation to Fort Polk, LA.  The transfer was completed in 1992.  The post is managed by an Active Component/civilian staff, although it possesses virtually no Active Component tenants.

Fort Chaffee ranked last in military value when compared to other major training area installations.  The Army will retain some ranges for use by the RC units stationed in the area.  Annual training for Reserve Component units which now use Fort Chaffee can be conducted at other installations in the region, including Fort Polk, Fort Riley and Fort Sill.  The Army intends to license required land and facilities to the Army National Guard.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$10 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $39 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $13 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $167 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 352 jobs (247 direct jobs and 105 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents 0.3 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.4 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installation.  

Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Colorado

Recommendation:  Close Fitzsimons Army Medical Center (FAMC), except for Edgar J. McWhethy Army Reserve Center.  Relocate the Medical Equipment and Optical School and Optical Fabrication Laboratory to Fort Sam Houston, TX.  Relocate Civilan Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) activities to Denver leased space.  Relocate other tenants to other installations.

Justification:  FAMC is low in military value compared to other medical centers.  This recommendation avoids anticipated need for estimated $245 million construction to replace  FAMC while preserving health care services through other more cost-effective means.  This action will offset any loss of medical services through:  phased-in CHAMPUS and Managed Care Support contracts; increased services at Fort Carson and US Air Force Academy;  and redistribution of Medical Center patient load from Region Eight to other Medical Centers. FAMC is not collocated with a sizable active component population.  Its elimination does not jeopardize the Army’s capability to surge to support two near-simultaneous major regional contingencies, or limit the Army's capability to provide wartime medical support in the theater of operations.  Closure of this medical center allows redistribution of medical military personnel to other medical centers to absorb the diverted medical center patient load.  These realignments avoid a significant cost of continuing to operate and maintain facilities at this stand-alone medical center.  DoD's Joint Cross-Service Group for Military Treatment Facilities supports the closure of Fitzsimons.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$142 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $39 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $34 million with a return on investment expected in three years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $299 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 4,489 jobs (2,903 direct jobs and 1,586 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the Denver, CO Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents 

0.4 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.8 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Price Support Center, Illinois

Recommendation:  Close Charles Melvin Price Support Center, except a small reserve enclave and a storage area.  

Justification:   Charles Melvin Price Support Center provides area support and military housing to the Army and other Federal activities in the St. Louis, MO, area.  It is low in military value compared to similar installations.  Its tenants, including a recruiting company and a criminal investigative unit, can easily relocate.  

This recommendation is related to the Army's recommendation to relocate Aviation-Troop Command (ATCOM) from St. Louis, MO, to other locations.  A reduction in the Army's presence in the area warrants a corresponding reduction in Charles Melvin Price Support Center.   

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $35 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $9 million with  an immediate return on investment.   The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $116 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 363 jobs (225 direct jobs and 138 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents less than 

0.1 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.6 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois

Recommendation:  Close Savanna Army Depot Activity (ADA).  Relocate the United States Army Defense Ammunition Center and School (USADACS) to McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, Oklahoma.

Justification:  This recommendation is supported by the Army's long range operational assessment.  The Army has adopted a “tiered” ammunition depot concept to reduce  infrastructure, eliminate static non-required ammunition stocks, decrease manpower requirements, increase efficiencies and permit the Army to manage a smaller stockpile.  The tiered depot concept reduces the number of active storage sites and makes efficiencies possible:  

(1)  Tier 1 - Active Core Depots.  These installations will support a normal/full-up activity level with a stockage configuration of primarily required stocks and minimal non-required stocks requiring demilitarization.  Normal activity includes daily receipts/issues of training stocks, storage of war reserve stocks required in contingency operations and additional war reserve stocks to augment lower level tier installation power projection capabilities.  Installations at this activity level will receive requisite levels of storage support, surveillance, inventory, maintenance and demilitarization.

(2)  Tier 2 - Cadre Depots.  These installations normally will perform static storage of follow-on war reserve requirements.  Daily activity will be minimal for receipts/issues.  Workload will focus on maintenance, surveillance, inventory and demilitarization operations.  These installations will have minimal staffs unless a contingency arises.  

(3)  Tier 3 - Caretaker Depots.  Installations designated as Tier 3 will have minimal staffs and store stocks no longer required until demilitarized or relocated.  The Army plans to eliminate its stocks at these sites no later than year 2001.  Savanna Army Depot Activity is a Tier 3 depot.  

USADACS performs the following basic functions:  munitions training, logistics engineering, explosive safety, demilitarization research and development, technical assistance, and career management.  Relocation of USADACS to McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) allows it to collocate with an active ammunition storage and production operation.  McAlester AAP, a Tier 1 depot, is the best for providing the needed capabilities.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$38 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $12 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $13 million with a return on investment expected in two years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $112 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 627 jobs (450 direct jobs and 177 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Carroll County, IL, area, which represents 8.2 percent of the area's employment.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Fort Ritchie, Maryland

Recommendation:  Close Fort Ritchie.  Relocate the 1111th Signal Battalion and 1108th Signal Brigade to Fort Detrick, MD.  Relocate Information Systems Engineering Command elements to Fort Huachuca, AZ.  

Justification:  This recommendation assumes that base support for Defense Intelligence Agency and other National Military Command Center support elements will be provided by nearby Fort Detrick.  Closing Fort Ritchie and transferring support elements of the National Military Command Center to Fort Detrick will:  (a) maintain operational mission support to geographically unique Sites R and C (National Military Command Center) for the Joint Chiefs of Staff; (b) capitalize on existing facilities at Site R and C to minimize construction; (c) maintain an active use and continuous surveillance of Site R and Site C facilities to maintain readiness; (d) collocate signal units that were previously separated at two different garrisons; (e) consolidate major portion of Information Systems Engineering Command-CONUS with main headquarters of Information Systems Engineering Command to improve synergy  of information system operations; and (f) provide a direct support East Coast Information Systems Engineering Command field element to respond to regional requirements.  These relocations, collocations and consolidations allow the elimination of Fort Ritchie's garrison and avoids significant costs associated with the continued operation and maintenance of support facilities at a small installation.    

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$93 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $83 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $65 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $712 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 3,210 jobs (2,344 direct jobs and 866 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Hagerstown, MD Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents 4.8 percent of the area's employment.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Selfridge Army Garrison, Michigan

Recommendation:  Close U.S. Army Garrison, Selfridge.  

Justification:    Closing Selfridge eliminates an installation that exists primarily to provide housing for activities (predominantly Detroit Arsenal) located in the immediate area although such support can be provided through a less costly alternative.  Sufficient commercial housing is available on the local economy for military personnel using Variable Housing Allowance/Basic Allowance for Quarters.  Closure avoids the cost of continued operation and maintenance of unnecessary support facilities.  This recommendation will not degrade local military activities.  

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$5 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $47 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $10 million with an immediate return on investment.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $140 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 867 jobs (536 direct jobs and 331 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Detroit, MI Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents less than 0.1 percent of the area's employment.    

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to less than 0.1 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations. 

Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal, New Jersey

Recommendation:  Close Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal.  Relocate the Military Transportation Management Command (MTMC) Eastern Area Command Headquarters and the traffic management portion of the 1301st Major Port Command to Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.  Retain an enclave for the Navy Military Sealift Command, Atlantic, and Navy Resale and Fashion Distribution Center.

Justification:  This recommendation is supported by the Army’s long range operational assessment.  The primary mission of Bayonne is the shipment of general bulk cargo.  It has no capability to ship bulk munitions.  There are sufficient commercial port facilities on the East and Gulf Coasts to support power projection requirements with a minimal loss to operational capability.  Bayonne provides the Army with few military capabilities that cannot be accomplished at commercial ports.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$44 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of 

$8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $10 million with a return on investment expected in five years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $90 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 2,105 jobs (1,367 direct jobs and 738 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Jersey City, NJ Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents 0.8 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.8 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Seneca Army Depot, New York

Recommendation:  Close Seneca Army Depot, except an enclave to store hazardous material and ores.

Justification:  This recommendation is supported by the Army's long range operational assessment.  The Army has adopted a “tiered” ammunition depot concept to reduce infrastructure, eliminate static non-required ammunition stocks, decrease manpower requirements, increase efficiencies and permit the Army to manage a smaller stockpile.  The tiered depot concept reduces the number of active storage sites and makes efficiencies possible:

(1)  Tier 1 - Active Core Depots.  These installations will support a normal/full-up activity level with a stockage configuration of primarily required stocks and minimal non-required stocks requiring demilitarization.  Normal activity includes daily receipts/issues of training stocks, storage of war reserve stocks required in contingency operations and additional war reserve stocks to augment lower level tier installation power projection capabilities.  Installations at this activity level will receive requisite levels of storage support, surveillance, inventory, maintenance and demilitarization.

(2)  Tier 2 - Cadre Depots.  These installations normally will perform static storage of follow-on war reserve requirements.  Daily activity will be minimal for receipts/issues.  Workload will focus on maintenance, surveillance, inventory and demilitarization operations.  These installations will have minimal staffs unless a contingency arises.  

(3)  Tier 3 - Caretaker Depots.  Installations designated as Tier 3 will have minimal staffs and store stocks no longer required until demilitarized or relocated.  The Army plans to eliminate stocks at these sites no later than year 2001.  Seneca Army Depot is a Tier 3 depot.  

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$15 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $34 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $21 million with  an immediate return on investment.   The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $242 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 463 jobs (325 direct jobs and 138 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Seneca County, NY, economic area, which represents 3.2 percent of the area's employment.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

Recommendation:  Close Fort Indiantown Gap, except minimum essential facilities as a  Reserve Component enclave. 

Justification:  In the past ten years, the Army significantly reduced its active and reserve forces.  The Army must reduce excess infrastructure to meet future requirements.  

Fort Indiantown Gap is low in military value compared to other major training area installations.  Although managed by an Active Component garrison, it has virtually no Active Component tenants.  Annual training for Reserve Component units which now use Fort Indiantown Gap can be conducted at other installations in the region, including Fort Dix, Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Drum.

Fort Indiantown Gap is owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and leased by the U.S. Army through 2049 for $1.  The government can terminate the lease with one year's written notice.  Facilities erected during the duration of the lease are the property of the U.S. and may be disposed of, provided the premises are restored to their natural condition.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$13 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $67 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $23 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $285 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 789 jobs (521 direct jobs and 268 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents 0.2 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to 0.2 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Red River Army Depot, Texas

Recommendation:  Close Red River Army Depot.  Transfer the ammunition storage mission, intern training center, and civilian training education to Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant.  Transfer the light combat vehicle maintenance mission to Anniston Army Depot.  Transfer the Rubber Production Facility to Lone Star.  

Justification:   Red River Army Depot is one of the Army's five maintenance depots and one of three ground vehicle maintenance depots.  Over time, each of the ground maintenance depots has become increasingly specialized.  Anniston performs heavy combat vehicle maintenance and repair.  Red River performs similar work on infantry fighting vehicles.  Letterkenny Army Depot is responsible for towed and self-propelled artillery as well as DoD tactical missile repair.  Like a number of other Army depots, Red River receives, stores, and ships all types of ammunition items.  A review of long range operational requirements supports a reduction of Army depots, specifically the consolidation of ground combat workload at a single depot.

The ground maintenance capacity of the three depots currently exceeds programmed work requirements by the equivalent of one to two depots.  Without considerable and costly modifications, Red River cannot assume the heavy combat vehicle mission from Anniston.  Red River cannot assume the DoD Tactical Missile Consolidation program from Letterkenny without major construction.  Available maintenance capacity at Anniston and Tobyhanna makes the realignment of Red River into Anniston the most logical in terms of military value and cost effectiveness.  Closure of Red River is consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Cross- Service Group for Depot Maintenance. 

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$60 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $313 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $123 million with an immediate return on investment.   The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $1,497 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 5,654 jobs (2,901 direct jobs and 2,753 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents 9.5 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential  decrease equal to 7.7 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Fort Pickett, Virginia

Recommendation:  Close Fort Pickett, except minimum essential training areas and facilities as an enclave for the Reserve Components.  Relocate the Petroleum Training Facility to Fort Dix, NJ.  

Justification:  In the past ten years, the Army has reduced its active and reserve forces considerably. The Army must reduce excess infrastructure to meet the needs of the future.  

Fort Pickett is very low in military value compared to other major training area installations.  It has virtually no Active Component tenants.  Annual training for reserve units that now use Fort Pickett can be conducted easily at other installations in the region, including Fort Bragg,  Fort A.P. Hill and Camp Dawson.  The Army intends to license required facilities and training areas to the Army National Guard.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$25 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $41 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $21 million with an immediate return on investment.   The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $241 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 362 jobs (254 direct jobs and 108 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001period in the Nottoway & Dinwiddie Counties, VA area, which represents 0.8 percent of the area's employment.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or  receiving installations.  

Fort Greely, Alaska

Recommendation:  Realign Fort Greely by relocating the Cold Region Test Activity (CRTA) and Northern Warfare Training Center (NWTC) to Fort Wainwright, Alaska.

Justification:  Fort Greely currently supports two tenant activities (CRTA and NWTC) and manages training areas for maneuver and range firing.  Over 662,000 acres of range and training areas are used by both the Army and the Air Force.  These valuable training lands will be retained.

The Army has recently reduced the NWTC by over half its original size and transferred oversight responsibilities to the U.S. Army, Pacific.  The garrison staff will reduce in size and continue to support the important testing and training missions.  The Army intends to use Fort Wainwright as the base of operations (107 miles away) for these activities, and "safari" them to Fort Greely, as necessary.  This allows the Army to reduce its presence at Fort Greely, reduce excess capacity and perform essential missions at a much lower cost.  The Army intends to retain facilities at Bolio Lake (for CRTA), Black Rapids (for NWTC), Allen Army Airfield, and minimal necessary garrison facilities to maintain the installation for contingency missions.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$23 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $43 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $19 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $225 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 969 jobs (724 direct jobs and 245 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Southeast Fairbanks Census Area, AK, which represents 36.3 percent of the area's employment.  There are no known environmental impediments at the realigning or receiving installations.  

Fort Hunter Liggett, California

Recommendation:  Realign Fort Hunter Liggett by relocating the U.S. Army Test and Experimentation Center (TEC)  missions and functions to Fort Bliss, Texas.  Eliminate the Active Component mission.  Retain minimum essential facilities and training area as an enclave to support the Reserve Components (RC). 

Justification:  Fort Hunter Liggett is low in military value compared to other major training area installations and has few Active Component tenants.  Relocation of the Test and Experimentation Center optimizes the unique test capabilities afforded by Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile Range.   

Fort Hunter Liggett's maneuver space is key to Reserve Component training requirements.  Since it is a primary maneuver area for mechanized units in the western United States, retention of its unique training lands is essential.  

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $6 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $12 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $5 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $64 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 686 jobs (478 direct jobs and 208 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Salinas, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents 0.3 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to 0.32 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.    

Sierra Army Depot, California

Recommendation:  Realign Sierra Army Depot by eliminating the conventional ammunition mission and reducing it to a depot activity.  Retain an enclave for the Operational Project Stock mission and the static storage of ores.

Justification:  This recommendation is supported by the Army's long range operational assessment.  The Army has adopted a "tiered" ammunition depot concept to reduce infrastructure, eliminate static non-required ammunition stocks, decrease manpower requirements, increase efficiencies and permit the Army to manage a smaller stockpile.  The tiered depot concept reduces the number of active storage sites and makes efficiencies possible:  

(1) Tier 1 - Active Core Depots.  These installations will support a normal/full-up activity level with a stockage configuration of primarily required stocks and minimal non-required stocks requiring demilitarization.  Normal activity includes daily receipts/issues of training stocks, storage of war reserve stocks required in contingency operations and additional war reserve stocks to augment lower level tier installation power projection capabilities.  Installations at this activity level will receive requisite levels of storage support, surveillance, inventory, maintenance and demilitarization.

(2) Tier 2 - Cadre Depots.  These installations normally will perform static storage of follow-on war reserve requirements.  Daily  activity will be minimal for receipts/issues.  Workload will focus on maintenance, surveillance, inventory and demilitarization operations.  These installations will have minimal staffs unless a contingency arises.  

(3) Tier 3 - Caretaker Depots.  Installations designated as Tier 3 will have minimal staffs and store stocks no longer required until demilitarized or relocated.  The Army plans to eliminate stocks at these sites no later than year 2001.  Sierra Army Depot is a Tier 3 Depot.  

Complete closure is not possible, since Sierra is the Center of Technical Excellence for Operational Project Stocks.  This mission entails the management,  processing and maintenance of:  Force Provider (550-man tent city), Inland Petroleum Distribution System; and Water Support System.  It also stores such stocks as Clam Shelters (mobile maintenance tents), bridging, and landing mats for helicopters.  The cost of relocating the Operational Project Stocks is prohibitively expensive.  Therefore, the Army will retain minimum essential facilities for storage.  

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$14 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $55 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $29 million with  an immediate return on investment.   The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $333 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 839 jobs (592 direct jobs and 247 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Lassen County, CA economic area, which represents 7.4 percent of the area's employment.  There are no known environmental impediments at the realigning or receiving installations.  

Fort Meade, Maryland

Recommendation:  Realign Fort Meade by reducing Kimbrough Army Community Hospital to a clinic.  Eliminate inpatient services.

Justification:  This recommendation, suggested by the Joint Cross-Service Group on Medical Treatment, eliminates excess medical treatment capacity at Fort Meade, MD by eliminating inpatient services at Kimbrough Army Community Hospital.  Inpatient care would be provided by other military medical activities and private facilities through Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS).

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$2 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $16 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $4 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $50 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 203 jobs (129 direct jobs and 74 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Baltimore, MD Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents less than 0.1 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to less than 0.1 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing  or receiving installations.    

Detroit Arsenal, Michigan

Recommendation:  Realign Detroit Arsenal by closing and disposing of the Detroit Army Tank Plant.  

Justification:  Detroit Tank Plant, located on Detroit Arsenal, is one of two Army Government- Owned, Contractor-Operated tank production facilities.  A second facility is located at Lima, Ohio, (Lima Army Tank Plant).  The Detroit plant is not as technologically advanced as the Lima facility and is not configured for the latest tank production.   Moreover, retaining the plant as a "rebuild" facility is not practical since Anniston Army Depot is capable of rebuilding and repairing the M1 Tank and its principal components.  Accordingly, the Detroit Tank Plant is excess to Army requirements.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$1 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $3 million with  an immediate return on investment.   The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $38 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Detroit, MI Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the realigning site.  

Fort Dix, New Jersey

Recommendation:  Realign Fort Dix by replacing the Active Component garrison with a U.S. Army Reserve garrison.  Retain minimum essential ranges, facilities, and training areas required for Reserve Component (RC) training as an enclave.

Justification:  In the past ten years, the Army has significantly reduced its active and reserve forces. The Army must reduce excess infrastructure to meet the needs of the future.

This proposal retains facilities and training areas essential to support Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve units in the Mid-Atlantic states.  However, it reduces base operations and real property maintenance costs by eliminating excess facilities.  Additionally, this reshaping will truly move Fort Dix into a preferred role of RC support.  It retains an Army Reserve garrison to manage Fort Dix and provides a base to support RC logistical requirements.  The Army intends to continue the Army National Guard's current license of buildings.  

Various U.S. Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve activities regularly train at Fort Dix.  The post houses the National Guard High Technology Training Center, a unique facility providing state-of-the-art training devices for guardsmen and reservists in a 12-state area.  Fort Dix's geographic proximity to a large portion of the nation's RC forces and the air and seaports of embarkation make it one of the most suitable RC Major Training Areas in the United States.  This recommendation is consistent with the decision of the 1991 Commission, but better aligns the operation of the installation with its users.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$19 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $112 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $38 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $478 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,164 jobs (739 direct jobs and 425 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Philadelphia, PA-NJ Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents less than 0.1 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 1.2 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the realigning or receiving installations.  

Fort Hamilton, New York

Recommendation:  Realign Fort Hamilton.  Dispose of all family housing.  Retain minimum essential land and facilities for existing Army units and activities.  Relocate all Army Reserve units from Caven Point, New Jersey, to Fort Hamilton.  

Justification:  Fort Hamilton is low in military value compared to the other command and control/administrative support installations.  The post has limited capacity for additional growth or military development.  No new or additional missions are planned.  

This proposal reduces the size of Fort Hamilton by about one-third to support necessary military missions in the most cost effective manner.  The New York Area Command, which includes protocol support to the United Nations, will remain at Fort Hamilton.  Another installation will assume the area support currently provided to the New York area.   

The Armed Forces Reserve Center at Caven Point was built in 1941.  Its sole mission is to support reserve component units.  The buildings on the 35-acre parcel are in poor condition.  Relocating to Fort Hamilton will allow the Army Reserve to eliminate operating expenses in excess of $100 thousand per year.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$2 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $3 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $7 million with an immediate return on investment.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $74 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 85 jobs (52 direct jobs and 33 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the New York, NY, Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents less than 0.1 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.1 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the realigning or receiving installations.  

Kelly Support Center, Pennsylvania

Recommendation:  Realign the Kelly Support Center by consolidating Army Reserve units onto three of its five parcels.  Dispose of the remaining two parcels.  Relocate the Army Reserve’s leased maintenance activity in Valley Grove, WV, to the Kelly Support Center.  

Justification:  Kelly Support Center, a sub-installation of Fort Drum, NY, provides administrative and logistical support to Army Reserve units in western Pennsylvania.  It comprises five separate  parcels of property.  

The Kelly Support Center is last in military value compared to other command and control/administrative support installations.  Reserve usage is limited to monthly weekend drills.  It possesses no permanent facilities or mobilization capability.

This proposal eliminates two parcels of property, approximately 232 acres and 500,000 square feet of semi-permanent structures, from the Army’s inventory.  Since there are no other feasible alternatives, the Army is retaining three small parcels for Army Reserve functions and Readiness Group Pittsburgh.

Relocating the Army's Reserve activity from Valley Grove Area Maintenance Support Activity, WV, to the Kelly Support Center consolidates it with its parent unit and saves $28,000 per year in lease costs. 

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$36 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $22 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $5 million with a return on investment expected in six years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $28 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 209 jobs (128 direct jobs and 81 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Allegheny, Fayette, Washington, & Westmoreland Counties, PA, area which represents less than 0.1 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.1 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the realigning or receiving installations.

Letterkenny Army Depot, Pennsylvania

Recommendation:  Realign Letterkenny Army Depot by transferring the towed and self- propelled combat vehicle mission to Anniston Army Depot.  Retain an enclave for conventional ammunition storage and tactical missile disassembly and storage.  Change the 1993 Commission's decision regarding the consolidating of tactical missile maintenance at Letterkenny by transferring missile guidance system workload to Tobyhanna Army Depot.

Justification:   Letterkenny Army Depot is one of the Army's five maintenance depots and one of three ground vehicle maintenance depots.  Over time, each of the ground maintenance depots has become increasingly specialized.  Anniston performs heavy combat vehicle maintenance and repair.  Red River performs similar work on infantry fighting vehicles.  Letterkenny Army Depot is responsible for towed and self-propelled artillery as well as DoD tactical missile repair.  Like a number of other Army depots, Letterkenny receives, stores, and ships all types of ammunition items.  A review of long range operational requirements supports a reduction of Army depots, specifically the consolidation of ground combat workload at a single depot.

The ground maintenance capacity of the three depots currently exceeds programmed work requirements by the equivalent of one to two depots.  The heavy combat vehicle mission from Anniston cannot be absorbed at Letterkenny without major construction and facility renovations.  Available maintenance capacity at Anniston and Tobyhanna makes the realigning Letterkenny to the two depots the most logical in terms of military value and cost effectiveness.  Closure of Letterkenny is supported by the Joint Cross-Service Group for Depot Maintenance.

The Army's recommendation to transfer missile workload to Tobyhanna Army Depot preserves Letterkenny's missile disassembly and storage mission.  It capitalizes on Tobyhanna's electronics focus and retains DoD missile system repair at a single Army depot.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$50 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $207 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $78 million with  an immediate return on investment.   The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $952 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 4,126 jobs (2,090 direct jobs and 2,036 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the Franklin County, PA area, which represents 6.6 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 8.5 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the realigning or receiving installations.   

Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico

Recommendation:  Realign Fort Buchanan by reducing garrison management functions and disposing of family housing.  Retain an enclave for the reserve components, Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) and the Antilles Consolidated School.

Justification:  Fort Buchanan, a sub-installation of Fort McPherson, provides administrative, logistical and mobilization support to Army units and activities in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean region.  Tenants include a U.S. Army Reserve headquarters, AAFES and a DoD-operated school complex.  Although the post is managed by an active component garrison, it supports relatively few active component tenants.   The family housing will close.  The activities providing area support will relocate to Roosevelt Roads Navy Base and other sites.  The Army intends to license buildings to the Army National Guard, that they currently occupy.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$74 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $50 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $10 million with a return on investment expected in seven years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $45 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 289 jobs (182 direct jobs and 107 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the San Juan, PR economic area which represents 0.1 percent of the area's employment.  There are no known environmental impediments at the realigning or receiving installations.  

Dugway Proving Ground, Utah

Recommendation:  Realign Dugway Proving Ground by relocating the smoke and obscurant mission to Yuma Proving Ground, AZ, and some elements of chemical/biological research to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.  Dispose of English Village and retain test and experimentation facilities necessary to support Army and DoD missions.

Justification:  Dugway is low in military value compared to other proving grounds.  Its test facilities conduct both open air and laboratory chemical/biological testing in support of various Army and DoD missions.  The testing is important as are associated security and safety requirements.  However, this recommendation enables the Army to continue these important missions and also reduce costly overhead at Dugway.

Yuma can assume Dugway's programmed smoke and obscurant testing.  Aberdeen Proving Ground can accept the laboratory research and development portion of the chemical/biological mission from Dugway, since it is currently performing chemical and biological research in facilities that carry equivalent bio/safety levels.  Open air and simulant testing missions will remain at Dugway.

The State of Utah has expressed an interest in using English Village and associated firing and training ranges at Dugway for the National Guard, including the establishment of an artillery training facility.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$25 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $61 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $26 million with  an immediate return on investment.   The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $307 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,715 jobs (1,096 direct jobs and 619 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Tooele County, UT economic area, which represents 13.0 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 36.6 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the realigning or receiving installations.  

Fort Lee, Virginia

Recommendation:  Realign Fort Lee, by reducing Kenner Army Community Hospital to a clinic.  Eliminate inpatient services.

Justification:  This recommendation, suggested by the Joint Cross-Service Group on Medical Treatment, eliminates excess medical treatment capacity at Fort Lee, VA by eliminating inpatient services at Kenner Army Community Hospital.  Inpatient care would be provided by other nearby military medical activites and private facilities through Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS).

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$2 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $16 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $4 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $51 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 321 jobs (205 direct jobs and 116 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Richmond-Petersburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents 

0.1 percent of the area's employment.    

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to 0.1 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing  or receiving installations.   

Branch U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Lompoc, California

Recommendation:  Close Branch U.S. Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), Lompoc,  CA.  

Justification:   Branch USDB, Lompoc consists of approximately 4,000 acres and 812,000 square feet of detention facilities.  It is permitted to and operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.  There are no Army activities on USDB, Lompoc.  Accordingly, it is excess to the Army's requirements.   

Return on Investment:  There is no one-time cost to implement this recommendation.  There are no costs and savings during the implementation period.  There are no annual recurring savings after implementation.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $0 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Santa Barbara-Santa Maria- Lompoc, CA economic area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing site.

East Fort Baker, California

Recommendation:  Close East Fort Baker.  Relocate all tenants to other installations that meet mission requirements.  Return all real property to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

Justification:  East Fort Baker is at the north end of the Golden Gate Bridge in Marin County, CA.  The post consists of approximately 347 acres and 390,000 square feet of facilities.  It provides facilities and housing for the Headquarters, 91st Training Division (U.S. Army Reserve) and the 6th Recruiting Brigade, Army Recruiting Command.  The 91st Training Division has a requirement to remain in the San Francisco Bay area, while the 6th Recruiting Brigade has a regional mission associated with the western United States.   Both the 6th Recruiting Brigade and the 91st Training Division can easily relocate to other installations.  The 91st Training Division will relocate to Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, where it better aligns with its training mission.  Closing East Fort Baker saves operations and support costs by consolidating tenants to other military installations without major construction.  

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$8 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of 

$1 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $2 million with a return on investment expected in five years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $15 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 152 jobs (97 direct jobs and 55 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the San Francisco, CA Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents less than 0.1 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.5 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Rio Vista Army Reserve Center, California

Recommendation:  Close Rio Vista Army Reserve Center.  

Justification:  Rio Vista Army Reserve Center consists of approximately 28 acres.  It formerly supported an Army Reserve watercraft unit.  Since Reserve Components no longer use Rio Vista Reserve Center, it is excess to the Army's requirements.  Closing Rio Vista will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities for approximately 28 acres.

Return on Investment:  There is no one-time cost to implement this recommendation.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $1 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.1 million with  an immediate return on investment.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of 

$2 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Vallejo-Fairfield-NAPA, CA Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area. There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving sites.   

Stratford Army Engine Plant, Connecticut

Recommendation:  Close Stratford Army Engine Plant.  

Justification:  The Stratford facility has produced engines for heavy armor vehicles and rotary wing aircraft.  Reduced production requirements and the Army's increased capability for rebuild and repair have eliminated the need for the Stratford Army Engine Plant.  There is no requirement for use of the installation by either the Active or Reserve Components.

The Army has an extensive capability to repair engines at Anniston and Corpus Christi Army Depots.  The current inventory for these engines meets projected operational requirements.  During mobilization, the capability to rebuild engines can be increased at both depots.  In the event of an extended national emergency that would deplete stocks, the depots could reconfigure to assemble new engines from parts provided by the manufacturer until mothballed facilities become operational.  Prior to closing the facility, the contractor will complete all existing contracts.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$2 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of 

$24 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $6 million with an immediate return on investment.   The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $80 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 3 jobs (2 direct jobs and 1 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Fairfield County, CT economic area, which represents 0 percent of the area's employment.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing site.  

Big Coppett Key, Florida

Recommendation:  Close Big Coppett Key.   

Justification:   Big Coppett Key, an island near Key West, consists of approximately five acres and 3,000 square feet of facilities.  Big Coppett Key formerly provided communications support to United States Army.  Since the Army no longer uses Big Coppett Key, it is excess and to Army requirements.  Closing Big Coppett Key will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities.

Return on Investment:  There is no one-time cost to implement this recommendation.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $0.05 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.01 million with  an immediate return on investment.   The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $0.1 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Monroe County, FL economic area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing site.  

Concepts Analysis Agency, Maryland

Recommendation:  Close by relocating Concepts Analysis Agency to Fort Belvoir, VA.                         

Justification:   In 1993, the Commission suggested that DoD direct the Services to include a separate category for leased facilities to ensure a bottom-up review of leased space.  The Army has conducted a review of activities in leased space to identify opportunities for relocation onto military installations.  Because of the cost of leasing, the Army's goal is to minimize leased space when feasible, and maximize the use of government-owned space.

Since Army studies indicate that space is available at Fort Belvoir, the Concepts Analysis Agency can easily relocate with limited renovation.  The annual cost of the current lease is $1.5 million.  

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$3.7 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $0.4 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.8 million with a return on investment expected in five years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $7 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not result in a change in employment in the Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area because all affected jobs will remain in that area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing site or receiving installation.  

Publications Distribution Center Baltimore, Maryland

Recommendation:  Close by relocating the U.S. Army Publications Distribution Center, Baltimore to the U.S. Army Publications Center St. Louis, Missouri. 

Justification:   Consolidation of the U.S. Army Publications Distribution Center, Baltimore with the U.S. Army Publications Center, St. Louis, combines the wholesale and retail distribution functions of publication distribution into one location.  The consolidation eliminates a manual operation at Baltimore in favor of an automated facility at St. Louis and creates efficiencies in the overall distribution process.  This move consolidates two leases into one less costly lease.  

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$6 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $3 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $3 million with a return on investment expected in two years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $35 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 213 jobs (131 direct jobs and 82 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Baltimore, MD Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents less than 0.1 percent of the area's employment.

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to less than 0.1 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing  or receiving installations.  

Hingham Cohasset, Massachussetts

Recommendation:  Close Hingham Cohasset.  

Justification:  Hingham Cohasset, formerly a U.S. Army Reserve Center, is essentially vacant and is excess to the Army's requirements.  The site consists of approximately 125 acres and 150,000 square feet of facilities.  Closing Hingham Cohasset will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities.  

Return on Investment:  There is no one-time cost to implement this recommendation.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $1 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.2 million with  an immediate return on investment.   The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of 

$2 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Boston-Worcester-Lawrence- Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH New England County Metropolitan Area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing site.  

Sudbury Training Annex, Massachusetts

Recommendation:  Close Sudbury Training Annex.  

Justification:   Sudbury Training Annex, outside Boston, consists of approximately 2,000 acres and 200,000 square feet of facilities.  The primary mission of Sudbury Training Annex is to provide storage facilities for various Department of Defense activities.  Sudbury Training Annex is excess to the Army's requirements.  Closing the annex will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities for approximately 2,000 acres.   

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$1 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $0.1 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.1 million with a return on investment expected in five years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $1 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 21 jobs (13 direct jobs and 8 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Essex-Middlesex-Suffolk-Plymouth and Norfolk Counties, MA, which represents less than 0.1 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.1 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving sites.   

Aviation-Troop Command, Missouri

Recommendation:  Disestablish Aviation-Troop Command (ATCOM), and close by relocating its missions/functions as follows:  

●Relocate Aviation Research, Development & Engineering Center; Aviation Management; and Aviation Program Executive Offices to Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL, to form the Aviation & Missile Command.

●Relocate functions related to soldier systems to Natick Research, Development, Engineering Center, MA, to align with the Soldier Systems Command. 

●Relocate functions related to materiel management of communications-electronics to Fort Monmouth, NJ, to align with Communications-Electronics Command.

●Relocate automotive materiel management functions to Detroit Arsenal, MI, to align with Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command. 

Justification:   In 1993, the Commission suggested that DoD direct the Services to include a separate category for leased facilities to ensure a bottom-up review of leased space.  The Army has conducted a review of activities in leased space to identify opportunities for relocation onto military installations.  Because of the cost of leasing, the Army's goal is to minimize leased space, when feasible, and maximize the use of government-owned facilities.  

In 1991, the Commission approved the merger of Aviation Systems Command and Troop Systems Command (ATCOM).  It also recommended that the Army evaluate the relocation of these activities from leased space to government-owned facilities and provide appropriate recommendations to a subsequent Commission.  In 1993, the Army studied the possibility of relocating ATCOM to a military installation and concluded it would be too costly.  It is evident that restructuring ATCOM now provides a financially attractive opportunity to relocate.

Significant functional efficiencies are also possible by separating aviation and troop support commodities and relocating these functions to military installations.  The aviation support functions realign to Redstone Arsenal to form a new Aviation & Missiles Command.  The troop support functions realign to Natick, MA to align with the new Soldier Systems Command.  

This recommendation preserves crucial research and development functions while optimizing operational efficiencies.  Moving elements of ATCOM to Natick and Redstone Arsenal improves the synergistic effect of research, development and engineering, by facilitating the interaction between the medical, academic, and industrial communities already present in these regions.  Vacating the St. Louis lease will collocate/consolidate similar life cycle functions at military installations for improved efficiencies and effectiveness.   

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$146 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $9 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $46 million with a return on investment expected in three years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $453 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 7,679 jobs (4,731 direct jobs and 2,948 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents 

0.5 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.6 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing site or receiving installations.  

Fort Missoula,  Montana

Recommendation:  Close Fort Missoula, except an enclave for minimum essential land and facilities to support the Reserve Component units.   

Justification:   Fort Missoula consists of approximately 35 acres and 180,000 square feet of facilities.  It provides administration, supply, training, maintenance, logistics support to Reserve Component forces.  The post also provides facilities for the United States Forest Service.    Fort Missoula has land and facilities excess to the Army's requirements.  Closing Fort Missoula will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities for approximately 25 acres.  The Army intends to continue to license buildings and land currently occupied by the Army National Guard.   

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$0.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $0.5 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.2 million with a return on investment expected in two years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $2 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Missoula County, MT economic area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Camp Kilmer, New Jersey

Recommendation:  Close Camp Kilmer, except an enclave for minimum necessary facilities to support the Reserve Components.  

Justification:   Camp Kilmer consists of approximately 75 acres and 331,000 square feet of facilities.  The camp provides administration, supply, training, maintenance, and logistics support to Reserve Component forces.  The vast majority of the site is excess to the Army's requirements.  Closing Camp Kilmer will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities for approximately 56 acres.  

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$0.1 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $1 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.2 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $3 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Caven Point Army Reserve Center, New Jersey

Recommendation:  Close Caven Point U. S. Army Reserve Center.   Relocate its reserve activities to the Fort Hamilton, NY, provided the recommendation to realign Fort Hamilton is approved. 

Justification:   Caven Point U.S. Army Reserve Center (USARC) is located near Jersey City, NJ, and consists of approximately 45,000 square feet of administrative and maintenance facilities on 35 acres.  It is overcrowded and in generally poor condition.  The primary mission of Caven Point USARC is to provide administrative, logistics and maintenance support to the Army Reserve.  The consolidation of tenants from Caven Point USARC with Reserve Component activities remaining on Fort Hamilton will achieve savings in operations costs.

Return on Investment:  The cost and savings information for the closure of Caven Point U.S. Army Reserve Center is included in the recommendation for Fort Hamilton, NY.

Impacts:   Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 4 jobs (3 direct jobs and 1 indirect job) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Jersey City, NJ, Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area which represents less than 0.1 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.8 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Camp Pedricktown, New Jersey

Recommendation:  Close Camp Pedricktown, except the Sievers-Sandberg Reserve Center. 

Justification:   Camp Pedricktown consists of approximately 82 acres and 260,000 square feet of facilities.  Its primary mission is to provide administration, supply, training, maintenance, and logistics support to Reserve Component forces.  The vast majority of Camp Pedricktown's land and facilities are excess to Army requirements.  Closing it will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities for approximately 60 acres.  

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$0.1 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $2 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.4 million with an immediate return on investment.   The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $5 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Philadelphia, PA-NJ Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Bellmore Logistics Activity, New York

Recommendation:  Close Bellmore Logistics Activity. 

Justification:  Bellmore Logistics Activity, located on Long Island, consists of approximately 17 acres and 180,000 square feet of facilities.  It formerly provided maintenance and logistical support to Reserve Component units.  Since Reserve Components no longer use Bellmore Logistics Activity, it is excess to the Army's requirements.  Closing Bellmore Logistics Activity will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities.  

Return on Investment:  There is no one-time cost to implement this recommendation.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $2 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.3 million with an immediate return on investment.   The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of 

$5 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Nassau-Suffolk, NY Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing site.

Fort Totten, New York

Recommendation:  Close Fort Totten, except an enclave for the U. S. Army Reserve.  Dispose of family housing.  

Justification:  Fort Totten, a sub-installation of Fort Hamilton, provides administrative and logistical support to Army Reserve units in the New York City metropolitan area. 

Fort Totten is low in military value compared to other command and control/administrative support installations.  The post has limited capacity for growth or further military development.

Fort Totten is home to the Ernie Pyle U.S. Army Reserve Center, the largest in the country.  Realignment of the Center to nearby Fort Hamilton is not possible since Fort Hamilton has little available space.  Therefore, the Army decided to retain this facility as a reserve enclave.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $0.1 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $2 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $17 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 69 jobs (43 direct jobs and 26 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the New York, NY Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which represents less than 0.1 percent of the area's employment.  

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.1 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Recreation Center #2,  North Carolina

Recommendation:  Close Recreation Center #2, Fayetteville, NC.   

Justification:   Recreation Center #2 consists of approximately four acres and 17,000 square feet of community facilities.  Recreation Center #2 is currently being leased to the city of Fayetteville, NC, and is excess to the Army's requirements.  Closing Recreation Center #2 will provide reuse opportunities.  

Return on Investment:  There are no costs associated with this recommendation.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing site.

Information Systems Software Command (ISSC), Virginia

Recommendation:  Close by relocating Information Systems Software Command to Fort Meade, MD.

Justification:   In 1993, the Commission suggested DoD direct the Services to include a separate category for leased facilities to ensure a bottom-up review of leased space.  The Army has conducted a review of activities in leased space to identify opportunities for relocation onto military installations.  Because of the cost of leasing, the Army's goal is to minimize leased space, when feasible, and maximize the use of government-owned facilities.  

This activity can relocate easily for a minor cost.  The annual cost of the current lease is $2 million. 

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$6 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of 

$2 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $1 million with a return on investment expected in six years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $8 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not result in a change in employment in the Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area because all affected jobs will remain in that area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing site or receiving installation. 

Camp Bonneville, Washington

Recommendation:  Close Camp Bonneville.  

Justification:   Camp Bonneville consists of approximately 4,000 acres and 178,000 square feet of facilities.  The primary mission of Camp Bonneville is to provide training facilities for Active and Reserve units.  Training currently conducted at Camp Bonneville will be shifted to Fort Lewis, Washington.  Accordingly, Camp Bonneville is excess to the Army's requirements.  Closing the camp will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities.  

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$0.04 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $0.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.2 million with  an immediate return on investment.   The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $2 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA economic area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing site.

Valley Grove Area Maintenance Support Activity, West Virginia

Recommendation:  Close Valley Grove Area Maintenance Support Activity (AMSA).   Relocate reserve activity to the Kelly Support Center, PA, provided the recommendation to realign Kelly Support Center is approved. 

Justification:   Valley Grove AMSA, located in Valley Grove, WV, consists of approximately 10,000 square feet of leased maintenance facilities.  Its primary mission is to provide maintenance support to Army Reserve activities.  Consolidating tenants from Valley Grove AMSA with the Reserve Component activities remaining on Kelly Support Center will reduce the cost of operation.

Return on Investment:  The cost and savings information for the closure of Valley Grove AMSA is included in the recommendation for Charles E. Kelly Support Center.

Impacts:   Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 10 jobs (7 direct jobs and 3 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Wheeling, WV-OH, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of the areas employment.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing or receiving installations.  

Tri-Service Project Reliance

Recommendation:  Change the recommendation of the 1991 Commission regarding Tri-Service Project Reliance.  Upon disestablishment of the U.S. Army Biomedical Research Development Laboratory (USABRDL) at Fort Detrick, MD, do not collocate environmental and occupational toxicology research with the Armstrong Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH.  Instead relocate the health advisories environmental fate research and military criteria research functions of the Environmental Quality Research Branch to the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (AEHA), Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and maintain the remaining functions of conducting non-mammalian toxicity assessment models and on-site biomonitoring research of the Research Methods Branch at Fort Detrick as part of Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command.

Justification:   There are no operational advantages that accrue by relocating this activity to Wright-Patterson AFB.  Substantial resources were expended over the last 15 years to develop this unique laboratory currently used by researchers from across the DoD, other federal agencies  and the academic community.  No facilities are available at Wright-Patterson to accommodate this unique aquatic research activity, which supports environmental quality R&D initiatives developing cost effective alternatives to the use of mammalian species in toxicity testing.  Significant new construction is required at Wright Patterson to duplicate facilities at Fort Detrick to continue this critical research.  No construction is required at Aberdeen Proving Ground.  Furthermore, the quality of water required for the culture of aquatic animals used in this research is not adequate at Wright-Patterson.  This would necessitate additional construction and result in either several years of costly overlapping research in Maryland and Ohio, or the loss of over 10 years experience with the unique lab colonies used at Fort Detrick.  The Navy and the Air Force agree that true research synergy is possible without executing the planned relocation.

Return on Investment:  The total one-time cost to implement this recommendation is 

$0.3 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $4 million.  There are no annual recurring savings after implementation.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $4 million.

Impacts:   Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 15 jobs (9 direct jobs and 6 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of the areas employment.

The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.6 percent of employment in the area.  There are no known environmental impediments at the closing  or receiving installations.    

Department of the Navy Selection Process

Introduction

Building upon the experience gained during BRAC 93, 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 the Defense was sound and in compliance with the Base Closure Act.  The Secretary of the Navy established a Base Structure Evaluation Committee (BSEC) for the analyses and deliberations required to satisfy the Base Closure Act, and a Base Structure Analysis Team (BSAT) to provide staff support to the BSEC.

The Selection Process

Under the oversight and guidance of the Under Secretary of the Navy, the BSEC had eight 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 DON military installations for approval by the Secretary of the Navy.  The BSEC was required to evaluate Navy and Marine Corps installations in accordance with the Base Closure Act, to comply with appropriate guidance from higher levels, to ensure audibility by the Comptroller General, and to ensure operational factors were considered.  In conducting its evaluation, the BSEC applied the final selection criteria for selecting bases for closure or realignment and based its recommendations on the FY 2001 force structure plan.

The BSAT was composed of military and civilian analysts who were tasked to collect data and to perform analysis for the BSEC.  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 BSEC and the BSAT to ensure compliance with the approved Internal Control Plan and audited the accuracy and reliability of data provided by DON activities.  The Office of the General Counsel provided senior-level legal advice and counsel.

In compliance with the Internal Control Plan, a Base Structure Data Base (BSDB) was developed and contained relevant information on all DON military installations subject to the Base Closure Act.  The BSEC used the data base  as the baseline for its evaluation of DON military installations, leading to development of recommendations for closure and realignment.  Pursuant to the certification policy promulgated by the Secretary of the Navy to comply with the provisions of the Base Closure Act, data which was included in the Base Structure Data Base had to be certified as accurate and complete by the officer or civilian employee who initially generated data in response to the BSEC request for information, and then at each succeeding level of the chain of command.  In conjunction with the requirement to keep records of all meetings that were part of the decision making process, the Base Structure Data Base and the certification policy were designed to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and integrity of the information upon which the DON 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 the 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 (OSD) for BRAC 95 was more formalized and more robust than in prior rounds.  The DON was significantly represented on every OSD BRAC 95 group.

In order to comply with the requirements of the Base Closure Act relating to evaluation using the force structure plan and the selection criteria, the first step in the process was to categorize and aggregate installations for analysis.  Based on a review of the Secretary of the Navy’s responsibilities under Title 10 of the U.S. Code to operate, maintain, train, and support the operating forces within the DON, the BSEC developed five major categories for organizing its military installations for analysis and evaluation: Operational Support, Industrial Support, Technical Centers/Laboratories, Educational/Training, and Personnel Support/Other.  These categories were then further divided into 27 subcategories to ensure that like installations were compared to one another and to allow identification of total capacity and military value for an entire category of installations.  Within these 27 subcategories were 830 individual Navy or Marine Corps installations or activities, each of which was reviewed during the BRAC 95 process.

Data calls were issued to these installations, tailored to the subcategory in which the activity was grouped, to obtain the relevant certified information relating to capacity and military value.  “Conglomerate” activities having more than one significant mission received multiple military value and capacity data calls relating to those missions.  The certified responses to these data calls were entered into the Base Structure Data Base and formed the sole basis for BSEC determinations. 

Capacity analysis compared the present base structure to the future force structure requirement for each subcategory of installations to determine whether excess base structure capacity existed.  The capacity measures were the appropriate “throughput” for each type of installation.  If total capacity was greater than the future required capacity, excess capacity was determined to exist, and the military value of each installation in a subcategory was evaluated.  If there was no meaningful excess capacity, no further closure or realignment analysis was conducted.  Of the 27 subcategories, eight of them demonstrated either little or no excess capacity.

The remaining 19 subcategories underwent military value analysis to assess the relative military value of installations within a subcategory, using a quantitative methodology that was as objective as possible.  The foundation of the analysis was the military value criteria, which are the first four of the eight selection criteria issued by the Secretary of Defense.  Information from the military value data call responses was displayed in a matrix, scored by the BSEC according to relative importance for a particular subcategory.  A military value score for a particular 

installation is a relative measure of military value only within the context of the subcategory in which that installation was analyzed, in order to compare one installation in a subcategory against another installation in that category.

 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 subcategory of installations, sets of installations that best meet the needs of the Navy and Marine Corps, in light of future requirements, while eliminating the most excess capacity.  Multiple solutions were generated that would satisfy capacity requirements for the future force structure while maintaining the average military value of the retained installations at a level equal to or greater than the average military value for all of the installations in the subcategory.

The configuration analysis solutions were then used by the BSEC as the starting point for the application of military judgment in the development of potential closure and realignment scenarios to undergo return on investment analysis.  Scenario development was an iterative process in which results of COBRA analyses and inputs from the senior Defense leadership were  used to generate additional options.  The input received from the Fleet CINC’s, the major claimants (including the SYSCOM Commanders), and the DON civilian leadership was an integral part of scenario development.  The CINCs and major claimants provided input both directly, during meetings, and indirectly, through COBRA scenario data call responses.   Additionally, the Joint Cross-Service Groups generated numerous alternatives derived from their analysis of data and information provided by the Military Departments.  From alternatives proposing closure or realignment of DON activities, all but one of the Depot Maintenance alternatives, all of the significant Laboratory alternatives, all of the Military Treatment Facilities alternatives, all of the significant Test and Evaluation alternatives, and all of the Undergraduate Pilot Training alternatives resulted in COBRA scenario data calls.  As a result of the scenario development portion of the process, the BSEC developed 174 scenarios involving 119 activities.

COBRA analyses were conducted on all of these scenarios, using certified responses to COBRA scenario data calls from the chains of command of affected installations and their tenants.  In analyzing these responses, the BSEC aggressively challenged cost estimates to ensure both their consistency with standing policies and procedures and their reasonableness.  With reductions in budgets, numbers of programs, and numbers of systems being produced, the BSEC reviewed the data call responses to ensure that outyear requirements were appropriately reduced in terms of personnel, facilities, and capacities of remaining facilities.  The BSEC used the COBRA algorithms as a tool to ensure that its recommendations were cost effective.  As a result, the estimated upfront costs are the lowest of any round of base closure, and the longest period for return on investment of any recommendation is four years.  Most recommendations will obtain an immediate return on investment, with savings offsetting costs of closure within the closure period.

The impact on the local economic area for each DON installation considered for closure or realignment was calculated using the DoD BRAC 95 Economic Impact Data Base.  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 BSEC also evaluated the ability of the existing local community infrastructure at potential receiving installations to support additional missions and personnel.  The impact of increases in base personnel on such infrastructure items as off-base housing availability, public and private schools, public transportation, fire and police protection, health care facilities, and public utilities was assessed.  No significant community infrastructure impacts were identified for any of the DON proposed closure or realignment actions.

Once the BSEC had determined the serious candidates for closure or realignment, an environmental summary was prepared which compared the environmental management efforts at losing and gaining sites.  Differences in environmental management effort were presented as they relate to such programs as threatened/endangered species, wetlands, cultural resources, land use, air quality, environmental facilities, and installation restoration sites.  The environmental impact analysis permitted the BSEC to obtain a comprehensive picture of the potential environmental impacts arising from the recommendations for closure and realignment.  No significant environmental impacts were identified for any scenario which would support reconsideration of any recommendation. 

Naval Air Facility, Adak, Alaska

Recommendation:  Close Naval Air Facility, Adak, Alaska.

Justification:  Despite the large reduction in operational infrastructure accomplished during the 1993 round of base closure and realignment, since DON force structure experiences a reduction of over 10 percent by the year 2001, there continues to be additional excess capacity that must be eliminated.  In evaluating operational bases, the goal was to retain only that infrastructure necessary to support the future force structure without impeding operational flexibility for deployment of that force.  In the case of Naval Air Facility, Adak, Alaska, the Navy's anti- submarine warfare surveillance mission no longer requires these facilities to base or support its aircraft.  Closure of this activity reduces excess capacity by eliminating unnecessary capabilities and can be accomplished with no loss in mission effectiveness.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $9.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $108 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $26 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $354.8 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 894 jobs (678 direct jobs and 216 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Aleutians West Census Area economic area, which is 10.4 percent of economic area employment.  However, the geography of the Aleutian Islands localizes economic effects, and no loss is anticipated from the closure of NAF Adak beyond the direct job loss.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no community infrastructure impact since there are no receiving installations for this recommendation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of Naval Air Facility, Adak will have a positive effect on the environment in that, even though NAF Adak is in an attainment area for carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10, a source of ozone will be removed, further improving already favorable air quality.  In an area with few air emission sources present, cessation of air emissions from this facility will enhance the natural state of the western Alaska region.  Also, there is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California

Recommendation:  Close the Naval Shipyard Long Beach, California, except retain the sonar dome government-owned, contractor-operated facility and those family housing units needed to fulfill Department of the Navy requirements, particularly those at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California.  Relocate necessary personnel to other naval activities as appropriate, primarily Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach and naval activities in the San Diego, California, area.

Justification:  Despite substantial reductions in depot maintenance capability accomplished in prior base closure evolutions, as force levels continue to decline, there is additional excess capacity that needs to be eliminated.  Force structure reductions by the year 2001 eliminate the requirement for the Department of the Navy to retain this facility, including its large-deck drydocking capability.  As a result of BRAC 91, the adjoining Naval Station Long Beach was closed, and some of its assets were transferred to the naval shipyard for "ship support functions."  Of those transferred assets, only those housing units required to fulfill Department of the Navy requirements in the local commuting area will be retained after closure of the naval shipyard.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $74.5 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $725.6 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $130.6 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $1,948.6 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 13,261 jobs (4,029 direct jobs and 9,232 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Los Angeles-Long Beach, California PMSA economic area, which is 0.3 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.4 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of Long Beach Naval Shipyard will have a positive impact on the local environment.  The removal of a major industrial activity from an area that is in non-attainment for carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10 will be of substantial benefit to the air quality of this area.  Similarly, the workload and small numbers of personnel being relocated to other activities are not expected to adversely impact the environment of geographic areas in which those activities are located.  There are no adverse impacts to threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Ship Repair Facility, Guam

Recommendation:  Close the Naval Ship Repair Facility (SRF), Guam, except transfer appropriate assets, including the piers, the floating drydock, its typhoon basin anchorage, the recompression chamber, and the floating crane, to Naval Activities, Guam.

Justification:  Despite substantial reductions in depot maintenance capability accomplished in prior base closure evolutions, as force levels continue to decline, there is additional excess capacity that needs to be eliminated.  While operational and forward basing considerations require access to Guam, a fully functional ship repair facility is not required.  The workload of SRF Guam can be entirely met by other Department of the Navy facilities.  However, retention of the waterfront assets provides the DON with the ability to meet voyage repair and emergent requirements that may arise in the Western Pacific.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $8.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $171.9 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $37.8 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $529 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,321 jobs (663 direct jobs and 658 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Agana, Guam economic area, which is 2.0 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 10.6 percent of employment in the economic area.  However, much of this impact involves the inclusion of Military Sealift Command mariners in the job loss statement, which does not reflect the temporary nature of their presence on Guam.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of the Ship Repair Facility Guam will have a generally positive impact on the environment because a significant industrial operation will be closed, including the removal of stationary emission sources associated with this operation.  This will be a benefit to an already positive air quality situation on Guam.  Further, this closure will not have an adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources.

Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, 

Indianapolis, Indiana

Recommendation:  Close the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC), Aircraft Division, Indianapolis, Indiana.  Relocate necessary functions along with associated personnel, equipment and support to other naval technical activities, primarily Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Indiana; Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland; and Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake, California.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  This recommended closure results in the closure of a major technical center and the relocation of its principal functions to three other technical centers, realizing both a reduction in excess capacity and significant economies while raising aggregate military value.

Return on Investment:  The return on investment data below applies to the closure of Naval Surface Warfare Center Louisville and the closure of NAWC Indianapolis.  The total estimated one-time cost to implement these recommendations is $180 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $26.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $67.8 million with a return on investment expected in two years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $639.9 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 7,659 jobs (2,841 direct jobs and 4,818 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Boone-Hamilton-Hancock- Hendricks-Johnson-Marion-Morgan-Shelby Counties, Indiana, economic area, which is

0.9 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 2.2 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NAWC Indianapolis will have a positive effect on the environment because of the movement out of a region that is in marginal non-attainment for ozone.  All three of the receiving sites (NSWC Crane, NAWC China Lake, and NAWC Patuxent River) are in areas that are in attainment for carbon monoxide, and the relocation of personnel from Indianapolis is not expected to have a significant effect on base operations at these sites.  The utility infrastructure at each of these receiving bases is sufficient to handle these additional personnel, and this closure will not adversely impact threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources.

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division Detachment, 

Louisville, Kentucky

Recommendation:  Close the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division Detachment, Louisville, Kentucky.  Relocate appropriate functions, personnel, equipment, and support to other naval activities, primarily the Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia; the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme, California; and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Indiana.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  Consistent with the Department of the Navy's efforts to remove depot level maintenance workload from technical centers and return it to depot industrial activities, this action consolidates ships' systems (guns) depot and general industrial workload at NSYD Norfolk, which has many of the required facilities in place.  The functional distribution of workload in this manner offers an opportunity for cross-servicing part of the gun plating workload to the Watervliet Arsenal in New York.  System integration engineering will relocate to NSWC Port Hueneme, with the remainder of the engineering workload and Close-in-Weapons System (CIWS) depot maintenance functions relocating to NSWC Crane.  The closure of this activity not only reduces excess capacity, but relocation of functional workload to activities performing similar work will result in additional efficiencies and economies in the management of those functions.

Return on Investment:  The return on investment data below applies to the closure of NSWC Louisville and the closure of NAWC Indianapolis.  The total estimated one-time cost to implement these recommendations is $180 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $26.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $67.8 million with a return on investment expected in two years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $639.9 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 3,791 jobs (1,464 direct jobs and 2,327 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana MSA economic area, which is 0.7 percent of economic area employment.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NSWC Louisville will have a generally positive impact on the environment because a major industrial operation will be closing in an area that is in moderate non-attainment for ozone.  To the extent the relocations from this recommendation trigger the requirement for a conformity determination to assess the impact on the air quality of the areas in which each of the receiving sites are located, such determinations will be prepared.  One of the most significant environmental benefits resulting from this recommendation is the transfer of workload from NSWC Louisville to the Watervliet Arsenal, New York, to accomplish plating operations which the Norfolk Naval Shipyard currently cannot perform.  This transfer reduces the DoD-wide facilities required to perform the programmed plating work.  There are no impacts on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division Detachment, 

White Oak, Maryland

Recommendation:  Close the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division Detachment, White Oak, Maryland.  Relocate the functions, personnel and equipment associated with Ship Magnetic Signature Control R&D Complex to the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock, Maryland, and the functions and personnel associated with reentry body dynamics research and development to the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Virginia.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  Closure of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division Detachment, White Oak, Maryland, reduces this excess capacity, and its consolidation with two other major technical centers that already have capability will result in further economies and efficiencies.  This closure also eliminates unnecessary capabilities, since a few Navy facilities were left at NSWC White Oak only because Naval Sea Systems Command was relocating there as a result of BRAC 93.  However, those facilities can be excessed, and the Naval Sea Systems Command can be easily accommodated at the Washington Navy Yard.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $2.9 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $28.7 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$6 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $85.9 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 646 jobs (202 direct jobs and 444 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Washington, DC-Maryland-Virginia-West Virginia PMSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.6 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NSWC White Oak Detachment will have a generally positive impact on the environment.  A portion of the personnel being relocated will transfer to NSWC Dahlgren, which is in an area that is in attainment for carbon monoxide.  As regards personnel movements to NSWC Carderock, a conformity determination may be required to assess any air quality impacts.  In each case, however, the personnel relocating, when compared to expected force structure reductions by FY 2001, represent a net decrease in base personnel.  There is adequate capacity in the utility infrastructure at the receiving sites to handle additional personnel loading.  Likewise, there is sufficient space for rehabilitation or acreage of unrestricted land for expansion for new facilities.  There is no adverse impact to threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Air Station, South Weymouth, Massachusetts

Recommendation:  Close Naval Air Station, South Weymouth, Massachusetts.  Relocate its aircraft and necessary personnel, equipment and support to Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine.  Relocate the Marine Corps Reserve support squadrons to another facility in the local area or to NAS Brunswick.  Reestablish Naval Reserve Center, Quincy, Massachusetts, and change the receiving site specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-64) for consolidation of Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center, Lawrence, Massachusetts; Naval Reserve Center, Chicopee, Massachusetts; and Naval Reserve Center, Quincy, Massachusetts, from "NAS South Weymouth, Massachusetts" to "Naval Reserve Center, Quincy, Massachusetts."

Justification:  As a result of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission's actions in BRAC 93, the Department of the Navy retained several naval air stations north of the major fleet concentration in Norfolk.  Despite the large reduction in operational infrastructure accomplished during BRAC 93, the current Force Structure Plan shows a continuing decline in force levels from that governing BRAC 93, and thus there is additional excess capacity that must be eliminated.  The major thrust of the evaluation of operational bases was to retain only that infrastructure necessary to support future force levels while, at the same time, not impeding operational flexibility for the deployment of that force.  In that latter context, the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet (CINCLANTFLT), expressed an operational desire to have as fully-capable an air station as possible north of Norfolk with the closest geographic proximity to support operational deployments.  Satisfaction of these needs both to further reduce excess capacity and to honor CINCLANTFLT's operational imperative can be accomplished best by the retention of the most fully capable air station in this geographic area, Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine, in lieu of the reserve air station at South Weymouth.  Unlike BRAC 93, where assets from Naval Air Station, South Weymouth were proposed to be relocated to three receiving sites, two of which were geographically quite remote, and where the perceived adverse impact on reserve demographics was considered unacceptable by the Commission, this BRAC 95 recommendation moves all of the assets and supporting personnel and equipment less than 150 miles away, thus providing most acceptable reserve demographics.  Further, the consolidation of several reserve centers at the Naval Reserve Center, Quincy, Massachusetts, provides demographics consideration for surface reserve assets.  In addition, this recommendation furthers the Departmental preference to collocate active and reserve assets and personnel wherever possible to enhance the readiness of both.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $17.3 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $50.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $27.4 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $315.2 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,443 jobs (936 direct jobs and 507 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Essex-Middlesex-Suffolk-Plymouth- Norfolk Counties, Massachusetts economic area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior- round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.1 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NAS South Weymouth will have a positive effect on local air quality in that a source of VOC and NOX emissions will be removed from an area that is in severe non-attainment for ozone.  NAS Brunswick is in an area that is in attainment for carbon monoxide and PM-10 but is in moderate non-attainment for ozone, which may require a conformity determination to evaluate air quality impacts.  However, it is expected that the additional functions, personnel, and equipment from this closure recommendation will have no significant impact on air quality and airfield operations at NAS Brunswick.  Water supply and wastewater treatment services are provided to NAS Brunswick from off-base and are not limited by capacity.  Also, there is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi

Recommendation:  Close Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi, except retain the Regional Counterdrug Training Academy facilities which are transferred to the Academy.  Relocate the undergraduate strike pilot training function and associated personnel, equipment and support to Naval Air Station, Kingsville, Texas.  Its major tenant, the Naval Technical Training Center, will close, and its training functions will be relocated to other training activities, primarily the Navy Supply Corps School, Athens, Georgia, and Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, Rhode Island.

Justification:  The 1993 Commission recommended that Naval Air Station, Meridian remain open because it found that the then-current and future pilot training rate (PTR) required that there be two full-strike training bases, Naval Air Station, Kingsville, Texas, and Naval Air Station, Meridian.  In the period between 1993 and the present, two factors emerged that required the Department of the Navy again to review the requirement for two such installations.  First, the current Force Structure Plan shows a continuing decline in the PTR (particularly in the decline from 11 to 10 carrier air wings) so that Navy strike training could be handled by a single full- strike training base.  Second, the consolidation of strike training that follows the closure of NAS Meridian is in the spirit of the policy of the Secretary of Defense that functional pilot training be consolidated.  The training conducted at Naval Air Station, Meridian is similar to that conducted at Naval Air Station, Kingsville, which has a higher military value, presently houses T-45 assets (the Department of the Navy's new primary strike training aircraft) and its supporting infrastructure, and has ready access to larger amounts of air space, including over-water air space if such is required.  Also, the Undergraduate Pilot Training Joint Cross-Service Group included the closure of Naval Air Station, Meridian in each of its closure/realignment alternatives.  The separate recommendation for the consolidation of the Naval Technical Training Center functions at two other major training activities provides improved and more efficient management of these training functions and aligns certain enlisted personnel training to sites where similar training is being provided to officers.

Return on Investment:  The return on investment data below applies to the closure of NAS Meridian, the closure of NTTC Meridian, the realignment of NAS Corpus Christi to an NAF, and the NAS Alameda redirect.  The total estimated one-time cost to implement these recommendations is $83.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $158.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $33.4 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $471.2 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  The economic data below applies to the closure of NAS Meridian and the closure of NTTC Meridian.  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 3,324 jobs (2,581 direct jobs and 743 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Lauderdale County, Mississippi economic area, which is 8.0 percent of economic area employment.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NAS Meridian will have a generally positive effect on the environment.  Undergraduate Pilot Training will be relocated to NAS Kingsville, which is in an air quality control district that is in attainment for carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10.  Cleanup of the six IR sites at NAS Meridian will continue.  No impact was identified for threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, cultural/historical resources, land/air space use, pollution control, and hazardous material waste requirements.  Adequate capacity exists for all utilities at the gaining base, and there is sufficient space for rehabilitation or unrestricted acres available for expansion.

Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division,

Lakehurst, New Jersey

Recommendation:  Close Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, except transfer in place certain facilities and equipment to the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland.  Relocate other functions and associated personnel and equipment to the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland, and the Naval Aviation Depot, Jacksonville, Florida.  Relocate the Naval Air Technical Training Center Detachment, Lakehurst, to Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida.  Relocate Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 21, the U.S. Army CECOM Airborne Engineering Evaluation Support Activity, and the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office to other government-owned spaces.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  The closure and realignment of this activity permits the elimination of the command and support structure of this activity and the consolidation of its most critical functions at a major technical center, allowing synergism with its parent command and more fully utilizing available capabilities at major depot activities.  This recommendation retains at Lakehurst only those facilities and personnel essential to conducting catapult and arresting gear testing and fleet support.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $96.9 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $5 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$37.2 million with a return on investment expected in three years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $358.7 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 4,126 jobs (1,763 direct jobs and 2,363 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Monmouth-Ocean, New Jersey PMSA economic area, which is 1.0 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to 1.1 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NAWC Lakehurst will have a generally positive impact on the environment because of the relocation of appropriate functions and personnel out of an area that is in severe non-attainment for ozone.  NAWC Patuxent River is currently in an attainment area for carbon monoxide, and the additional functions and personnel are not expected to significantly affect this status.  While NAS Jacksonville is in an attainment area for carbon monoxide, it is in a transitional area for ozone.  The relocation of functions and personnel to NAS Jacksonville are not expected to significantly affect this status.  Each of the gaining sites has sufficient capacity in its respective utility infrastructure to handle the additional personnel.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division,

Warminster, Pennsylvania

Recommendation:  Close the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Warminster, Pennsylvania.  Relocate appropriate functions, personnel, equipment, and support to other technical activities, primarily the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  The closure of this activity reduces excess capacity with the resultant efficiencies and economies in the consolidation of the relocated functions with its parent command at the new receiving site.  Additionally, it completes the process of realignment initiated in BRAC 91, based on a clearer understanding of what is now required to be retained in-house.  Closure and excessing of the Human Centrifuge/Dynamic Flight Simulator Facility further reduces excess capacity and provides the opportunity for the transfer of this facility to the public educational or commercial sectors, thus maintaining access on an as-needed basis.

Return on Investment:  The return on investment data below applies to the closure of NAWC Warminster and the closure of Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center (NCCOSC), RDT&E Division Detachment, Warminster.  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $8.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $33.1 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $7.6 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $104.6 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  The economic data below applies to the closure of NAWC Warminster and the closure of NCCOSC Det Warminster.  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,080 jobs (348 direct jobs and 732 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania- New Jersey PMSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 1.2 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of both NAWC Warminster and NCCOSC Det Warminster will have a positive effect on the environment because their appropriate functions and personnel will be relocated out of an area that is in severe non-attainment for ozone and from an activity that is included on the National Priorities List.  The personnel being relocated to NAWC Patuxent River represent an increase in personnel of less than 

1 percent, which is not considered of sufficient size to adversely impact the environment at that site.  However, a conformity determination may be required to determine this impact.  The utility infrastructure capacity at NAWC Patuxent River is sufficient to handle the additional loading.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Air Station, Key West, Florida

Recommendation:  Realign Naval Air Station, Key West, Florida, to a Naval Air Facility and dispose of certain portions of Truman Annex and Trumbo Point (including piers, wharfs and buildings).

Justification:  Despite the large reduction in operational infrastructure accomplished during the 1993 round of base closure and realignment, since DON force structure experiences a reduction of over 10 percent by the year 2001, there continues to be additional excess capacity that must be eliminated.  In evaluating operational bases, the goal was to retain only that infrastructure necessary to support the future force structure without impeding operational flexibility for deployment of that force.  In the case of NAS Key West, its key importance derives from its airspace and training ranges, particularly in view of other aviation consolidations.  Full access to those can be accomplished by retaining a downsized Naval Air Facility rather than a large naval air station.  This realignment disposes of the waterfront assets of this facility and retains both the airspace and the ranges under its control for continued use by the Fleet for operations and training.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $0.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $8.2 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$1.8 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $25.5 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 26 jobs (20 direct jobs and 6 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Monroe County, Florida economic area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area employment.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no community infrastructure impact since there are no receiving installations for this recommendation.

Environmental Impact:  The realignment of NAS Key West to a Naval Air Facility has a minimal impact on the air quality of the local area, which is in attainment for carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10.  Since no aviation assets are being moved into or out of this facility, the reduction in personnel and the resultant commuter carbon monoxide emissions will have a positive impact on the environment.  Also, there is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Activities, Guam

Recommendation:  Realign Naval Activities Guam.  Relocate all ammunition vessels and associated personnel and support to Naval Magazine, Lualualei, Hawaii.  Relocate all other combat logistics force ships and associated personnel and support to Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.  Relocate Military Sealift Command personnel and Diego Garcia support functions to Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.  Disestablish the Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanographic Center-WESTPAC, except for the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, which relocates to the Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanographic Center, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.  Disestablish the Afloat Training Group-WESTPAC.  All other Department of Defense activities that are presently on Guam may remain either as a tenant of Naval Activities, Guam or other appropriate naval activity.  Retain waterfront assets for support, mobilization, and contingencies and to support the afloat tender.

Justification:  Despite the large reduction in operational infrastructure accomplished during the 1993 round of base closure and realignment, since DON force structure experiences a reduction of over 10 percent by the year 2001, there continues to be additional excess capacity that must be eliminated.  In evaluating operational bases, the goal was to retain only that infrastructure necessary to support the future force structure without impeding operational flexibility for deployment of that force.  Shifting deployment patterns in the Pacific Fleet reduce the need for a fully functional naval station.  Operational and forward basing considerations require access to Guam.  However, since no combatant ships are homeported there, elimination of the naval station facilities which are not required to support mobilization and/or contingency operations allows removal of excess capacity while retaining this necessary access.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $93.1 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $66.3 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $42.5 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $474.3 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 3,359 jobs (2,421 direct jobs and 938 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Agana, Guam economic area, which is 5.0 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 10.6 percent of employment in the economic area.  It should be recognized, however, that a major segment of these jobs is attributable to crews of the Military Sealift Command ships, whose presence on the island is sporadic in any given year.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of a portion of Naval Activities, Guam will have a generally positive effect on the environment because of the elimination of permitted stationary sources of air emissions associated with naval operations.  In addition, the removal of military activity in areas occupied by threatened/endangered species and wetlands contributes positively to the environment.  Sufficient unrestricted land is available for expansion at each of the receiving sites, and adequate capacity exists in their environmental facilities (such as water treatment and wastewater treatment plants) to handle the increases in personnel attendant to this closure.

Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas

Recommendation:  Realign Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas, as a Naval Air Facility, and relocate the undergraduate pilot training function and associated personnel, equipment and support to Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida, and Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Florida.

Justification:  Reductions in force structure have led to decreases in pilot training rates.  This reduction has allowed the Navy to consolidate maritime and primary fixed wing training in the Pensacola-Whiting complex while retaining the airfield and airspace at Corpus Christi to support the consolidation of strike training at the Kingsville-Corpus Christi complex.  The Corpus Christi Naval Air Facility is also being retained to accept mine warfare helicopter assets in support of the Mine Warfare Center of Excellence at Naval Station, Ingleside, and to provide the opportunity for the movement of additional aviation assets to the NAF as operational considerations dictate.  This NAF will continue to support its current group of DoD and Federal agency tenants and their aviation-intensive needs, as well as other regional Navy air operations as needed.

Return on Investment:  The return on investment data below applies to the closure of NAS Meridian, the closure of NTTC Meridian, the realignment of NAS Corpus Christi to an NAF, and the NAS Alameda redirect.  The total estimated one-time cost to implement these recommendations is $83.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $158.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $33.4 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $471.2 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 152 jobs (142 direct jobs and 10 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Corpus Christi, Texas MSA economic area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to 0.2 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The realignment of NAS Corpus Christi will have a generally positive effect on the environment.  Undergraduate Pilot Training will be relocated to NAS Pensacola and NAS Whiting Field, which are in air quality control districts that are in attainment for carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10.  A conformity determination for certain air quality areas may be required to assess the impact this realignment (in combination with the closure of NAS Meridian) will have on the air quality status of these areas.  Each receiving base was reviewed for the realignment impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and 

wetlands, cultural/historical resources, land/air space use, pollution control, and hazardous material waste requirements, and no such impact was found.  Adequate capacity exists for all utilities at each gaining base.  The gaining sites have sufficient space for rehabilitation or unrestricted acres available for expansion.

Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Keyport, Washington

Recommendation:  Realign Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Keyport, Washington, by moving its ships' combat systems console refurbishment depot maintenance and general industrial workload to Naval Shipyard, Puget Sound, Bremerton, Washington.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  Consistent with the Department of the Navy's efforts to remove depot level maintenance workload from technical centers and return it to depot industrial activities, this action consolidates ship combat systems workload at NSYD Puget Sound, but retains electronic test and repair equipments at NUWC Keyport, as well as torpedo depot maintenance, thereby removing the need to replicate facilities.  The workload redistribution also furthers the Pacific Northwest Regional Maintenance Center initiatives, more fully utilizes the capacity at the shipyard, and will achieve greater productivity efficiencies within the shipyard.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $2.1 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $9.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $2.1 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $29.7 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 58 jobs (28 direct jobs and 30 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Bremerton, Washington PMSA economic area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to 7.3 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  This recommendation involves the transfer of functions and associated personnel between NUWC Keyport and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, both of which are in the same air quality region.  The reduction of personnel resulting from this transfer will have a generally positive impact on the environment.  There are no impacts on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, In-Service Engineering West Coast Division, San Diego, California

Recommendation:  Disestablish the In-Service Engineering West Coast Division (NISE West), San Diego, California, of the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center (NCCOSC), including the Taylor Street Special Use Area, and consolidate necessary functions and personnel with the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division, either in the NCCOSC RDT&E Division spaces at Point Loma, California, or in current NISE West spaces in San Diego, California.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  This action permits the elimination of the command and support structure of the closing activity resulting in improved efficiency, reduced costs, and reduced excess capacity.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $1.8 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $19.3 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $4.3 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $60 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 168 jobs (58 direct jobs and 110 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the San Diego, California MSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to 1.2 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NISE West San Diego will have no appreciable impact on the environment since all relocation of personnel will be within the local area and within the same air quality district.  The gaining sites have sufficient space for rehabilitation and adequate capacity in the utility infrastructure to handle this additional load.  There is no impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, California

Recommendation:  Disestablish the Naval Health Research Center (NHRC), San Diego, California, and relocate necessary functions, personnel and equipment to the Bureau of Naval Personnel (BUPERS) at Memphis, Tennessee.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  This activity performs research and modelling and maintains databases in a number of personnel health and performance areas, and its consolidation with the Bureau of Naval Personnel not only reduces excess capacity but also aligns this activity with the DON's principal organization responsible for military personnel and the primary user of its products.  The resulting synergy enhances the discharge of this responsibility while achieving necessary economies.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $6.2 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $2 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$1.4 million with a return on investment expected in four years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $11.4 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 423 jobs (154 direct jobs and 269 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the San Diego, California MSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to 1.2 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The disestablishment of NHRC San Diego will have a positive impact on the environment in that this activity will be leaving an area that is in moderate non- attainment for carbon monoxide.  The additional personnel being relocated to BUPERS Memphis represent a net decrease in personnel by FY 2001, and, accordingly, will not impact the environment at the receiving site, although a conformity determination may be required to assess this impact.  There is adequate capacity in the utility infrastructure at the receiving site to handle these relocating personnel.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Personnel Research and Development Center,

San Diego, California

Recommendation:  Disestablish Naval Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, California, and relocate its functions, and appropriate personnel, equipment, and support to the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Memphis, Tennessee, and Naval Air Warfare Center, Training Systems Division, Orlando, Florida.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  Disestablishment of this technical center not only eliminates excess capacity but also collocates its functions with the primary user of its products.  This recommendation permits the consolidation of appropriate functions at the new headquarters concentration for the Bureau of Naval Personnel in Memphis, Tennessee, and at the technical concentration for training systems and devices in Orlando, producing economies and efficiencies in the management of these functions.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $7.9 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $4.3 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$1.9 million with a return on investment expected in four years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $14.9 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 611 jobs (219 direct jobs and 392 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the San Diego, California MSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to 1.2 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  Disestablishing NPRDC San Diego will have a generally positive effect on the environment because it will be relocating personnel out of an area currently in severe non-attainment for ozone.  These personnel represent less than a 2 percent increase in the personnel at BUPERS Memphis, an area in moderate non-attainment for carbon monoxide, and thus will have a minimal impact on that region, although a conformity determination may be required to assess the impact on air quality from this action.  Those personnel that are relocating to NAWCTSD Orlando, an area that is in attainment for carbon monoxide, represent less than a four percent increase in personnel and will not adversely affect that area.  There will be no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN,

Long Beach, California

Recommendation:  Disestablish the Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN, Long Beach, California.  Relocate certain functions, personnel and equipment to Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN, San Diego, California.

Justification:  Because of reductions in the FY 2001 Force Structure Plan and resource levels, naval requirements for private sector shipbuilding, conversion, modernization and repair are expected to decrease significantly.  The combined capacity of the current thirteen SUPSHIP activities meaningfully exceeds the DON requirement over that Force Structure Plan.  Additionally, with the closure of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, the future requirement for this work in this region is anticipated to be quite nominal.  The predicted workload can be efficiently absorbed by SUPSHIP San Diego.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this action is 

$0.3 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $0.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.3 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $3.3 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 30 jobs (19 direct jobs and 11 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Los Angeles-Long Beach, California PMSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.4 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  SUPSHIP Long Beach is a tenant activity and as such does not control or manage real property.  Its complete closure will have no appreciable environmental impacts, including impacts on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources.  Despite the classification of San Diego, California, as a non- attainment area for ozone, the transfer of a small number of personnel from SUPSHIP Long Beach to San Diego will not adversely impact the air quality of that area.

Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division, New London Detachment, New London, Connecticut

Recommendation:  Disestablish the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division, New London Detachment, New London, Connecticut, and relocate necessary functions with associated personnel, equipment, and support to Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division, Newport, Rhode Island.  Close the NUWC New London facility, except retain Pier 7 which is transferred to the Navy Submarine Base New London.  The site presently occupied by the U.S. Coast Guard Station, New London, will be transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard.  The Navy Submarine Base, New London, Magnetic Silencing Facility will remain in its present location as a tenant of the U.S. Coast Guard.  Naval reserve units will relocate to other naval activities, primarily NUWC Newport, Rhode Island, and Navy Submarine Base, New London, Connecticut.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  The closure of this activity completes the undersea warfare center consolidation begun in BRAC 91.  It not only reduces excess capacity, but, by consolidating certain functions at NUWC Newport Rhode Island, achieves efficiencies and economies in management, thus reducing costs.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $23.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $14.3 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$8.1 million with a return on investment expected in three years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $91.2 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,365 jobs (627 direct jobs and 738 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the New London-Norwich, Connecticut NECMA economic area, which is 1.0 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 3.2 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NUWC New London will have a generally beneficial impact on the environment.  New London is in a non-attainment area for ozone, and, accordingly, the closure of this site will have a positive effect on the environment.  The movement of personnel to Newport will not impact that area's status of being in attainment for carbon monoxide and PM-10.  Adequate capacity exists in NUWC's utility infrastructure to handle these relocating personnel without impact.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources at either the losing or gaining sites occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Research Laboratory, Underwater Sound Reference Detachment, Orlando, Florida

Recommendation:  Disestablish the Naval Research Laboratory, Underwater Sound Reference Detachment (NRL UWSRD), Orlando, Florida.  Relocate the calibration and standards function with associated personnel, equipment, and support to the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division, Newport, Rhode Island, except for the Anechoic Tank Facility I, which will be excessed.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and of the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  The disestablishment of this laboratory reduces excess capacity by eliminating unnecessarily redundant capability, since requirements can be met by reliance on alternative lakes that exist in the DON inventory.  By consolidating necessary functions at NUWC Newport, Rhode Island, this recommendation achieves efficiencies and economies.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $8.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $3.7 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$2.8 million with a return on investment expected in three years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $30.1 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 292 jobs (109 direct jobs and 183 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Orange-Osceola-Seminole Counties, Florida economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 1.9 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NRL UWSRD Orlando generally will have a minor positive impact on the environment.  Both Orlando and NUWC Newport are in areas of attainment for carbon monoxide, and the additional personnel relocating to Newport, when compared to force structure reductions by FY 2001, still represent a net decrease in personnel at the Newport site.  The utility infrastructure at the receiving site is sufficient to handle the relocating personnel.  There is no adverse impact to threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, and cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Guam

Recommendation:  Disestablish the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Guam.

Justification:  Fleet and Industrial Supply Centers (FISC) are follower activities whose existence depends upon active fleet units in their homeport area.  Prior and current BRAC actions closing both Naval Air Station, Guam and a portion of Naval Activities, Guam have significantly reduced this activity's customer base.  The remaining workload can efficiently be handled by other activities on Guam or by other FISCs.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $18.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $143 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$31.1 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $437.3 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 580 jobs (413 direct jobs and 167 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Agana, Guam economic area, which is 0.9 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 10.6 percent of employment in the economic area.  However, much of this impact involves the inclusion of MSC mariners in the job loss statement, which does not reflect the temporary nature of their presence on Guam.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The Guam Air Pollution Control District is in attainment for carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10.  Closure of this activity will remove POV sources of air emissions, thus enhancing the air quality of Guam.  A significant factor further contributing to an overall positive impact on the environment in Guam is the shutdown of fueling facilities at Guam, specifically at Sasa Valley and Tenjo.  Not only does this action eliminate the need for continuous monitoring of fuel tanks but it also removes the potential for a fuel spill in an area that has been designated as part of the Guam National Wildlife Refuge.  The elimination of military actions in areas occupied by the indigenous endangered species, the Common Moorhen, and in and near wetlands also will contribute positively to the environment in Guam.

Naval Biodynamics Laboratory, New Orleans, Louisiana

Recommendation:  Close the Naval Biodynamics Laboratory, New Orleans, Louisiana, and relocate necessary personnel to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, and Naval Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Pensacola, Florida.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  Closure of this laboratory reduces this excess capacity and fosters joint synergism.  It also provides the opportunity for the transfer of its equipment and facilities to the public educational or commercial sector, thus maintaining access to its capabilities on an as-needed basis.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $.6 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $14.1 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$2.9 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $41.8 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 126 jobs (54 direct jobs and 72 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the New Orleans, Louisiana MSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to less than 0.1 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of the Biodynamics Lab, New Orleans, will not have an effect on the environment.  This closure recommendation only relocates two personnel to Wright-Patterson AFB and one to Pensacola, but leaves all facilities and equipment in place.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, and cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland

Recommendation:  Close the Naval Medical Research Institute (NMRI), Bethesda, Maryland.  Consolidate the personnel of the Diving Medicine Program with the Experimental Diving Unit, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Coastal Systems Station, Panama City, Florida.  Relocate the Infectious Diseases, Combat Casualty Care and Operational Medicine programs along with necessary personnel and equipment to the Walter Reed Army Institute for Research at Forest Glen, Maryland.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and of the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  This closure and realignment achieves a principal objective of the DoD by cross-servicing part of this laboratory's workload and furthers the BRAC 91 Tri-Service Project Reliance Study decision by collocating medical research with the Army.  Other portions of that workload can be assumed by another Navy installation with only a transfer of certain personnel, achieving both a reduction in excess capacity and a cost savings by eliminating a redundant capability in the area of diving research.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $3.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $19 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$9.5 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $111 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 226 jobs (146 direct jobs and 80 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Washington, DC-Maryland-Virginia-West Virginia PMSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.6 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NMRI Bethesda will have a minimal impact on the environment.  The relocation of personnel to Panama City, Florida, represents a net reduction in FY 2001 compared to current personnel loading.  Therefore, these additional personnel will have no significant impact on the environment at that receiving site.  The addition of personnel transferring to the Walter Reed Army Institute for Research represents less than a one percent increase in personnel, with insignificant impacts on the environment.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, and cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Detachment,

Annapolis, Maryland

Recommendation:  Close the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Detachment, Annapolis, Maryland, including the NIKE Site, Bayhead Road, Annapolis, except transfer the fuel storage/refueling sites and the water treatment facilities to Naval Station, Annapolis to support the U.S. Naval Academy and Navy housing.  Relocate appropriate functions, personnel, equipment and support to other technical activities, primarily Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Detachment, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Naval Surface Weapons Center, Carderock Division, Carderock, Maryland; and the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.  The Joint Spectrum Center, a DoD cross-service tenant, will be relocated with other components of the Center in the local area as appropriate.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the Department of the Navy budget through 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  The total closure of this technical center reduces overall excess capacity in this category of installations, as well as excess capacity specific to this particular installation.  It results in synergistic efficiencies by eliminating a major site and collocating technical personnel at the two primary remaining sites involved in hull, machinery, and equipment associated with naval vessels.  It allows the movement of work to other Navy, DoD, academic and private industry facilities, and the excessing of some facilities not in continuous use.  It also collocates RDT&E efforts with the In-Service Engineering work and facilities, to incorporate lessons learned from fleet operations and to increase the technical response pool to solve immediate problems.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $25 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $36.7 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $14.5 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $175.1 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,512 jobs (522 direct jobs and 990 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Baltimore, Maryland PMSA economic area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to less than 0.1 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NSWC Annapolis does not involve the transfer of any industrial-type activities.  NSWC Carderock and NRL are currently in moderate non- attainment for carbon monoxide and attainment for PM-10; however, the movement of personnel into those areas will not adversely impact the environment in those areas.  NSWC Philadelphia is in a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide.  In the case of each receiving site, a conformity determination may be required to assess the impact of this action.  At all receiving sites, the utility infrastructure is adequate to handle the additional personnel.  Also, there is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, cultural/historical resources as a result of this recommendation.

Naval Technical Training Center, Meridian, Mississippi

Recommendation:  Close the Naval Technical Training Center, Meridian, Mississippi, and relocate the training functions to other training activities, primarily the Navy Supply Corps School, Athens, Georgia, and Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, Rhode Island.

Justification:  Projected manpower reductions contained in the DoD Force Structure Plan require a substantial decrease in training-related infrastructure consistent with the policy of collocating training functions at fleet concentration centers when feasible.  Consolidation of the Naval Technical Training Center functions at two other major training activities provides improved and more efficient management of the these training functions and aligns certain enlisted personnel training to sites where similar training is being provided to officers.

Return on Investment:  The return on investment data below applies to the closure of NAS Meridian, the closure of NTTC Meridian, the realignment of NAS Corpus Christi to an NAF, and the NAS Alameda redirect.  The total estimated one-time cost to implement these recommendations is $83.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $158.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $33.4 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $471.2 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  The economic data below applies to the closure of NAS Meridian and the closure of NTTC Meridian.  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 3,324 jobs (2,581 direct jobs and 743 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Lauderdale County, Mississippi economic area, which is 8.0 percent of economic area employment.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NAS Meridian, the host of this activity, will have a generally positive effect on the environment.  Undergraduate Pilot Training will be relocated to NAS Kingsville, which is in an air quality control district that is in attainment for carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10.  Cleanup of the six IR sites at NAS Meridian will continue.  No impact was identified for threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, cultural/historical resources, land/air space use, pollution control, and hazardous material waste requirements.  Adequate capacity exists for all utilities at the gaining base, and there is sufficient space for rehabilitation or unrestricted acres available for expansion.

Naval Aviation Engineering Service Unit, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Recommendation:  Close the Naval Aviation Engineering Service Unit (NAESU), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and consolidate necessary functions, personnel, and equipment with the Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP), North Island, California.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  Closure of this facility eliminates excess capacity within the technical center subcategory by using available capacity at NADEP North Island.  Additionally, it enables the consolidation of necessary functions with a depot activity performing similar work and results in a reduction of costs.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $2.5 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $5.9 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$2.5 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $29.5 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 145 jobs (90 direct jobs and 55 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-New Jersey PMSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 1.2 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NAESU Philadelphia will have a generally positive impact on the environment because it removes POV air emission sources from an area that is in non- attainment for carbon monoxide.  The additional personnel relocating to NADEP North Island represent less than a one percent increase in current base personnel loading, which will not affect the environment.  Further, the utility infrastructure capacity at the receiving site is sufficient to handle these additional personnel.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Air Technical Services Facility, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Recommendation:  Close the Naval Air Technical Services Facility (NATSF), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and consolidate necessary functions, personnel, and equipment with the Naval Aviation Depot, North Island, California.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  Closure of this facility eliminates excess capacity within the technical center subcategory by using available capacity at NADEP North Island and achieves the synergy from having the drawings and manuals collocated with an in-service maintenance activity at a major fleet concentration.  Additionally, it enables the elimination of the NATSF detachment already at North Island and results in a reduction of costs.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $5.7 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $1.5 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$2.2 million with a return on investment expected in three years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $22.7 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 715 jobs (227 direct jobs and 488 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-New Jersey PMSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 1.2 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NATSF Philadelphia will have a generally positive effect on the environment because this activity will be vacating leased space in an area that is in non- attainment for carbon monoxide.  The additional personnel being relocated represent less than a one percent increase in base personnel at North Island, and adequate capacity exists in the utility infrastructure to handle this additional personnel loading.  There will be no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Open Water Test Facility, Oreland, Pennsylvania

Recommendation:  Close the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Open Water Test Facility, Oreland, Pennsylvania.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  Closure of this facility reduces excess capacity by eliminating unnecessarily redundant capability, since requirements can be met by reliance on other lakes that exist in the DON inventory.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $50 thousand.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $33 thousand.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$15 thousand with a return on investment expected in three years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $.2 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-New Jersey PMSA economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no community infrastructure impact since there are no receiving installations for this recommendation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of the NAWC OWTF Oreland will have a beneficial effect on the environment since any impact of military activities on jurisdictional wetlands will be eliminated.  Because this closure has no accompanying transfer of functions or personnel, there are no other environmental impacts associated with this closure.  There will be no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E

Division Detachment, Warminster, Pennsylvania

Recommendation:  Close the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division Detachment, Warminster, Pennsylvania.  Relocate appropriate functions, personnel, equipment, and support to other technical activities, primarily the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division, San Diego, California; and the Naval Oceanographic Office, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  The closure of this activity reduces excess capacity with the resultant efficiencies and economies in the management of the relocated functions at the new receiving sites.  Additionally, it completes the process of realignment initiated in BRAC 91, based on a clearer understanding of what is now required to be retained in-house.  Closure and excessing of the Inertial Navigational Facility further reduces excess capacity and provides the opportunity for the transfer of these facilities to the public educational or commercial sectors, thus maintaining access on an as-needed basis.

Return on Investment:  The return on investment data below applies to the closure of NAWC Warminster and the closure of NCCOSC Det Warminster.  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $8.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $33.1 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $7.6 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $104.6 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  The economic data below applies to the closure of NAWC Warminster and the closure of NCCOSC Det Warminster.  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,080 jobs (348 direct jobs and 732 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-New Jersey PMSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 1.0 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of both NAWC Warminster and NCCOSC Det Warminster will have a positive effect on the environment because their appropriate functions and personnel will be relocated out of an area that is in severe non-attainment for ozone and from an activity that is included on the National Priorities List.  The personnel being relocated to NCCOSC San Diego represent an increase in personnel of less than six percent, which is not considered of sufficient size to adversely impact the environment at that sites.  However, a conformity determination may be required to determine this impact.  At both receiving sites, the utility infrastructure capacity is sufficient to handle the additional loading.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Charleston, South Carolina

Recommendation:  Close the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Charleston, South Carolina.

Justification:  Fleet and Industrial Supply Centers are follower activities whose existence depends upon active fleet units in their homeport area.  Prior BRAC actions closed or realigned most of this activity's customer base, and most of its personnel have already transferred to the Naval Command, Control, and Ocean Surveillance Center, In-Service Engineering, East Coast Division, Charleston, South Carolina.  Further, in accordance with the FY 2001 Force Structure Plan, force structure reductions through the year 2001 erode the requirement for support of active forces even further.  This remaining workload can efficiently be handled by other FISCs or other naval activities.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $2.3 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $2.3 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.9 million with a return on investment expected in two years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $10.8 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 12 jobs (8 direct jobs and 4 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Charleston-North Charleston, South Carolina MSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 8.4 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no community infrastructure impact since there are no receiving installations for this recommendation.

Environmental Impact:  This activity is located in an area that is in attainment for carbon monoxide, ozone and PM-10.  This closure will support the maintenance of this air quality status and will have a further positive impact on the environment in that it eliminates barge movements in and out of the pier area as part of the fueling operations in the FISC complex.  An additional positive impact is the elimination of military activities in an area occupied by the Least Tern, an endangered species, and its designated habitat aboard the present FISC Charleston complex.  There will be no adverse impact on cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, In-Service Engineering East Coast Detachment, Norfolk, Virginia

Recommendation:  Close the In-Service Engineering East Coast Detachment, St. Juliens Creek Annex, Norfolk, Virginia, of the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, except retain in place the transmit and receive equipment and antennas currently at the St. Juliens Creek Annex.  Relocate functions, necessary personnel and equipment to Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON budget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  The closure of this activity and the relocation of its principal functions achieves improved efficiencies and a reduction of excess capacity by aligning its functions with other fleet support provided by the shipyard.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $4.6 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $0.06 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$2.1 million with a return on investment expected in three years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $20.4 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  This recommendation will not result in a change in employment in the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, Virginia-North Carolina MSA economic area because all affected jobs will remain in that economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of NCCOSC ISE East Det Norfolk, St. Juliens Creek Annex, will have no appreciable impact on the environment since all relocation of personnel will be within the local area and within the same air quality region.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Information Systems Management Center, Arlington, Virginia

Recommendation:  Relocate the Naval Information Systems Management Center from leased space in Arlington, Virginia, to the Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.

Justification:  The resource levels of administrative activities are dependent upon the level of forces they support.  The continuing decline in force levels shown in the FY 2001 Force Structure Plan coupled with the effects of the National Performance Review result in further reductions of personnel in administrative activities.  This relocation reduces excess capacity and achieves savings by the movement from leased space to government-owned space, and furthers the Department's policy decision to merge this activity with the Information Technology Acquisition Center which is already housed in the Navy Yard.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $0.1 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $0.3 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$0.1 million with a return on investment expected in two years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $1.7 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  This recommendation will not result in a change in employment in the Washington, DC-Maryland-Virginia-West Virginia PMSA economic area because all affected jobs will remain in that economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The relocation of this activity from leased space in the NCR to the Washington Navy Yard will not adversely impact the environment because it is an administrative activity and the relocation concerns only a small number of personnel and office support equipment.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitat and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Management Systems Support Office, Chesapeake, Virginia

Recommendation:  Disestablish the Naval Management Systems Support Office (NAVMASSO), Chesapeake, Virginia, and relocate its functions and necessary personnel and equipment as a detachment of Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, San Diego, California, in government-owned spaces in Norfolk, Virginia.

Justification:  There is an overall reduction in operational forces and a sharp decline of the DON bdget through FY 2001.  Specific reductions for technical centers are difficult to determine, because these activities are supported through customer orders.  However, the level of forces and the budget are reliable indicators of sharp declines in technical center workload through FY 2001, which leads to a recognition of excess capacity in these activities.  This excess and the imbalance in force and resource levels dictate closure/realignment or consolidation of activities wherever practicable.  The disestablishment of this activity permits the elimination of the command and support structure of this activity and the consolidation of certain functions with a major technical center.  This recommendation also provides for the movement out of leased space into government-owned space, a move which had been intended to occur as part of the DON BRAC 93 recommended consolidation of the Naval Electronic Systems Engineering Centers in Portsmouth, which the 1993 Commission disapproved.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $2.2 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $9 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$2.7 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $34.9 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 50 jobs (21 direct jobs and 29 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, Virginia-North Carolina MSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to 1.0 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The disestablishment of NAVMASSO will not impact the environment.  NAVMASSO is an administrative activity that is currently located in leased space only 18 miles from its gaining site, the Norfolk Naval Station.  These additional personnel readily can be handled by the utility infrastructure at the gaining site.  Also, there is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Reserve Centers/Commands

Recommendation:

Close the following Naval Reserve Centers:

Stockton, California

Pomona, California

Santa Ana, Irvine, California

Laredo, Texas

Sheboygan, Wisconsin

Cadillac, Michigan

Staten Island, New York

Huntsville, Alabama

Close the following Naval Air Reserve Center:

Olathe, Kansas

Close the following Naval Reserve Readiness Commands:

Region Seven - Charleston, South Carolina

Region Ten - New Orleans, Louisiana

Justification:  Existing capacity in support of the Reserve component continues to be in excess of the force structure requirements for the year 2001.  These Reserve Centers scored low in military value, among other things, because there were a fewer number of drilling reservists than the number of billets available (suggesting a lesser demographic pool from which to recruit sailors), or because there was a poor use of facilities (for instance, only one drill weekend per month).  Readiness Command (REDCOM) 7 has management responsibility for the fewest number of Reserve Centers of the thirteen REDCOMs, while REDCOM 10 has management responsibility for the fewest number of Selected Reservists.  In 1994, nearly three-fourths of the authorized SELRES billets at REDCOM 10 were unfilled, suggesting a demographic shortfall.  In addition, both REDCOMs have high ratios of active duty personnel when compared to SELRES supported.  The declining Reserve force structure necessitates more effective utilization of resources and therefore justifies closing these two REDCOMs.  In arriving at the recommendation to close these Reserve Centers/Commands, specific analysis was conducted to ensure that there was either an alternate location available to accommodate the affected Reserve population or demographic support for purpose of force recruiting in the areas to which units were being relocated.  This specific analysis, verified by the COBRA analysis, supports these closures.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement the closure of NRC Stockton is $45 thousand.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $2 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.4 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $5.4 million.

The total estimated one-time cost to implement the closure of NRC Pomona is $48 thousand.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $1.9 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.3 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $5.1 million.

The total estimated one-time cost to implement the closure of NRC Santa Ana is 

$41 thousand.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $3 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.5 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $8.1 million.

The total estimated one-time cost to implement the closure of NRF Laredo is 

$27 thousand.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $1.4 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.3 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $3.8 million.

The total estimated one-time cost to implement the closure of NRC Sheboygan is 

$31 thousand.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $1.5 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.3 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $4.1 million.

The total estimated one-time cost to implement the closure of NRC Cadillac is 

$46 thousand.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $1.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.3 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $5 million.

The total estimated one-time cost to implement the closure of NRC Staten Island is $43 thousand.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $4.5 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.6 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $9.8 million.

The total estimated one-time cost to implement the closure of NRC Huntsville is 

$51 thousand.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $2.6 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.5 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $7.2 million.

The total estimated one-time cost to implement the closure of NARCEN Olathe is $0.2 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $3.9 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.7 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $10.9 million.

The total estimated one-time cost to implement the closure of NRRC Charleston is $0.5 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $14.4 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $2.7 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $39.9 million.

The total estimated one-time cost to implement the closure of NRRC New Orleans is $0.6 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $6 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $1.9 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $23.8 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of NRC Stockton could result in a maximum potential reduction of 10 jobs (7 direct jobs and 3 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Stockton-Lodi, California MSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to 0.6 percent of employment in the economic area.

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of NRC Pomona could result in a maximum potential reduction of 15 jobs (10 direct jobs and 5 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Los Angeles-Long Beach, California PMSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.4 percent of employment in the economic area.

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of NRC Santa Ana could result in a maximum potential reduction of 21 jobs (14 direct jobs and 7 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the Orange County, California PMSA economic area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 1.1 percent of employment in the economic area.

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of NRF Laredo could result in a maximum potential reduction of 8 jobs (6 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Laredo, Texas MSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of NRC Sheboygan could result in a maximum potential reduction of 8 jobs (6 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Sheboygan, Wisconsin MSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of NRC Cadillac could result in a maximum potential reduction of 10 jobs (8 direct jobs and 2 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Wexford County, Michigan economic area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area employment.

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of NRC Staten Island could result in a maximum potential reduction of 21 jobs (14 direct jobs and 7 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the New York, New York PMSA economic area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.1 percent of employment in the economic area.

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of NRC Huntsville could result in a maximum potential reduction of 26 jobs (19 direct jobs and 7 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the Madison County, Alabama economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to 2.7 percent of employment in the economic area.

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of NARCEN Olathe could result in a maximum potential reduction of 22 jobs (14 direct jobs and 8 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the Kansas City, Missouri-Kansas MSA economic area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.1 percent of employment in the economic area.

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of NRRC Charleston could result in a maximum potential reduction of 67 jobs (46 direct jobs and 21 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the Charleston-North Charleston, South Carolina MSA economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 

8.4 percent of employment in the economic area.

Assuming no economic recovery, the closure of NRRC New Orleans could result in a maximum potential reduction of 73 jobs (47 direct jobs and 26 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the New Orleans, Louisiana MSA economic area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to less than 0.1 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The closure of these Reserve Centers and Readiness Commands generally will have a positive impact on the environment since, with the exception of REDCOM 10, they concern closures with no attendant realignments of personnel or functions.  In the case of REDCOM 10, the movement of less than 10 military personnel to REDCOM 11, Dallas, Texas, is not of such a size as to impact the environment.  Further, there is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro, California, and

Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, California

Recommendation:  Change the receiving sites for "squadrons and related activities at NAS Miramar" specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-18) from "NAS Lemoore and NAS Fallon" to "other naval air stations, primarily NAS Oceana, Virginia, NAS North Island, California, and NAS Fallon, Nevada."  Change the receiving sites for MCAS Tustin, California, specified by the 1993 Commission from "NAS North Island, NAS Miramar, or MCAS Camp Pendleton" to "other naval air stations, primarily MCAS New River, North Carolina; MCB Hawaii (MCAF Kaneohe Bay); MCAS Camp Pendleton, California; and NAS Miramar, California."

Justification:  This recommendation furthers the restructuring initiatives of operational bases commenced in BRAC 93 and also recognizes that the FY 2001 Force Structure Plan further reduced force levels from those in the FY 1999 Force Structure Plan applicable to BRAC 93.  These force level reductions required the Department of the Navy not only to eliminate additional excess capacity but to do so in a way that retained only the infrastructure necessary to support future force levels and did not impede operational flexibility for the deployment of that force.  Full implementation of the BRAC 93 recommendations relating to operational air stations would require the construction of substantial new capacity at installations on both coasts, which only exacerbates the level of excess capacity in this subcategory of installations.  Revising the receiving sites for assets from these installations in this and other air station recommendations eliminates the need for this construction of new capacity, such that the total savings are equivalent to the replacement plant value of an existing tactical aviation naval air station.  Further, within the context of the FY 2001 Force Structure Plan, the mix of operational air stations and the assets they support resulting from these recommendations provides substantial operational flexibility.  For instance, the single siting of F-14s at Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia, fully utilizes that installation's capacity and avoids the need to provide support on both coasts for this aircraft series which is scheduled to leave the active inventory.  This recommendation also permits the relocation of Marine Corps helicopter squadrons in the manner best able to meet operational imperatives.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $90.2 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $293 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$6.9 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $346.8 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Since this action affects unexecuted relocations resulting from prior BRAC recommendations, it causes no net change in current employment in either the San Diego MSA or the Kings County, California economic areas.  However, the anticipated 10.9% increase in the Kings County employment base and the anticipated 0.1% increase in the San Diego employment base will not occur.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The relocation of Navy and Marine Corps aviation assets in this recommendation generally will have a positive impact on the environment, particularly on the air quality in the areas in which NAS Lemoore and MCAS Miramar are located.  The introduction of additional aircraft and personnel to the Norfolk, Virginia, area is not expected to have an adverse impact on the air quality of this area in that the net effect of adding these aircraft and personnel, when compared to force structure reductions by FY 2001, is a reduction from FY 1990 levels.  However, a conformity determination will be required that takes into account any impact these actions may have on the air quality of these areas.  Further, the utility infrastructure at each receiving site has sufficient capacity to handle these additional personnel.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Air Station, Alameda, California

Recommendation:  Change the receiving sites specified by the 1993 Commission for the closure of Naval Air Station, Alameda, California (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-35) for "aircraft along with the dedicated personnel, equipment and support" and "reserve aviation assets" from "NAS North Island" and "NASA Ames/Moffett Field," respectively, to "other naval air stations, primarily the Naval Air Facility, Corpus Christi, Texas, to support the Mine Warfare Center of Excellence, Naval Station, Ingleside, Texas."

Justification:  The decision to collocate all mine warfare assets, including air assets, at the Mine Warfare Center of Excellence at Naval Station, Ingleside, Texas, coupled with the lack of existing facilities at Naval Air Station, North Island, support this movement of mine warfare helicopter assets to Texas.  With this collocation of assets, the Navy can conduct training and operations with the full spectrum of mine warfare assets from one location, significantly enhancing its mine warfare countermeasures capability.  This action is also consistent with the Department's approach for other naval air stations of eliminating capacity by not building new capacity.

Return on Investment:  The return on investment data below applies to the closure of NAS Meridian, the closure of NTTC Meridian, the realignment of NAS Corpus Christi to a NAF, and the NAS Alameda redirect.  The total estimated one-time cost to implement these recommendations is $83.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $158.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $33.4 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $471.2 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Since this action affects unexecuted relocations resulting from prior BRAC recommendations, it causes no net change in employment in the San Diego, California MSA economic area.  However, the anticipated small increase in the employment base in this economic area will not occur.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  This redirection involves only the relocation of the mine warfare helicopter assets (both active and reserve aircraft) to the Naval Air Facility, Corpus Christi, Texas, in support of the Mine Warfare Center of Excellence at Naval Station, Ingleside, Texas, instead of to Naval Air Station, North Island, California.  Therefore, this relocation will have a positive impact on the environment.  The Corpus Christi area is in attainment for all of the major air pollutants, while the San Diego area is in severe non-attainment for ozone.  Theaddition of these assets to the Corpus Christi area is not expected to have an impact on the environment.  However, if a conformity determination is required to assess the impact of this move on the local air quality, one will be performed.  There are no adverse impacts on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historic resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Recruiting District, San Diego, California

Recommendation:  Change the receiving site for the Naval Recruiting District, San Diego, California, specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-39) from "Naval Air Station North Island" to "other government-owned space in San Diego, California."

Justification:  The North Island site is somewhat isolated and not necessarily conducive to the discharge of a recruiting mission.  Moving this activity to government-owned space in a more central and accessible location enhances its operations.  Additionally, with the additional assets being placed in NAS North Island in this round of closures and realignments, there is a need for the space previously allocated to this activity.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $0.3 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $0.1 million.  There are no annual recurring savings after implementation, and a return on investment is expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $89 thousand.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  This recommendation will not result in a change in employment in the San Diego, California MSA economic area because all affected jobs will remain in that economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The relocation of this activity within its local area generally will have a positive impact on the environment because new facilities will not have to be constructed at NAS North Island.  Also, there is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Training Centers

Recommendation:  Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-38) concerning the closure of Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida, by deleting all references to Service School Command from the list of major tenants.  Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-39) concerning the closure of Naval Training Center, San Diego, California, by deleting all references to Service School Command, including Service School Command (Electronic Warfare) and Service School Command (Surface), from the list of major tenants.

Justification:  Service School Command is a major component command reporting directly to the Commanding Officer, Naval Training Center, and, as such, is not a tenant of the Naval Training Center.  Its relocation and that of its component courses can and should be accomplished in a manner "consistent with training requirements," as specified by the 1993 Commission recommendation language for the major elements of the Naval Training Centers.  For instance, while the command structure of the Service School Command at Naval Training Center, Orlando Florida, is relocating to the Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Illinois, the Torpedoman "C" School can be relocated to available facilities at the Naval Underwater Weapons Center, Keyport, Washington, and thus be adjacent to the facility that supports the type of weapon that is the subject of the training.  Similarly, since the Integrated Voice Communication School at the Naval Training Center, San Diego, California, uses contract instructors, placing it at Fleet Training Center, San Diego, necessitates only the local movement of equipment at a savings in the cost otherwise to be incurred to move such equipment to the Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Illinois.  Likewise, the relocation of the Messman "A" School at Naval Training Center, San Diego, to Lackland Air Force Base results in consolidation of the same type of training for all services at one location, consistent with Department goals, and avoids military construction costs at Naval Air Station, Pensacola.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $5.9 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $24.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$0.2 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $25.8 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Since this action affects unexecuted relocations resulting from prior BRAC recommendations, it causes no net change in employment in either the Lake County, Illinois, or the Pensacola, Florida MSA economic areas.  However, the anticipated 0.1 percent increase in the Lake County employment base and the anticipated 0.1 percent increase in Pensacola, Florida the employment base will not occur.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The relocation of individual schools will have a minimal impact on the environment.  Each is a tenant command and not a property owner.  Each of the receiving sites was reviewed for impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, and cultural/historic resources, and no adverse impact was found.  None of these schools are expected to have an adverse impact on the air quality of the areas to which it is relocating.  The receiving sites have adequate capacity in their utility infrastructure to handle the additional personnel relocated by this recommendation.

Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, Florida

Recommendation:  Change the receiving sites specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-20) from "Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina; Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia; and Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina" to "other naval air stations, primarily Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia; Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina; Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida; and Naval Air Station, Atlanta, Georgia; or other Navy or Marine Corps Air Stations with the necessary capacity and support infrastructure."  In addition, add the following:  "To support Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, retain OLF Whitehouse, the Pinecastle target complex, and the Yellow Water family housing area."

Justification:  Despite the large reduction in operational infrastructure accomplished during the 1993 round of base closure and realignment, since DON force structure experiences a reduction of over 10 percent by the year 2001, there continues to be additional excess capacity that must be eliminated.  In evaluating operational bases, the goal was to retain only that infrastructure necessary to support the future force structure without impeding operational flexibility for deployment of that force.  This recommended redirect achieves several important aims in furtherance of current Departmental policy and operational needs.  First, it avoids the substantial new construction at MCAS Cherry Point that would be required if the F/A-18s from NAS Cecil Field were relocated there, which would add to existing excess capacity, and utilizes existing capacity at NAS Oceana.  This avoidance and similar actions taken regarding other air stations are equivalent to the replacement plant value of an existing tactical aviation naval air station.  Second, it permits collocation of all fixed wing carrier-based anti-submarine warfare (ASW) air assets in the Atlantic Fleet with the other aviation ASW assets at NAS Jacksonville and NAVSTA Mayport and support for those assets.  Third, it permits recognition of the superior demographics for the Navy and Marine Corps reserves by relocation of reserve assets to Atlanta, Georgia.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $66.6 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $335.1 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $11.5 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $437.8 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Since this action affects unexecuted relocations resulting from prior BRAC recommendations, it causes no net change in current employment in the Craven and Carteret Counties, North Carolina economic area.  However, the anticipated 7.5 percent increase in the employment base in this economic area will not occur.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The reallocation of Navy and Marine Corps aviation assets in this recommendation will have a generally positive impact on the environment, particularly on the air quality at Cherry Point, North Carolina, and Jacksonville, Florida.  The introduction of additional aircraft and personnel to the Norfolk, Virginia, area is not expected to have an adverse impact on the air quality of that area since the net effect of moving these particular assets, when compared to the force structure reductions by FY 2001, is a reduction of personnel and aircraft from FY 1990 levels at this receiving activity.  However, it is expected that conformity determinations will be required for the movements to NAS Oceana and NAS Atlanta.  The utility infrastructure at each of the receiving sites is sufficient to handle the additional personnel.  At none of the receiving sites will there be an adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Aviation Depot, Pensacola, Florida

Recommendation:  Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at pages 1-42/43) by striking the following:  "In addition, the Commission recommends that the whirl tower and dynamic components facility be moved to Cherry Point Navy or Corpus Christi Army Depots or the private sector, in lieu of the Navy's plan to retain these operations in a stand-alone facility at NADEP Pensacola."

Justification:  Despite substantial reductions in depot maintenance capability accomplished in prior base closure evolutions, as force levels continue to decline, there is additional excess capacity that needs to be eliminated.  Naval Aviation Depot, Pensacola, was closed in BRAC 93, except for the whirl tower and dynamic components facility.  Subsequent to that decision, no requirement for the facility has been identified within either the Army or the Navy, and insufficient private sector interest in that facility has been expressed.  Additionally, the Depot Maintenance Joint Cross- Service Group (JCSG-DM) examined these functions in response to Congressional interest in reexamining the BRAC 93 action.  The JCSG-DM determined that the Pensacola facilities could not independently fulfill the entire future DoD requirement, but that the Army facilities at Corpus Christi Army Depot, combined with the Navy facilities at NADEP Cherry Point, could.  This recommendation will allow the disposal of the whirl tower and the rehabilitation of the dynamic components facility buildings for use by the Naval Air Technical Training Center.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $1.5 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $2.4 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$0.2 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $3.8 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Pensacola, Florida MSA economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no community infrastructure impact since there are no receiving installations for this recommendation.

Environmental Impact:  There are no known environmental impacts attendant to the disposal of these assets in place required by this recommendation, including impacts on air quality, threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources.

Navy Nuclear Power Propulsion Training Center, 

Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida

Recommendation:  Change the receiving site specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-38) for the "Nuclear Power School" (or the Navy Nuclear Power Propulsion Training Center) from "the Submarine School at the Naval Submarine Base (NSB), New London" to "Naval Weapons Station, Charleston, South Carolina."

Justification:  The decision of the 1993 Commission to retain the submarine piers at Naval Submarine Base New London, Connecticut, meant that some of the facilities designated for occupancy by the Navy Nuclear Power Propulsion Training Center were no longer available.  Locating this school with the Nuclear Propulsion Training Unit of the Naval Weapons Station, Charleston achieves an enhanced training capability, provides ready access to the moored training ships now at the Weapons Station, and avoids the significant costs of building and/or renovating facilities at New London.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $147.9 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $19.5 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $5.3 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $71.1 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Since this action affects unexecuted relocations resulting from prior BRAC recommendations, it causes no net change in employment in the New London-Norwich, Connecticut NECMA economic area.  However, the anticipated 2.3 percent increase in the employment base in this economic area will not occur.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The relocation of the Navy Nuclear Power Propulsion Training Center generally will have a positive impact on the environment.  The receiving site is in an air quality district that is in attainment for carbon monoxide, ozone and PM-10, and this relocation is not expected to have an adverse impact on that air quality status.  Also, the utility infrastructure of the receiving site is sufficient to handle the additional personnel.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historic resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam

Recommendation:  Change the receiving site specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-21) for "the aircraft, personnel, and associated equipment" from the closing Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam from "Andersen AFB, Guam" to "other naval or DoD air stations in the Continental United States and Hawaii."

Justification:  Other BRAC 95 actions recommended the partial closure of Naval Activities, Guam, with retention of the waterfront assets, and the relocation of all of the vessels currently homeported at Naval Activities, Guam to Hawaii.  Among the aircraft at Naval Activities, Guam is a squadron of helicopters performing logistics functions in support of these vessels.  This redirect would collocate these helicopters with the vessels they support.  Similarly, regarding the other aircraft at the closing Naval Air Station, the Fleet Commander-in-Chief desires operational synergies for his surveillance aircraft, which results in movement away from Guam.  This redirect more centrally collocates those aircraft with similar assets in Hawaii and on the West Coast, while avoiding the new construction costs required in order to house these aircraft at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, consistent with the Department's approach of eliminating capacity by not building new capacity.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $43.8 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $213.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $21.7 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $418 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,641 jobs (1,272 direct jobs and 369 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Agana, Guam economic area, which is 2.5 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 10.6 percent of employment in the economic area.  However, much of this impact involves the inclusion of MSC mariners in the job loss statement, which does not reflect the temporary nature of their presence on Guam.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The Guam Air Pollution Control District is in attainment for carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10.  Relocation of these aviation assets will remove a source of air emissions thus enhancing the air quality of Guam.  Both NAS Whidbey Island and MCB/MCAF Hawaii are in an attainment area for carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10, and thus this relocation will not require a conformity determination.  NAS North Island, on the other hand, is in an area which is in moderate non-attainment for carbon monoxide and severe non-attainment for ozone.  Thus, a conformity determination may be required to evaluate the impact on air quality.  Plans to disestablish current active squadrons support the ability to obtain a conformity determination.  Adequate utility support and undeveloped property for expansion exist at NAS North Island.  Similarly, at NAS Whidbey Island, force downsizing over the next six years will be in excess of the additional personnel and aircraft from this action.  There will be no adverse impact to threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii

Recommendation:  Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission regarding items excepted from the closure of Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii (1993 Commission, at page 1-19) from "Retain the family housing as needed for multi-service use" to "Retain the family housing as needed for multi-service use, including the following family housing support facilities:  commissary facilities, Public Works Center compound with its sanitary landfill, and beach recreational areas, known as Nimitz Beach and White Plains Beach."

Justification:  While specific mention was made of retention of family housing in the BRAC 93 recommendation relating to NAS Barbers Point, certain aspects conducive to supporting personnel in family housing were not specifically mentioned, which is required for their retention.  Quality of life interests require either that these facilities be retained or that new ones be built to provide these services.  Another advantage of retaining these facilities to support multi-service use is the avoidance of the costs of closing the existing landfill and either developing another one on other property on the island of Oahu or incurring the costs of shipping waste to a site off-island.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $37 thousand.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $17.6 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.1 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $18.4 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Honolulu, Hawaii MSA economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no community infrastructure impact since there are no receiving installations for this recommendation.

Environmental Impact:  The importance of this recommendation from the perspective of environmental impact is the retention of the existing landfill.  Without this recommendation, the landfill would have to be closed and capped, and, until a replacement site is established, waste water treatment sludge, for instance, would have to be exported off-island for disposal.  Further, by avoiding the need for new construction of facilities for the public works center compound and the commissary, this recommendation will eliminate any air emissions occasioned by such new construction and the need to use scarce real property resources to replace these facilities.  Also, there is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Air Facility, Detroit, Michigan

Recommendation:  Change the receiving site specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-25) for the Mt. Clemons, Michigan Marine Corps Reserve Center, including MWSG-47 and supporting units, from "Marine Corps Reserve Center, Twin Cities, Minnesota" to "Air National Guard Base, Selfridge, Michigan." 

Justification:  In addition to avoiding the costs of relocating the reserve unit from this reserve center to Minnesota, this redirect maintains a Marine Corps recruiting presence in the Detroit area, which is a demographically rich recruiting area, and realizes a principal objective of the Department of Defense to effect multi-service use of facilities.

Return on Investment:  There are no one-time costs to implement this recommendation.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of 

$9.4 million.  There are no annual recurring savings, and an immediate return on investment is obtained.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of 

$9.3 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Since this action affects unexecuted relocations resulting from prior BRAC recommendations, it causes no net change in current employment in the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota-Wisconsin MSA economic area.  However, the anticipated small increase in the employment base in this economic area will not occur.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The collocation of MWSG-47 and supporting units to National Guard facilities permits this activity to remain in its present location.  Both the Air National Guard Base, Selfridge and the closing Naval Air Facility Detroit are in the same Air Quality Control District.  Therefore, there will be no air quality changes on account of this recommendation.  The elimination of the transfer of this Reserve Center to NARCEN Twin Cities will have a positive effect on the air quality of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Air Quality Control District.

Naval Shipyard, Norfolk Detachment, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Recommendations:  Change the recommendation of the 1991 Commission relating to the closure of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (1991 Commission Report, at page 5-28) to delete "and preservation" (line 5) and "for emergent requirements"(lines 6-7).

Justification:  Despite substantial reductions in depot maintenance capability accomplished in prior base closure evolutions, as force levels continue to decline, there is additional excess capacity that needs to be eliminated.  The contingency seen in 1991 for which the facilities at this closed shipyard were being retained no longer exists, and their continued retention is neither necessary nor consistent with the DON objective to divest itself of unnecessary infrastructure.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $32 thousand.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $51.9 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$8.8 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $134.7 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  This recommendation will not affect any jobs in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-New Jersey PMSA economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no community infrastructure impact since there are no receiving installations for this recommendation.

Environmental Impact:  This recommendation completes the closure of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard which began with BRAC 91.  Since this is a closure with no realignment of functions, personnel or workload, there is no impact to threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Sea Systems Command, Arlington, Virginia

Recommendation:  Change the receiving sites specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-59) for the relocation of the Naval Sea Systems Command, including the Nuclear Propulsion Directorate (SEA 08), the Human Resources Office supporting the Naval Sea Systems Command, and associated PEOs and DRPMs, from "the Navy Annex, Arlington, Virginia; Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.; 3801 Nebraska Avenue, Washington, D.C.; Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia; or the White Oak facility, Silver Spring, Maryland" to "the Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. or other government-owned property in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area."

Justification:  The resource levels of administrative activities are dependent upon the level of forces they support.  The continuing decline in force levels shown in the FY 2001 Force Structure Plan coupled with the effects of the National Performance Review result in further reductions of personnel in administrative activities.  As a result, the capacity at the White Oak facility in Silver Spring, Maryland, or at the Navy Annex, Arlington, Virginia is no longer required to meet DON administrative space needs.  This change in receiving sites eliminates substantial expenditures otherwise required to rehabilitate both White Oak and the Navy Annex.  The net effect of this and the White Oak recommendation is a decrease of excess administrative space by more than 1,000,000 square feet.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $159.7 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $47.6 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $9.4 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $144 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  This recommendation will not result in a change in employment in the Washington, DC-Maryland-Virginia-West Virginia PMSA economic area because all affected jobs will remain in that economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The relocation of NAVSEA from leased space in the NCR to the Washington Navy Yard generally will have a positive impact on the environment, principally due to the avoidance of the construction of new facilities and the rehabilitation of existing facilities at NSWC White Oak, Maryland, which is closing in its entirety.  The Washington Navy Yard has sufficient facilities which can be rehabilitated to house these activities, and the utility infrastructure capacity is sufficient to handle the additional personnel.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitat and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia

Recommendation:  Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at pages 1-59/60) by deleting the Office of Naval Research from the list of National Capital Region activities to relocate from leased space to Government-owned space within the NCR.

Justification:  Because of other BRAC 95 actions, space designated for this activity pursuant to the BRAC 93 decision is no longer available.  Other Navy-owned space in the NCR would require substantial new construction in order to house this activity.  Permitting the Office of Naval Research to remain in its present location not only avoids this new construction, but also realizes the synergy obtained by having the activity located in proximity to the Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation.  Further, this action provides the opportunity for future collocation of like activities from the other Military Departments, with the attendant joint synergies which could be realized.  While this action results in a recurring cost, the cost is minimal in light of the importance of these two significant opportunities.

Return on Investment:  While the annual costs for this activity to remain in leased space are higher than operating costs paid for government-owned space, relocation to government-owned space would require new construction.  The cost of that new construction is more than  would be saved by this move over a twenty-year period.  COBRA analysis of the BRAC 93 recommendation in view of the changed circumstances regarding availability of space in the National Capital Region reveals that relocation of this activity would not result in a reasonable return on investment.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  This recommendation will not result in a change in employment in the Washington, DC-Maryland-Virginia-West Virginia PMSA economic area because all affected jobs will remain in that economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  Locating this activity in Arlington, Virginia, instead of at either the Washington Navy Yard or Nebraska Avenue generally will have a positive impact on the environment because new facilities will not have to be constructed.  Both the current site and the sites considered as receivers are in the same air quality district; thus, there will be no impact on air quality.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitat and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Arlington, Virginia

Recommendation:  Change the recommendation for the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Arlington, Virginia, specified by the 1993 Commission (Commission Report, at page 1-59) from "[r]elocate...from leased space to Government-owned space within the NCR, to include the Navy Annex, Arlington, Virginia; Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.; 3801 Nebraska Avenue, Washington, D.C.; Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia; or the White Oak facility, Silver Spring, Maryland" to "Relocate...from leased space to Government- owned space in San Diego, California, to allow consolidation of the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, with the Space and Naval Warfare Command headquarters.  This relocation does not include SPAWAR Code 40, which is located at NRL, or the Program Executive Officer for Space Communication Sensors and his immediate staff who will remain in Navy-owned space in the National Capital Region."

Justification:  The resource levels of administrative activities are dependent upon the level of forces they support.  The continuing decline in force levels shown in the FY 2001 Force Structure Plan coupled with the effects of the National Performance Review result in further reductions in administrative activities.  Space available in San Diego resulting from personnel changes and work consolidation permits further consolidation of the SPAWAR command structure and the elimination of levels of command structure.  This consolidation will achieve not only significant savings from elimination of unnecessary command structure but also efficiencies and economies of operation.  In addition, by relocating to San Diego instead of the NCR, there will be sufficient readily available space in the Washington Navy Yard for the Naval Sea Systems Command.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $24 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $120 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $25.3 million with an immediate return on investment expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $360 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,821 jobs (1,133 direct jobs and 681 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Washington, DC-Maryland-Virginia- West Virginia PMSA economic area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.6 percent of employment in the economic area.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The relocation of this activity from leased space in the NCR to San Diego, California, likely will not have an adverse impact on the environment.  Because San Diego is in a moderate non-attainment area for carbon monoxide, a conformity determination may be required to evaluate air quality impacts.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Recruiting Command, Washington, D.C.

Recommendation:  Change the receiving site for the Naval Recruiting Command, Washington, D.C., specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-59) from "Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Illinois" to "Naval Support Activity, Memphis, Tennessee."

Justification:  This relocation permits the single-siting of the Department's personnel recruiting and personnel management headquarters-level activities, enhancing their close coordination, and supporting the Department's policy of maximizing the use of government-owned space.  It also reduces the requirement to effect new construction, and reduces resulting potential building congestion, at NTC Great Lakes.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $6.5 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $1.1 million.  There are no annual recurring savings after implementation, and an immediate return on investment is expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $1.2 million.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Since this action affects unexecuted relocations resulting from prior BRAC recommendations, it causes no net change in employment in the Lake County, Illinois economic area.  However, the anticipated 

0.2 percent increase in the employment base in this economic area will not occur.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The movement of this activity to Naval Support Activity, Memphis generally will have a positive impact on the environment because new facilities will not have to be constructed at NTC Great Lakes, Illinois.  The additional personnel are not expected to have an adverse impact on the environment in that the utility infrastructure capacity at the receiving site is sufficient to handle this additional loading.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitats and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Naval Security Group Command Detachment Potomac,

Washington, D.C.

Recommendation:  Change the receiving site for the Naval Security Group Command Detachment Potomac, Washington, D.C., from "National Security Agency, Ft. Meade, Maryland" specified by the 1993 Commission (1993 Commission Report, at page 1-59) to "Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C." 

Justification:  The mission of this activity requires that it be collocated with space surveillance hardware.  This can most effectively be accomplished by housing this activity at the Naval Research Laboratory.  By this redirect, the cost of moving this activity to Fort Meade can be avoided.

Return on Investment:  There are no estimated one-time costs to implement this recommendation.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $4 thousand.  There are no annual recurring savings after implementation, and an immediate return on investment is expected.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $4 thousand.

Impacts:

Economic Impact on Communities:  Since this action affects unexecuted relocations resulting from prior BRAC recommendations, it causes no net change in current employment in the Baltimore, Maryland PMSA economic area.  However, the anticipated small increase in the employment base in this economic area will not occur.

Community Infrastructure Impact:  There is no known community infrastructure impact at any receiving installation.

Environmental Impact:  The relocation of this activity from Ft. Meade, Maryland, to the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., generally will have a positive impact on the environment.  Both the losing site and the gaining site are in the same air quality district; thus, movement of this activity within that district will no impact on air quality.  There is no adverse impact on threatened/endangered species, sensitive habitat and wetlands, or cultural/historical resources occasioned by this recommendation.

Department of the Air Force Selection Process

Introduction

The Air Force 1995 selection process shares the fundamental approach used in the 1991 and 1993 Air Force base realignment and closure (BRAC) processes.  

The basis for selection of closure and realignment recommendations was the DoD force structure and the final selection criteria.  The Secretary of the Air Force appointed a Base Closure Executive Group of six general officers and seven comparable (Senior Executive Service) civilians.  Areas of expertise included environment; facilities and construction; finance; law; logistics; programs; operations; personnel and training; reserve components; plus research, development and acquisition.  Additionally, an Air Staff-level Base Closure Working Group was formed to provide staff support and additional detailed expertise for the Executive Group.  Plans and Programs General Officers from the Major Commands (MAJCOM) met on several occasions with the Executive Group to provide mission specific expertise and greater base-level information.  Also, potential sister-service impacts were coordinated by a special inter-service working group. 

The Executive Group developed a Base Closure Internal Control Plan that was approved by the Secretary of the Air Force.  This plan provides structure and guidance for all participants in the base closure process, including procedures for data gathering and certification.

The Selection Process

The Executive Group reviewed all Active and Air Reserve Component (ARC) installations in the United States that met or exceeded the Section 2687, Title 10 U.S.C. threshold of 300 direct-hire civilians authorized to be employed.  Data on all applicable bases was collected via a comprehensive and detailed questionnaire answered at base level with validation by the Major Commands and Air Staff.  All data was evaluated and certified in accordance with the Air Force Internal Control Plan.  As an additional control measure, the Air Force Audit Agency was tasked to continuously review the Air Force process for consistency with the law and DoD policy and to ensure that the data collection and validation process was adequate.  A baseline capacity analysis was also performed that evaluated the physical capability of a base to accommodate additional force structure and other activities (excess capacity) beyond that programmed to be stationed at the base.

The Executive Group occasionally questioned the data, where appropriate, when the information was revised or more detailed data provided.  Data determined to be inaccurate was corrected.  All data used in the preparation and submission of information and recommendations concerning the closure or realignment of military installations was certified as to its accuracy and completeness by appropriate officials at base, MAJCOM, and headquarters level.  In addition, the Executive Group and the Secretary of the Air Force certified that all information contained in the Air Force Detailed Analysis and all supporting data were accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief.  

The Executive Group placed all bases in categories, based on the installation's predominant mission.  When considered by category, the results of the baseline capacity analysis represented the maximum potential base closures that could be achieved within each category.  The results of the baseline excess capacity analysis were then used in conjunction with the approved DoD force structure plan in determining base structure requirements.  Other factors were also considered to determine actual capabilities for base reductions.  The capacity analysis was also used to identify cost effective opportunities for the beddown of activities and aircraft dislocated from bases recommended for closure and realignment.

Bases deemed militarily or geographically unique or mission-essential were approved by the Secretary of the Air Force for exclusion from further closure consideration.  Capacity was analyzed by category, based on a study of current base capacity and the future requirements imposed by the force structure plan.  Categories and subcategories having no excess capacity were recommended to and approved by the Secretary of the Air Force for exclusion from further study.

All non-excluded Active Component bases in the remaining categories were individually examined on the basis of all eight selection criteria established by the Secretary of Defense, with over 250 subelements to the grading criteria.  These subelements were developed by the Air Force to provide specific data points for each criterion.  

Under Deputy Secretary of Defense direction, the Executive Group and the Secretary of the Air Force considered and analyzed the results of the efforts of Joint Cross-Service Groups in the areas of Depot Maintenance, Laboratories, Test and Evaluation, Undergraduate Pilot Training, and Military Treatment Facilities including Graduate Medical Education.  The Joint Cross-Service Groups established data elements, measures of merit, and methods of analysis for their functional areas.  The Air Force collected data as requested by the joint groups, following the Air Force's Internal Control Plan.  After receiving data provided by each of the Services, the joint groups developed functional values and alternatives for the activities under their consideration.  These alternatives were reported to the Military Departments for consideration in their processes.  In turn, the Military Departments responded with comments and cost analyses of the alternatives, and engaged in a dialogue with the joint groups regarding potential closure and realignment actions, consistent with the internal analytical processes of each Military Department.

The Air Reserve Component (ARC) category, comprised of Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve bases, warrants further explanation.  First, these bases do not readily compete against each other, as ARC units enjoy a special relationship with their respective states and local communities.  Under federal law, relocating Guard units across State boundaries is not a practical alternative.  In addition, careful consideration must be given to the recruiting needs of these units.  However, realignment of ARC units onto active or civilian, or other ARC installations could prove cost effective.  Therefore, the ARC category was examined for cost effective relocations to other bases.

Information, base groupings, excess capacity, and options resulting from the Executive Group analysis were presented to the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force by the Executive Group.  Based on the force structure plan and the eight selection criteria, with consideration given to excess capacity, efficiencies in base utilization, and concepts of force structure organization and basing, the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Air Force Chief of Staff, and using the analysis of the Executive Group, selected the bases recommended for closure and realignment.

North Highlands Air Guard Station, California

Recommendation:  Close North Highlands Air Guard Station (AGS) and relocate the 162nd Combat Communications Group (CCG) and the 149th Combat Communications Squadron (CCS) to McClellan AFB, California.

Justification:  Relocation of the 162nd CCG and 149th CCS onto McClellan AFB will provide a more cost-effective basing arrangement than presently exists by avoiding some of the costs associated with maintaining the installation.  Because of the very short distance from the unit’s present location in North Highlands to McClellan AFB, most of the personnel will remain with the unit.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $1.3 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $0.5 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$0.2 million with a return on investment expected in eight years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $1.5 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not result in a change in the employment in the Sacramento, California Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area because all affected jobs will remain in that economic area.  Review of demographic data projects no negative impact on recruiting.  This action will have minimal environmental impact.

Ontario International Airport Air Guard Station,

California

Recommendation:  Close Ontario International Airport Air Guard Station (AGS) and relocate the 148th Combat Communications Squadron (CCS) and the 210th Weather Flight to March ARB, California.

Justification:  Relocation of the 148th CCS and the 210th Weather Flight onto March ARB will provide a more cost-effective basing arrangement by avoiding some of the costs associated with maintaining the installation.  Because of the short distance from the unit’s present location on Ontario International Airport AGS, most of the personnel will remain with the unit.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $0.8 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $0.3 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$0.1 million with a return on investment expected in eight years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $0.9 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not result in a change in the employment in the Riverside-San Bernardino, California Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area because all affected jobs will remain in the economic area.  Review of demographic data projects no negative impact on recruiting.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal.  

Rome Laboratory, New York

Recommendation:  Close Rome Laboratory, Rome, New York.  Rome Laboratory activities will relocate to Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, and Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts.  Specifically, the Photonics, Electromagnetic & Reliability (except Test Site O&M operations), Computer Systems, Radio Communications and Communications Network activities, with their share of the Rome Lab staff activities, will relocate to Fort Monmouth.  The Surveillance, Intelligence & Reconnaissance Software Technology, Advanced C2 Concepts, and Space Communications activities, with their share of the Rome Laboratory staff activities, will relocate to Hanscom AFB.  The Test Site (e.g., Stockbridge and Newport) O&M operations will remain at its present location but will report to Hanscom AFB.

Justification:  The Air Force has more laboratory capacity than necessary to support current and projected Air Force research requirements.  The Laboratory Joint Cross-Service Group analysis recommended the Air Force consider the closure of Rome Laboratory.  Collocation of part of the Rome Laboratory with the Army’s Communications Electronics Research Development Evaluation Command at Fort Monmouth will reduce excess laboratory capacity and increase inter-Service cooperation and common C3 research.  In addition, Fort Monmouth’s location near unique civilian research activities offers potential for shared research activities.  Those activities relocated to Hanscom AFB will strengthen Air Force C3I RDT&E activities by collocating common research efforts.  This action will result in substantial savings and furthers the DoD goal of cross-service utilization of common support assets.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $52.8 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $15.1 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$11.5 million with a return on investment expected in four years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $98.4 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 2,345 jobs (1,067 direct jobs and 1,278 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Utica-Rome, New York Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 1.5 percent of the economic area’s employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 6.2 percent of employment in the economic area.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration of Rome Laboratory and Griffiss AFB will continue.

Roslyn Air Guard Station, New York

Recommendation:  Close Roslyn Air Guard Station (AGS) and relocate the 213th Electronic Installation Squadron (ANG) and the 274th Combat Communications Group (ANG) to Stewart International Airport AGS, Newburg, New York.  The 722nd Aeromedical Staging Squadron (AFRES) will relocate to suitable leased space within the current recruiting area.

Justification:  Relocation of the 213th Electronic Installation Squadron and 274th Combat Communications Group to Stewart International Airport AGS will produce a more efficient and cost-effective basing structure by avoiding some of the costs associated with maintaining the installation.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $2.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $0.7 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$0.7 million with a return on investment expected in four years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $7.6 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 71 jobs (44 direct jobs and 27 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Nassau-Suffolk, New York Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of the area’s employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to less than 0.1 percent of employment in the Nassau-Suffolk, New York Metropolitan Statistical Area.  Review of demographic data projects no negative impact on recruiting.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration will continue.

Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport

Air Guard Station, Ohio

Recommendation:  Close Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport Air Guard Station (AGS) and relocate the 178th Fighter Group (ANG), the 251st Combat Communications Group (ANG), and the 269th Combat Communications Squadron (ANG) to Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.

Justification:  The 178th Fighter Group provides crash, fire and rescue, security police, and other base operating support services for ANG activities at Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport.  By relocating to Wright-Patterson AFB, significant manpower and other savings will be realized by avoiding some of the costs associated with the installation.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $23.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $5.6 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$4.2 million with a return on investment expected in six years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $35.1 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not result in a change in the employment in the Riverside- Dayton-Springfield, Ohio Metropolitan Statistical Area because all affected jobs will remain in that economic area.  Review of demographic data projects no negative impact on recruiting.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal.

Greater Pittsburgh IAP Air Reserve Station, Pennsylvania

Recommendation:  Close Greater Pittsburgh IAP Air Reserve Station (ARS).  The 911th Airlift Wing will inactivate and its C-130 aircraft will be distributed to Air Force Reserve 

C-130 units at Dobbins ARB, Georgia, and Peterson AFB, Colorado.

Justification:  The Air Force Reserve has more C-130 operating locations than necessary to effectively support the Reserve C-130 aircraft in the Department of Defense (DoD) Force Structure Plan.  Although Greater Pittsburgh ARS is effective at supporting its mission, its evaluation overall under the eight criteria supports its closure.  Its operating costs are the greatest among Air Force Reserve C-130 operations at civilian airfields.  In addition, its location near a number of AFRES and Air National Guard units provides opportunities for its personnel to transfer and continue their service without extended travel.

 Return On Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $22.3 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $36.3 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $13.1 million with a return on investment expected in two years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $161.1 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 631 jobs (387 direct jobs and 244 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Allegheny, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland, Pennsylvania, counties economic area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  Review of demographic data projects no negative impact on recruiting.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.1 percent of employment in the economic area.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal, and restoration of the Greater Pittsburgh IAP ARS will continue.

Bergstrom Air Reserve Base, Texas

Recommendation:  Close Bergstrom ARB.  The 924th Fighter Wing (AFRES) will inactivate.  The Wing’s F-16 aircraft will be redistributed or retire.  Headquarters, 10th Air Force (AFRES), will relocate to Naval Air Station Fort Worth, Joint Reserve Base, Texas.

Justification:  Due to Air Force Reserve fighter force drawdown, the Air Force Reserve has an excess of F-16 fighter locations.  The closure of Bergstrom ARB is the most cost effective option for the Air Force Reserve.  The relocation of Headquarters, 10th Air Force to NAS Fort Worth will also collocate the unit with one of its major subordinate units.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $13.3 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $93.4 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $20.9 million with an immediate return on investment.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $291.4 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 954 jobs (585 direct jobs and 369 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Austin, Texas Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.2 percent of the area’s employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior- round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.2 percent of employment in the Austin, Texas Metropolitan Statistical Area.  Review of demographic data projects no negative impact on recruiting.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration of Bergstrom ARB will continue.

Brooks Air Force Base, Texas

Recommendation:  Close Brooks AFB.  The Human Systems Center, including the School of Aerospace Medicine and Armstrong Laboratory, will relocate to Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, however, some portion of the Manpower and Personnel function, and the Air Force Drug Test laboratory, may relocate to other locations.  The 68th Intelligence Squadron will relocate to Kelly AFB, Texas.  The Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence will relocate to Tyndall AFB, Florida.  The 710th Intelligence Flight (AFRES) will relocate to Lackland AFB, Texas.  The hyperbaric chamber operation, including associated personnel, will relocate to Lackland AFB, Texas.  All activities and facilities at the base including family housing and the medical facility will close.

Justification:  The Air Force has more laboratory capacity than necessary to support current and projected Air Force research requirements.  When compared to the attributes desirable in laboratory activities, the Armstrong Lab and Human Systems Center operations at Brooks AFB contributed less to Air Force needs as measured by such areas as workload requirements, facilities, and personnel.  As an installation, Brooks AFB ranked lower than the other bases in the Laboratory and Product Center subcategory.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $185.5 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $138.7 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $27.4 million with a return on investment expected in seven years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $142.1 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 7,879 jobs (3,759 direct jobs and 4,120 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the San Antonio, Texas Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 1.1 percent of the economic area’s employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations, including the relocation of some Air Force activities into the San Antonio area, and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.9 percent of employment in the economic area.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration of Brooks AFB will continue.

Reese Air Force Base, Texas

Recommendation:  Close Reese AFB.  The 64th Flying Training Wing will inactivate and its assigned aircraft will be redistributed or retired.  All activities and facilities at the base including family housing and the hospital will close.  

Justification:  The Air Force has more Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT) bases than necessary to support Air Force pilot training requirements consistent with the Department of Defense (DoD) Force Structure Plan.  When all eight criteria are applied to the bases in the UFT category, Reese AFB ranks low relative to the other bases in the category.  Reese AFB ranked lower when compared to other UFT bases when evaluated on such factors as weather (e.g., crosswinds, density altitude) and airspace availability (e.g., amount of airspace available for training, distance to training areas).  Reese AFB was also recommended for closure in each alternative recommended by the DoD Joint Cross-Service Group for Undergraduate Pilot Training.

Return on Investment: The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $37.3 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $51.9 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $21.5 million with a return on investment expected in two years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $256.8 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 2,891 jobs (2,083 direct jobs and 808 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Lubbock, Texas Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 2.2 percent of the economic area’s employment.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration of Reese AFB will continue.

Onizuka Air Station, California

Recommendation:  Realign Onizuka AS.  The 750th Space Group will inactivate and its functions will relocate to Falcon AFB, Colorado.  Detachment 2, Space and Missile Systems Center (AFMC) will relocate to Falcon AFB, Colorado.  Some tenants will remain in existing facilities.  All activities and facilities associated with the 750th Space Group including family housing and the clinic will close.  

Justification:  The Air Force has one more satellite control installation than is needed to support projected future Air Force satellite control requirements consistent with the Department of Defense (DoD) Force Structure Plan.  When all eight criteria are applied to the bases in the Satellite Control subcategory, Onizuka AS ranked lower than the other base in the subcategory.  Among other factors, Falcon AFB has superior protection against current and future electronic encroachment, reduced risks associated with security and mission-disrupting contingencies, and significantly higher closure costs. 

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $124.2 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $125.7 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $30.3 million with a return on investment expected in eight years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $181.6 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 2,969 jobs (1,875 direct jobs and 1,094 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the San Jose, California, Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 

0.3 percent of the economic area’s employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.5 percent of employment in the economic area.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration of Onizuka AS will continue.

Eglin Air Force Base, Florida

Recommendation:  Realign Eglin AFB, Florida.  The Electromagnetic Test Environment (EMTE), consisting of eight Electronic Combat (EC) threat simulator systems and two EC pod systems will relocate to the Nellis AFB Complex, Nevada.  Those emitter-only systems at the Air Force Development Test Center (AFDTC) at Eglin AFB necessary to support Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), the USAF Air Warfare Center, and Air Force Materiel Command Armaments/Weapons Test and Evaluation activities will be retained.  All other activities and facilities associated with Eglin will remain open.

Justification:  Air Force EC open air range workload requirements can be satisfied by one range.  Available capacity exists at the Nellis AFB Complex to absorb EMTE’s projected EC workload.  To ensure the Air Force retains the capability to effectively test and realistically train in the Armaments/Weapons functional category, necessary emitter-only threat systems will remain at Eglin AFB.  This action is consistent with Air Force and DoD efforts to consolidate workload where possible to achieve cost and mission efficiencies.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $2.2 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $6.3 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$2.6 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $31.4 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 85 jobs (52 direct jobs and 33 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Fort Walton Beach, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations, including the relocation of some Air Force activities into the Fort Walton Beach, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area, and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to 1.3 percent of employment in the economic area.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal, and ongoing restoration of Eglin AFB will continue.

Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana

Recommendation:  Realign Malmstrom AFB.  The 43rd Air Refueling Group and its 

KC-135 aircraft will relocate to MacDill AFB, Florida.  All fixed-wing aircraft flying operations at Malmstrom AFB will cease and the airfield will be closed.  A small airfield operational area will continue to be available to support the helicopter operations of the 40th Rescue Flight which will remain to support missile wing operations.  All base activities and facilities associated with the 341st Missile Wing will remain. 

Justification:  Although the missile field at Malmstrom AFB ranked very high, its airfield resources can efficiently support only a small number of tanker aircraft.  Its ability to support other large aircraft missions (bomber and airlift) is limited and closure of the airfield will generate substantial savings.  

During the 1995 process, the Air Force analysis highlighted a shortage of refueling aircraft in the southeastern United States.  The OSD direction to support the Unified Commands located at MacDill AFB creates an opportunity to relocate a tanker unit from the greater tanker resources of the northwestern United States to the southeast.  Movement of the refueling unit from Malmstrom AFB to MacDill AFB will also maximize the cost-effectiveness of that airfield.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $17.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $5.2 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$5.1 million with a return on investment expected in four years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $54.3 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,013 jobs (779 direct jobs and 234 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Great Falls, Montana Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 2.3 percent of the economic area’s employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 2.3 percent of employment in the economic area.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration of Malmstrom AFB will continue.

Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

Recommendation:  Realign Kirtland AFB.  The 58th Special Operations Wing will relocate to Holloman AFB, New Mexico.  The AF Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) will relocate to Eglin AFB, Florida.  The AF Office of Security Police (AFOSP) will relocate to Lackland AFB, Texas.  The AF Inspection Agency and the AF Safety Agency will relocate to Kelly AFB, Texas.  The Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) will relocate to Kelly AFB, Texas (Field Command) and Nellis AFB, Nevada (High Explosive Testing).  Some DNA personnel (Radiation Simulator operations) will remain in place.  The Phillips Laboratory and the 898th Munitions Squadron will remain in cantonment.  The AFRES and ANG activities will remain in existing facilities.  The 377th ABW inactivates and all other activities and facilities at Kirtland AFB, including family housing will close.  Air Force medical activities located in the Veterans Administration Hospital will terminate.

Justification:  As an installation, Kirtland AFB rated low relative to other bases in the Laboratory and Product Center subcategory when all eight selection criteria were considered.  The Laboratory Joint Cross-Service Group, however, gave the Phillips Laboratory operation a high functional value.  This realignment will close most of the base, but retain the Phillips Laboratory, which has a high functional value and the 898th Munitions Squadron, which is not practical to relocate.  Both of these activities are capable of operating with minimal military support.  Also, the Sandia National Laboratory can be cantoned in its present location.  This approach reduces infrastructure and produces significant annual savings, while maintaining those activities essential to the Air Force and the Department of Defense.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $277.5 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $158.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $62 million with a return on investment expected in three years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $464.5 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 11,916 jobs (6,850 direct jobs and 5,066 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the Bernallio County, New Mexico economic area, which is 3.6 percent of the economic area’s employment.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration of Kirtland AFB will continue.

Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota

Recommendation:  Realign Grand Forks AFB.  The 321st Missile Group will inactivate, unless prior to December 1996, the Secretary of Defense determines that the need to retain ballistic missile defense (BMD) options effectively precludes this action.  If the Secretary of Defense makes such a determination, Minot AFB, North Dakota, will be realigned and the 91st Missile Group will inactivate.  

If Grand Forks AFB is realigned, the 321st Missile Group will inactivate.  Minuteman III missiles will relocate to Malmstrom AFB, Montana, be maintained at depot facilities, or be retired.  A small number of silo launchers at Grand Forks may be retained if required.  The 319th Air Refueling Wing will remain in place.  All activities and facilities at the base associated with the 319th Air Refueling Wing, including family housing, the hospital, commissary, and base exchange will remain open.

If Minot AFB is realigned, the 91st Missile Group will inactivate.  Minuteman III missiles will relocate to Malmstrom AFB, Montana, be maintained at depot facilities, or be retired.  The 5th Bomb Wing will remain in place.  All activities and facilities at the base associated with the 5th Bomb Wing, including family housing, the hospital, commissary, and base exchange will remain open.

Justification:  A reduction in ICBM force structure requires the inactivation of one missile group within the Air Force.  The missile field at Grand Forks AFB ranked lowest due to operational concerns resulting from local geographic, geologic, and facility characteristics.  Grand Forks AFB also ranked low when all eight criteria are applied to bases in the large aircraft subcategory.  The airfield will be retained to satisfy operational requirements and maintain consolidated tanker resources.

If the Secretary of Defense determines that the need to retain BMD options effectively precludes realigning Grand Forks, then Minot AFB will be realigned.  The missile field at Minot AFB ranked next lowest due to operational concerns resulting from spacing, ranging and geological characteristics.  Minot AFB ranked in the middle tier when all eight criteria are applied to bases in the large aircraft subcategory.  The airfield will be retained to satisfy operational requirements.

Return on Investment:  For Grand Forks, the total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $11.9 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $111.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $35.2 million with an immediate return on investment.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $447.0 million.  Savings associated with the inactivation of a missile field were previously programmed in the Air Force budget.

Return on Investment:  If Minot AFB is selected, the total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $12.0 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $114.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $36.1 million with an immediate return on investment.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $458.6 million.  Savings associated with the closure of a missile field were previously programmed in the Air Force budget.

Impacts:  For Grand Forks AFB, assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 2,113 jobs (1,625 direct jobs and 488 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Grand Forks County, North Dakota economic area, which is 4.7 percent of the economic area’s employment.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration at Grand Forks AFB will continue.

Impacts:  If Minot is selected, assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 2,172 jobs (1,666 direct jobs and 506 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Minot County, North Dakota economic area, which is 6.1 percent of the economic area’s employment.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration at Minot AFB will continue.

Hill Air Force Base, Utah

Recommendation:  Realign Hill AFB, Utah.  The permanent Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) test range activity at Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) will be disestablished. Management responsibility for operation of the UTTR will transfer from AFMC to Air Combat Command (ACC).  Personnel, equipment and systems required for use by ACC to support the training range will be transferred to ACC.  Additional AFMC manpower associated with operation of the range will be eliminated.  Some armament/weapons Test and Evaluation (T& E) workload will transfer to the Air Force Development Test Center (AFDTC), Eglin AFB, Florida, and the Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC), Edwards AFB, California.

Justification:  Most of the current T&E activities can be accomplished at other T&E activities (AFFTC and AFDTC).  Disestablishing the AFMC test range activities and transferring the range to ACC will reduce excess T&E capacity within the Air Force.  Retaining the range as a training range will preserve the considerable training value offered by the range and is consistent with the current 82 percent training use of the range.  Retention of the range as a training facility will also allow large footprint weapons to undergo test and evaluation using mobile equipment.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $3.2 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $62.4 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $12.4 million with an immediate return on investment.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $179.9 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 168 jobs (104 direct jobs and 64 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Tooele County, Utah economic area, which is 1.3 percent of the economic area’s employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior- round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 36.6 percent of employment in the economic area.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration of the UTTR will continue.

Air Logistics Centers

Recommendation:  Realign the Air Logistics Centers (ALC) at Hill AFB, Utah; Kelly AFB, Texas; McClellan AFB, California; Robins AFB, Georgia; and Tinker AFB, Oklahoma.  Consolidate the followings workloads at the designated receiver locations:

Commodity/WorkloadReceiving Locations

Composites and plasticsSM-ALC, McClellan AFB

HydraulicsSM-ALC, McClellan AFB

Tubing manufacturingWR-ALC, Robins AFB

Airborne electronic automaticWR-ALC, Robins AFB, OC-

     equipment softwareALC, Tinker AFB, OO-ALC,

     Hill AFB

Sheet metal repair and manufacturingOO-ALC, Hill AFB, WR-      ALC, Robins AFB

Machining manufacturingOC-ALC, Tinker AFB, WR-

     ALC, Robins AFB

Foundry operationsSA-ALC, Kelly AFB, OO-

     ALC, Hill AFB

Instruments/displaysSM-ALC, McClellan AFB

     (some unique work remains

     at OO-ALC, Hill AFB and

     WR-ALC, Robins AFB)

Airborne electronicsWR-ALC, Robins AFB, OC-

     ALC, Tinker AFB, OO-ALC,

     Hill AFB

Electronic manufacturingWR-ALC, Robins AFB

     (printed wire boards)

Electrical/mechanical support equipmentSM-ALC, McClellan AFB

Injection moldingSM-ALC, McClellan AFB

Industrial plant equipment softwareSA-ALC, Kelly AFB

PlatingOC-ALC, Tinker AFB, OO-

     ALC, Hill AFB, SA-ALC,      Kelly AFB, WR-ALC, Robins      AFB

Move the required equipment and any required personnel to the receiving location.  These actions will create or strengthen Technical Repair Centers at the receiving locations in the respective commodities.  Minimal workload in each of the commodities may continue to be performed at the other ALCs as required.

Justification:  Reductions in force structure have resulted in excess depot maintenance capacity across Air Force depots.  The recommended realignments will consolidate production lines and move workload to a minimum number of locations, allowing the reduction of personnel, infrastructure, and other costs.  The net effect of the realignments is to transfer approximately 3.5 million direct labor hours and to eliminate 37 product lines across the five depots.  These actions will allow the Air Force to demolish or mothball facilities, or to make them available for use by other agencies.  These consolidations will reduce excess capacity, enhance efficiencies, and produce substantial cost savings without the extraordinary one-time costs associated with closing a single depot.

This action is part of a broader Air Force effort to downsize, reduce depot capacity and infrastructure, and achieve cost savings in a financially prudent manner consistent with mission requirements.  Programmed work reductions, downsizing through contracting or transfer to other Service depots, and the consolidation of workloads recommended above result in the reduction of real property infrastructure equal to 1.5 depots, and a reduction in manhour capacity equivalent to about two depots.  The proposed moves also make available over 25 million cubic feet of space to the Defense Logistics Agency for storage and other purposes, plus space to accept part of the Defense Nuclear Agency and other displaced Air Force missions.  This approach enhances the cost effectiveness of the overall Department of Defense’s closure and realignment recommendations.  The downsizing of all depots is consistent with DoD efforts to reduce excess maintenance capacity, reduce cost, improve efficiency of depot management, and increase contractor support for DoD requirements.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $183 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of  $138.7 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $89 million with a return on investment expected in two years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $991.2 million.

TINKER

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 3,040 jobs (1,180 direct jobs and 1,860 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 

0.5 percent of the economic area’s employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to- 2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.3 percent of employment in the economic area.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration of Tinker AFB will continue.

ROBINS

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,168 jobs (534 direct jobs and 634 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Macon, Georgia Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.7 percent of the economic area’s employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.7 percent of employment in the economic area.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration of Robins AFB will continue.

 KELLY 

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,446 jobs (555 direct jobs and 891 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the San Antonio, Texas Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.2 percent of the economic area’s employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations, including the relocation of some Air Force activities into the San Antonio area, and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.9 percent of employment in the economic area.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration will continue.

McCLELLAN and HILL

Impacts:  The recommendations pertaining to consolidations of workloads at these two centers are not anticipated to result in employment losses or significant environmental impact.

Moffett Federal Airfield Air Guard Station, California

Recommendation:  Close Moffett Federal Airfield Air Guard Station.  Relocate the 129th Rescue Group and associated aircraft to McClellan AFB, California.

Justification:  At Moffett Federal Airfield, the 129th Rescue Group (RQG) provides manpower for the airfield’s crash, fire and rescue, air traffic control, and security police services, and pays a portion of the total associated costs.  The ANG also pays a share of other base operating support costs.  These costs to the ANG have risen significantly since NAS Moffett realigned to Moffett Federal Airfield, and can be avoided if the unit is moved to an active duty airfield.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $15.2 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $4.4 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$4.8 million with a return on investment expected in four years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $50.1 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 507 jobs (318 direct jobs and 189 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the San Jose, California Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent of the economic area’s employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.5 percent of employment in the economic area.  Review of demographic data projects no negative impact on recruiting.  This action will have minimal environmental impact.

Real-Time Digitally Controlled Analyzer Processor Activity, 

Buffalo, New York

Recommendation:  Disestablish the Real-Time Digitally Controlled Analyzer Processor activity (REDCAP) at Buffalo, New York.  Required test activities and necessary support equipment will be relocated to the Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC) at Edwards AFB, California.  Any remaining equipment will be disposed of.

Justification:  The Test and Evaluation Joint Cross-Service Group (JCSG) recommended that REDCAP’s capabilities be relocated to an existing facility at an installation with a Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB) open air range.  Projected workload for REDCAP is only 10 percent of its available capacity.  AFFTC has capacity sufficient to absorb REDCAP’s workload.  REDCAP’s basic hardware-in-the-loop infrastructure is duplicated at other Air Force T&E facilities.  This action achieves significant cost savings and workload consolidation. 

Return on Investment: The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $1.7 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $1.9 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.9 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $11.0 million.

Impacts:  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 1996-to-2001 period in the Erie County, New York economic area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  This action will have minimal environmental impact.

Air Force Electronic Warfare Evaluation Simulator Activity,

Fort Worth, Texas

Recommendation:  Disestablish the Air Force Electronic Warfare Evaluation Simulator (AFEWES) activity in Fort Worth.  Essential AFEWES capabilities and the required test activities will relocate to the Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC), Edwards AFB, California.  Workload and selected equipment from AFEWES will be transferred to AFFTC.  AFEWES will be disestablished and any remaining equipment will be disposed of.

Justification:  The Test and Evaluation Joint Cross-Service Group (JCSG) recommended that AFEWES’s capabilities be relocated to an existing facility at an installation possessing a Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB) open air range.  Projected workload for AFEWES was only 28 percent of its available capacity.  Available capacity at AFFTC is sufficient to absorb AFEWES’s workload.  AFEWES’s basic hardware-in-the-loop infrastructure is duplicated at other Air Force Test and Evaluation facilities.  This action achieves significant cost savings and workload consolidation.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $5.8 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $2.6 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$0.8 million with a return on investment expected in seven years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $5.8 million.

Impacts:  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 1996-to-2001 period in the Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of the economic area’s employment.  This action will have minimal environmental impact.

Williams Air Force Base, Arizona

Recommendation:  Change the recommendation of the 1991 Commission regarding the relocation of Williams AFB’s Armstrong Laboratory Aircrew Training Research Facility to Orlando, Florida, as follows:  The Armstrong Laboratory Aircrew Training Research Facility at Mesa, Arizona, will remain at its present location as a stand-alone activity.

Justification:  The 1991 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended that the Armstrong Laboratory Aircrew Training Research Facility located at Williams AFB, Arizona, be relocated to Orlando, Florida.  This recommendation, was based on assumptions regarding Navy training activities and the availability of facilities.  Subsequent to that Commission’s report, it was discovered that the facilities were not available at the estimated cost.  In addition, Navy actions in the 1993 BRAC reduced the pilot resources necessary for this facility’s work.

In light of these changes, the Air Force recommends the activity remain at its current location.  First, it is largely a civilian operation that is well-suited to remain in a stand-alone configuration.  It has operated in that capacity since the closure of the rest of Williams AFB in September 1993.  Second, its proximity to Luke AFB provides a ready source of fighter aircraft pilots who can support the research activities as consultants and subjects.  Third, the present facilities are consolidated and well-suited to the research activities, including a large secure facility.  Finally, the activities are consistent with the community’s plans for redevelopment of the Williams AFB property, including a university and research park.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is zero.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $18.4 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $0.3 million with an immediate return on investment.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $21.0 million.

Impacts:  Since this action affects unexecuted relocations resulting from prior BRAC recommendations, it causes no net change in employment in the Orange, Osceola, and Seminole, Florida counties economic area.  As a result of Armstrong Laboratory being retained at Mesa, Arizona, this action results in the retention of 38 direct jobs the Phoenix-Mesa, Arizona Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado

Recommendation:  Change the recommendation of the 1991 Commission regarding the cantonment of the 1001st Space Support Squadron at the Lowry Support Center as follows:  Inactivate the 1001st Space Systems Squadron, now designated Detachment 1, Space Systems Support Group (SSSG).  Some Detachment 1 personnel and equipment will relocate to Peterson AFB, Colorado, under the Space Systems Support Group while the remainder of the positions will be eliminated.

Justification:  The 1991 Commission recommended that the 1001st Space Systems Squadron, now designated Detachment 1, SSSG, be retained in a cantonment area at the Lowry Support Center.  Air Force Materiel Command is consolidating space and warning systems software support at the SSSG at Peterson AFB.  The inactivation of Detachment 1, SSSG, and movement of its functions will further consolidate software support at Peterson AFB, and result in the elimination of some personnel positions and cost savings.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $1.7 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $10.9 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$3.0 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $39.0 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a potential reduction of 135 jobs (89 direct jobs and 46 indirect jobs ) over the 1996 to 2001 in the Denver, Colorado Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of economic area’s employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior- round BRAC actions in the Denver, Colorado Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area in the 1994 to 2001 period could result in a potential decrease equal to 0.8 percent of employment in the economic area.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration of Lowry AFB will continue.

Homestead Air Force Base , Florida

301st Rescue Squadron (AFRES)

Recommendation:  Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission regarding Homestead AFB as follows: Redirect the 301st Rescue Squadron (AFRES) with its associated aircraft to relocate to Patrick AFB, Florida.

Justification:  The 301st Rescue Squadron (RQS) is temporarily located at Patrick AFB, pending reconstruction of its facilities at Homestead AFB which were destroyed by Hurricane Andrew.  As part of the initiative to have reserve forces assume a greater role in DoD peacetime missions, the 301st RQS has assumed primary responsibility for Space Shuttle support and range clearing operations at Patrick AFB.  This reduces mission load on the active duty force structure.  Although the 301st RQS could perform this duty from the Homestead Air Reserve Station, doing so would require expensive temporary duty arrangements, extensive scheduling difficulties, and the dislocation of the unit’s mission from its beddown site.  The redirect will enable the Air Force to perform this mission more efficiently and at less cost, with less disruption to the unit and mission.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $4.6 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $1.5 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$1.5 million with a return on investment expected in four years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $15.4 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 341 jobs (214 direct jobs and 127 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Miami, Florida Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 

0.1 percent of economic area employment.  Review of demographic data projects no negative impact on recruiting.  There will be minimal environmental impact from this action at Homestead or Patrick Air Force Bases.

Homestead Air Force Base , Florida

726th Air Control Squadron

Recommendation: Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission regarding the relocation of the 726th Air Control Squadron (ACS) from Homestead AFB to Shaw AFB, South Carolina, as follows:  Redirect the 726th ACS to Mountain Home AFB, Idaho.

Justification:  The 726th ACS was permanently assigned to Homestead AFB.  In the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, the 726th ACS was temporarily moved to Shaw AFB, as the first available site for that unit.  In March 1993, the Secretary of Defense recommended the closure of Homestead AFB and the permanent beddown of the 726th ACS at Shaw AFB.  Since the 1993 Commission agreed with that recommendation, experience has shown that Shaw AFB does not provide adequate radar coverage of training airspace needed to support the training mission and sustained combat readiness.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $7.4 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $2.3 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$0.23 million with an immediate return on investment.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $4.6 million.

Impacts:  This action affects temporary relocations resulting from prior BRAC recommendations.  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a potential reduction of 163 jobs (126 direct jobs and 37 indirect jobs) over the 1996 to 2001 period in the Sumter, South Carolina Metropolitan Statistical Area which is 0.3 percent of the economic area’s employment.  Environmental impact from this action is minimal and ongoing restoration will continue.

MacDill Air Force Base, Florida

Recommendation:  Change the recommendations of the 1991 and 1993 Commissions regarding the closure and transfer of the MacDill AFB airfield to the Department of Commerce (DoC) as follows:  Redirect the retention of the MacDill airfield as part of MacDill AFB.  The Air Force will continue to operate the runway and its associated activities.  DoC will remain as a tenant.

Justification:  Since the 1993 Commission, the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have validated airfield requirements of the two Unified Commands at MacDill AFB and the Air Force has the responsibility to support those requirements.  Studies indicate that Tampa International Airport cannot support the Unified Commands' airfield needs.  These validated DoD requirements will constitute approximately 95 percent of the planned airfield operations and associated costs.  Given the requirement to support the vast majority of airfield operations, it is more efficient for the Air Force to operate the airfield from the existing active duty support base.  Additional cost savings will be achieved when the KC-135 aircraft and associated personnel are relocated from Malmstrom AFB in an associated action.

Return on Investment:  The cost and savings data associated with this redirect are reflected in the Malmstrom AFB realignment recommendation.  There will be no costs to implement this action, even if the Malmstrom AFB action does not occur, compared to Air Force support of a DoC-owned airfield. 

Impacts:  There is no economic or environmental impact associated with this action.

Griffiss Air Force Base, New York

Airfield Support for 10th Infantry (Light) Division

Recommendation:  Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission regarding support of the 10th Infantry (Light) Division, Fort Drum, New York, at Griffiss AFB, as follows: Close the minimum essential airfield that was to be maintained by a contractor at Griffiss AFB and provide the mobility/contingency/training support to the 10th Infantry (Light) Division from the Fort Drum airfield.  Mission essential equipment from the minimum essential airfield at Griffiss AFB will transfer to Fort Drum.

Justification:  Operation of the minimum essential airfield to support Fort Drum operations after the closure of Griffiss AFB has proven to far exceed earlier cost estimates.  Significant recurring operations and maintenance savings can be achieved by moving the mobility/contingency/training support for the 10th Infantry (Light) Division to Fort Drum and closing the minimum essential airfield operation at Griffiss.  This redirect will permit the Air Force to meet the mobility/contingency/training support requirements of the 10th Infantry (Light) Division at a reduced cost to the Air Force.  Having airfield support at its home location will improve 10th Infantry (Light) Division’s response capabilities, and will avoid the necessity of traveling significant distances, sometimes during winter weather, to its mobility support location.  Support at Fort Drum can be accomplished by improvement of the existing Fort Drum airfield and facilities

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $51.3 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $12.9 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$12.7 million with a return on investment expected in five years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $110.8 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 216 jobs (150 direct jobs and 66 indirect jobs) over the 1996 to 2001 period in the Utica-Rome, New York Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent of economic area employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the economic area over the 1994 to 2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to 6.2 percent of the employment in the economic area.  Environmental impact will be minimal;  ongoing restoration will continue.

Griffiss Air Force Base, New York

485th Engineering Installation Group

Recommendation:  Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission regarding the transfer of the 485th Engineering Installation Group (EIG) from Griffiss AFB, New York, to Hill AFB, Utah, as follows:  Inactivate the 485th EIG.  Transfer its engineering functions to the 38th EIG at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma.  Transfer its installation function to the 838th Electronic Installation Squadron (EIS) at Kelly AFB, Texas, and to the 938th EIS, McClellan AFB, California.

Justification:  Reorganization of the installation and engineering functions will achieve additional personnel overhead savings by inactivating the 485th EIG and redistributing the remaining activities to other units.  The originally planned receiver site for the 485th EIG at Hill AFB has proven to require costly renovation.  This redirect avoids these additional, unforeseen costs while providing a more efficient allocation of work.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $0.5 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $26.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$2.9 million with an immediate return on investment.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $53.6 million.

Impacts:  Since this action affects unexecuted relocations resulting from prior BRAC recommendations, it causes no net change in employment in the Salt Lake City-Ogden, Utah, Metropolitan Statistical Area.  However, the anticipated 0.2 percent increase in the employment base in this economic area will not occur.  There will be no environmental impact from this action at Hill Air Force Base, and minimal environmental impact at Kelly AFB, Tinker AFB, and McClellan AFB.

Defense Logistics Agency Selection Process

Introduction

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 1995 Base Realignment and Closure study process was guided by existing legislation, the DoD Force Structure Plan and by Department of Defense policy.  As DLA is not directly identified in the DoD Force Structure Plan, Concepts of Operations were developed to translate the effects of the Force Structure Plan within the Agency's mission planning.

The Director, DLA established a Base Realignment and Closure Executive Group comprised of appropriate senior executives from the Agency's business and staff areas.  The Group included both senior level civilian and military personnel, and was chaired by the Principal Deputy Director.

The Executive Group served as senior advisors to direct the 1995 study effort and present activity realignment and closure candidates for the Director's final recommendation to the Secretary of Defense.  A BRAC Working Group was also established under the direction of the Executive Group.  The Working Group developed analytical tools, collected and analyzed certified data, developed and evaluated alternative scenarios for Executive Group consideration, conducted sensitivity analyses, and compiled documentation to support the final recommendations.

The DLA BRAC analysis process ensured that all of the Agency's activities were evaluated fairly and equitably.  Formal charters were developed for the Executive Group and the Working Group, and audit and internal control plans were developed to document the collection and use of accurate certified data.

The Selection Process

The Executive Group aggregated activities into categories and subcategories based on similarity of mission, capabilities, and attributes.  From these, the following categories were defined:  Distribution Depots, Inventory Control Points, Service/Support, and Command and Control Activities.  Subcategories were defined within the categories to ensure that the activities were evaluated in a fair and consistent manner.  Where possible, activities were compared to peers of similar function and size.  Also, activities identified for closure as a result of previous BRAC decisions were not evaluated.

Collect Data

Comprehensive data calls were designed to support analysis of excess capacity, military value, and economic, environmental and community impacts with certified data. The data call questionnaires were carefully designed to ensure uniform interpretation of questions, level of detail, and documentation requirements.  Sources for the data were specified to the greatest extent practical.

Evaluate Excess Capacity

DLA conducted an excess capacity analysis for each of the BRAC activity categories and subcategories.  Where significant amounts of excess capacity were found, these sites could be considered as possible receiver sites in potential realignment recommendations.

Analyze Military Value

The purpose of the military value analysis was to determine the relative ranking of each activity with respect to other activities in the same category or subcategory.  OSD provided the Military Departments and the Defense Agencies with a list of selection criteria to be used as part of the military value analysis.  The Executive Group determined that more distinctive measures should be developed to assess the military value of DLA activities and developed the Measures of Merit shown below:

                 Develop Alternatives

The next step in the analysis sequence was to identify potential realignment or closure candidates and eliminate the remaining activities from further consideration.  Military value, in conjunction with military judgment, was the primary consideration in determining prospective realignment or closure candidates.  Once an alternative was conceived, it was evaluated for reasonableness and then either refined or abandoned.  DLA worked closely with each Military Department during this process to identify and consider potential excess space for joint use, to evaluate the impact of Military Department recommendations on its activities and to ensure that the impact of Military Department recommendations was appropriately factored into the Agency's recommendations.

Analyze Return on Investment

The DLA BRAC Working Group evaluated potential realignment and closure scenarios using the Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) model.  Data for the model consists of DoD standard factors, DLA standard factors, static base data, and scenario-specific data which describes the actions and costs involved in a realignment or closure scenario.  DoD standard factors used in the model were developed by a DoD Joint Process Action Team.  Agency-wide standard factors were developed from field-certified data and data collected and certified by Headquarters organizations.  Activity static information was gathered from field-certified data and OSD policy memo guidance.

Develop Recommendations

After base realignment and closure scenarios were evaluated with the COBRA model, the analysis results were reviewed by the BRAC Working Group and presented to the Executive Group for further consideration.

Each scenario was considered in terms of its overall risk, benefit, and cost to the strategic direction of DLA and the interests of DoD.  Based on its review and best military judgment, the Executive Group made individual recommendations to the Director.  After the approval of the Director, the recommendations were then returned to the Working Group for economic, community infrastructure, and environmental impact assessments.  The Working Group reported its findings to the Executive Group for further consideration as appropriate.

Role of Internal Controls and External Audits

An Internal Control Plan for the collection and analysis of data was developed for the BRAC 95 process.  The plan, issued 23 May 1994, was reviewed and approved by the DoD Inspector General (IG) and the General Accounting Office (GAO).

DoDIG personnel were responsible for data validation, and fully participated in the Executive and Working Group meetings and observed the Working Group analysis process.

GAO representatives also participated in the DLA BRAC 95 process and attended Executive Group meetings, observed the Working Group analysis process, and visited selected field activities to observe the data collection  and data validation process.

Finalize Recommendations

Upon completion of the impact assessments, recommendations were returned to the Executive Group.  The Working Group presented the results of the impact analyses and supported additional Executive Group deliberations.  The Executive Group discussed the impact assessments, conducted an extensive review of each recommendation, and approved selected recommendations.

The final approved recommendations were then prepared for inclusion in this report.  Preparation included gathering supporting documentation, writing narrative descriptions of the analysis process, and submission to OSD.  

Defense Distribution Depot Memphis, Tennessee (DDMT)

Recommendation:  Close Defense Distribution Depot Memphis, Tennessee.  Material remaining at DDMT at the time of closure will be relocated to optimum storage space within the DoD Distribution System.  As a result of the closure of DDMT, all DLA activity will cease at this location and DDMT will be excess to DLA needs.

Justification:  Defense Distribution Depot Memphis, is a Stand-Alone Depot that supports the two large east and west coast depots and is used primarily for storage capability and local area demand.  It is also the host for the Memphis complex.  The decision to close the Memphis depot was based on declining storage requirements and capacity estimates for 

FY 01 and on the need to reduce infrastructure within the Agency.

Memphis tied for third place out of the six Stand-Alone Depots in the military value analysis.  The higher scores for the Susquehanna and San Joaquin distribution depots in this analysis removed them from further consideration for closure.  The variance of only 37 points out of a possible 1,000 between the third and sixth place depots in the military value analysis for this category reinforced the importance of military judgment and compliance with the DLA BRAC 95 Decision Rules in the decision-making process.

A further consideration was the Agency's desire to minimize distribution infrastructure costs.  Closure of an entire installation will allow DLA to reduce infrastructure significantly more than disestablishment of a tenant depot (DDCO at Columbus, OH, and DDRV at Richmond, VA).  Memphis  was rated six out of six in the Installation Military Value analysis.  The Columbus installation ranked the highest.  The facilities at Richmond are the best maintained of any in DLA.  Both Columbus and Richmond take advantage of the synergy of a collocated Inventory Control Point.  This closure action conforms to the Decision Rules to maximize the use of shared overhead and make optimum use of retained DLA-operated facilities, while closing an installation.

In addition, the Strategic Analysis of Integrated Logistics Systems (SAILS) model optimized system-wide costs for distribution when the Ogden and Memphis depots were the two Stand-Alone Depots chosen for closure.  Sufficient throughput and storage capacity are available in the remaining depots to accommodate projected workload and storage requirements.  Closing DDMT is consistent with the DLA BRAC 95 Decision Rules and the Distribution Concept of Operations.  Therefore, military judgment determined that it is in the best interest of DLA and DoD to close DDMT.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $85.7 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $14.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $23.8 million with a return on investment expected in three years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $244.3 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 3,349 jobs (1,300 direct jobs and 2,049 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the Memphis, Tennessee-Arkansas-Mississippi Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.6 percent of the area's employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 1.5 percent of employment in the area.    

The Executive Group determined that receiving communities could absorb the additional forces, missions, and personnel proposed, and concluded that environmental considerations do not prohibit this recommendation from being implemented.

Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Utah (DDOU)

Recommendation:  Close Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Utah, except for a 36,000 square foot cantonment for Army Reserve personnel.  Material remaining at DDOU at the time of closure will be relocated to optimum storage space within the DoD Distribution System.  As a result of the closure of DDOU, all DLA activity will cease at this location and DDOU will be excess to DLA needs.

Justification:  The Defense Distribution Depot Ogden is a Stand-Alone Depot that supports the two large east and west coast depots and is used primarily for storage capability and local area demand.  It is also the host for the Ogden complex.  The decision to close the Ogden depot was based on declining storage requirements and capacity estimates for FY 01 and on the need to reduce infrastructure within the Agency.  

Ogden tied for third place out of the six Stand-Alone Depots in the military value analysis.  The higher scores for the Susquehanna and San Joaquin distribution depots in this analysis removed them from further consideration for closure.  The variance of only 37 points out of a possible 1,000 between the third and sixth place depots in military value ranking for this category reinforced the importance of compliance with the DLA BRAC 95 Decision Rules and military judgment in the decision-making process.

A further consideration was DLA's desire to minimize distribution infrastructure costs.  Closure of an entire installation will allow DLA to reduce infrastructure significantly more than disestablishment of a tenant depot (DDCO at Columbus, OH, and DDRV at Richmond, VA).  The Ogden depot was rated five of six in the Military Value Installation analysis.  The Columbus installation ranked the highest.  The facilities at Richmond are the best maintained of any in DLA.  Both Columbus and Richmond take advantage of the synergy of a collocated Inventory Control Point.  This action conforms to the DLA Decision Rules to maximize the use of shared overhead and make optimum use of retained DLA-operated facilities while closing an installation. 

In addition, the Strategic Analysis of Integrated Logistics Systems (SAILS) model optimized system-wide costs for Distribution when Ogden and Memphis were the two Stand- Alone Depots chosen for closure.  Sufficient throughput and storage capacity are available in the remaining depots to accommodate projected workload.  Closing the Ogden depot is consistent with the DLA BRAC 95 Decision Rules and the Distribution Concept of Operations.  Military judgment determined that it is in the best interest of DLA and DoD to close DDOU.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $110.8 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $27.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $21.3 million with a return on investment expected in four years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $180.9 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 2,947 jobs (1,113 direct jobs and 1,834 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to- 2001 period in the Salt Lake City-Ogden, Utah Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 

0.4 percent of the area's employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.3 percent of the employment in the area.

The Executive Group determined that the receiving community could absorb the additional forces, missions, and personnel proposed and that environmental considerations do not prohibit this recommendation from being implemented. 

Defense Contract Management District South (DCMDS)

Marietta, Georgia

Recommendation:  Disestablish DCMD South and relocate missions to DCMD Northeast and DCMD West.

Justification:  The Contract Management Districts provide command and control, operational support, and management oversight for 90 Defense Contract Management Area Operations (DCMAOs) and Defense Plant Representative Offices (DPROs) located throughout the continental United States.  Due to the impact of the DoD Force Structure drawdown, budget cuts and the resulting decline in acquisition workload, a number of Area Operations Offices and Plant Representative Offices have been disestablished thereby reducing the span of control responsibility at the Districts.  As the drawdown continues, the number of Area Operations Offices and Plant Representative Offices is expected to decline even further.  Based on the above, the closure of a district and realignment of assigned Area Operations Offices and Plant Representative Offices to the remaining two districts is feasible with only a moderate risk.   Although the difference between second and third place was not sufficiently broad to dictate a clear decision by itself, DCMD South received the lowest military value score.  

Military judgment determined that a single contract management district  presence on each coast is necessary.  A west coast district is required because of the high dollar value of contracts and the significant weapon-systems related workload located on the west coast.

There is a higher concentration of workload in the northeast, in terms of span of control, field personnel provided support services, numbers of contractors, and value of contract dollars obligated, than in the south.  In addition, the northeast district supports its Area Operations Offices and Plant Representative Offices with a lower ratio of headquarters to field personnel than DCMD South.  On the east coast, due to the higher concentration of workload in DCMD Northeast, as well as its significantly higher military value score, there is a clear indication that DCMD South is the disestablishment candidate.  As a result, the BRAC Executive Group recommended to the DLA Director, and he approved, the disestablishment of DCMD South.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $3.8 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $17.9 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$6.l million with a return on investment expected immediately.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $75.8 million.

Impacts:   Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 275 jobs (169 direct jobs and 106 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Atlanta, Georgia Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of the area's employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential increase equal to less than 0.1 percent of employment in the area.

The Executive Group concluded that the data did not present any evidence or indication that would preclude the recommended receiving communities from absorbing the additional forces, missions, and personnel proposed in the recommended realignment scenarios. The environmental considerations present at these installations do not prohibit this recommendation from being implemented.

Defense Contract Management Command International (DCMCI)

Dayton, Ohio

Recommendation:  Realign the DCMCI (Gentile AFS), Dayton, Ohio, and merge its mission into the Defense Contract Management Command Headquarters (DCMC HQ), Ft. Belvoir, Virginia.

Justification:  The mission of the DCMCI is to provide command and control, including operational and management control and oversight, for 13 overseas Defense Contract Management Area Operations (DCMAO) offices located outside of the continental United States.  The  Command's mission could be performed from any locality.  Military judgment concluded that merging the mission with the headquarters affords the opportunity to capitalize on operational and management oversight and to maximize use of shared overhead with DCMC.  It also affords the opportunity to take advantage of the close proximity to the State Department and the international support infrastructure in Washington, DC, and surrounding areas.  This decision is consistent with DLA BRAC 95 Decision Rules, the DCMC Concept of Operations and the Force Structure Plan.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $3.l million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $8.7 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$3.1 million with a return on investment expected in one year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $38.7 million.

Impacts:  Since this action affects unexecuted relocations resulting from prior BRAC recommendations, it causes no net change in employment in the Columbus, Ohio Metropolitan Statistical Area.  However, the anticipated employment increase of less than 

0.1 percent in the employment base in this area will not occur.

The Executive Group concluded that the data did not present any evidence or indication that would preclude the recommended receiving community from absorbing the additional forces, missions, and personnel proposed in the recommended realignment scenarios.  The environmental considerations present at the receiving installations do not prohibit this recommendation from being implemented.

Defense Distribution Depot Columbus, Ohio (DDCO)

Recommendation:  Realign the Defense Distribution Depot Columbus, Ohio, and designate it as a storage site for slow moving/war reserve material.  Active material remaining at DDCO at the time of realignment will be attrited.  Stock replenishment will be stored in optimum space within the distribution system.

Justification:  Defense Distribution Distribution Depot Columbus, is a Stand-Alone Depot that supports the two large east/west coast depots and is used primarily for storage capability and local area demand.  The decision to realign the Columbus depot was based on storage requirements and capacity estimates for FY 01 and the need to comply with BRAC 95 Decision Rules.  Columbus ranked sixth of six depots in military value for the Stand-Alone Depot category.

The other Stand-Alone Depots were not considered for realignment for the following reasons.  The higher military value of both the Susquehanna (DDSC) and San Joaquin (DDJC) depots removed them from consideration for closure or realignment.  The Richmond Depot (DDRV) was not selected for realignment because of the large amount of conforming hazardous material storage space, new construction and mechanization, and collocation with supply center, which has the best maintained facilities of any in DLA.  Both the Ogden and Memphis distribution depots were selected for closure.

The decision to realign rather than close the Columbus depot was based on the need for inactive storage capacity in the overall system and with the long-range intent of minimizing use of this site as storage requirements decline.  Moving highly active stock to San Joaquin and Susquehanna will allow DLA to take advantage of economies of scale from large distribution operations.  The decision was also based on the further consideration that Columbus, the highest ranking DLA location in the Installation Military Value analysis, will remain open and most likely expand its operations, thereby allowing DLA to maximize the use of shared overhead and optimize the use of retained DLA-operated facilities.  In addition, the Strategic Analysis of Integrated Logistics Systems (SAILS) model favored the retention of Columbus over either Ogden or Memphis.  Realigning  the Columbus depot is consistent with the DLA BRAC 95 Decision Rules and the Distribution Concept of Operations.  Military judgment determined that it is in the best interest of DLA and DoD to realign DDCO.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $7.9 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $51.2 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $11.6 million with a return on investment expected in the first year.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $161.0 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 997 jobs (365 direct jobs and 632 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Columbus, Ohio Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 0.1 percent of the area's 

employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior- round BRAC actions in the area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.1 percent of employment in the area.

The Executive Group determined that the receiving community could absorb the additional forces, missions, and personnel proposed, and concluded that environmental considerations do not prohibit this recommendation from being implemented.

Defense Distribution Depot Letterkenny, Pennsylvania (DDLP)

Recommendation:  Disestablish the Defense Distribution Depot Letterkenny, Pennsylvania.  Material remaining at DDLP at the time of disestablishment will be relocated to the Defense Distribution Depot Anniston, Alabama (DDAA) and to optimum storage space within the DoD Distribution System.

Justification:   The Defense Distribution Depot Letterkenny is collocated with an Army maintenance depot, its largest customer.  While Collocated Depots may support other nearby customers and provide limited world-wide distribution support, Letterkenny's primary function is to provide rapid response in support of the maintenance operation.  The Distribution Concept of Operations states that DLA's distribution system will support the size and configuration of the Defense Depot Maintenance System.  Thus, if depot maintenance activities are disestablished, Collocated Depots will also be disestablished.

The recommendation to disestablish the Letterkenny depot was driven by the Army recommendation to realign Letterkenny Army Depot, Letterkenny's primary customer, and the Agency's need to reduce infrastructure.  The Letterkenny depot was rated 3 of 17 in the Collocated Depot military value matrix.  However, that military value ranking was based on support to the maintenance missions.  With the realignment of the Army's maintenance mission to the Anniston Army Depot that value decreases significantly.  Other customers within the Letterkenny area can be supported from nearby distribution depots.  Production and physical space requirements can also be met by fully utilizing other depots in the distribution system.

Disestablishing DDLP is consistent with both the DLA BRAC 95 Decision Rules and the Distribution Concept of Operations.  Military judgment determined that it is in the best interest of DLA and DoD to disestablish DDLP.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $44.9 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $21.2 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$12.4 million with a return on investment expected in three years.  The net present value of costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $102.1 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 748 jobs (378 direct jobs and 370 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Franklin County, Pennsylvania economic area, which is 1.2 percent of the area's employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior- round BRAC actions in the area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 8.5 percent of employment in the area.

The DLA Executive Group determined that receiving communities could absorb the additional forces, missions, and personnel proposed, and concluded that environmental considerations do not prohibit this recommendation from being implemented.

Defense Industrial Supply Center (DISC)

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Recommendation:  The Defense Industrial Supply Center is disestablished.  Distribute the management of Federal Supply Classes (FSC) within the remaining DLA Inventory Control Points (ICP).  Create one ICP for the management of troop and general support items at the Defense Personnel Support Center (DPSC) in Philadelphia, PA.  Create two ICPs for the management of weapon system-related FSCs at the Defense Construction Supply Center (DCSC), Columbus, OH and the Defense General Supply Center (DGSC), Richmond, VA.

Justification:   Four of the five Inventory Control Points manage differing mixes of weapon system, troop support, and general support items.  Troop and general support items largely have different industry and customer bases than weapon system items.  They are also more conducive to commercial support, and are thus managed differently than weapon system items.  Consolidating management of items by the method of management required will improve oversight, streamline the supply management process, increase internal efficiency, and reduce overhead.

DLA manages nearly five times as many weapon system items as troop and general support items.  A single troop and general support ICP is adequate, but two weapon system ICPs are necessary.  DPSC is almost entirely a troop support ICP.  No other ICP currently manages troop support items.  The percentage of general support items at other ICPs is relatively small.  Singling-up troop and general support items under DPSC management is the most logical course of action.

DISC had the lowest military value of the three hardware ICPs.  The Columbus and Richmond centers are host activities of compounds which house a number of DLA and non-DLA activities, conforming to the DLA decision rules concerning maximizing the use of shared overhead and making optimum use of retained DLA-operated facilities.  Both the Richmond and Columbus sites have high installation military value, and take advantage of the synergy of a Collocated Depot.  Both also have considerable expansion capability.  The facilities at Columbus are the best maintained of any in DLA, and Richmond  has several new buildings completed or in progress.  DISC is a tenant on a Navy compound.  Disestablishing DISC allows the Agency to achieve a substantial cost avoidance by back-filling the space already occupied by DISC and substantially reducing the amount of conversion required to existing warehouse space.  Based on the above, military judgment concluded that disestablishing DISC is in the best interest of DLA and DoD.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time costs to implement the recommendation is $16.9 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $59.3 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $18.4 million, with a return on investment expected immediately.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $236.5 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,198 jobs (385 direct jobs and 813 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-New Jersey Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is less than 0.1 percent of the area's employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 1.2 percent of employment in the area. Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could also result in a maximum potential reduction of 981 jobs (358 direct jobs and 623 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Columbus, Ohio Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 

0.1 percent of the area's employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.1 percent of employment in the area.

The Executive Group concluded that the data did not present any evidence or indication that would preclude the recommended receiving community from absorbing the additional forces, missions, and personnel proposed in the recommended realignment scenario.   The environmental considerations present at the receiving installations do not prohibit this recommendation from being implemented.

Defense Distribution Depot Red River, Texas (DDRT)

Recommendation:  Disestablish the Defense Distribution Depot Red River, Texas.  Material remaining at DDRT at the time of disestablishment will be relocated to the Defense Distribution Depot Anniston, Alabama, (DDAA) and to optimum storage space within the DoD Distribution System.

Justification:   The Defense Distribution Depot Red River is collocated with an Army maintenance depot, its largest customer.  While Collocated Depots may support other nearby customers and provide limited world-wide distribution support, Red River's primary function is to provide rapid response in support of the maintenance operation.  The Distribution Concept of Operations states that DLA's distribution system will support the size and configuration of the Defense Depot Maintenance System.  Thus, if depot maintenance activities are disestablished, Collocated Depots will also be disestablished.

The recommendation to disestablish the Red River depot was driven by the Army recommendation to realign its Red River Army Depot, Red River's primary customer, and the Agency's need to reduce infrastructure.  DDRT was rated 5 of 17 in the Collocated Depot military value matrix.  However, that military value ranking was based on support to the maintenance missions.  With the realignment of the Army's maintenance mission to Anniston, Alabama, that value decreases significantly.  Other customers within the DDRT area can be supported from nearby distribution depots.  Production and physical space requirements can also be met by fully utilizing other depots in the distribution system.

Disestablishing DDRT is consistent with both the DLA BRAC 95 Decision Rules and the Distribution Concept of Operations.  Military judgment determined that it is in the best interest of DLA and DoD to disestablish DDRT.

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $58.9 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $0.8 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are 

$18.9 million with a return on investment expected in two years.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $186.1 million.

Impacts:  Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,602 jobs (821 direct jobs and 781 indirect jobs) over the 1996-to-2001 period in the Texarkana, Texas-Arkansas Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is 

2.7 percent of the area's employment.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior-round BRAC actions in the area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 7.7 percent of the employment in the area.

The DLA Executive Group determined that receiving communities could absorb the additional forces, missions, and personnel proposed, and concluded that environmental considerations do not prohibit this recommendation from being implemented.

Defense Contract Management District West (DCMDW)

El Segundo, California

Recommendation:  This is a redirect of the following BRAC 93 Commission recommendation:  ‟Relocate the Defense Contract Management District, El Segundo, California, to Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Los Angeles, California, or space obtained from exchange of land for space between the Navy and the Port Authority/City of Long Beach.”  The current recommendation is expanded to read:  Relocate the DCMD, El Segundo, CA, (a) to Government property in the Los Angeles/Long Beach area, or, (b) to space obtained from exchange of land between the Navy and Port Authority/City of Long Beach, or (c) to a purchased office building, whichever is the most cost-effective for DoD.

Justification:  The Defense Contract Management District West is currently located in GSA- leased administrative space in El Segundo, CA.  The BRAC 93 Commission found it was cost effective for DCMD West to move from leased space to DoD-owned property.  The Navy has been involved in exploratory discussions on behalf of DLA.  However, the President's Five-Point Revitalization Plan, which affords communities the opportunity to obtain installations without substantial compensation, has significantly impacted the Navy's ability to consummate a land exchange at Long Beach with the Port Authority/City of Long Beach.  The Long Beach Naval Shipyard, another option, has been placed on the BRAC 95 list for closure.  In order to attain the significant savings which will result by moving the organization into DoD space, the BRAC 93 recommendation is revised/expanded.  This redirect eliminates the cost of a warehouse and reflects the requirement for reduced administrative space.  This recommendation is consistent with the DCMC Concept of Operations and the DLA BRAC 95 Decision Rules.

Return on Investment:  This is a redirect of a BRAC 93 recommendation.  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $10.3 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a savings of $10.9 million.  Annual recurring savings after implementation are $4.2 million with a return on investment expected immediately.  The net present value of the costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $51.2 million.

Impacts:  This recommendation will not result in a change in employment in the Los Angeles- Long Beach, California Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area because all affected jobs will remain in that area.  The cumulative economic impact of all BRAC 95 recommendations and all prior- round BRAC actions in this area over the 1994-to-2001 period could result in a maximum potential decrease equal to 0.4 percent of employment in the area.

Defensive Investigative Service Selection Process

Introduction

The 1995 DIS Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) study process was guided by existing BRAC legislation and guidance provided by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).

The Director, DIS, established a Base Realignment and Closure Executive Group comprised of appropriate heads of headquarters Principal Staff Elements (PSE), and chaired by the Deputy Director, Resources.  The Executive Group acted as senior advisors to direct the analysis effort and present the Director's final recommendations to the Secretary of Defense.  A BRAC Working Group was established under the direction of the Executive Group.  The Working Group was comprised of four headquarters elements and two Investigations Control and Automation elements.  Other specific elements of DIS technical areas were consulted as appropriate.  The Working Group adapted the DoD process and procedures to the BRAC effort; collected and analyzed certified data; developed and evaluated recommendations for the Executive Group's consideration, and compiled documentation to support the final recommendation.

In October 1994, GAO began its review of the DIS BRAC 1995 process.  The Chairman of the Working Group served as an audit liaison with the GAO representatives throughout the analysis process.  

The Selection Process

The process followed the requirements of law and OSD policy guidance to ensure that all data were correctly collected and verified.  DIS first developed and implemented a general plan and operating instructions that would guide the efforts of the Executive and Working Groups.  An Internal Control Plan was developed to ensure that data was consistent and standardized,  accurate and complete, certifiable, verifiable, auditable by external audit and inspection agencies, and replicable using documentation developed during data collection.

The selection process consisted of five steps to gather data and conduct analyses:  

1) collect data, 2) analyze military value, 3) develop alternatives, 4) perform COBRA analyses, and 5) determine impacts.

Collect Data

Data elements were identified by the Working Group, and for the most part, collected by the Working Group.

Analyze Military Value

Military value criteria were given priority consideration.  Since the DoD Selection Criteria were designed specifically with the Military Services in mind, the Executive Group developed more distinctive measures to assess the military value of DIS activities.  The Measures of Merit used to develop military value were Mission Essentiality, Mission Suitability, Operational Efficiencies, and Expandability.  

Develop Alternatives

The Working Group developed three alternatives regarding the DIS activity at Fort Holabird: 1) renovate the existing facility, 2) military construction on available land at Fort Meade, and 3) leased space.  The cost and savings implications of these alternatives were then evaluated by COBRA.

Perform COBRA Analysis

DIS used the COBRA model to assess the relative costs, savings, and return on investment of the alternatives.  Working Group members gathered the necessary data regarding personnel, construction and renovation.

Determine Impacts

The potential economic impact on communities was evaluated through use of the BRAC 95 Economic Impact Data Base.  The ability of the potential losing and receiving locations infrastructure to support each alternative was evaluated by the Executive and Working Groups.  Impacts were also evaluated in terms of readiness, effectiveness, and efficiency with regard to DIS' ability to support its customers.  The analysis also considered potential environmental impacts at both the losing and  gaining sites for each alternative.

COBRA results, community and environmental impacts and supporting rationale were presented to the Executive Group for consideration and selection of the Agency's final recommendation to the Secretary of Defense.

Investigations Control and Automation Directorate (IC&AD), 

Fort Holabird, Maryland

Recommendation:  Relocate the Defense Investigative Service (DIS), Investigations Control and Automation Directorate (IC&AD) from Fort Holabird, Maryland, to a new facility to be built on Fort Meade, Maryland.  This proposal is a revision to the 1988 Base Closure Commission's recommendation to retain the Defense Investigative Service at Fort Holabird.  Once DIS vacates the building on Fort Holabird, the base will be vacant.

Justification:  The IC&AD is located in Building 320, a Korean War-era building.  The building is in disrepair and continues to deteriorate costing over $0.3 million in repairs since FY 1991 in addition to the annual Interservice Support Agreement cost of approximately 

$0.4 million.  A recent Corps of Engineers (COE) Building Analysis indicated that the cost to bring the building up to code and to correct the environmental deficiencies would cost DIS approximately $9.1 million based on current space requirements.  A military construction project on Fort Meade based on 1998 DIS force structure is estimated to cost $9.4 million.    

Return on Investment:  The total estimated one-time cost to implement this recommendation is $11 million.  The net of all costs and savings during the implementation period is a cost of $0.7 million.  Annual recurring savings after the implementation are 

$0.5 million with a return on investment expected in six years.  The net present value of costs and savings over 20 years is a savings of $4 million.

Impacts:  Relocating the IC&AD will have no negative impact on the local economy since it is an intra-area move.  There is no significant environmental or community infrastructure impact resulting from this relocation.