Trhis 0 cu

t~ roduced Fron,,# j- i

~T (4BestAvailable Copy~

BASE

:KIIIALIGNMENTS-'

AND

CLOSURES

.-Report of the..

S e-cretaryys,..

Commission -

December 1988

Oz~nXs I MTO TEMW

lip-proved~, fo puli r.*w

Distrbutin unlmite
Base Realignments

and Closures

Report of the

Defense Secretary's Commission

December 1988

".. .............
The Defense Secretary's Commission

On Base Realignment and Closure

CO-CHAIRMEN

Jack Edwards Abraham A. Ribicoff

MEMBERS

Louis W. Cabot Bryce Poe, II

W. Graham Claytor, Jr. William H. Rowden

Donald F. Craib, Jr. James C. Smith

Thomas F. Eagleton Donn A. Starry

Martin R. Hoffmann Russell E. Train
DEFENSE SECRETARY'S COMMISSION ON

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

1825 K Street, NW, Suite 310

Washington, D.C. 20006 (20z) 653-0180

AV 294-0180

FAX (202) 653-0312

December 29, 1988

The Honorable Frank C. Carlucci

Secretary of Defense

Washington, D.C. 20301

Dear Mr. Secretary:

On behalf of the Commission, we are pleased to transmit to you our report as

required by our Charter and Public Law 100-526. This report contains our detailed

findings and recommendations. We certify that the Commission has identified the

military installations to be closed or realigned by reviewing all military installations

inside the United States, including all military installations under construction and all

those planned for construction.

We want to assure you that we undertook this task with the utmost seriousness

and dedication to purpose. The recommendations in this report may not have been the

only recommendations possible, but we believe that there is a sound basis for them.

They reflect information received from expert witnesses, private industry, the Military

Services and other elements of the Defense Department. While this input has been

considerable, the results are the independent judgment of the Commission based on its

own experience and expertise.

The scope and nature of our recommendations reflect the current and future

requirements as we now see them, but as the nature of the threat and force structure

change, new basing realignments and closures will be required. We hope that the

emphasis of our report will lead to a smoother and more flexible process for these

changes in the future. There is no question that implementing our proposed

realignment and closure recommendations will require some fortitude, but we believe

that the hard budget choices facing our nation mandate that unneeded bases be closed

and realigned.

Sincerely,

Abraham Ribicoff 4J1, Jack Edwards

Co-Chairman Co-Chairman
Table of Contents

Executive Summary. 6

Chapter 1: Background . 8

Chapter 2: The Commission . 10

Chapter 3: Base Structure and Conditions 12

Chapter 4: The Process 15

Chapter 5: Recommendations 19

Chapter 6: The Environment . .23

Chapter 7: Easing the Impact . 25

Chapter 8: A Look Ahead . 30

APPENDICES

A: Charter 37

B: Base Closure and Realignment Act . 38

C: Commissioner Biographies . 46

D: Commission Staff . 48

E: Installation Task Forces and Categories 49

F: Military Value Factors and Physical Attributes 50

G: The Commission's Cost-Estimating Model . 51

H: Closures and Realignments . 52

I: Redevelopment in Twenty Communities . 84

J: Public Hearings and Witnesses 86

ADDITIONAL VIEW

Additional View of Thomas F. Eagleton 88

,5 II i
Executive Summary

- The Defense Secretary's Commission on the spirit of that recommendation.

Base Realignment and Closure was

chartered on May 3, 1988 to recommend This Commission's recommendations

military installations within the United for closure and realignment affect 145

States, its commonwealths, territories, and installations. Of this number, 86 are to be

possessions for realignment and closure, closed fully, five are to be closed in part, The Congress and the President and 54 will experience a change, either an

subsequently endorsed this approach increase or a decrease, as units and

through legislation that removed some of activities are relocated. The Commission

the previous impediments to successful also makes several additional

base-closure actions. recommendations that address potential

problems in implementing the

For over a decade, the Department of Commission's closure and realignment

Defense has been unable to improve the recommendations and certain other matters

effectiveness of the military base structure that the Commissionthas discovered during

or to realize the significant savings that its review of the military base structure.

might have been gained through the

realignment and closure of unnecessary or From the outset, the Commission

underutilized military bases. This situation sought the most appropriate criteria to

is largely the result of 1977 legislation that govern the nomination of installations for

mandated Congressional approval for any realignment or closure. While cost

closure affecting 300 or more civilian reduction was an important reason for its

employees of the Department. In this chartering, the Commission decided that

same legislation, the Department was the military value of a base should be the

expressly directed to comply with the preeminent factor in making its decisions.

procedural requirements of the National With a primary focus on military value and

Environmental Policy Act for all base- improving the overall military base

closure decisions. structure, the Commission elected not to

set savings targets. Nevertheless, the

Despite the absence of closure actions, Commission estimates the realignment and

there is general agreement within the closure actions recommended in this report

government that the national defense could should lead to annual savings of $693.6

be improved, and its cost reduced, through million and a 20-year savings with a net

a more efficient military base structure. present value of $5.6 billion.

This conclusion was endorsed in 1983 by

the President's Private Sector Survey on The Commission's analysis of military

Cost Control (the Grace Commission), installations began with a review of the

which recommended that a non-partisan, military force structure and its basing

independent commission be established to requirements. Representative of the kinds

study the base-closure issue. The Defense of installation characteristics mandated by

Secretary's Commission on Base force structure are availability of acreage

Realignment and Closure was chartered in and airspace for realistic combat training

6
and provisions for survivability of strategic As realignment or closure candidates

forces, were identified, the Commission took an

initial look at environmental impacts. This

The Commission found that many bases review was not intended to be a substitute

have experienced an erosion of their for the environmental analysis required by military value as a result of urban the Congress during actual implementation

development. The resulting encroachment of the approved base realignments and

has forced the modification of missions at closures. As a result of this review, the

many installations. The acquisition of Commission found that closures generally additional land, especially in less populated resulted in positive impacts on the

areas, may be needed to satisfy military environment rather than negative ones. As

requirements. individual realignment and closure actions

are taken by the Secretary of Defense, full

After a review of the general condition opportunity for public hearings will, of

of the military base structure, the course, be provided.

Commission began the process of selecting

bases for realignment and closure. The Besides environmental issues, the public data supporting this process were provided will also be concerned about the economic

by the Services and validated by the impact of base closures. The Commission

Commission and its staff. Installations with reviewed the history of base closures since

similar missions were grouped together to 1961 and found that closures were

facilitate consistent analysis. The bases generally less traumatic than -eople

were then screened to determine whether anticipated. In many cases, Defense

the installations were appropriately sized Department jobs have been replaced by

to support current or future requirements new civilian jobs, and the bases themselves

and whether their physical attributes were converted to civilian uses. Notwithstanding

appropriate to accomplish assigned this record of success, the Commission has

missions, recommended to the Secretary of Defense

several actions that should be taken to aid

When it was determined that an local communities in their redevelopment

installation's mission was impaired, the planning.

Commission looked at reloc: tion

alternatives. This review focused ( , the As a final task, the Commission

ability of a receiving installation to considered the process for realigning and

accommodate and enhance the mission of closing bases in the future, which will be

the units or activities being relocated and necessary as military strategy and force

whether the costs of the closure and structure change.

realignment package could be paid back

with savings in six years.

7
Chapter 1

Background

On May 3, 1988 Secretary of Defense In the early 1960s, under the direction

Frank Carlucci chartered the Commission of President Kennedy, Secretary of Defense

on Base Realignment and Closure to McNamara developed and subsequently

recommend military bases within the implemented the most extensive base

Unitd States, its commonwealths, realignment and closure program in the

territ ories, and possessions for realignment history of the United States. Hundreds of

and closure (see Appendix A). Legislation base closures and realignments took place

subsequently passed by the Congress and during this period, and more than 60 major

signed by the President on October 24, bases were closed. Criteria governing

1988 endorsed.this approach and provided bases selected for closure were established

relief from certain statutory provisions primarily within the Office of the Secretary

considered impediments to the completion of Defense, with minimal consultation with

of base closures. The legislation ("Defense the Military Services or the Congress.

Authorization Amendments and Base

Closure and Realignment Act"; see The Congress had not anticipated the

Appendix B) constitutes agreement broad extent of these actions, and their

between the Legislative and the Executive cumulative political impact was substantial.

Branches that improvement in the military With very few exceptions, the closure

basing structure could be a means of actions were viewed negatively by the

realizing savings in the defense budget, Congress, especially since the

while not impairing the ability of the announcement of base closures was made

armed forces to carry out their missions. immediately after the 1964 elections, while

the Congress was in recess.

Recommendations for military base

realignments and closures normally fall In its next session, the Congress passed

within the purview of the Executive legislation setting up reporting

Branch, operating under general policy requirements designed to involve itself in

guidance and oversight by the Congress. any DoD base-closure program. The

Nevertheless, a ten-year stalemate over proposal was vetoed by President Johnson.

base closures has led the two branches to The confrontation between the two

agree that a commission be established to branches of government continued to

develop those recommendations, grow. Despite this situation, the

Department of Defense was able to

The chartering of the Commission takes complete base realignments and closures

into account the recent history of failed routinely throughout the 1960s.

attempts to realign or close bases as well

as successful closure actions taken in prior During the early 1970s, the Department

years. A brief review of the base found it increasingly difficult to realign or

realignment and closure issue is instructive, close installations due to repeated attempt"
by the Congress to regulate the base- included in its 1983 report a finding that

closing process and to limit or deny base- economies could be made in the base

closing funding. In 1976, the Military structure and recommended that a nonConstruction Authorization Bill contained partisan, independent commission be

a provision prohibiting any base closure or established to study the base-closure issue

reduction of more than 250 civilian in a less constrained process and submit

employees until the Department ha6 a list of closures.

notified Congress of the proposed actions,

assessed the personnel and economic In sum, the current stalemate between

impacts, followed the study provisions of the Legislative and the Executive Branches

the National Environmental Policy Act, and has made it virtually impossible to close

waited nine months. This bill was vetoed any military installation and realize the

by President Ford and the Congressional resultant savings in the defense budget.

veto override effort faiJed. In addition to straining relations between

two branches of government, this stalemate

Subsequently, however, President Carter has increased the cost of national defense.

approved legislation requiring the These increases, which are not always Department to notify Congress that a base measurable, flow from inefficiencies such

is a candidate for reduction or closure; as the requirement for units to travel

prepare local economic, environmental, and hundreds of miles to adequate training strategic consequence reports; and wait 60 areas, the necessity for extensive commanddays for Congress' response. This and-control systems to ensure coordination

legislation, which also required of split functions, and the need for senior

Congressional approval for any closure management to spend time dealing with

affecting 300 or more civilian employees administrative problems created by an

of the Department, effectively brought base inefficient base structure--time that would

closures to a halt. be more properly devoted to missionrelated activities. In some cases, the

Since passage of this legislation over a Department has been obligated not only decade ago, there has not been a single to keep certain marginal installations

major base closure. All attempts at closing active, with all the attendant operating

major installations have met with failure, costs, but also to use severely limited

and even - oposed movements of small military construction funds either to bring military units have been frustrated. Since facilities up to standard or to enable the

then, force structure changes and the installations to be more fully utilized.

assignment of new missions to marginal installations, supported by large capital The importance of an efficient military

expenditures, have reduced many base structure cannot be overstated. The

opportunities for future closures, base structure can remain efficient only if

the difficult decisions to close and realign Given that situation, the incumbent bases can be made on a timely basis. The

administration has discussed with the Commission has made a number of such

Congress but not pursued the development decisions. In addition to achieving

of a comprehensive proposal documented savings, the Commission's

recommending base closures to Congress. recommendations will alleviate some of the

The President's Private Sector Survey on problems discussed above, leading to

Cost Control (The Grace Commission) improved mission effectiveness.

9
Chapter 2

The Commission

The Commission was composed of 12 purposes of its review that the force

individuals from varied backgrounds (see structure would retain the size and

Appendix C). All have had experience in configuration outlined in currently

dealing with complex public-policy issues. approved plans. Unlike some previous In many cases, they brought to the task a reviews, the Commission's approach,

first-hand knowledge of military matters, consonant with its charter, focused on

and all have had extevri.'e experience in properties anc their uses, not on military

organizational settings that has provided units, command structures, or other

them with a perspective on how to improve organizational matters. The Commission's

processes. The Commission functioned in ability to close major bases was often

a non-partisan manner, and was supported dependent upon the status of plans in the

by a professional staff (see Appendix D). individual Services. For example, the Air

Force, driven by severe current and

In organizing to accomplish its tasks, as projected fiscal constraints, had under way

defined in its charter and companion reduction and consolidation efforts that

legislation, the Commission established a gave the Commission a number of

number of parameters to govern its work. opportunities. On the other hand, in the

Significant to its decisions was the selection case of the Navy, whose base structure is

of military value as preeminent among the tied quite closely to the current plan to

criteria governing nomination of bases for create a 600-ship fleet, the Commission,

closure or realignment. The Commission's adhering to the principle of not challenging recommendations will not degrade milikary Service force-structure planning, found

effectiveness, and in most cases will fewer opportunities for closure actions.

improve it.

Finc'lly, the Commissior's review of the

While military value was of primary Army's base structure revealed a larger

importance in its deliberations, the number of installations nee6'ng closure due

Commission also considered cost savings, to that Service's ground-related mission

No cost-savings targets, floors or an(. its role as executive agent for many

ceilings, were established, and the DoD functions, but the operational savings

Commission felt no obligation to reach any from these closures are considerably less

particular dollar figure cited in studies that than those of the Air Force. Thus, the

have appeared from time to time. The Commission found a variety of Service

Commission determined that these previous force-structure plans facing it, arid its final

savings estimates were for the most part recommendations and resulting savings

derived from limited investigations, and reflect these differences. Each Service

represented only order-of-magnitude used vigorous presentations to explain its

estimates. current posture and defend its individual

views.

The Commission also assumed for the

10
While the force structure may well as its cornerspone.

change in the future, growing or shrinking

in response to changing national strategy, The Commission's screening and

budget considerations, political evaluative processes required vast amounts

accommodations, or other factors, the of information, much of which was

Commission chose not to engage in a available only from the Department of

debate on these issues. Since there is no Defense. The Commission adopted an

sure way of knowing what the strategy, "auditing" approach that verified

force structure, and basing requirements information through public hearings, formal

will be in the long term, the Commission, and informal consultations, visits to bases,

in Chapter 8 of this report, expresses the references to other sources, and the

need for a continuing base-review process. collection of supplemental data when

necessary. The Commission is satisfied

In developing a methodology for arriving that its process made use of the best

at decisions, the Commission established information currently available.

a process for reviewing the complete

inventory of military properties, with an The process adopted was one in which

emphasis on larger installations. judgment and expert opinion played an

integral part. The Commission heard

Pursuant to the charter, and with expert testimony, and the Commissioners

Commission guidance, the staff developed drew upon their personal experience and

a process for the initial evaluation of investigations to identify candidate

military installations. The purpose was to installations for review and to arrive at the

measure each histallation against the conclusions in this report. The

criteria established in the charter so as to Commission and its staff visited 44

narrow the number of installations for installations during the course of the

more detailed and subjective review by the review. The Commissioners engaged in

Commission. The Commission does not vigorous debate on many issues, with a

claim that the process outlined in Chapter full and frank discussion of opinions.

4 is the only possible alternative or that it While there was disagreement on many

is perfect; it is, however, an effective, issues, the Commissioners are unanimous

methodical approach proceeding from in their support for the recommendations

reasonable assumptions, with military value in this report.

11
Chapter 3

Base Structure and Conditions

The Commission considered the military battalion needs more than 80,000 acres to

value of an installation in terms of how practice standard maneuvers; its World

well it met the mission-related needs of the War II predecessor required fewer than

units or activities located there. As the 4,000.

Commission proceeded with its evaluation

of the base structure, it addressed a The increasing sophistication and

number of factors that contribute to extended ranges of modern weapons

military value. Natural physical factors continually increase the requirements for

such as expanse and type of terrain, training areas. Today, the high speed of

geographic location, and weather can be of modern tactical aircraft means that even

utmost importance. Other factors are large ground ranges are overflown in a

found in the nature of the relationship matter of seconds, so that ranges that

between an installation and its surroundhig might have been perfectly adequate ten or

community. The condition of base more years ago are now too small. The

facilities, along with their current and five nautical miles required by a World

potential capacity, also affecti military War II fighter aircraft for aerial maneuver

value. have grown to 40 miles today. With the

advent of the Advanced Tactical Fighter,

Physical Factors that requirement will expand to between

80 and 100 nautical miles. There is also

The size and location of military an emerging need for a new kind of range,

installationsweresignificant considerations one capable of accommodating the full and

in the Commission's analysis, since they are free use of electronic-warfare devices

often directly related to the ability of an without impairing normal private and

installation to support current and commercial use of the electromagnetic

projected missions, and are also major spectrum.

factors in its ability to accept additional

units and missions resulting from a Furthermore, the increasing emphasis

reorganization of the base structure. In the on joint and combined-arms operations

course of its deliberations, the Commission expands the requirement for large training

developed an acute concern about the areas, such as the National Training Center

requirement of the armed forces for at Fort Irwin, California. In the past, the

adequate training areas. Modern t•.ctical Services have been able to augment their

doctrine, taking advantage of vastly training areas by using other federal lands,

improved equipment capabilities, calls for such as national forests, under agreements

greatly increased mobility for the with various custodians. That option is

operational units of all Services. The areas becoming increasingly constrained because

of operational responsibility for modern of the growing body of legislation that

units dwarf those of yesterday's forces. For places greater limits on the use of federal

instance, today an Army mechanized land. The Commission notes in passing

12
that Soviet forces have at their disposal access to beachfront training areas.

vast training areas in which to practice

large-unit maneuvers. The ability of a military base to survive

in a nuclear environment is also of clear

The foregoing demonstrates clearly the military value. Years ago, the range and

need for the Department of Defense to speed of strategic bombers dictated their

pursue vigorously the acquisition of large stationing near the coasts to put overseas

tracts of land in sparsely populated regions strategic targets within their reach.

for the purpose of ground and air training. Technology has since extended effective

ranges, and the survivability of U.S.

Realistic training also requires access to strategic-bomber bases, given the presence

varied terrain. Marine Corps units of missile-equipped Soviet submarines off

practicing amphibious operations need our coasts, has now become a prime

beach landing sites with appropriate tides consideration in locating those bases

and supporting soil, relatively free of farther inland. Another consideration

vegetation. Low-level helicopter flight governing remote location of these bases

training must be conducted over rolling, is the requirement for low-level bomber

forested terrain in order to build pilot routes, which has been extended to

proficiency. The soil over which armored between 500 and 700 nautical miles.

and mechanized-infantry units maneuver

must be stable enough to support heavy Weather can be another important

vehicles. Light-infantry units require less basing consideration, particularly in the

space but more variety in terrain, while case of flight training and operations, but

airborne units need parachute-landing also for other outdoor operational and

zones and good weather conditions to training activities. In addition, special

maintain their proficiency. climatic conditions may be desirable for

training specialized units or for research,

Such considerations will loom even development, and testing of equipment.

larger in the future. The pace of

technological change is increasing, and the Encroachment

trend toward higher-mobility forces with

ever-more-lethal weapons can be expected Despite the relatively large land area of

to accelerate. While simulation techniques the United States, there is often an intense

are useful in meeting some training competition for desirable areas. The

requirements, particularly for individual encroachment of civilian activities on

skill development, unit proficiency can only military installations has an effect on

be attained through "real life" exercises. operations. Our nation's demographic

evolution has been marked by a shift of

Although location has an effect on the population from the Northeast toward the

military value of any given installation, in South and West. This trend has

certain instances a specific location is a accelerated in the last fifty years, so that

prerequisite to mission accomplishment, bases that once were remote and isolated

For example, despite the higher land values are now engulfed by urban development.

associated with such locations, the Navy This has constrained the growth potential

needs deep-water ports with access to the of many established bases, reduced their

ocean, while the Marine Corps mission to ability to conduct training and other

conduct over-the-shore operations requires operations, and impeded, in some

13
instances, efforts to consolidate units or that inadequate living and working functions. In many parts of the country, a conditions have on the performance and

growing competition for valuable land has retention of personnel. pitted local interests against military

requirements. This has been particularly Under ideal conditions, the Department evident near deep-water ocean ports. of Defense would be able to design a base

Aside from the facilities supporting current structure from the ground up, taking into

port operations, addition'al land for the consideration the mission-related

staging of personnel and equipment is requirements of its forces. Reality requires required for mobilization. As the that any comprehensive basing proposal development of civilian communities begin with the base structure that already around ports has occurred, this capability exists, one that has developed over many has been restricted. years in response to a variety of

circumstances.

The Commission has found that the

encroachment problem is particularly acute In fact, the design of the current base

for military flight operations. Air bases structure strongly reflects the practice of

across the country are confronted with adapting existing facilities to new purposes. airspace extremely congested by When a new basing requirement arises, the

commercial and private aviation, a first response ordinarily is to determine

situation exacerbated by the desire of local whether it can be met with an existing municipalities for noise abatement and base. This response is partly conditioned

limited night operations. by economic considerations, since existing

bases already represent significant sunk

Condition of Facilities costs. It is usually more economical to

station a new unit on an existing base that

Another factor with a direct impact on may have some unused space, and pay the

military value is the condition of base incremental costs, than to acquire a large facilities. Substandard base facilities hurt tract of land at current, higher prices and

military effectiveness in both operational build a complete infrastructure at a new

and human terms. In their visits to military location.

installations, the Commissioners were

struck by the number of deteriorating Given the impediments to creating a

facilities. The continued presence of large base structure on purely rational grounds, numbers of wooden buildings erected it is all the more remarkable to learn, as

during World War II and designed to stand the Commission has, that the current base

for ten years at most is but one example. structure, while not ideal in all particulars, The data on individual installations generally meets the mission-related needs

provided by the Services showed that of the Armed Services in the context of

antiquate-d structures are common and are their current force structure. The

not restricted to any single Service or shortcomings are of degree, not of kind.

mission area. While recognizing that On that basis, the task of the Commission

military-construction projects compete for with regard to base realignment and

funds with other national defense closure was primarily one of adjustment, requirements, the Commission encourages particularly in those cases where the

the Department of Defense and the Commission's action was based on excess

Congress to consider the adverse impact capacity.

14
Chapter 4

The Process

The Commission charter required the Phase I

development of a process to determine

which bases could be realigned or closed. The first step in installation evaluation

That directive was consistent with a widely was to establish a complete inventory of

accepted presumption that the military installations and assign them to categories.

base structure includes some number of In the case of large installations, or

installations that are unneeded or not fully complexes of installations, where separate

utilized, the closure of which could provide major mission requirements were clearly

savings of defense expenditures without identifiable, areas dedicated to such

adversely affecting military capabilities, separate irissions were treated conceptually

The potential for closing bases hinges on as independent installations for the purpose

the validity of this presumption, which is of analysis. This procedure was required

a judgment about the fit between the for the review of many Navy base

requirements of the military forces that complexes where sea, air, depot, and other

use the base structure and its capacity. activities are carried out on contiguous or

The number of bases to be closed depends proximate sites. More than 2,300 separate

largely upon the amount of excess capacity installations, constituted from over 4,200

found in the system. For the purpose of separate DoD-owned properties, were

the Commission's review, excess capacity, identified for review.

or the ability to absorb additional units,

was defined in terms of land, facilities, While installations are ordinarily under

operational environment (including the control of the Military Service to which

airspace), and quality of life or community the tenant units belong, there are

support factors, as appropriate, numerous instances where tenant units

from one Service are located on an

In order to evaluate capacity in the installation controlled by anoth, In

context of military value, a determination addition, the Army, to a much greater

was first made as to whether each extent than the other Services, acts as an

installation was appropriately sized to executive agent in operating installations

support current or future requirements. where activities of consolidated

Categories of installations with similar organizations such as the Defense Logistics

missions were then established to provide Agency are located. For this reason, the

an evaluation of aggregate capacity. In this inventory of Army installations is

context, the Commission reviewed the considerably larger than that of the other

Secretary of Defense's Overseas Basing Services.

Study of October 13, 1988. While there is

no need to retain domestic capacity for the The initial measurements of military

immediate return of overseas units, the value and capacity were performed within

Commission was sensitive to this categories of bases having similar missions

contingency in its deliberations, in each Service. Five task forces were

15
used: air, ground, sea, training and selected a number of installations for

administrative, and depot, along with a further detailed review based on capacity

sixth task force, generally referred to as "all and military value.

other." These staff task forces oversaw the

collection of data from the Services For the "all other" task force, a tailored

regarding the installations within each procedure was employed. This task force

category (see Appendix E). Analysis by included such diverse categories of

category within each Service was employed properties as research and development

as a starting point for installation centers, communications and intelligence

evaluation because it permitted a relevant sites, special-operations bases, space- comparison of assets, environments, and operations centers, medical facilities,

attributes, laboratories, and Reserve-Component

centers.

In order to establish whether the

physical attributes of specific installations For this "all other" task force, a set of

were appropriate for the accomplishment criteria was established by the Commission

of currently assigned missions, an for each category. The criteria were

evaluation of installations was consistent with the spirit of the evaluation

accomplished by measuring 21 mission- process for the first five task forces,

related physical attributes grouped into five namely, military value and capacity. The

overall factors (see Appendix F). Each of Services developed the installation

these attributes was represented by one or inventory for each category and applied

more physical units of measure relevant to the Commission's criteria. These analyses

the category of installations being were checked for consistency and

evaluated. Within a category, the same reasonableness by the Commission.

units of measure were used.

Phase II

The measurement of each attribute was

characterized by one of three ratings: The next phase was an evaluation of the

marginal for mission accomplishment, potential for relocation of activities or units

acceptable, and fully satisfactory. Each of located on installations identified as

these ratings was specifically defined for potential closure or realignment candidates.

and consistently applied within each The Commission's focus shifted from

category of installations. To complete the installations to the activities assigned to

evaluation of installations in each category, them. Suitable alternative locations had

a level of significance was assigned to each to be identified for each major activity or

of the 21 attributes and was applied unit before proceeding with further

consistently within the category. consideration of closing an installation.

The method used for this evaluation was The first step was to identify all

based on a consistent set of criteria that activities that needed to be relocated at

was used to compare all installations within each candidate installation (some activities

a category. In conjunction with the could be eliminated as a result of a

evaluation of capacity available throughout closure) and to develop options for their

a category, the process offered a logical relocation based on specific Commission

basis for judging possible opportunities for criteria. Activities with fewer than 50

closure andrealignment. The Commission civilian or 100 military personnel (the

16
threshold set by the Department of In determining the payback for a given

Defense for notification to the Congress) installation, the Commission estimated

were identified but not analyzed for costs and savings associated with the

relocation. It was the Commission's view closure or realignment of the installation

that sites for relocation of these smaller and the subsequent relocation of units and

activities should be left to the discretion of activities affected by the action. The cost

the parent Services, but an estimate of the of hazardous-waste cleanup was not

cost of relocating all activities was included included, since such cleanup is currently

in the Commission's cost-estimating model required by law regardless of the base-

(see Appendix G). closure situation. Costs for social-impact

programs such as food stamps, welfare, and

In developing relocation options, unemployment compensation also were not

potential receiving bases were listed in the included. The Commission believes these

order of their ability to enhance the costs will be minimal. All calculations

mission of the activity being relocated, were adjusted to reflect a discount rate of

using designated mission-enhancement ten percent and a three-percent inflation

factors: consolidation of split functions; rate in order to account for differences in

improvement in training, mobilization, and the timing of costs and savings. Military command and control; cost of operation; construction costs were estimated based on

customer service; and improvement of DoD standard construction costs for similar

quality of life. buildings. Consequently, the Commission's

construction estimates should not be

Potential receiving bases for individual construed as a cap on these estimated

units or activities were not limited to a costs.

single category but could be chosen from

any category as long as capacity to receive The Commission valued property based

the activity was available or could be on the estimated fair-market value of the

created by a simultaneous move. land as raw or as undeveloped commercial,

residential, or industrial property, as

The Commission selected the preferred appropriate. Where it could be

relocation option for each activity based on documented, the value of any existing

mission enhancement. This best option ;mprovement, such as a usable

was then checked for environmental or manufacturing plant, that would add

community support problems at the significantly to the marketability of the

receiving base. The best relocation options property was included. This approach is

for all activities to be relocated from a based upon testimony and statements made

closed or realigned installation were then in hearings during consideration of the

analyzed as a package, using the Base Closure and Realignment Act, the

Commission's cost-estimating model. The practices prescribed by the Office of

model was used to determine the costs and Management and Budget, and sound

savings for the package, which were then economic theory.

used in calculating the payback period--

the time required to recoup the cost of The Commission evaluated each

the closure or realignment. The potential closure or realignment in terms

Commission followed the guideline in its of environmental and socioeconomic

charter in electing to use a maximum considerations, including environmental

payback period of six years. mitigation at receiving bases and the

17
impact on local employment, installations. Each Service also provided

the Commission with expert advice

Throughout the process, the Commission regarding current missions, development

investigated the possibilities for cross- and evaluation of measures, and the levels

Service realignments that would satisfy its of significance for physical attributes. With

military value, payback, environmental, and regard to those installations recommended

socioeconomic decision rules. The for closure or realignment by the

Commission also considered the impact on Commission, the Services identified

the Department's classified programs and activities to be relocated and nominated

warfighting capabilities, potential receiving bases for those

activities, following Commission decision

Each step of the process was checked for rules. They also provided cost-savings and

completeness, reasonableness, and real-estate data used in the Commission's

consistency by independent staff experts model.

hired specifically for that purpose. The

raw data were also sampled and tested for While the Commission depended heavily

accuracy. The independent experts found on the process described above, its final

the data to be reasonable, sound, and recommendations also reflect the individual

defensible. judgments and deliberations of the

Commissioners. There is no "magic The Military Services performed several formula" that will yield precise results. The

important functions during the analysis. process enabled the Commissioners to

They collected raw data pertaining to the focus on the best opportunities; it did not

measures of physical attributes related to replace subjective judgment.

18
Chapter 5

Recommendations

SECTION I

This section summarizes the part, and 54 will experience a change, an

Commission's recommendations, more fully increase or a decrease, as units or activities

discussed in Appendix H, that constitute are relocated. The details of these actions

those required by Title II of Public Law are found in the appendix, along with an

100-526, to be accepted or rejected in their index of affected installations.

entirety by the Secretary of Defense and,

if accepted by the Secretary, subsequently Implementation o f t h e s e

by the Congress. recommendations will result in annual

savings of $693.6 million and a 20-year The Commission's recommendations savings with a net present value of $5.6

for closure and realignment affect 145 billion. These savings are both realistic

installations. Of this number, 86 are to and substantial.

be closed fully, five are to be closed in

SECTION II

During the course of its evaluation and installations should not be construed as

deliberations, the Commission encountered implying Commission support or nona number of situations that, while not in all support for such actions, studies, or

cases involving proposed base closures or proposals; the Commission was constrained

realignments, need attention. Accordingly, by its charter and by time.

the Commission has decided to make a

series of recommendations in these areas,

with the understanding that they are not Program Implementation

part of the "all or none" package. These

recommendation.i are, however, related to The Commission is extremely concerned

issues that were investigated during the that the implementation of its

Commission's review of the base structure, recommendations may be frustrated unless

and in some cases are critical to the adequate funding is made available early

successful implementation of the in the process and existing rules and

Commission's closure and realignment regulations affecting the process are

recommendations. streamlined. It is clear that if this process

is to move forward during a time of severe

The lack of comment by the budget constraints, it will be necessary to

Commission on other ongoing actions, make the program self-financing to the

studies, or proposals regarding military greatest extent possible. The Commission

19
strongly recommends: -- that the Administration remove

regulatory impediments for the sale of -- that the Base Closure Account excess land and reinforce the current

(hereinafter, the Account) be capitalized Office of Management and Budget policy

as quickly as possible. As a minimum, the that transfers between federal agencies be

Account should receive $300 million in accomplished at fair-market value.

appropriations in the FY 90 Defense

Appropriations Bill. -- that the Defense Department

accelerate efforts to dispose of "salable" -- that special reprogramming rules be land in order to get sales proceeds into the

developed with the Congress and the Account as rapidly as possible. The

Department of Defense to permit the Department is encouraged to be innovative

transfer of other Department funds into the in this effort. For example, it may not be

Account as necessary. In particular, the necessary to wait for current military

Services should be given the authority to occupants to vacate the land before a sale

reprogram FY 89 funds appropriated for is made. Further, a sale can be contingent

construction projects at installations on the buyer's building replacement

designated for closure. This action will facilities for the military with occupants

enable the Services to accomplish timely moving when these facilities are available.

environmental analyses, construction

design, and site preparation. -- that the Secretary of Defense, in

managing the Account, make disbursements

-- that there be enacted statutory relief from the Account in proportion to the

from Section 207(a)(2)(B) of the Base Services' contributions to the Account and

Closure and Realignment Act, which the Services' expected savings. This

prohibits the Secretary from transferring approach is fair and maintains the

funds into the Account from other funds incentives for the Services to take actions

appropriated to the Department until to build the Account balance.

approval is obtained in an appropriations

act and notice is provided to the Congress.

The Commission is concerned that this Expanded Training Areas

procedure will delay timely implementation

of its recommendations. Realistic training of Army, Navy,

Marine Corps, and Air Force units is a

-- that there be enacted statutory relief difficult challenge, In many geographic

from the provisions of the Federal Property regions, the Services are constrained in

and Administrative Services Act of 1940 their ability to train because of

(40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.) that restrict the encroachment near maneuver areas and

Secretary of Defense from disposing of live-fire ranges. Examples include limits

real property and facilities. The current on air operations due to noise, ordnance

requirements entail a complex and time- limits at various ranges, reduced availability

consuming screening process. The of ranges for live fire, restrictions on the

Commission is concerned that delays may use of landing beaches, and pressures from

result in minimal proceeds being made local communities to halt night training

available to the Account to fund activities such as artillery firing and air

relocations. strikes. These encroachments on existing

training ranges are occurring at the same

20
Belvoir is illustrative of various innovative Therefore, the Commission recommends

real-estate agreements being pursued by all that the Secretary of Defense accelerate

the Services. These efforts typically lead current efforts to consolidate Reserve

to enhanced mission capability, Component locations and sponsor special

consolidation of Department of Defense legislation allowing the sale of land and

functions, and significant cost savings, facilities to fund related relocations.

Another example of such transactions is

the Marine Corps plan to consolidate its Study of Military Laboratories

geographically separate activities in the

Kansas City area. As a result of creative The Commission recognized that the

real-estate agreements, three Marine Corps numerous laboratory activities of the

functions will be collocated in the same Department of Defense are important to

vicinity with Army, Navy, and Air Force maintaining necessary technological

activities, competence, but, because of time

constraints, was unable to review the entire

The Commission recommends that the complex subject, particularly with regard

Secretary of Defense establish policies and to an examination of missions versus

guidelines that encourage the Services to ongoing activities and the relationship

pursue innovative real-estate transactions, between in-house and contract work. The

Commission was also provided information

concerning the declining R&D budget and

Consolidation of the resultant concern that laboratory

Reserve Component Locations capabilities were being diluted or

subsidized by activities better performed In reviewing Department of Defense elsewhere. The Commission recommends

reserve-unit locations, the Commission that the Secretary of Defense establish a

found there were many opportunities for task force to examine these concerns. Such

improved efficiency through closure and a review should include the development

realignment. The Commission was and application of a uniform set of

reluctant, however, to include such facilities standards designed to improve the overall

for closure and realignment, since there is effectiveness of the Department's

no statutory guarantee that proceeds from laboratory activities, with a view toward

the sale of a specific reserve activity will consolidating such activities and eliminating

be applied directly to the associated those functions that might better be

relocation costs. accomplished by the private sector.

22
time that growing maneuver speeds and Act for 1988 and 1989," dated May 8, 1987.

ranges of modern weapons demand the The Commission has reviewed the results

availability of greater expanses of real of a master-development planning effort

estate and air space for training. Chapter documented in "A Report to the Congress

3 contains a further discussion of this issue, on DoD Administrative Space Planning

for the National Capital Region," dated

Large joint-training areas will help May 1988, conducted under the auspices

optimize the military use of restricted land, of the Office of the Secretary of Defense

air, and water space, and allow the Services (OSD).

to train as they would expect to fight. In

order to do this, the Services should be The Commission notes that much of

seeking ways in which they might expand DoD-occupied administrative space in the

training areas, such as the National NCR is leased, that lease costs in the NCR

Training Center at Fort Irwin, California are among the highest in the nation, and

to accommodate the need for battalion, that occupancy costs for DoD space in the

brigade, and division-level maneuver with NCR are expected to soar in the next ten

artillery, missile, and air support, and to years unless remedial action is initiated.

recognize the diminishing ability to

accomplish such training in now-inadequate Consequently, the Commission endorses

areas. For example, a joining of the broad planning goals developed in the

Twentynine Palms, Fort Irwin, and Camp study and urges the Secretary of Defense

Roberts, California; Nellis AFB, Nevada; to consider long-range alternatives to

and range areas in Western Utah could, reduce the cost of leased space in the

with the addition of several hundred NCR. The Commission specifically thousand acres of leased land in Death encourages the Army's public-private Valley, provide a greatly expanded training development plans for the Fort Belvoir

area to better satisfy the needs set forth Engineer Proving Ground. The

above. development concept is to encourage the

sale or exchange of the 820-acre parcel to

Therefore, the Commission recommends a private developer who would, in turn,

that, in addition to current initiatives, the construct needed office facilities for the

Secretary of Defense also consider using Department of the Army on a portion of

funds that may remain available in the the site, and develop the balance of the

Base Closure Account, after costs to site as private office parks and residential

implement the Commission' s communities. The Commission supports recommendations have been satisfied, to the passage of special legislation lease or acquire land to facilitate the authorizing this public-private development

creation of an expanded range complex. and similar DoD initiatives in the National

Capital Region. Certain of the

Commission's recommendations with Department or Defense Presence respect to Fort Meade, Maryland, are also

in the National Capital Region (NCR) in consonance with this concept.

The Commission is aware of the

Congress' concern with the DoD presence Innovative Real Estate Transactions

in the NCR as discussed in Senate Report 100-57, "National Defense Authorization The Army's development plan at Fort

21
Chapter 6

The Environment

As required by the charter, the installation. In this regard, the base-closure

Commission carefully considered the statute further provides that the Secretary impact on the environment of base closures will not have to consider "the need for

and realignments. The Commission closing or realigning a military installation

process maximized the level of review which has been selected for closure or

possible in the relatively short period of realignment by the Commission; the need

time available. The process was not, for transferring functions to another

however, intended to replace the military installation which has been

environmental analysis required by the selected as the receiving installation or

Base Closure and Realignment Act to be alternative military installations to tbose

accomplished by the Secretary of Defense selected." The statute provides a 60-day

during actual implementation of the base limitation on a civil action for judicial

closures and realignments. Overall, the review.

statute and the procedures established by

the Commission pursuant to the statute Even though there is no specific have been designed to prevent requirement under the statute for the

environmental requirements from being Commission to consider environmental

used inappropriately to block base closures impact, the Secretary made it one of the

or realignments. At the same time, they explicit criteria of the charter. In addition,

are designed to ensure that the ht- appointed a noted environmental expert

environment will be fully protected in that to the Commission.

process.

The Commission held a public hearing

In a hearing before the House Armed on July 28, 1988 to receive testimony from

Services Committee, the Secretary of environmental experts both inside and

Defense testified that he fully intended to outside of government on the question of

comply with all the applicable how the Commission should consider

environmental laws in closing or realigning environmental impacts in its deliberations.

bases. Nevertheless, he did seek a Representatives of several national

modification of the National Environmental organizations testified. A recurring theme

Policy Act (NEPA); the Congress in their testimony was that the decision to

supported this position. Accordingly, the close or realign a base would

base-closure statute specifies that the predominately rest on mission

National Environmental Policy Act does considerations rather than environmental

not apply to the actions of the Commission. considerations. Nevertheless, the witnesses

It does apply, however, with some urged that, once a decision was reached to

modifications, to the actions of the close or realign a base, the Secretary

Secretary during the closing of a military should fully involve the public when

installation and during the process of considering appropriate mitigation relocating functions from a military measures.

23
The statute does not require nor has the need for cleanup may affect the

time permitted the Commission to prepare property disposal and reuse plan for excess

environmental assessments for its base- property made available from the base

closure and realignment recommendations. closure or realignment. Likewise, in

But the Commission adopted procedures developing and implementing such plans,

that required evaluation of closure and it is desirable that the Department adhere

realignment actions on the basis of six key to a national goal of "no net loss" of

attributes: threatened or endangered wetlands. No closures or realignments

species, wetlands, historic or archeological were precluded solely on the basis of

sites, pollution control, hazardous materials environmental considerations.

and wastes, and land uses. The Environmental findings regarding the

Commission limited its review to active Commission's specific base-closure

candidates for closure and reelignment recommendations are included in Appendix

consideration. A large amount of data was H.

collected in an extremely short period of

time. It was taken, for the most part, from The Commission highlighted relevant

information already on record or from environmental concerns during the

environmental specialists within the decision-making process, which should also

Department of Defense. prove to be valuable to the Department

during actual implementation of base

The Commission found that closures closures and realignments, especially in

generally resulted in positive impacts on dealing with matters of mitigation. The

the environment rather than negative ones. Commission anticipates that public

The Commission was particularly sensitive involvement will be an important element

to the issue of hazardous waste, a major of that phase and expects the Department

problem at many military facilities. It is vigorously to continue pursuing its

clear that base closure will not in itself obligations under the law so that the basechange any obligations (or liabilities) that closure program is carried out in a manner

the Department may have regarding that ensures an environmentally sound

hazardous-waste cleanup. In some cases, result.

24
Chapter 7

Easing the Impact

Communities that lose military bases relocating their households. The programs

are naturally concerned about the impact that provided this help are basically still in

on local business and employment. The place.

Commission was sensitive to these concerns

and, as part of its deliberations, explored The Homeowners Assistance Program

the various means by which the adverse (HAP) was authorized by the

effects of base closings might be mitigated. Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan

It heard testimony to the effect that, in the Act of 1966 to assist employees who are

past, any hardship has usually been forced to move as a consequence of base

temporary and that closures have been far closures. HAP is an entitlement program

less traumatic than people anticipated, that pays cash benefits to people who meet

Many communities that have dealt with the program's criteria. In general, if a

closures have thrived. Former military homeowner displaced by a closure cannot

bases are now being used as colleges, sell his home at a reasonable price within

vocational-technical schools, industrial and a reasonable time, the government will buy

office parks, and airports (see Appendix I). the home for 85 percent of its value prior

to the base-closing announcement; if the

The Commission heard from leaders owner sells the house for less than this

who were prominently involved in thefr value, the government will reimburse him

communities' redevelopment efforts. They the difference up to 95 percent of this

testified that local economies need not value. The program also provides relief if

suffer if the community works together with a displaced employee faces foreclosure.

the federal and state governments to

develop and execute a plan of action. The The DoD Priority Placement Program

Commission feels it is imperative that this is another measure that was originally

cooperation be continued and, wherever established to help employees adjust to the

possible, improved, base closures of the 1960s. The program

resulted directly from Secretary

The federal government established McNamara's policy that every Department

several programs to help communities and of Defense employee affected by a base

individuals affected by the wave of base closure would be offered another

closures in the early 1960s. With this help, comparable job within the Department.

many communities were able to make That explicit policy has since been

resourceful use of the former bases so that discontinued, but the effectiveness of the

the land previously occupied by bases now current program is essentially the same.

provides more jobs, services, and business The computerized system established to

for the communities. Displaced employees support the original policy is still in place

who wanted to continue working found and, over the years, has helped 90,000

other employment within the Department employees find new assignments.

of Defense, and many were helped in

25
The Priority Placement Program is highly executing redevelopment plans for

regarded. The General Accounting Office communities that did not know how to

has judged it to be the most effective manage such efforts. The Commission

placement program in government. feels strongly that such assistance needs to

Periodic surveys have shown that 99 be an integral part of implementing its

percent of placements are considered recommended base closures.

successful by the supervisors with whom the

employees have been placed. Two thirds Communities can and do learn quickly

of the placements have maintained or and, by all accounts, the communities

advanced the employees' grades and themselves were the heroes in the

salaries and 60 percent of placements have successful recoveries of the 1960s. The

been within the commuting area of the affected cities and towns assembled

original jobs. In addition, relocation dedicated teams that not only drafted

expenses are paid when the new job is ambitious plans, but also made their cases

beyond commuting distance. effectively to public agencies and private

companies, often travelling extensively to

A third initiative was the President's do so. The best of the organizers were

Economic Adjustment Committee (EAC), relentless. The communities went to great

chaired by the Secretary of Defense and lengths to make themselves and the former

including the administrators of seventeen bases attractive to investors and business.

other executive agencies who coordinate Roads were built; sewer pipe was laid; and

their agencies' programs on behalf of services were improved.

affected communities. Between 1973 and

1980, the federal agencies that constitute The Commission has identified five

EAC provided between $80 and $90 components of past successful

million a year in assistance to communities redevelopment efforts: (1) there must be

affected by base closures. Grants for an effective local organization to provide

planning and infrastructure were vital in strong leadership and overall policy

securing productive reuse of former bases, direction for the recovery effort; (2) there

More importantly, federal money was used must be a recovery action plan for

to leverage private investment, to improve redeveloping the former facility and for

facilities, and to provide municipal services attracting jobs; (3) the recovery effort must

so that the former bases could become focus on the entire community, taking into

more attractive to business, account the transportation network, public

facilities and services, health care, housing,

In the 1960s, economic-adjustment schools, and other attributes; (4) the

assistance to communities, under the community itself has to demonstrate its

direction of the Department of Defense, capacity to engage and sustain new

was an essential part of the base closure business growth through intensive, ongoing,

process. DoD provided invaluable services economic-development programs; (5)

to the affected communities, not only as federal and state agencies must participate

the focal point for contact with the federal in and buttress this community effort by

bureaucracy, but also as an advocate for responding on a priority basis to the key

community interests. DoD was frequently actions identified in the community

successful in expediting federal help for or recovery program.

removing obstacles to redevelopment. It

also supplied assistance in creating and Another factor in past successful

26
recoveries was the ability of the the closing bases. Time is a particularly

Department of Defense to turn over to the precious commodity for private investors.

communities the bases' land, facilities, and When a community has assembled a

equipment. Often these assets were package that includes private investment,

elaborate, substantial, and valuable. This success often depends on getting real-estate

allowed communities to make very matters settled so that redevelopment can

attractive offers to would-be tenants and proceed.

buyers. Roads and utilities were in place.

Machines and even furniture were left As quickly as possible, the Department

behind. The attractions were therefore should develop schedules for phasing down

great, particularly for new small businesses activity on bases to be closed and for their

and schools, ultimate closure. Communities should be

informed of these schedules. In particular,

Circumstances have changed, however, contractors who provide services to bases

in the years since the last major round of should be told where they stand in light of

base closures. First, in the 1980s the these schedules.

federal government has made a concerted

effort to realize proceeds from the disposal Another change from the 1960s has

of assets. With regard to the been the proliferation of competing

recommendations of this Commission, interests for the use of federal property,

there is a clear expectation that the particularly for social ends such as

Department of Defense will derive sheltering the homeless, drug rehabilitation,

financial benefit from the sale of base- and prisons. There are also longerclosure real estate. This expectation is standing policies and laws regarding

evident in a reading of the legislative conveyance of property, often without

history of the statute that endorses the reimbursement, for airports, schools,

Commission's work, and the Commission hospitals, parks, and other public uses.

believes that the Department should realize Finally, local interest groups or the

some return on its properties, especially if communities themselves may prefer to

they are in "high-rent" districts or have dedicate properties to public uses, such as

some other intrinsic value. This objective government facilities or parkland, rather

can conflict with the communities' interests, than commercial development.

however. Communities would often prefer

that pcoperties be conveyed expeditiously The community may decide to develop

so that economic recovery can get off to a and implement a balanced, communityquick start, and the government's waiting based, land-reuse plan that takes all

for reasonable bids may frustrate that goal. interests into consideration. The federal

government can contribute to the success

To help mitigate this situation, the of this approach in several ways. First, the

Department of Defense should develop an Department of Defense can, when

efficient and time-sensitive property- requested, provide technical assistance and

disposal strategy for the transfer of land funds to help develop a plan. Second,

and facilities for redevelopment. In federal agencies that by statute are given

addition, the President's Economic an option on base facilities should exercise

Adjustment Committee should immediately such options quickly, and only if funds are

offer to help all affected communities plan available for the operations to be put on

for the reuse of the land and facilities of the land. Also, federal agencies should

27
position their facilities on the base in the extent of required federal redevelopment

least intrusive manner possible to preserve assistance will not be clear. the greatest flexibility for use of the

remaining property. Third, the same A positive change since the 1960s has

principle of minimum intrusion should be been the substantial growth in state

applied with regard to federal laws and development agencies. Every state now

regulations that prescribe the use of federal has such an agency, with budgets ranging

property for functions such as drug from $360 thousand to over $180 million.

rehabilitation and shelter for the homeless. The average is $17.5 million with 110

employees. These agencies provide Within the last decade there has been technical and managerial assistance, trade

a diminution of federal money available to promotion, financial aid, training programs,

assist affected communities. Between 1966 and tax incentives. They have grown adept and 1986, the federal government, under at attracting investments, including in some

the auspices of the President's Economic cases setting up offices in foreign countries

Adjustment Committee, provided $503 to attract investment, and have combined

million in adjustment assistance to to begin a collective, taxable-bond initiative

communities impacted by base to provide alternative financing for state

realignments and closures, but most of the and local projects.

federal programs that provided this money

have been curtailed or eliminated during The gap caused by reductions in federal

the 1980s. Between 1975 and 1980, the development programs has been largely

Economic Development Administration filled by state development agencies. The

(EDA) gave $57.5 million to 31 base one example of concerted state action

redevelopment projects. EDA now has during an earlier round on base closures

only $12 million for economic adjustment was a resounding success, and bodes well

grants. This trend, shared by other federal for future state involvement. The

agencies such as the Department of Governor of Massachusetts established the

Housing and Urban Development and the Massachusetts Base Closing Commission

Farmers Home Administration, poses a in the 1960s to deal with the closing of

problem. Boston Army Base and the Boston

Shipyard. This commission assembled a

If sufficient federal monies are to be professional staff and contracted for studies

available to give assistance to affected that addressed the redevelopment of these

communities, Congress should consider sites. Consequently, the Commonwealth

expanding these programs. In addition, of Massachusetts was able to contribute

under the base-closure statute, the indispensable help to affected communities.

Secretary of Defense is authorized to It is reasonable to expect that today's provide economic-adjustment and more-seasoned state development agencies

community-planning assistance if financial will be full partners in helping communities

resources from other sources are recover from the closings.

inadequate. The Commission recommends

that the Congress increase funding for this With respect to employment, the federal

program. No specific funding levels are government should provide whatever

recommended here since the need cannot assistance it can to help affected

be predicted in advance and, until the communities develop or expand job

communities draw up their plans, the placement offices. Defense Department

28
personnel should be fully informed of the sum for HAP if it is to meet its

programs that are available to help them, obligations to the people who will be

particularly the Homeowners Assistance eligible for the program.

Program and the Priority Placement

Program. The Commission recommends Not every base closure has led to

that civilian employees who lose their jobs economic recovery. Some communities

as a consequence of base realignments or have done better than others. Certainly, closures be guaranteed other jobs within it helps when a base is located in a

the Department. Whenever possible, those metropolitan area where land values are

jobs should be at least at the employees' high and the economic infrastructure is

current grade and located geographically well developed. When a base is closed in

where the employees want to be. Past a remote, rural community, however,

experience suggests that this is feasible in redevelopment is more difficult. While the

many cases. federal government can provide a degree

of mitigation, its ability to relieve the full

Additional resources will be required to impact of a base closing is limited. The

mitigate the impact of base closings on federal government must work closely with

government employees. The Homeowners communities, placing special emphasis and

Assistance Program will require additional focusing resources on the needs of those

money for its revolving fund. The fund is where recovery is not a foregone

replenished by the proceeds from the sale conclusion.

or rental of properties that the government

purchased under the program, and also by In summary, the Commission recognizes Congressional appropriation. Since there that implementation of its base-closure

have been no base closures for ten years, recommendations will create concern in

HAP has been largely inactive, receiving communities that will be affected. The

no appropriations fron' 1984 to 1986. For Commission urges these communities to

1989, the program has received an treat these actions not as problems, but as

appropriation of $2 million, but an ongoing opportunities. Communities should take

realignment is expected to use this money. advantage of the programs outlined in this

The average cost of a case has been chapter and expend their energy enhancing running about $23 thousand, but the opportunities. Experience has shown

administrators of the program believe that that if the affected communities, teamed

a more reasonable estimate would be $30 with the appropriate federal officials, will

thousand for cases resu!dng from this work aggressively to create new

Commission's recommendations. Therefore, opportunities, recovery will be rapid and

Congress must appropriate a substantial communities will emerge even stronger.

29
Chapter 8

A Look Ahead

The Commission, reflecting on the War II. With fewer forward bases and

circumstances that led to its formation, increasingly limited access to overseas

and having invested a great deal of thought ports, airfields, and even airspace, U.S.

and effort in developing both a process for forces will have to be better prepared to

reviewing military installations and a list of provide direct support of overseas

recommended actions, would like to operations from bases in the United States.

believe that lessons drawn from this

experience could be applied constructively Additional uncertainties nagging at

in the future. The base structure should future U.S. basing needs include possible

properly be derived from the force shifts in alliances or force-reduction

structure, which in turn should reflect agreements that could prompt a return of

national security strategy. That strategy sizable numbers of forward-based forces to

must change over time in response to the United States. While returning forces

changes in the external strategic might be inactivated under terms of an

environnient and may also be altered to agreement, or in response to budget

reflect internal fiscal or political realities, constraints, if the United States intends

The Commission believes that the nation's to maintain a capability to project forces

interests will be best served by an ongoing into the theaters from which they have

base-management process that is responsive been withdrawn, these will need to be

to change. retained in the force structure. In that

event, a larger home-based strategic The Future Strategic Environment reserve of ground, air, and naval forces

might consist of new blends of active and

Some of the more dramatic trends or reserve components. There already exists

circumstances that could occur over the a clear trend tow. rd meeting current

next two decades might be a significant budget realities and force requirements

change in the threat, a potential with greater reliance on Reservereassessment of priorities within the Soviet Component forces, with some concomitant

Union, the negotiation of far-reaching reduction in the number of active-duty

arms-reductionagreements, theemergence personnel and units. Of the Army's

of new major powers and alliances, an overseas deploying forces in time of

increasing number of Third World emergency, 70 percent come from the

contingencies, and the continued Reserve Components. The Air Force, for

development and fielding of long-range its part, plans to reduce the number of

advanced-technology weapons--nuclear and tactical-fighter wings from the 38 it

non-nuclear, both offensive and defensive, presently has to 35 in FY 1990, having set

aside for the time being its ultimate goal

The nu tnber of overseas bases available of equipping and manning 40 wings.

for use by American forces is considerably Possible implications for basing associated

lower than it was immediately after World with this trend might be fewer facilities

30
such as housing for the active force, and based on sound criteria that emphasize

perhaps more, widely dispersed, training military value. Such a process will best

areas accessible to reserve units, whose serve the national defense and assure the

members live throughout the 1,nited States. public that basing decisions are made

independent of unfounded biases from any

It follows that the future military base quarter.

structure in the United States would need

to have an elasticity to support a rapid The future base-management process

force expansion and the wherewithal (in should have a healing effect. It should be

terms of airlift, sealift, and aerial refueling) structured in such a way that over time

to underwrite a global mobility capacity greater bonds of trust and confidence

greater and more versatile than that of between members of Congress and the

today. Defense Department can be built. While

the management of the nation's military

Another set of base requirements could base structure is the responsibility of the

emerge from long-range new-technology Secretary of Defense, the Congress is

weapons. Requirements for space-borne clearly a partner in matters of national

command, control, communications, and defense. The Military Departments and

intelligence are expected to increase the Joint Chiefs of Staff also have essential

substantially and be critical for future roles to play in the process. The nation's

wartime operations, and the U.S.-based interests would not be served by a

ground facilities providing linkage with continuation of the unworkable process

space platforms will grow in number as that led to the formation of this

well Commission.

Al! of this cautions against taking base- A Proposed Mechanism

closure actions today that may adversely

affect the deterrence and defense capacity While an ad hoc commission similar to

of tomorrow's military forces. It also the present one may be useful, from time

means that if popular paradigms were to time, in dealing with extraordinary

adopted that see U.S. bases pr'edominantly problems of government, such an

in their peacetime roles or in terms arrangement should not become a routine

restricted to peacetime cost-effectiveness, means for evaluating bases or addressing

national defense risks would be increased, other subjects that are part of the

Unused capacity at military bases allows day-to-day business of governing. This

room for future force structure changes, Commission's work can be ;An important

rapid expansion in conflict, and potential step in clearing the way for creation of a

dispersal for wartime operations. sound process of base evaluation,

realignment, and closure. We need to

Desirable Features build on the cooperation and impetus

of a Future Process achieved by this legislative-executive effort,

drawing on the lessons learned during the

To be successful, future base Commission's study of basing needs, and

management must be an integral part of defining consistent rules to assist in making

our political system, an open process that decisions on future realignments and

builds on the trust of the American people. closures.

The process should be aboveboard and

31
It is important to the success of any facilities and that they should be examined

future process that it be straightforward, in any future process.

methodical and understandable. The

Commission believes that the process it -- By virtue of the time constraint

developed is an appropriate starting point; discussed above, several areas that appear

it can, however, be improved. Specifically: to have the potential for further savings

were not included to any great extent in

-- The process should not be so the Commission's recommended closures

constrained by time. The process used by and realignments. Two of these, Reserve

this Commission was an iterative one Component facilities and military

requiring the development and testing of laboratories, are addressed in Chapter 5.

many options. Prevailing circumstances

(the delay in passing the enabling .- The staff of the Commission

legislation and the reality of the election consisted of dedicated, informed, and hardtimetable) forced the Commission to working people. The senior staff were

accomplish Phase II of the process, the Defense Department personnel detailed

heart of its task, between the elections in to the Commission and outside experts

November and the date of this report. hired by the Commission to bring special

While some six months prior to November expertise to the process, as required by the

were spent in assembling data and enabling legislation. The staff role in this

receiving testimony from expert witnesses process is extremely difficult because (1)

(see Appendix J), the time spent they must have detailed knowledge of the

developing specific recommendations was basing structure to include the associated

constrained. In the future, this Phase II force structure--they must "know the

effort should be allotted more time-- Pentagon", but (2) they must be

probably 90 to 180 days. independent of the Pentagon and supply

the Commission with accurate data and

-- The six-year payback used in the analyses. Quite often the staff found itself

Commission's evaluation is too limiting, in conflict with the Department viewpoint

The Commission did not discover the and getting detailed data and support on

genesis of this requirement, but as a result such complex subjects from already

of its application, many otherwise sound burdened Department officials was often

actions were discarded. Most actions difficult. Despite these built-in difficulties,

require substantial "up-front" costs to the staff performed extremelywell. Should

accommodate relocating units, and even there be a future commission, this

significant steady-state savings may not Commission hopes that appropriate

amortize the "up-front" costs of a desirable legislation would be passed in a more

action in six years. timely manner so that rules would be

adopted and independent staff hired in a

-- A ruling by the Defense Department more orderly fashion.

Counsel, based on the history of the

enabling legislation, prevented the Given the need to preserve the linkages

Commission from recommending actions among strategy, force structure, and base

on government-owned, contractor-operated structure, the Secretary of Defense is best

(GOCO) facilities. The Commission suited to execute the nation's basebelieves that there are opportunities for management responsibilities, including the

closure and realignment among the GOCO acquiring and disposing of real estate, and

32
realigning and rearranging the base members would be expected to examine

structure. This management function must the DoD analyses that led to identification

be supported by a consistent, ongoing, of a base-management action, providing base-review process within the Defense commentaries on their validity and

Department that looks to the long term. maintaining a broad perspective on related

The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the national issues. The advisory panel would

Services, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the report its findings and observations to the

Unified and Specified Commanders should Secretary for review and comment before

share in the responsibility of making the proposed action, along with the

recommendations to the Secretary on base advisory panel's findings, was submitted to

realignment and closure. At the same Congress.

time, members of Congress must have

confidence in the Department's internal This approach could answer the need to

process. The factors to be used in the ensure that the Secretary of Defense leads

future base-management process should be the base-management process, while

auditable and open to the Congress. providing an effective means of

Congressional participation and support. One way of satisfying this requirement So long as the process, combining DoD's

would be through the creation of a internal analytical efforts and an external

standing, external advisory panel that advisory panel, is conducted openly and on

oversees and verifies the analytical efforts the basis of sound and consistently applied

within the Department of Defense. Such criteria, it should provide a workable

a panel, composed of senior experts, could means for base realignments and closures.

be convened as necessary to render an Such a process should strengthen our

independent judgment on proposed base defense by allowing cost-effective use of

realignments and closures. Appointed by resources and set the foundation for

the Secretary of Defense, in consultation greater legislative-executive trust in

with Congressional leadership, the panel managing the nation's military bases.

33
APPENDICES

35

Preceding Page Blank
Appendix A

Charter

Defense Secretary's Commission on Base Realignment and Closure

In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5U.S.C. App. I), a Commission on

Base Realignment and Closure is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment.

There is established the Defense Secretary's Commission on Base Realignment and Closure. The Commission shall be

composed of twelve members appointed or designated by the Secretary of Defense. The composition of the Commission

shall include persons with broad experience in government and national defense. The Secretary shall designate two

Chairpersons from among the members of the Commission.

Section 2. Functions.

The Commission shall study the issues surrounding military base realignment and closure within the United States, it's

commonwealths, territories, and possessions. The primary objectives of the Commission shall be to:

A. Determine, by November 15,1988, the best process, including necessary administrative changes, for identifying bases

to be closed or realigned; how to improve and best use Federal government incentive programs t, overcome the

negative impact of base closure or realignment; and, the criteria for realigning and closing bases to include at least:

1. The current and future mission requirements and the impact on operational readiness of the military departments

concerned.

2. The availability and condition of land and facilities at both the existing and potential receiving locations.

3. The potential to accommodate contingency, mobilization, and future force requirements at receiving locations.

4. The cost and manpower implications.

5. The extent and timing of potential cost savings, including whether the total cost savings realized from the closure

or realignment of the base will, by the end of the 6-year period beginning with the date of the completion of the

closure or realignment of the base, exceed the amount expended to close or realign the base.

6. The economic impact on the community in which the base to be closed or realigned is located.

7. The community support at the receiving locations.

8. The environmental impact.

9. The implementation process involved.

B. Review the current and planned military base structure in light of force structure assumptions, and the process and

criteria developed pursuant to subparagraph A, and identify which bases should be closed or realigned.

C. Report its findings and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense by December 31, 1988.

Section 3. Administration.

Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation for their work on the Commission. However, members

appointed from among private citizens may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as

authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in the goverTment service (5U.S.C. 5701-5707), to the full extent

funds are available. The Secretary of Defense shall provide the Commission with such administrative services, facilities,

staff, and other support services as may be necessary. Any expenses of the Commission shall be paid from such funds as

may be available to the Secretary of Defense.

The Commission shall be in place and operating as soon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the Commission shall brief the

Secretary of Defense on the Commission's plan of action. The Commission's final report shall include recommendations

to realign and close bases only upon a vote of a majority of the members oi the Commission. The Commission should

complete its work by December 31, 1988.

/7rnCarlucci

The Pentagon Secretary of Defense

May 3, 1988

(jý rc'.d Novernbe 8, 19"8)

37

preceding Page Blank
Apppendix B

Base Closure and Realignment Act

PUBLIC LAW 100-526-OCT. 24, 1988 102 STAT. 2623

Public Law 100-526

100th Congress An Act

To provide certain additioual flical year 1989 defense authorization policies, to Oct. 24, 1988

provide procedure, to facilitate the closure and realignment of obsolete or unneces- [S. 27491

sary military installations, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, Defense

Authorization

SECTION 1. SHORT TITUE Amendments

This Act may be cited as the "Defense Authorization Amend- andnBaseClosure

ments and Base Closure and Realignment Act". Realignment Act.

10 USC 2687

TITLE II--CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT OF MILITARY note,

INSTALLATIONS

SEC. 201. CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

The Secretary shall-

(1) close all military installations recommended for closure by the Commission on Base Realignment and Closure in the report

transmitted to the Secretary pursuant to the charter establishing such Commission;

) realign all military installations recommended for realignment by such Commission in such report; and

(3) initiate all such closures and realignments no later than

September 30, 1991, and complete all such closures and

realignments no later than September 30, 1995, except that no

such closure or realignment may be initiated before January 1,

1990.

SEC. 202. CONDITIONS

(a) IN GZNZ.AL.-The Secretary may not carry out any closure or

realignment of a military installation under this title unless-

(1) no later than January 16, 1989, the Secretary transmits to Report..

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House

of Representatives a report containing a statement that the

Secretary has approved, and the Department of Defense will

implement, all of the military installation closures and

realignments recommended by the Commission in the report referred to in section 201(1);

(2) the Commission has recommended, in the report referred

to in section 201(1), the closure or realignment, as the case may

be, of the installation, and has transmitted to the Committees

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representa- tives a copy of such report and the statement required by

section 203(bX2): and

(3) the Secretary of Defense has transmitted to the Commission the study required by section 206(b).

38
(b) Jonqt RnOLL'TON,-The Secretary may not carry out any

closure or realignment under this title if, within the 45-day period

begning on March 1, 1989, a joint resolution is enacted, in accordance with the provisions of section 208, disapproving the recommendatiors of the Commission. The days on which either House

of Congress is not in sersion because of an adjournment of more

than 8 days to a day certain shall be excluded in the computation of

such 45-day period.

(c) TzxINATiON or Aut'ouRuY.-The authority of the Secretary

to carry out any closure or realignment under this titln shall

terminate on October 1, 1995.

SEC. 20. THE COMMISSION

(a) MzMsusuP-.-The Commission shall consist of 12 members

appointed by the Secretary of Defense.

(Dume.--The Commission shallReports. (1) tamit the r treferred to in section 201(1) to the

Sematary = later than December 31, 1988, and shall include in

much ."=or a desiption of the Cominsion's recommendations

of the milituay installations to which functions will be tranf1m a a result of the elm and realignments reeiammeded by the Cominsi and

Reports. (2) an the msmo date on which the Commission transmits such

z to the Secrtr, transmit to Committees on Armed

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives-

(A) a copy of mch report; and

(B) a tatsemh.t Cert.•ing that the Commission has

identified the military installations to be closed or realqadby reviewing all military installations inside the

United ate including all military installations under

c t and all those planned for construction.

(c) Bruv.-Not more than one-half of the professional staff of the

Comminion shall be individuals who have been employed by the

Department of Defense during calendar year 1988 in any capacity

other than a an employee of the Commission.

BM UL4. IgUMZWAYION

(a) IN Gum'AL.-In closing or realigning a military installation

under this title the Secretary-

(1) subject to the availability of funds authorized for and

apPropriated to the Department of Defense for use in planning and design, minor construction, or operation and maintenance

and the availability of funds in the Account, may carry out

actions necessary to implement such closure or realignment, including the sauisition of such land, the construction of such

replacement facilities, the performance of such activities, and

the conduct of such advance planning and design as may be

required to transfer functions m such military installation to

another military installation;

Community (2) subject to the availability of funds authorized for and

development, appropriated to the Department of Defense for economic adjustment assistance or community planning assistance and the

availability of funds in the Account, shall provide- (A) economic adjustment assistance to any community located near a military installation being closed or reunity planning assistance to any community located near a military installation to which functions will

be transferred as a result of such closure or realignment, if the Secretary determines that the financial resources available to the community (by grant or otherwise) for such purposes

are inadequate; and

39
Environmental (8) wibject to the availability of funds authorized for and

protection. waste didpolsal. appropriated to the Department of Defense for environmental

Hazardous restoration and the availability of funds in the Account, may materials. carry out activities for the purpose of environmental restoration, including reducing, removing, and recycling hazardous

wastes and removing unsafe buildings and debris.

Wb) MAmAasm m T D DIosAL or Paopmy.-(l) The Administrator of General Services shall delegate to the Secretary, with

rpct to efitem and surplus real property and facilities located at a

military iutulation closed or realgned under this title-

(A) the authority of the Administrator to utilize excess propefty under setion 202 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483);

(B) the authority of the Administrator to dispose of surplus

p' ,I under aection 203 of that Act (40 US.C. 484); and

"authority of the Administrato to gnt approvals and

make determinations under secdon IQg) oFthe Surplus Property Act of 1944 (50 U.S.C. A pp. 162 2 (g)).

(2M Subect to subparagmph (B), the Secretary shall exercise

authority dele ted to the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (1) in

(i) all regulations in effect on the date of the enactment of this

title governing utilization of excess property and disposal of

surplus property under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949; and

(ii) all regulations in effect on the date of the enactment of

this title the conveyance and disposal of property

unser ctioma Ig) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 (50

(B) e Svcra, after consulting with the Administrator of

Genira Serview may issue regulations that are necessary to carry

out the delegation of authority required by paragraph (1). ( The authority required to be delegated bparagraph (1) to the

Seretr by the Adminitrator of General ervices shall not inchide the authority to prescribe general policies and methods for

utilizing exsom property and disposing of surplus property.

(D) Before any action may be taken with respect to the dibposal of State and local

any s hs real property or facility located at any military installa- governments.

tionto closed or realigned under 'his title, the Secretary shall

consult with the Governor ot' the State and the heads of the local

governments concerned for the purpose of considering any plan for

the use of such property by the local community moncerned.

(M) The provisions of this paragraph and paragraph (1) are subject

to aragraphs (3) and (4).

(3) Wefore any action is taken with respect to the disposal or

transfer of any real property or facility located at a military

installation to be closed or realigned under this title, the Secretary

shallnotify all departments and other instrumentalities (including

nonappropriated fund instrumentalities) within the Department of

Defense of the availability of such property or facility, or portion

thereof, and may tranaler such property, facility, or portion, without

reimbursement, to any such department or instrumentality. In

carrymg out this paragraph, the Secretary shall give a priority, and

shall transfer, to any such department or other instrumentality that

961L to pay fair market value for the property or facility, or

portion thereof. For purposes of this paragraph, fair market value

shall be determined on the basis of the use of the property or facility

on December 31, 1988. This paragraph shall take precedence over

any other provision of this title or other provision of law with

respect to the disposal or transfer of real property or facility located

at a military installation to be closed or realigned under this title.

40
(4XA) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), all proceeds- (i) from any transfer under paragraph (3); and

(ii) from the transfer or disposal of any other property or

facility made as a result of a closure or realignment under this

title,

shall be deposited into the Account established by section 207(aX1).

(B) In any csse in which the General Services Administration is

involved in the mangement or disposal of such property or facility, the Secretary shall reimburse the Administrator of General Services

frum the proceeds of such disposal, in accordance with section 1535

of tide. 31, United States Code, for any expenses incurred in such

ectivitise

(c) An A m or Ormvt uw.-( The provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 US.C. 4321 et seq.) shall

not apply to--

(A) the actions of the Commission, including selecting the

military installations which the Commission recommends for

cu or realignment under this title, recommending any

military installation to receive functions from an installation to

be closed or realigned, and making its report to the Secretary

and the committees under section 203(b), and

(B) the actions of the Secretary in establishing the Commission, in determining whether to accept the recommendations of

the Comm*u.o_ in selecting any military installation to receive

functions from an installation to be closed or realigned, and in

tfrnsmi •iin the report to the Committees referred to in section

(2) The provisions of the Nationat Environmental Policy Act of

1969 shall apply to the actions of the Secretary (A) during the

process of the closing or realining of a military installation after

such military installation has been selected for closure or realignment but befor the installation is closed or realigned and the

functions relocated, and (B) during the procem of the relocating of

functiom from a military installation being closed or realigned to

another military installation after the receiving installation has

been selected but before the functions are relocated In applying the

provisions of such Act, the Secretary shall not have to consider-

(i) the need for closing or realigning a military installation

which has been selected for closure or realignment by the

Commimion;

(ii) the need for transferring functions to another military

installation which has been selected as the receiving installation; or

(iii) alternative military installations to tnose selected.

Claim(, (3) A civil action for judicial review, with respect to any requiremeat of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to the extent

such Act is aplicable under paragraph (2), or with respect to any

reqmuirement o the Commission made by this title, of any action or

failure to act by the Secretary during the closing, realigning, or

relocating referred to in clauses (A) and (B) of paragraph (2), or of

any action or failure to act by the Commission under this title, may

not be brought later than the 60th day after the date of such action

or failure to act.

SEC. 265L WAIVER

The Secretary may carry out this title without regard to-

(1) any provision of law restricting the use of funds for closing

or realigning military installations included in any appropriation or authorization Act; and

(2) the procedures set forth in sections 2662 and 2687 of title

10, United States Code.

41
sBcI N..RPOrr

(a) IN GzNzaL.-As part of each annual budget request for the

Department of Defense, the Secretary shall transmit to the appropriate committees of Congraci- (1) a schedule of the closure and real'gnent actions to be

carried out under this title in the fis•al year for which the

request is made and an estimate of the total expenditures

required and cost savings to be achieved by each such closure

and realignment and of the time period in which these savings

are to be achieved in each case, together with the Secretary a

assessment of the environmental effects of such actions; and

(2) a description of the military installations, including those

under construction and those planned for construction, to which

functions are to be transferred as a result of such closures and

realignments, together with the Secretary's assessment of the

environmental effects of such transfers.

(b) S'unir.-(1) The Secretary shall conduct a study of the military

installations of the United States outside the United States to

determine if efficiencies can be realized throuh closure or realignment of the overseas ban structure of the United States. Not later

than October 15, 1988, the Secretary shall transmit a report of the

findings and conclusions of such study to the Commission and to

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of

Representatives. In developing its recommendations to the Secretary under this title, the Commission shall consider the Secre as study.

(2) pon request of the Commission, the Secretary shall provide the Commission with such information about overseas bases as may

be helpful to the Commission in its deliberations.

(3) The Commision, based on its analysis of military installations

in the United States and its review of the Secretary's study of the

overseas base structure, may provide the Secretary with such comments and suggestions as it considers appropriate regarding the

Secretary's study of the overseas base structure.

SM • 1. FUNDING

(a) AocouNrT.-(l) There is hereby established on the books of the

Treasury an account to be known as the "Department of Defense

Base Closure Account" which shall be administered by the Secretary as a single account.

(2) There shall be deposited into the Account-

(A) funds authorized for and appropriated to the Account with

respect to fiscal year 1990 and fiscal years beinning thereafter;

(B) any funds that the Secretary may, subject to approval in

an appropriation Act, transfer to the Account from funds appro- priated to the Department of Defense fur any purpose, except

that such funds may be transferred only after the date on which

the Secretary transmits written notice of, and justification for

such transfer to the appropriate committees of Congress; and

(C) proceeds descrie in section 204(b)4XA).

(3XA) The Secretary may use the funds in the Account only for the

purposes described in section 204(a),

(B) When a decision is made to use funds in the Account to carry

out a construction project under section 204(aXI) and the cost of the

project will exceed the maximum amount authorized by law for a

minor construction project, the Secretary shall notify in writing the

appropriate committees of Congress of the nature of, and justifica42
tion for, the project and the amount of expenditures for such project.

Any such construction project may be carried out without regard to

section 2802(a) of title 10, United States Code.

Reports. (4) No later than 60 days after the end of each fiscal year in which

the Secretary carries out activities under this title, the Secretary "shall transmit a report to the appropriate committees of Congress of

the amount and nature of the deposits into, and the expenditures

from, the Account during such fiscal year and of the amount and

nature of other expenditures made pursuant to section 204(a) during such fiscal year. (5) Unobligated funds which remain in the Account after the

termination of the authority of the Secretary to carry out a closure

or realignment under this title shall be held in the Account until

transferred by law after the appropriate committees of Congress

receive the report transmitted under paraqrqph (6).

Reports. (6) No later than 60 days after the termination of the authority, of

the Secretary to carry out a closure or realignment under this title,

the Secretary shall transmit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report contain an accounting of-

(A) all the funds deposited into and expended from the

Account or otherwise expended under this title; and

(B) any amount remaining in the Account.

SEC. 20. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION REPORT

(a) TzrwM or THs RZPoLUrION.-For purposes of section 202(b), the

term "joint resolution" means only a joint resolution which is

introduced before March 15, .1989, and-

(1) which does not have a preamble;

(2) the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows:

"That Congress disapproves the recommendations of the

Commission on Bas Realignment and Closure established by the Secretary of Defense an submitted to the Secretary of

Defense on , the blank space being appropriately filled in; and

(3) the title of which is as follows: "Joint resolution disapproving the recommendations of the Commission on Base Realignment and Closure.".

(b)RU-m-A resolution described in subsection (a), introduced

in the House of Representatives shall be referred to the Committee

on Armed Services of the House of Representatives. A resolution

described in subsection (a) introduced in the Senate shall be referred

to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

W(c) Disc G.-If the committee to which a resolution described

in subsection (a) is referred has not reported such resolution (or an

identical resolution) before March 15, 1989, such committee shall be,

as of March 15, 1989, discharged from further consideration of such

resolution, and such resolution shall be placed on the appropriate

calendar of the House involved.

(d) CONSwMATION.-(1) On or after the third day after the date on

which the committee to which such a resolution is referred has

reported, or has been discharged (under subsection (c)) from further

consideration of, such a resolution, it is in order (even though a

perevious motion to the same effect has been disaree to) for any

emer of the respective House to move to proceed to the consideration of the resolution (but only on the day after the calendar day on

which such Member announces to the House concerned the Member's intention to do so). All points of order against the resolution

43
(and against consideration of the resolution) are waived. The motion

is highly privileged in the House of Representatives and is privi- leged in the Senate and is not debatable. The motion is not subject to

amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to proceed to

the consideration of other business. A motion to reconsider the vote

by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in

order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration of the resolution is

agreed to, the respective House shall immediately proceed to consideration of the joint resolution without interveninr motion, order, or

other business, and the resolution shall remain the unfinished

business of the reopective House until disposed of.

(2) Debate on the resolution, and on all debatable motions and

appals in connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than

10 hours, which shall be divided equally between those favoring and

those opposing the resolution. An amendment to the resolution is

not in order. A motion further to limit debate is in order and not

debatable. A motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the

consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the resolution is not in order. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the

resolution is agreed to or disagreed to is not in order.

(3) Immediately following he conclusion of the debate on a resolution described in subsection (a) and a single quorum call at the

conclusion of the debate if requested in accordance with the rules of

the appropriate House, the vote on final passage of the resolution

shall oocur.

(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as

the case may be, to the procedure relating to a resolution described

in subsection (a) shall be decided without debate.

(e) CoNUDz3ATioN sy Orm HousL--(I) If, before the passag e by

one House of a resolution of that House described in subsection (a),

that House receives from the other House a resolution described in

subsection (a), then the following procedures shall apply (A) The resolution of the other House shall not be referred to

a committee and may not be considered in the House receiving

it except in the case of final passage as provided in subpara- graph (BXii). (1 With respect to a resolution described in subsection (a) of

the House receiving the resolution-

(i) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no

resolution had been received from the other House; but

(iG the vote on final passage shall be on the resolution of

the other House.

(2) Upon disposition of the resolution received from the other

House, it shall no longer be in order to consider the resolution that

originated in the receiving House.

(M RuLs OF THE SENATz AND Houss.-This section is enacted by Congress-

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and

House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is deemed

a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House

in the case of a resolution described in subsection (a), and it

supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is inconsistent

with such rules; and

(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either

House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of

44
that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to 'he same

extent as in the cae of any other rule of that House.

SEC. 2O. DEFINITIONS

In this title:

(1) The term "Account" means the Department of Defense

Ease Closure Account established by section 207(aXl).

(2) The term "appropriate committees of Congress" means the

Committees on Armed Services and the Committees on Appro- priations of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

(8) The terms "Commission on Base Realignment and Closure" and "Commission" mean the Commission established by the Secretary of Defense in the charter signed by the Secretary

on May 3, 1988, aind as altered thereafter with respect to the

membership and voting. .

(4) The term "charter establishing such Commission" means

the charter referred wo in paragraph (8). (5) The term "initiate" in•ludes any action reducing functions

or civilian personnel positions but does not include studies,

planning, or similar activities carried out before there is a

reduction of such functions or positions. (6) The term "military installation" means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other

activity under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department.

(7) The term "ralignment" includes any action which both

reduces and relocates functions and civilian personnel positions. (8) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Defense.

(9) The term "United States" means the 50 States, the District

of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the

Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and any other commonwealth,

territory, or possession of the United States.

Approved October 24, 1988.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY-S, 2749 (H.R, 4264):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 100-1076 (Comm. of Conference); No. 100-563 (Ccomm. on -f Armed Services) and No. 100-753 (Comm. of Conference), both

accompanying H.R. 4264.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 134 (1988): Apr. 26-29, May 2-5, 11, H.R. 4264 considered and pasoed House.

ay 27, considered and passed Senate, amended, in lieu of s. 2355.

July 14, HosMe and Senate agreed to conference report. WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 24 (1988):

Aug. 3, Presidential veto message of H.R. 4264. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 134 (1988): Aug, 11, S. 2749 conaidered and passed Senate.

01t. 3, considered and passed House, amended.

Oct. 12, Senate and House agreed to conference report to S. 2749.

45
Appendix C

Commissioner Biographies

The Honorable Abraham A. Ribicoff, The Honorable Thomas F. Eagleton is

Co-Chairman, is a former Governor of a former Senator from the State of

Connecticut, Congressman. and Senator. Missouri. He also served as Missouri's

He served as the Secretary of Health, Lieutenant Governor and Attorney

Education, and Welfare under President General. While a Senator, he was a

Kennedy. Senator Ribicoff is Special member of the Defense Appropriations

Counsel to the New York law firm of Subcommittee. Senator Eagleton is a

Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler. member of the St. Louis law firm of

Thomas & Mitchell and a Professor of

The Honorable Jack Edwards, Co- Public Affairs at Washington University, Chairman, is a former Congressman from St. Louis, Missouri.

Alabama. While a Congressman, he was

a member of the House Appropriatioas The Honorable Martin R. Hoffmann is

Committee, and was the Ranking Minority a former Defense General Counsel and

Member of the Defense Subcommittee. Secretary of the Army. Mr. Hoffmann is

Congressman Edwards is a partner in the a managing partner in the Washington, law firm of Hand, Arendall, Bedsole, D.C. office of the Chicago, Illinois law firm

Greaves & Johnston, in Mobile, Alabama. of Gardner, Carton & Douglas.

Mr. Louis W. Cabot is a former General Bryce Poe, II, USAF (Ret), is

Chairman of the Board of the Cabot a former Vice Commander-in-Chief, U.S.

Corporation. He was also a Member of the Air Force (Europe), and a former

President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Commander of the U.S. Air Force Logistics Defense Management. Mr. Cabot is the Command. General Poe currently resides

Chairman of the Board of the Brookings in Alexandria, Virginia. Institution, located in Washington, D.C.

Vice Admiral William H. Rowden, USN

The Honorable W. Graham Claytor, Jr., (Ret), is a former Commander of the Sixth

is a former Secretary of the Navy and Fleet, Military Sealift Command, and the

Deputy Secretary of Defense. Mr. Claytor Naval Sea Systems Command. Admiral

is the Chairman of the Board and Rowden resides in Alexandria, Virginia. President of the National Railroad

Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), Dr. James C. Smith is a former staff

located in Washington, D.C. member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services

Committee. Dr. Smith is President of the

Mr. Donald F. Craib, Jr., is the former Commercial Group, CRS Sirrine, Inc., an

Chairman and CEO of Allstate Insurance, engineering and construction company

Co. He currently resides in Las Vegas, located in Houston, Texas.

Nevada.

46
General Donn A. Starry, USA (Ret), is The Honorable Russell E. Train is a

a former Commanding General of the U.S. former Under Secretary of the Interior,

Army Training and Doctrine Command, first Chairman of the Council on

and a former Commander-in-Chief of the Environmental Quality, and Administrator

Readiness Command. General Starry is of the Environmental Protection Agency.

presently Executive Vice President of Ford Currently, Mr. Train is the Chairman of

Aerospace Corporation. the Board for the World Wildlife Fund and

the Conservation Foundation, located in

Washington, D.C., and of Clean Sites, Inc.,

located in Alexandria, Virginia.

47
Appendix D

Commission Staff

Hayden G. Bryan, Executive Director

Jay Winik, Deputy Eecutive Director

Douglas B. Hansen,* Executive Secretary and Research Director

Russel E. Milnes,* Counsel

PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL STAFF

James G. Abbee Robert D. Hickson

Richard B. Baldwin LTC Frederick B. McKenzie, USAR*

Van B. Bandjunis CDR Charles F. Miller, USNR*

Charles W. Barrett Trevor Neve

Douglas M. Brown Ronald Preston

Robert Chandler Hugh J. Quinn*

Karen Chase LTC Jeffrey C. Sandefur, USAF*

Kathryn A. Condon* LTC Thomas Shadis, USA*

Donald L. Conner Ben Sternberg, Jr.

Charles T. P. Flachbarth* CAPT (SEL) Larry Szutenbach, USN*

Peter J. Groh Kevin J. Urban*

Anthony L. Harper* COL (P) Roger F. Yankoupe, USA*

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

MAJ Nancy J. Gordon, USA ILT Robert S. Moyer, USAF

SPC Lisa L. Babington, USA SSG Steven P. Peterka, USMC

SSG D. Michelle Charleville, USAFR SPC Michael L. Riddick, USA

Manuela L. Cuen CPT Christopher A. Roosa, USMCR

QM1 Mark A. Gilbert, USN CPT Chris Sherry, USAF

SGT Claudia D. Lawrence, USAR Kristin M. Stapf YN1 Wayne Liddy, USN SGT Greg E. Strong, USAF

MAJ Walter McKnight, USAF ILT Lisa 'ucker, USAF

Margaret I. Mixan Marsha E. Weisberg

Jacqueline L. Morales

* DoD endployeem (reference Section 203(C), P.I. 100-526)

48
Appendix E

Installation Task Forces and Categories

TASK FORCE CATEGORY

Ground Operating Ground

Operating Troops

Air Operating Tactical Aircraft

Operating Strategic Aircraft

Operating Mobility Aircraft

Operating Missiles

Flying Training

Sea Operating Surface Ships

Operating Submarines

Training and Headquarters

Administration Training Classrooms

Depot Maintenance Depots

Supply Depots Munitions Facilities

Industrial Facilities

Production Facilities

All Other Guard & Reserve Centers

Communications/Intelligence Sites

R&D Laboratories

Special Operations Bases

Space Operations Centers

Medical Facilities

49
Appendix F

Military Value Factors

and Physical Attributes

FACTORS PHYSICAL ATIRIBUTES

Mission Suitability Site-Specific Mission

Deployment Means

Relationship to Other Activities

Weather/Terrain/Land Use

Survivability

Maneuver Space

Availability of Facilities Operations

Support

Infrastructure

Administration

Quality of Facilities Condition

Technology

Configuration

Quality of Life Family Housing Bachelor Housing

Recreation/Amenities

Medical

Community Support Work Force

Commercial Transport Infrastructure

Complementary Industry

50

i-
Appendix G

The Commission's Cost-Estimating Model

The Commission developed a model purchases or sales, cost avoidances, and

to capture the essential costs and savings environmental mitigation. There are also

resulting from realignments and closures, recurring costs or savings, including housing

The model was used in determining allowances, salary changes from hired or

whether the six-year payback guideline in released billets, changes in base support

the Charter had been achieved. (overhead and maintenance) costs, and

mission-related costs experienced by the

The model uses standard cost factors to activity as a result of the relocation.

convert into dollar values the actions During transition, both one-time rind

required by the suggested options. Each recurring costs or savings can occur.

Service was encouraged to provide the

Commission with an assessment of the In order to avoid misleading data based

viability of the model as Rn estimating tool. on differing inflation estimates, the model

Their responses indicated that planning and collects all costs in constant-dollar terms:

accounting mechanisms were sufficiently a one-time conversion is then made at a

different to warrant Service-specific cost three-percent inflation rate. A

factors. The Services were required to computation of net present value (at an

document the source of their factors to the assumed discount rate of ten percent) is

Commission. made to determine the payback period and

to provide a means of comparison of the

In addition to the Service-specific different options. The net present value

factors, the model takes local cost factors is computed for a twenty-year period, into account. This was essential to reflecting five transition years and fifteen

determining the potential for reducing steady-state years. The key decision item

overhead by consolidating facilities, and to is the payback period, defined in the

eliminate options in which activities are charter as the number of steady-state years moved from relatively efficient facilities to required before the transition costs are

less efficient sites. Calculations consider recouped. 'he model itself is nonrelative differences in the cost of decisional, simply reporting the results of

maintaining the installation, paying off- the computations.

base housing allowances, and building new

facilities. The Services have reviewed this model

extensively for theoretical soundness, and

The model considers one-time from the practical aspect of its assessment

transactions, costs or savings, such as of the options proposed. Some are now

construction, personnel retirements and considering it for their own future planning

severances, personnel relocation costs, needs.

equipment freight and transport costs, land

51
Appendix H

Closures and Realignments

The following recommendations constitute those required by Title II, P.L, 100-526. An

index of affected installations begins on page 82.

ARMY

Fort DLx, New Jersey

The Commission recommends the in the Northeast. It also will permit realignment of Fort Dix to semi-active expansion of training capability to meet

status and relocation of entry level training mobilization requirements when needed.

functions (Basic Training (BT) and The size and location of Fort Dix, which

Advanced Individual Training (AIT)) from is contiguous to McGuire AFB, will also

Fort Dix to other Army training base provide capability to absorb future Army installations. This decision will consolidate force structure changes resulting from

similar training accomplished at various possible adjustments in overseas unit

locations and will increase the availability stationing.

of training areas at Fort Dix to support

active and reserve training. This category Implementation of the realignment will

has excess capacity allowing these require careful planning. There must be

consolidations. The net cost of this adequate provisions for security and

realignment will be paid back in five years. maintenance of retained facilities to meet

The Commission expects annual savings future expansion and mobilization

to be $84.5 million. requirements. Infrastructure to operate

residual active facilities, such as Walson

In reviewing Fort Dix, the Commission Army Hospital, and support for McGuire

noted opportunities to improve overall AFB, Nava, Air Engineering Center

effectiveness of the training base through (NAEC) Lakehurst, and the Fort Dix

the realignment of training. As BT and training area may also be required. In

AIT training are relocated from Fort Dix reviewing the overall health care

to other training installations, related requirements within the Delaware Valley adjustments can be made to better area, the Department of Defense should

distribute, consolidate, and manage training determine whether the Walson Army load requirements. Hospital should be retained or downgraded

to a clinic.

The realignment of Fort Dix to semiactive status will give the Army an No negative environmental impacts are

improved capability to meet active and anticipated since Fort Dix will remain in

reserve component training requirements semi-active status. Relocation actions

52
involved with this recommendation will not be consolidated with other 76Y AIT

significantly alter the environmental training at Fort Lee, Virginia.

situations at the gaining installations as

comparable training presently exists there. -- Food Service Specialist (94B) Combat

Service Support AIT from Fort Dix and

The realignments will have moderate Fort Jackson to be consolidated with other

impact on local employment. 94B AIT training at Ft Lee.

The Commission recommends the The Commission recognizes that the

following relocations of Basic and relocations prescribed above may require Advanced Individual Training: modification. The Secretary of the Army

may modify them if necessary. These -- Basic Training at Fort Dix, as follows: modifications must be at no greater cost

approximately 30 percent to Fort Knox, and payback than currently calculated and

Kentucky, to include Air Base Ground follow the stated intent of the Commission

Defense, 20 percent to Fort Leonard to consolidate like ,iT training at single

Wood, Missouri, and 50 percent to Fort installations and to consolidate basic

Jackson, South Carolina. training at fewer installations.

-- Basic Training at Fort Bliss, Texas,

to Fort Jackson. Fort Douglas, Utah

-- Motor Vehicle Operator (88M) The Commission recommends Fort

Combat Service Support AIT from Fort Douglas for closure. It is positioned in the

Dix to be consolidated with other 88M AIT center of the University of Utah campus

training at Fort Leonard Wood. which severely restricts its operational

flexibility. Its regional support mission can -- Light Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic be relocated to another location. The

(63B) Combat Service Support MiT from Reserve Component facilities will be

Forts Dix and Leonard Wood to be segregated and retained within the Fort.

consolidated with other 63B AIT training The net cost of closure and relocation will

at Fort Jackson. be paid back within six years. The

Commission expects annual savings to be -- Administrative and Legal Specialist $250 thousand.

(71C/D) Combat Service Support AIT

from Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, to The activities assigned to Fort Douglas

be consolidated with other 71C/D AIT support the regional Reserve-Component

training at Fort Jackson. functions and pay actions, and support area

recruiting efforts.

Personnel Specialist (75 D/E)

Combat Service Support AIT load and Construction potential is also limited

cadre from Fort Jackson to be consolidated by the historical landmark status of the

with other 75 D/E AIT training at Fort central portion of the installation. The

Benjamin Harrison. facilities haw e a high backlog of

maintenance and repair, requiring -- Supply Specialist (76Y) Combat substantial capital investments to upgrade.

Service Support AiT from Fort Jackson to

53
Closure of Fort Douglas will result in within six years, with annual savings

minor environmental impacts. The closure estimated to be $13.3 million.

and subsequent relocation will require the

removal of an unknown quantity of PCB The Department of Defense missions

transformers, as well as asbestos, from the at Cameron Station include logistical and

buildings. Cleanup of these sites is covered transportation support to military activities

under the Defense Environmental in the Washington area. The Commission

Restoration Program. Cleanup is also notes that the installation provides

independent of the closure. Additionally, morale and welfare-support functions for

45 acres of the installation have been a significant portion of the military

designated as a National Landmark. community in the NCR.

Several of the facilities are listed on the

National Register of Historic Places and Cameron Station's facilities are

will require protection or segregation, inadequate in size and quality to support

the large administrative organizations

The closure will have minimal impact resident on the installation. The converted

on local employment, warehouses used for administrative space

are a maze of hallways and offices without

The Commission recommends the windows or natural lighting. The quality

following relocations of major activities: of the work environment is significantly

degraded by overcrowding and health

-- '7he Reserve Component Pay Input hazards. In addition, Cameron Station

Station to Fort Carson, Colorado. This is located in a heavily urbanized area of

realignment will enhance command and the NCR.

control by Headquarters, Sixth Army, its

parent activity. The closure of Cameron Station requires

consideration of contaminated sites, PCB -- Segregate and retain on a portion of transformers, asbestos, and possible leaking

Fort Douglas the Reserve Component underground storage tanks. Cleanup of

activities, these sites is covered under the DoD

Environmental Restoration Program.

-- Other activities to leased space in Cleanup 3s independent of the closure.

Salt Lake City, Utah.

The closure will have minimal impact

on local employment.

Cameron Station, Virginia

The Commission's initial cost evaluation

The Commission recommends Cameron for this closure revealed an eight-year

Station for closure. It has a substantial payback, resulting from the standard

administrative-space deficit; the facilities property value estimated for Cameron

are also old and inefficient with an array Station. The Commission reexamined this

of security, maintenance, electrical, health, value and believes that the property would

and safety problems. The major mission return considerably more if it were

and tenants of the installation can be rezoned. The Commission believes there

relocated within the National Capital exists sufficient potential for the rezoning

Region (NCR). The net cost of closure to permit estimation of a higher property

and relocation is expected to pay back value. Moreover, the payback period

54
would decrease markedly if the Army is The Commission notes that the

successful in obtaining special legislation installation has 1416 acres of land under

approving the Fort Belvoir Engineer Army control, of which only 36.5 acres can

Proving Ground Public-Private be sold. Public Law 100-80, Section 2331, Development initiative for NCR leased provides for lease of the salable land to the

space which could accommodate relocation city of San Francisco for a term of ten

of Cameron Station activities. years beginning no later than January 1989.

The full value of the 36.5 acres could be

The Commission recommends that the realized if the legislation on lease of

major activities at Cameron Station be Presidio lands were repealed. relocated to Fort Belvoir, Virginia, which

is within commuting distance. The Presidio is the headquarters for Sixth

relocations will enhance administrative Army, which provides command and

operations by providing modern facilities control of regional Reserve-Component

designed for administrative purposes. The forces. LAMC provides medical care for

activities to be relocated include the the Bay Area military community, serves

Defense Logistics Agency, the Defense as an Army graduate medical training Contract Audit Agency, the Engineer facility, and houses the Letterman Army Activity Capital Area, and the Joint Medical Institute of Research.

Personal Property Shipping Office,

Washington. The Presidio has no excess

administrative-space capacity. Statutory For morale and welfare-support restrictions preclude new construction.

functions, the Commission recommends Reconstruction is allowed only if the

that some proceeds from the closure be replacement facility is the same size as the

applied to expansion of commissary and existing structure, regardless of mission.

post exchange facilities in the NCR to the Demolition of a like amount of square

extent that they are required. footage is required for all reconstruction.

The status of the Presidio as a federally

registered landmark, with approximately Presidio of San Francisco, California 300 historical structures, will affect any future development plans.

The Commission recommends the

Presidio of San Francisco, to include The LAMC does not meet seismic

Letterman Army Medical Center (LAMC), standards and upgrading would be very for closure, primarily because it has no costly. In addition, the Secretary of

capability to expand, and LAMC is in need Defense has recently assigned regional of major structural repairs. The medical responsibility in this area to the

Commission believes that it is unlikely that Navy. The Navy operates a similar

a new hospital will ne constructed on the hospital at Oak Knoll on the east side of

San Francisco side of the Bay Area. The the Bay Area.

Presidio and LAMC functions can be

relocated. The net cost of closure and Closure of Presidio will require action

relocation will be paid back within two with regard to contaminated sites, PCB

years. The Commission expects annual transformers, asbestos, and possible savings to be $74.1 million, underground storage tank leaks. Cleanup

of these sites is covered by the Defense

55
Environmental Restoration Program. only a minimal ammunition storage

Cleanup is independent of the closure, mission. There are no mobilization

Maintenance of historic sites and the requirements for this property. The net

existing agreement with the Golden Gate cost of closure will be paid back

Recreational Committee will affect immediately upon sale of the land. The

property disposal. Adverse environmental Commission expects annual savings to be

impacts are not anticipated for those $100 thousand.

installations receiving transfers from this

action, since comparable activities presently Coosa River has only limited

exist there. ammunition storage capability. The

ammunition can be either demilitarized or

The closure will have minimal impact relocated. Inadequate facilities limit any

on local employment, additional ammunition-related functions at

the site.

The Commission recommends the

following relocations of major units: Coosa River has significant

environmental cleanup problems. The -- Headquarters, Sixth Army to Fort hazardous waste problems include asbestos,

Carson, Colorado. This will reduce the PCBs in transformers, and other forms of

high base-operating costs currently contamination. Cleanup of these sites is

experienced at Presidio and place the Sixth covered by the Defense Environmental

Army on a multi-mission installation. Restoration Program. Cleanup is indepeadent of the closure.

-- The medical assets of LAMC to be

distributed throughout the Army medical The closure will have no impact on local

force structure to improve health care at employment.

other bases with large active-duty

populations, and to reduce costs. The Commission recommends relocating

the ammunition storage mission to -- Recurring health-care requirements Anniston Army Depot, Alabama.

normally handled by Letterman to be

accommodated by other Service medical

facilities in the Bay Area or through Navajo Depot Activity, AriLona

CHAMPUS.

The Commission recommends Navajo for -- Letterman Army Institute of Research closure and anticipates its eventual transfer

to be relocated to Fort Detrick, Maryland. to the Arizona National Guard. The

The realignment will provide new facilities military value of the installation is lower

and consolidate research functions. than others in the same category. The

Army does not exercise operational control

of the depot and the ammunition mission

Coosa River Annex, Alabama and tenants of the installation can be

relocated. The net cost of closure and

The Commission recommends Coosa relocation will be paid back within four

Rivwr Annex for closure. It has limited years. The Commission expects annual

military value because it has been savings to be $3.1 million.

essentially inactive for several years, with

56
Navajo stores and demilitarizes unrestricted land use. The major

conventional ammunition. It also operates environmental problems are asbestos and

a reserve-storage depot, which provides contaminated sites. Cleanup of these sites

care, preservation, minor maintenance, and is covered by the Defense Environmental

limited receiving and shipping of assigned Restoration Program. Cleanup is

commodities. The ammunition and supply independent of the closure. Potential

functions can be more effectively managed issues also exist with the archaeological

at less cost at another location. No sites at the installation.

significant environmental problems exist at

the Depot. The closure will have minimal impact

on local employment.

The closure will have minimal impact

on local employment. The Commission recommends that the

activities at Fort Wingate be relocated to

The Commission recommends relocating Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant,

the ammunition-mission stocks, equipment, Nevada.

and personnel to Hawthorne Army

Ammunition Plant, Nevada.

Lexington - Bluegrass Army Depot,

Kentucky Fort Wingate Ammunition Storage Depot,

New Mexico The Commission recommends closure of

the Lexington portion of the Lexington- The Commission recommends Fort Bluegrass Army Depot. The military value

Wingate for closure. Its military value is of this installation is lower than others in

lower than the other installations in the the same category, primarily due to the

same category, primarily because Fort condition of facilities and to limited storage

Wingate is a small, single-mission facility, capacity. The Bluegrass Storage facility,

Its mission can be relocated. The net cost however, has higher military value. The

of closure and relocation will be paid back net cost of closure and relocation will be

within one year. The Commission expects paid back within six years. The

annual savings to be $5.2 million. Commission expects annual savings to be

$6.7 million.

Fort Wingate ships, receives, renovates,

and stores ammunition and components The Lexington - Bluegrass Army Depot

and is responsible for the disposition of consists of two separate facilities, one

unserviceable ammunition. located in Lexington, which is the

headquarters for the complex, and the

Sufficient storage capacity is available other an ammunition storage facility

at other depots to accept the ammunition (Bluegrass) at Richmond, Kentucky. The

mission from Fort Wingate. This Lexington facility also performs the

realignment will eliminate curient excess overhaul of communications security

capacity and equipment problems. equipment and assembles communications

-electronics materiel.

Closure of Fort Wingate will require the

cleanup of environmental hazards before Consolidation of the communicationsthe facility can be considered for electronics maintenance function from

57

S... .. . . ..I .. i I
Lexington to Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pontiac Storage Facility, Michigan

Pennsylvania, will enable Tobyhanna and

its western region counterpart, the

Sacramento Army Depot, California, to The Commission recommends Pontiac

provide responsive communications- Storage Facility for closure. The military

electronics support to customers in either value of the installation is lower than other

region. Since Lexington's mission is not installations in the same category, primarily

site specific, and Tobyhanna has excess because it is a small, single-mission facility,

capacity to absorb additional missions, the with a high backlog of military

consolidation will improve operational construction. The mission can be

efficiency, management effectiveness, and relocated. The net cost of closure and

command and control over these activities, relocation will be paid back within six

The two major tenants at Lexington, the years. The Commission expects annual

Material Readiness Support Activity and savings to be $500 thousand.

the Central Test Measurement and

Diagnostic Equipment Activity, can also be Pontiac receives, stores, maintains, and

relocated to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, ships industrial plant equipment for various

and Letterkenny Army Depot, types of production functions in support of

Pennsylvania. This will combine functions, mobilization requirements.

improve management effectiveness and

efficiency of the entire operation, as well Pontiac's mission of supporting industrial

as improve command and control, plant requirements is not cost effective.

Small, single-mission storage facilities such

The cleanup requirements to qualify as this should be combined to achieve

Lexington for unrestricted land use are overhead savings.

minimal with minor environmental impacts.

Major adverse environmental impacts are Closure of Pontiac storage will result in

not anticipated at those facilities receiving minor environmental impacts, specifically

activities from this action as comparable in the areas of hazardous wastes and

activities are presently performed there. pollution control. Major adverse

environmental impacts are not expected at

The closure will have minimal impact those facilities receiving transfers resulting

on local employment, from the closure since comparable

activities are presently performed there.

The Commission recommends the

following relocations: The closure will have minimal impact

on local employment.

-- The transfer of the supply and

material-readiness missions to Letterkenny. The Commission recommends relocating

all stocks to the Seneca Army Depot, New -- The transfer of the communications- York. Equipment presently in storage

electronics mission to Tobyhanna. should be surveyed to determine its

continued utility. No costs for new - The transfer the central test construction are required to accommodate

management mission to Redstone Arsenal. the transferred supplies.

58
Alabama Ammunition Plant, Alabama payback. The Commission expects annual

savings to be $1.0 million.

The Commission recommends Alabama Poor wharf configuration, inadequate Ammunition Plant for closure. The military piers, and low accessibility of loading areas

value of the installation is lower than other disqualify the site for continued military installations in the same category, primarily use. The facilities are the only property because it has been in an inactive status under Army control and ownership. All

since 1954, pending disposal. No other property, including the land, belongs capability to manufacture propellants and to the city of New Orleans.

explosives remains at Alabama due to the

fact that all production equipment has been The substation and transformers on the

removed. No mission or tenants need to be wharf need to be surveyed for asbestos,

relocated. This closure will be paid back PCB's, and underground storage-tank immediately. The Commission expects contamination before property transfer.

annual savings to be $27 thousand. The closure will have minimal impact on

local employment. The plant has significant environmental

cleanup problems. The installation is on There are no relocations of units

the national priority list for hazardous- necessary.

waste cleanup. It has numerous

contaminated sites and asbestos in several

facilities. Fort Sheridan, Illinois

The closure will have minimal impact The Commission recommends Fort

on local employment. Sheridan for closure primarily because it

is located in a heavily urbanized, high-cost There are no realignments of units area with minimal potential for future

required for the closure, growth. Its mission and tenants can be

relocated. The net cost of closure and

relocation will be paid back within one New Orleans Military Ocean Terminal, year. The Commission expects annual

Louisiana savings to be $40.8 million.

The Commission recommends New Fort Sheridan is the operations base for

Orleans Military Ocean Terminal for Headquarters, Fourth United States Army, closure. The military value of the and the United States Army Recruiting installation is lower than other installations Command. Missions include command and

in the same category, primarily because its control of reserve units in the area;

facilities and piers cannot meet its mission recruiting functions for the Army; and area

to process and embark a combat force. Its support for Reserve Component units and

peacetime mission is the temporary storage recruiting operations. Its relocation outside

of privately owned vehicles and household of the Chicago vicinity will reduce

goods. This mission can be eliminated, operating costs for the Army.

Approximately 60 acres containing reserve There are no costs of closure and support facilities should be retained. The

relocation; thus, there is an immediate Commission anticipates the cemetery will

59
be transferred to the Veterans Material Technology Laboratory (AMTL) Administration. for closure primarily due to the condition

of its facilities and infrastructure. The

Fort Sheridan is located on high-value laboratory's mission of developing new

property. The installation can be easily materials to enhance the effectiveness and

relocated. The only stipulation is that the warfighting capability of the Army can be

relocation of the Fourth Army performed at other Army installations.

Headquarters must be within its seven- Relocating that mission will take advantage

state area. The Recruiting Command of existing Army property, reduce base

needs to be centrally located due to its operations costs, and combine research

nationwide mnission. Both activities require groups with those working on similar

accessibility to an adequate transportation technologies. The net cost of closure will

network. be paid back within one year. The

Commission expects annual savings to be

This closure will have minimal $7.1 million.

environmental impact. Concerns that need

to be addressed during implementation Army Material Technology Laboratory include historical buildings, a contaminated supports other laboratories in the area of

munitions burning site, various landfills, material-development research. It provides PCB transformers, and possible leaking advice, technical assistance, and support to

underground storage tanks. Cleanup of other Army laboratories. It also performs contamination on these sites is covered failure analyses on developmental and

under the DoD Environmental Restoration fielded systems. Program. Cleanup is independent of the

closure. AMTL facilities need major renovation

or replacement, the laboratory can be

The closure will have minimal impact relocated and the construction avoided.

on local employment. The facilities are located on high-value

property that can be sold to offset

The Commission recommends the realignment costs.

following relocations of major units:

The laboratory is currently hampered -- The Headquarters, Fourth Army, and in performing its mission by the condition

Headquarters, United States Army of the facilities and the supporting utility Recruiting Command to Fort Benjamin systems. Major renovation or complete Harrison, Indiana. replacement of the facilities at AMTL

would be costly but necessary to overcome -- The United States Army Recruiting all the operational deficiencies. Closure

Battalion Chicago, Illinois, and the United avoids major renovation costs and enables

States Army Recruiting Brigade Midwest the research functions to be performed

to leased space in Chicago. more efficiently elsewhere.

Closure of AMTL will require Army Material Technology Laboratory consideration of hazardous-materials sites,

(AMTL), Massachusetts asbestos, PCBs, and historically significant

areas. Cleanup of these sites is covered by

The Commission recommends Army the Defense Environmental Restoration

60
Program. Cleanup is independent of the annual savings expected to total $4.9

closure, million for all sites.

The closure will have minimal impact Stand-alone housing installations provide

on local employment, family housing for military personnel and

their dependents in locations separate from

The Commission recommends the their place of duty. These sites are

following relocations: generally remote from the major

installations that provide their support, and

The ceramics and related research are dedicated to support service members

functions to the U.S. Tank-Automotive stationed in the geographic area in which

Research, Development, and Engineering the housing is located.

Center at Detroit Arsenal, Michigan. This

relocation will consolidate the ceramics and These housing areas were in most cases

related research functions with similar constructed in the early 1950s and are

activities now being performed at Detroit either approaching or have gone beyond

Arsenal. their useful economic life. Annual

operating costs for these housing units are --The metal and metal-related research double the Army average. The cost of

functions to the U.S. Army Armament housing allowances for personnel now

Research, Development, and Engineering residing in the houses will be less than half

Center at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. of the Army's actual cost to operate and

This relocation will consolidate the metal maintain them.

and metal-related research functions with

similar activities now being performed at Other factors that affect the housing

Picatinny Arsenal. sites include their deterioration and long

distance to their parent military --The corrosion prevention and control installations. The mission requirements

related research to the Belvoir Research, that led to the construction of these

Development, and Engineering Center at facilities have either changed or no longer

Fort Belvoir, Virginia. This relocation will exist. Overall analysis indicates closure of

consolidate the corrosion prevention and all 52 areas recommended is the most

control research functions with similar prudent option except where another

activities now being performed at Fort service may request transfer of ownership.

Belvoir. Also, adequate housing may exist at other

nearby military installations, and standalone housing may represent excess

Various Stand-Alone Housing Installations capacity.

The Commission recommends fifty-two Closure of these sites will have no

stand-alone housing installations (see list environmental impact.

below) for closure. Cost analyses have

indicated that these installations are not The Commission recommends that

economically efficient to operate. There during closure the Department of Defense

are no construction costs associated with allow for continued occupancy of the units

the closure of these installations. Closures by the personnel currently housed in the

will result in immediate paybacks, with units, until their rotation to new duty

61
assignments. 40. Pitt 42 Family Housing (PA)

41. Pitt 43 Family Housing (PA)

Various Stand-Alone Family Housing 42. Pitt 52 Family Housing (PA)

installations recommended for closure are 43. Coraopolis Family Housing

as follows: Site 71 (PA)

44. Coraopolis Family Housing

1. FH Manchester CT 25 Site 72 (PA)

2. FH Ansonia CT 04 45. Family Housing Davisville

3. FH Orange CT 15 (RI)

4. FH Milford CT 17 46. FH N Smithfield R1 99

5. FH Fairfield CT 65 47. Manassas Family Housing (VA)

6. FH Westport CI 73 48. NIKE Norfolk 85 Housing (VA)

7. FH Shelton CT 74 49. Woodbridge Housing Site (VA)

8. FH New Britain CT 74 50. Youngs Lake Housing Site (WA)

9. FH E Windsor CT 08 51. Midway Housing Site (WA)

10. FH Portland CT 36 52. Sun Prairie Family Housing (WI)

11. FH Plainville CT 67

12. FH Middletown CT 48

13. Worth Family Housing (IL) Kapalama Military Reservation Phase III,

14. USARC Addison Housing (FL) Hawaii

15. NIKE Washington-Baltimore (MD)

16. FH Burlington (MA) 84 The Commission recommends Kapalama

17. FH Nahant MA 17 Military Reservation Phase III for closure.

18. FH Wakefield MA 03 The military value of the installation is

19. FH Beverly MA 15 lower than other installations in the same

20. FH Hull MA 36 category primarily because Kapalama is

21. FH Randolph MA 55 separated from its primary customers,

22. FH Bedford MA 85 Schofield Barracks and Fort Shafter. The

23. FH Swansea MA 29 major mission and tenants of the

24. FH Topsfield MA 05 installation can be relocated to Schofield

25. ST. Louis Area Support Ctr Barracks. The cost of new construction,

Wherry Housing (MO) including required non-appropriated fund

26. NIKE NY 54 Housing (NJ) facilities and warehouse space, along with

27. NIKE NY 60 Housing (NJ) the relocation of functions, will be paid

28. NIKE NY 79 80 (NJ) back immediately upon sale of the land.

29. NIKE NY 93 94 (NJ) There are no annual savings associated

30. Dry Hill Family Housing (NY) with this closure.

31. Manhattan Beach Housing (NY)

32. NIKE NY 01 Housing (NY) The Kapalama Military Reservation

33. NIKE NY 25 (NY) provides warehouse and maintenance

34. NIKE NY 99 Housing (NY) facilities, along with administrative areas,

35. Irwin Support Detachment in support of Army missions located in

Annex (PA) Hawaii. Kapalama Military Reservation

36. Pitt 02 Family Housing (PA) is located several miles from the

37. Pitt 03 Family Housing (PA) installation it supports. This property is

38. Pitt 25 Family Housing (PA) considered high-value real estate, and is

39. Pitt 37 Family Housing (PA) located in an important industrially zoned

62
area near major highways and commercial environmental impact. ports. The closure will have no impact on local

Replacement construction required to employment.

execute the sale of Kapalama Phase III

includes replacement warehousing for the

Army and Air Force Exchange System. Hamilton Army Airfield, California

No significant environmental impacts The Commission recommends Hamilton

are anticipated for the closure. Army Airfield for closure. The military

Consideration will have to be given to any value of the installation is lower than other

PCB transformers or asbestos in the installations in the same category, primarily

buildings. Cleanup of these sites is covered because of the high flood-control-system

by the Defense Environmental Restoration repair costs. The major mission and

Program. Cleanup is independent of the tenants of the installation can be relocated.

closure. The net cost of closure and relocation will

be paid back immediately. The

Personnel assigned to Kapalama Commission expects annual savings to be

Military Reservation Phase III, will be $150 thousand.

reassigned locally, and no employment

impacts are anticipated. Hamilton Army Airfield serves as an

airfield for the Presidio of San Francisco

and as a training center for Reserve

Tacony Warehouse, Pennsylvania aviation and medical units.

The Commission recommends Tacony Hamilton Army Airfield is located below

Warehouse for closure since it will have no sea level and requires a series of pumps,

current mission after additional levees, and culverts to remain dry. No

construction at the New Cumberland Army major repairs to the airfield have been

Depot (NCAD), Pennslyvania is completed. made since the Air Force turned the

There are no personnel assigned to Tacony property over to the Army in 1976, and

and there will be no construction or facilities have since deteriorated.

relocation costs. The closure costs will be

paid back immediately upon sale of the The airfield lighting system is no longer

land. There are no annual savings operational, and a backlog in runway and

associated with this closure. related repairs has accumulated. The

limited number of aircraft assigned,

The Tacony Warehouse complex, combined with the mission utilization, does

consisting of 11 buildings located on 14.2 not justify the expenditure of funds to

acres in Philadelphia provides interim make the airfield operational, especially in

storage for the New Cumberland Army view of the Commission recommendation

Depot. There is new construction to close the Presidio. The future utility of

underway at NCAD that will eliminate the the installation is limited to use as a

requirement for the use of Tacony as a Reserve training facility.

warehouse.

The closure of Hamilton Army Airfield

The closure will have minimal will involve only a limited number of

63
contaminated sites. Cleanup of these sites installation. This move will increase

is covered by the Defense Environmental utilization and reduce base-operating costs.

Restoration Program. Cleanup is The net cost of closure and relocation will

independent of the closure. Transfer of be paid back within six years. The

units from Hamilton Army Airfield is Commission expects annual savings to be

expected to relieve civilian noise pollution $6.6 million.

concerns.

Jefferson Proving Ground has the

The closure will have minimal impact mission of conducting, analyzing, and

on local employment, reporting on tests of ammunition and

ammunition components. The Commission recommends the

following relocations of major activities: The closure of Jefferson Proving Ground

will result in significant environmental -- Approximately 695 acres not required impacts. The closure will require

by the Army Reserve are recommended consideration of 26 buildings with a range

for closure and disposal. Facilities are to of herbicides, metals, explosives, PCBs and

be constructed on the remaining acres to possible asbestos contamination. Cleanup

consolidate the Headquarters, 3/12 Special of these sites is covered by the Defense

Forces Group and the 3/12 Service Environmental Restoration Program.

Company; the Headquarters, 2/91 Division Cleanup is independent of the closure. A

Training; the 6253rd USA Hospital; and all serious ordnance problem also exists.

Reserve units. This move will enhance Adverse environmental impacts are not

Reserve training capabilities, since it will anticipated for the receiving installation

consolidate units and provide adequate as comparable operations are presently

facilities. performed there.

-- The 91st Division Aviation The closure will have minimal impact

Detachment and the 343rd Medical on local employment.

Detachment, both reserve units, to leased

space at a local airfield. No pcrsonnel are The Commission recommends relocating

expected to be affected, since these moves Jefferson Proving Ground activities to

will be local. Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona.

-- The Sixth Army Aviation

Detachment, a reserve unit in support of Nike Philadelphia 41/43, New Jersey

the Sixth Army Headquarters, to be

realigned as part of the Sixth Army The Commission recommends closure

relocation to Fort Carson, Colorado. of Nike Philadelphia 41/43 which is located

in New Jersey near Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. This property consists of

Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana housing capacity excess to Army needs.

The payback for this closure is immediate

The Commission recommends Jefferson as there are no associated relocation or

Proving Ground for closure. Its mission of construction costs.

evaluating ammunition produced for the

Army can be located at another Nike Philadelphia is a stand-alone

64
housing installation that has in the past on local employment due to the fact that

provided family housing for Army and no personnel are assigned to Nike Kansas

other Service members and their City.

dependents at locations separate from their

duty stations.

Cape St. George, Florida

This housing site was previously offered

to the local community for possible housing The Commission recommends closure

for the homeless. Negotiations for its of Cape St. George. This property, is excess

development were unsuccessful, however, to the Army's needs as it is not required

and it was returned to the Army for for any current or future Army mission.

disposal. The housing site represents The payback for this closure is immediate

excess capacity and is not needed to fulfill since there are no associated relocation or

Army missions. construction costs.

No significant environmental impacts The Cape St. George property consists

are anticipated for closure of these housing primarily of a helipad that is in a state of

units. disrepair and is unusable. There is no

current or future anticipated Army mission

The closure will have no impact on for the installation.

local employment due to the fact that no

personnel are assigned to or housed on No significant environmental impacts

Nike Philadelphia 41/43. are anticipated for closure of this site.

The closure will have minimal impact

Nike Kansas City 30, Missouri on local employment due to the fact that

no personnel are assigned to Cape St.

The Commission recommends closure George.

of Nike Kansas City 30. This property

represents excess capacity to the Army and

is not reqUired for any current or future Umatilla Army Depot, Oregon

Army mission. The payback for this

closure is immediate as there are no The Commission recommends Umatilla

ssociated relocation or construction costs. Army Depot for realignment. The military

value of the installation was lower than

Nike Kansas City 30 facilities consist of other installations in the same category,

two barracks, a mess hall, and an primarily because it is a small singleadministration building. The facility was mission installation. The facilities at

made available to the Missouri Army Umatilla also require upgrading. The

National Guard, but the agreement has mission and tenants of the installation can

expired and will not be renewed. be relocated. The net cost of realignment

will be paid back within six years. The

No significant environmental impacts Commission expects annual savings to be

are anticipated for closure of this $6.3 million.

installation.

Umatilla performs the mission of reserve

The closure will have minimal impact storage and demilitarization of

65
conventional and chemical munitions, monitoring, laundry operations, and vehicle

and road maintenance. CHEM DEMIL

Umatilla's mission can be managed will be performed by contract

more effectively in another location by augmentation.

consolidating functions in multi-mission

operations.

Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado

The Commission was prevented from

closing Umatilla because of the ongoing The Commission recommends Pueblo

chemical demilitarization (CHEM DEMIL) Army Depot for realignment. The military

mission. CHEM DEMIL prevented closure value of the installation was lower than the

because the Army cannot begin on-site others in the same category, primarily

destruction of chemical munitions until because of its substandard mission facilities

1994 with an expected completion date of and the elimination of the Pershing missile

1996, which falls outside of the maintenance mission which creates unused

Commission's allowed timeframe for capacity. Additionally, the reduction in

completing closures, maintenance function will cause a 20

percent decline in supply stocks. The

The installation will be realigned to major missions and tenants of the

the maximum extent possible in order to installation can be relocated. The net cost

facilitate closure as soon as the CHEM of realignment will be paid back within

DEMIL mission is complete. three years. The Commission expects

annual savings to be $15.5 million.

Umatilla is on the National Priority List

for hazardous wastes cleanup. Confirmed Pueblo Army Depot stores, demilitarizes,

ground water contamination exists as well and renovates ammunition, as well as

as other forms of pollution. Transfer of storing chemical munitions and performing

the conventional ammunition mission to maintenance on assigned commodities of

Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant, equipment and components.

Nevada, could have minor impact on

existing hazardous waste management The depot's maintenance program is to

conditions there. be eliminated as a result of the mandated

destruction of the Pershing missile system The realignment will have minimal components. Pueblo also lacks modern

impact on local employment, facilities and does not have the necessary

technology to automate its material

The Commission recommends relocating handling system.

the conventional ammunition mission to

Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant. The Commission was prevented from

Approximately 75 civilians will remain at closing Pueblo because of the ongoing

Umatilla to perform environmental chemical demilitarization (CHEM DEMIL)

monitoring of ammunition-storage igloos, mission. CHEM DEMIL prevented closure

munitions handling, munitions transport because the Army is scheduled to begin onquality control activities, and security escort site destruction of chemical munitions in

duties. Additionally, personnel will be 1995. The demilitarization operation is

needed to support the increased depot scheduled to be completed in 1997 which

workload for such activities as storage site is outside of the Commission's allowed

66
timeframe to complete closures. Former Nike Site at Aberdeen Proving

Consequently, the installation should be Ground, Maryland

realigned to the maximum extent possible

in order to facilitate closure as soon as

demilitarization is complete. The Commission recommends the

former Nike site at the northwestern edge Moderate environmental problems are of Aberdeen Proving Ground for closure.

anticipated with the realignment of Pueblo This property, consisting of approximately Army Depot. Cleanup of hazardous 100 acres, represents excess capacity to the

wastes, asbestos, PCBs, underground Army and is not required for any current

storage tank problems, and contaminated or future Army mission. The payback for

sites will be required. Cleanup of these this closure is immediate since there are

sites is covered by the Defense no associated relocation or construction

Environmental Restoration Program. costs.

Cleanup is independent of the realignment. Major adverse environmental impacts are The land is licensed to the State of

not expected at those facilities receiving Maryland for the use of the Army National

activities resulting from this action since Guard and is used for training and support

comparable activities are presently of the Field Operating Activity (FOA) of

performed there, the National Guard Bureau. The FOA is

relocating to new facilities to be completed The Commission recommends in 1991. After the National Guard

relocation of the following major missions: relocates there will be no requirement for

this property. Significant environmental -- The supply mission to Tooele Army impacts are expected as a result of this

Depot, Utah. closure. Closure and disposal of the

Former Nike Site Area requires -- The ammunition mission to Red consideration of contamination sites, PCB

River Army Depot, Texas. transformers, and asbestos. Cleanup of

these sites is covered by the Defense -- Approximately 75 civilians will remain Environmental Restoration Program.

at Pueblo to perform environmental Cleanup is independent of the closure.

monitoring of ammunition-storage igloos,

munitions handling, munitions transport The closure will have minimal impact

quality control activities, and security escort on local employment.

duties. Additionally, personnel will be

needed to support the increased depot

workload for such activities as storage site Fort Meade, Maryland monitoring, laundry operations, and vehicle Fort Holabird, Maryland

and road maintenance. CHEM DEMIL Fort Devens, Massachusetts

will be performed by contract

augmentation. The Commission recommends the partial

closure and realignment of Fort Meade and

67
Fort Holabird, and the realignment of Fort The Commission encourages the

Deveus. The effect of these closures and Department of Defense to explore the

realignments will be to consolidate a opportunities for government or publicnumber of commands and activities whose private development on the remaining operations are currently separated, thereby portion of Fort Meade, along the lines

improving mission effectiveness, efficiency, being pursued at Fort Belvoir and the

and command and control. The net cost Belvoir Engineer Proving Ground.

of these realignments will be paid back

within one year. The Commission expects Fort Holabird: The Commission

annual savings to be $21 million, recommends the closure of the portion of

Fort Holabird occupied by the Criminal

Fort Meade: At Fort Meade, the range Records Center (CRC) of the Criminal

and training areas, including the airfield Investigation Command (CIDC). As

(approximately 9,000 acres generally south detailed above, this relocation of CRC to

of Maryland Route 198, extended, and the Fort Belvoir will consolidate split functions,

existing power-line right of way), are thereby improving mission effectiveness

recommended for closure and disposal. and efficiency.

This action is taken in order to realign Fort Meade from an active Army post to The current facilities are inadequate for

an administrative center in the extended the criminal-records mission. The Defense

National Capital Region (NCR), an Investigative Service, which is adequately increasingly encroached urban area. housed in another portion of the Fort, and

the Wherry Housing Project, which has a

The activities of the Criminal long term, non-termination lease, will both

Investigation Command (CIDC) currently remain.

located at Fort Meade and at Fort

Holabird will be realigned to Fort Belvoir, Fort Devens: The Commission

Virginia, utilizing space vacated by the recommends realignment of Fort Devens

Information Systems Engineering in order to consolidate the split Intelligence

Command (ISEC) of the Information School training function and the

Systems Command (ISC), which will Information Systems Command (ISC). relocate to Fort Devens, Massachusetts Consolidation of the school and the

(see below). Realigning the CIDC to Fort command will improve the mission

Belvoir will avoid significant programmed effectiveness and efficiency of both

construction at Fort Meade. functions.

The primary tenant of this new The Intelligence School, currently

administrative center at Fort Meade will located at Fort Devens, will relocate to

be the National Security Agency (NSA). Fort Huachuca, Arizona, to consolidate

NSA leases a significant amount of space with the Intelligence School training in the NCR. The other major tenant will operations at Fort Huachuca. Fort

be the Headquarters, First Army. The Huachuca is the more suitable location for

administrative center should be placed conduct of the school curriculum.

under the administrative and operational

control of the Military District of The Headquarters, ISC will relocate

Washington or other similar command, from Fort Huachuca to Fort Devens to

consolidate the command in one location

68
which is well suited for a national result in minor environmental impacts.

command such as ISC. Other ISC Fort Meade however, will require some

activities from Fort Belvoir (see above) and environmental restoration, including

from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, and cleanup of the impact area. The

Fort McPherson, Georgia, will also relocate realignments will have minimal impact on

to Fort Devens. local employment.

The partial closures and realignments

of Forts Meade, Holabird, and Devens will

69
NAVY

Naval Station New York (Brooklyn),

New York

The Commission recommends Naval asbestos. Cleanup of the site is covered by

Station New York (Brooklyn) for closure, the Defense Environment Restoration

primarily because the support functions Program. Cleanup is independent of the

located there can be more efficiently and closure. The movement of activities to

effectively performed at Naval Station New Staten Island will not alter the

York (Staten Island). The net cost of environmental situation there, since

closure and relocation will be paid back comparable activities are currently planned

immediately. The Commission expects for the area.

annual savings to be $4.2 million.

The closure will have minimal impact

The primary mission of the site at on local employment.

Brooklyn is to provide administrative,

housing, supply, medical, and recreational The Commission recommends that all

support to activities at Staten Island. In units and activities located at Brooklyn be

addition, Brooklyn provides logistical relocated to Staten Island.

support for Navy tenants.

The Brooklyn site is located on the east Naval Station Puget Sound (Sand Point),

shore of the East River, north of the Washington

Brooklyn Bridge, on the site of the former

Brooklyn Naval Shipyard. Since the site at The Commission recommends closing

Brooklyn has no waterfront facilities, its the portion of Naval Station Puget Sound

mission is predominantiy administrative. (Sand Point) whose mission is to serve fleet

units at Naval Station Puget Sound

Staten Island, which is the site for the (Everett). These support functions can be

homeport of the Northeast Battleship performed more efficiently from a site

Battlegroup, is located 20 city-driving miles much closer to Everett. The net cost of

across the Verrazano Narrows Bridge from closure and relocation of those activities

the Brooklyn site. Management of these will be paid back within five years. The

two sites is difficult and costly because of Commission expects annual savings to be

the distance separating them and traffic $5.6 million.

congestion. This affects the quality of

support provided to assigned personnel, The primary mission of Sand Point is to

and reduces the installation's military provide administrative, supply, medical,

value, recreational, and housing support to

Everett. Sand Point also provides logistical

Closure of the Brooklyn site will not support for Navy and other U.S.

adversely affect the environment. There Government tenants.

are plans to remove underground storage

tanks and PCB transformers. Some The Naval Station at Sand Point is

buildings built before 1977 may contain located on Lake Washington at the site of

70
the former Naval Air Station Seattle. Navy exchange be relocated to Everett.

Since Sand Point has no waterfront

facilities and must lease pier space, its

mission is predominantly administrative. Naval Station San Francisco (Hunters

The site for the homeport of the Pacific Point), California

Northwest Carrier Battlegroup, consisting

of an aircraft carrier, two cruisers, and The Commission recommends that the

eight destroyers and frigates, is Everett, proposed Strategic Homeport Program

35 driving miles from Sand Point. This construction for Hunters Point not be

distance reduces the military value of Sand executed. Instead, comparable construction

Point, makes management of the two sites should be accomplished at Pearl Harbor,

difficult and costly, and decreases the Hawaii, and Long Beach and San Diego,

quality of support provided to personnel at California. The net cost of this

Everett. By relocating those activities realignment will be paid back immediately. supporting Everett, but currently located The Commission expects annual savings to

at Sand Point, the overall military value of be $8.0 million.

the Naval Station Puget Sound will be

enhanced. Approximately 40 acres of land Hunters Point is located in San

are required to be purchased near Everett Francisco on the shores of San Francisco

in order to accomplish this relocation. Bay. Contractor repair and overhaul of

Navy ships is performed using the Navy's

Closure of a portion of Naval Station drydock at Hunters Point. The drydock is

Puget Sound at Sand Point will not also used for unscheduled repairs on

adversely affect the environment. The nuclear-powered ships, including aircraft

National Wetlands Inventory of the carriers. There is also an existing ship

Department of the Interior indicates that intermediate-maintenance activity that

Sand Point may be classified as wetlands, supports frigates. Consequently, the

Plans for investigation and action include Commission recommends retaining Hunters

cleanup of leaking underground storage Point as currently configured.

tanks, and investigation and remedial

action regarding an oil-spill site. Buildings Hunters Point had been designated as

at Sand Point that were built before 1977 a homeport for one battleship, four

may contain asbestos. Cleanup of the site cruisers. two destroyers, and two frigates.

is covered by the Defense Environmental The maritime mission of these ships is to

Restoration Program. Cleanup is protect the sea lines of communication in

independent of the closure. The movement the Pacific, support amphibious operations,

of activities to Everett will not alter its and provide deterrence through visible

environmental situation, since comparable peacetime power projection.

activities are currently planned for the

area. Relocating the battleship battlegroup to

Pearl Harbor, Long Beach and San Diego

The closure will have minimal impact will not alter the environmental situation

on local employment, at those bases, since comparable operations

are presently under way there.

The Commission recommends that those

Naval Station activities, whose mission is The realignment will have minimal

to serve fleet units at Everett, and the impact on local employment.

71
The Commission recommends relocating Accreditation of Hospitals. Among the

the battleship, and two cruisers from unsafe conditions are a substandard

Hunters Point to Pearl Harbor; one cruiser, electrical system and inadequate fire

two destroyers, and two frigates to San protection.

Diego; and one cruiser to Long Beach.

The closure of Naval Hospital

Philadelphia will have no detrimental

Naval Hospital Philadelphia, Pennsylvania impact on the environment. Closure and

demolition will require removal of asbestos

The Commission recommends the from the hospital buildings. Cleanup of

closure of Naval Hospital Philadelphia. the site is covered by the Defense

The hospital facilities are unsafe and Environmental Restoration Program.

inadequate to support modern health care. Cleanup is independent of the closure.

Because of its deteriorated condition and

outmoded configuration, the existing The closure of the hospital will have

hospital cannot be modernized, minimal impact on local employment.

The mission of the Naval Hospital is to The Department of Defense should

provide comprehensive emergency, explore various cost-effective health-care

outpatient, and inpatient health-care alternatives, including the use of Walson

services to eligible personnel. Additionally, Army Hospital at Fort Dix, New Jersey,

the hospital participates as an element of to meet the current Naval Hospital

the Tri-Service Regional Health Care Philadelphia workload. In light of the need

System within the Delaware Valley area. for further study, the Commission

The mission requires that the hospital recommends retention of the Naval

maintain quality health-care standards to Hospital Philadelphia land until a final

ensure accreditation and recognition by decision on overall health care in the

appropriate governmental and civilian region is reached.

agencies and commissions, to include the

Joint Commission on Accreditation of The Naval Ship Systems Engineering

Hospitals. Station, a tenant on the hospital grounds,

should remain in the Philadelphia area.

The hospital configuration makes

renovation to meet minimum requirements

for a primary-care inpatient facility Naval Station Galveston, Texas

impossible. This 50-year-old facility has

deteriorated to the point where the only The Commission recommends that the

usable components for a new facility would Strategic Homeport Program construction

be the exterior masonry and the structure. for Naval Station Galveston not be

completed and the installation be closed.

As early as 1973, the condition of the Instead, comparable construction should be

facilities was reported unsafe by the Navy. accomplished at Ingleside, Texas. The net

Since then, safety problems have been cost of closure and relocation, including

documented by the Navy, in engineering repayment of local contributions, will be

evaluations and fire-protection survey paid back immediately. The Commission

reports, and by the General Accounting expects annual savings to be $2.5 million.

Office, and tile Joint Commission on

72
expects annual savings to be $2.5 million, completed and the installation be closed.

Instead, comparable construction should be

Galveston had been desigiiated a accomplished at Ingleside, Texas. The net

homeport for two frigates and two mine- cost of closure and relocation, including warfare ships, which are part of a repayment of local contributions, will be

battleship battlegroup planned primarily for paid back immediately. The Commission

location at Ingleside, Texas. Relocating expects annual savings to be $1.2 million.

the Galveston ships will improve battlegroup integrity, reduce costs, and Lake Charles had been designated a

improve command and control. homeport for one oiler which is part of a

battleship battlegroup planned primarily The relocation of the homeport from for location at Ingleside, Texas. Also, Lake

Galveston to Ingleside will not adversely Charles is inland, reducing access to open affect the environment, since there are waters. Relocating the Lake Charles ship comparable operations and construction will improve battlegroup integrity, reduce

currently planned for Ingleside. costs of operation and improve command

and control.

The closure will have minimal impact

on local employment. The relocation of the homeport at Lake

Charles to Ingleside will not adversely The Commission recommends relocating affect the environment, since there are

the two frigates and two mine-warfare comparable operations and construction

ships from Galveston to Ingleside. currently planned for Ingleside.

The closure will have minimal impact Naval Station Lake Charles, Louisiana on local employment.

The Commission recommends that the The Commission recommends relocating Strategic Homeport Program construction the oiler from Lake Charles to Ingleside. for Naval Station Lake Charles not be

73
AIR FORCE

Chanute Air Force Base, Illinois

The Commission recommends Chanute This closure will have no negative impact

Air Force Base for closure primarily due on the local environment. The cleanup of

to reduced mission effectiveness caused by hazardous materials and waste

lower quality and limited availability of contamination at Chanute AFB is covered

facilities, and because of excess capacity by the Defense Environmental Restoration

within the category. The net cost of closure Program. Cleanup is independent of the

and relocation will be paid back within closure. The movement of the units

three years. The Commission expects currently assigned to Chanute will not

annual savings to be $68.7 million, significantly alter the environmental

situation at the gaining bases, since

Chanute AFB is lower in military value comparable training is presently cornducted

than other technical-training centers at those locations.

because the facilities significantly detract

from its mission effectiveness. This closure will have moderate impact

on local employment.

Chanute AFB is one of five Air

Training Command Technical Training The Commission recommends the

Centers providing specialized training for following relocations of major units and

officers, airmen, and civilians of the Air related support activities of the 3330th

Force, and for other Department of Technical Training Wing to existing

Defense agencies. Major training courses technical training wings at Sheppard,

include fire fighting, aircraft and missile Keesler, Lowry, and Goodfellow AFBs.

maintenance, and fuel contamination and Some examples of the types of training to

inspection training. The base also prepares be relocated are:

extension and career-development courses,

specialty-training standards, and training -- Sheppard AFB, Texas will absorb 52

manuals. In addition, Chanute provides courses including aircraft engine,

on-the-job training advisory services and propulsion, maintenance, and aircrew lfereviews field training courses. support training.

Chanute AFB can be closed without -- Keesler AFB, Mississippi will absorb

degrading the overall capability of the Air 22 courses including avionics and weatherForce tu provide technical training, equipment maintenance, weather-satellite

Shortcomings of this installation include a system, and photo-interpretation training.

shortage of buildings for training and

administration purposes, maintenance, and -- Lowry AFB, Colorado will absorb 45

warehousing. The quality of life for courses including missile supportassigned personnel is affected by a shortage equipment maintenance, intercontinental

of family housing units, bachelor housing, ballistic missile maintenance-officer, and

recreational amenities, and medical and cryogenic-operations training.

dental facilities.

-- Goodfellow AFB, Texas will absorb

74
25 courses including fire fighting, fire truck in other industries within the civilian

operation and maintenance, and fuel- community.

inspection training.

George AFB is one of 11 Tactical Air

These relocations will consolidate Command tactical-fighter bases. The wings

similar courses and improve training, assigned there have the wartime mission

of providing conventional tactical air

support primarily in the defenseGeorge Air Force Base, California suppression role as well as close air

support, air interdiction, and counterair.

The Commission recommends George The early retirement of the F-4 fighter Air Force Base for closure primarily due aircraft from George, caused by a recent

to degraded training effectiveness, air Air Force budget reduction, enabled the

traffic congestion, and because of excess Commission to consolidate similar units.

capacity within the category. The net cost There is sufficient capacity within the

of closure and relocation will be paid back tactical-fighter category to absorb the

immediately. The Commission expects remaining units at other locations.

annual savings to be $70.2 million.

This closure will have no negative impact The military value of George AFB is on the local environment. Cleanup of

lower than other tactical-fighter hazardous materials and waste

installations due to its distance to contamination at George is covered by the

specialized training ranges and the Defense Environmental Restoration

increasing air-traffic congestion in the Program. Cleanup is independent of the

vicinity of the base. closure. The movement of units currently

assigned to George should not significantly Training for George's defense alter the environmental situation at the

suppression units is hampered by a distance gaining bases. There will, however, be a

of over 150 nautical miles to an electronic- requirement for increased storage of

combat training range. This results in a hazardous waste at Mountain Home AFB,

considerable waste of time and money Idaho, and Cannon AFB, New Mexico. The

flying to and from the range. All flight Commission has been advised that these

operations are constrained by increasing air bases will have no difficulty providing the

traffic congestion in the greater Los appropriate, conforming storage facilities

Angeles area. required for the relocations.

Other shortcomings of the installation This closure will have minimal impact include a shortage of facilities for operation on local employment.

and maintenance purposes. The water

supply system is presently inadequate, and The Commission recommends the

is scheduled for replacement in FY 1991. following relocations of major units and

There are other deficiencies at George in related support activities:

the area of quality of life, the most

prominent being a severe shortage of -- The 35th Tactical Training Wing and

bachelor housing. The installation also has the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing (F-4E/G

difficulty hiring civilian workers due to the aircraft) to Mountain Home AFB. This

demand for technically qualified workers move will enhance command and control

75
by consolidating functions with EF-111 air year. The Commission expects annual

defense suppression aircraft. The recent savings to be $78.7 million.

expansion of the electronic-combat and

weapons ranges in the Mountain Home The military value of Mather AFB is

area provides the capability to relocate lower than other flying-training

operational and training assets, which will installations. Mather has a shortage of

increase efficiency and enhance mission buildings for operational and training effectiveness. To accommodate the move purposes, and a shortage of maintenance

of the F-4E/G into Mountain Home, it will and administrative facilities. Additionally, be necessary to move part of the 366th the availability of vehicle pavements is less

Tactical Fighter Wing (F-I1l E and F-111A than required. The installation has also

aircraft) from Mountain Home to Cannon had difficulty in hiring civilian workers in

AFB. This will collocate all U.S.-based F- the area, due to the demand for technically 111 aircraft with a similar mission at a qualified workers by other industries within

single base, improving command and the civilian community.

control while enhancing mission

effectiveness at a reduced cost. While Mather AFB has a hospital, the

base requires additional medical and dental -- The 27th Tactical Air Support facilities. The closure of Mather will save

Squadron (OV-10 aircraft) will relocate to construction costs for these facilities.

Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona. OV-10

aircraft are already stationed at Davis- Mather AFB is one of eight Air Training Monthan, and consolidation of OV-10 Command flying-training bases. Mather

aircraft there will improve command and conducts undergraduate navigator training control, and provide increased efficiency for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, while enhancing mission effectiveness. To as well as foreign countries. The base also

accommodate the additional OV-10 aircraft conducts advanced and tactical navigation,

at Davis-Monthan, it will be necessary to electronic-warfare, instructor, and other

move the 41st Electronic Combat Squadron training. The B-52 bombers at Mather are

(EC-130H aircraft) from Davis-Monthan programmed to retire, which will leave only

to Bergstrom AFB, Texas. This relocation the navigator training mission and an Air

will absorb excess capacity and enhance the Force Reserve KC-135 unit. These

implementation of the tactical ground- missions can be relocated within the

surveillance mission of the EC-130H at immediate vicinity to provide improved Bergstrom, AFB, provide increased multi-Service training capability in a more

efficiency, improve command and control, cost-effective manner.

and reduce operating costs.

This closure will have no negative impact

on the local environment. Cleanup of Mather Air Force Base, California hazardous materials and waste

contamination at Mather is covered by the The Commission recommends Mather Defense Environmental Restoration

AFB for closure primarily due to its Program. Cleanup is independent of the

deficiencies in the quality and availability closure. The relocation of the units

of facilities and excess capacity within the currently assigned to Mather will not

category. The net cost of closure and significantly alter the environmental

relocation will be paid back within one situation at the gaining bases because

76
comparable operations are presently bases that provide airlift for troops and

underway at those bases, military cargo. The wing at Norton supports

US Army and Marine Corps airlift

This closure will have minimal impact requirements and participates in other

on local employment, airlift operations. Flight operations at

Norton have become constrained because

The Commission recommends the of increasing air traffic congestion in the

following relocations of major units and Los Angeles area.

related support activities:

Norton AFB has a number of large -- The 323rd Flying Training Wing to warehouses of generally poor quality. Only Beale AFB, California. This move will the relatively temperate climate allows

take advantage of force-structure drawdown their use, but deterioration continues.

at Beale and improve multi-Service There is also a shortage of weapons storage training, facilities. Utilities and most other facilities

need a general upgrading to meet today's -- The 940th Air Refueling Group (Air technological standards. Because of the

Force Reserve) to McClellan AFB, poor quality of facilities, higher than

California if local authorities do not elect normal expenditures are required for

to operate the Mather facility as an airport. maintenance, repair, and periodic McClellan is only 10 miles from Mather replacement.

and has the capacity to absorb the unit.

Additional savings could be realized if this There are also deficiencies at Nortoii

reserve unit could remain at the Mather AFB in the area of quality of life. The

facility. most prominent include a shortage of

family housing units and inadequate

medical, dental, and recreational facilities.

Norton Air Force Base, California The installation also has difficulty meeting

civilian hiring requirements due to the

The Commission recommends Norton demand for technically qualified workers

AFB for closure primarily because of air by other industries within the civilian

traffic congestion, inadequate facilities, and sector.

because of excess capacity within the

category. The net cost of closure and This closure will have no negative impact relocation will be paid back within two on the local environment. Cleanup of

years. The Commission expects annual hazardous materials and waste

savings to be $67.9 million, contamination at Norton is covered by the

Defense Environmental Restoration

The military value of Norton AFB is Program. Cleanup is independent of the

lower than other strategic-airlift closure. The movement of the units

installations because of a combination of currently assigned to Norton will not

increasing air-traffic congestion, outdated adversely affect the environmental situation

facilities, and increasing competition for at gaining bases since comparable skilled personnel. operations are already underway there.

Norton AFB is currently one of six This closure will have minimal impact

Military Airlift Command strategic-airlift on local employment.

77
The Commission recommends the Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire

following relocations of major units and

related support activities: The Commission recommends Pease

Air Force Base for closure primarily due

-- Three Squadrons of the 63rd Military to quality and availability of facilities, and

Airlift Wing and the 445th Military Airlift because of excess capacity within the

Wing (AFRES) (C-141, C-21 and C-12 category. The net cost of closure and

aircraft) to March AFB, California. The relocation will be paid back immediately. remaining squadron (C-141 aircraft) to The Commission expects annual savings to

McChord AFB, Washington. These moves be $95.7 million.

will enhance command and control, and

reduce the cost of operations while still Pease AFB has a shortage of buildings

providing for three strategic-airlift for operational, training, and maintenance

Installations on the West Coast. purposes. In addition, the military family

housing is inadequate and requires

-- The Air Force Inspection and Safety upgrading. There are also deficiencies in

Center to Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, to the area of quality of life, the most

be consolidated with the Nuclear Safety prominent being a shortage in recreational

and Inspection Center. facilities.

-- The Air Force Audit Agency to Pease AFB is currently one of 12

March AFB. This provides new, modern Strategic Air Command bomber bases. An

facilities for this unit within the same local Air National Guard Unit with a peacetime

region. and wartime refueling missicn is also

assigned to Pease.

The Commission notes the Air Force

is exploring other alternatives for Pease's FB-111 bombers are

accomplishing the Air Force Audio Visual programmed to be transferred to the

Service Center mission and therefore Tactical Air Forces now that the B-1

recommends that the Air Force be given bomber aircraft is operational. This will

the option of moving this unit to March leave the base with only the 509th Air

AFB or retaining it in its present location Refueling Squadron. There is sufficient

at Norton. The annual savings reflect the capacity within the strategic-bomber

movement to March. category to absorb the remaining units at

other locations at minimum cost.

Because of the high cost of relocation

and the functional requirement for the The military value of Pease AFB is also

Ballistic Missile Office to remain in the lower than other strategic-bomber bases

local area, the Commi. ,ion recommends because of low pre-launch survivability

it remain at Norton AFB. In order to from submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

reduce the shortage of family housing in Pease's location provides less warning time

the local area, the Commission further for aircraft to launch during times of

recommrncds that Norton AFB family increased tension or international conflict.

housing be retained for use by personnel

assigned to March AFB.

78
This closure will have no negative These relocations will improve the

impact on the environment. The cleanup efficiency of strategic-bomber operations

of hazardous materials and waste by linking tankers with bombers, thus

contamination at Pease AFB is covered by avoiding military construction by utilizing the Defense Environmental Restoration facilities that already exist at those

Program. Cleanup is independent of the locations.

closure. The movement of units currently assigned to Pease will not significantly alter -- The 132nd Air Refueling Squadron, the environmental situation at gaining (Air National Guard (ANG) KC-135

bases sirze comparable operations are aircraft) assigned to Pease to remain within

presently under way at those locations, its current cantonment area. The traisfer

of property ownership should include a

This closure will have minimal impact memorandum of agreement that will

on local employment, permit the continued presence of the ANG

and provide for the unit's future

The Commission recommends the requirements. If local authorities do not

following relocations of major units and elect to operate the facility as an airport, related support activities: the ANG unit must be relocated. The

Commission is aware that Pease is high on -- The 509th Air Refueling Squadron the Federal Aviation Administration's list

(KC-135 aircraft) to Wurtsmith AFB, of military bases with potential for civil use

Michigan; Plattsbutih AFB, New York; and believes that the ANG unit will likely Eaker AFB, Arkansas; Carswell AFB, be allowed to remain at Pease.

Texas; and Fairchild AFB, Washington.

79
MISCELLANEOUS PROPERTIES

The Commission recommends the at the location or personnel assigned to the

Defense Mapping Agency (DMA) site in facility. There are no closure or relocation

Herndon, Virginia for closure, costs associated with this recommendation.

Implementation of the Global Positioning At present, there are no environmental

System will eliminate the need for these problems known to exist at this site.

facilities and property. There are no

relocation costs associated with the closure -- The Commission recommends the

as reassignment of personnel to the DMA Salton Sea Test Base, Imperial County,

Hydrographic-Topographic Center in California for closure. There is no longer Brookmont, MD is in the local commuting any military mission supported at this

area. Payback will be immediate. The location and no personnel are assigned to

Commission expects annual savings to be the facility. There are no closure or

$70 thousand. There are no negative relocation costs associated with this

socioeconomic or environmental impacts recommendation. There are contaminated

associated with this closure, areas at Salton Sea Test Base that must

be cleaned up. Examples of contamination

The Commission reviewed a number of are PCB, asbestos, expended small-arms

Service properties that had been recently ammunition, a landfill site where batteries

surveyed by the General Services were discarded, and 20 underground Administration (GSA). GSA survey report storage tanks. Cleanup is expected to

findings were compared to the Services' require significant costs and take at least

evaluation of the properties for three years. Cleanup, which is independent

consistencies and discrepancies. Four of of the closure, is covered by the Defense

these properties are recommended for Environmental Restoration Program.

closure by the Commission and two are

recommended for partial closure: -- The Commission recommends the

Naval Reserve Center (Coconut Grove) -- The Commission recommends the Miami, Florida for closure. A new facility

Bennett Army National Guard Facility, is currently under construction for the

Arapahoe County, Colorado for closure. Reserves at another site. Once this

There is no longer any military mission construction is complete, there will no

supported at this location and no personnel longer be any military mission supported

are assigned to the facility. There are no at this location. Relocation costs will be

closure or relocation costs associated with minimal and there are no environmental

this recommendation. The underground problems anticipated.

storage tanks at the Bennett facility require

cleanup and are the only known -- The Commission recommends Fort

environmental problem. Des Moines, Iowa for partial closure.

Approximately 56 acres in the south

-- The Commission recommends the portion of Fort Des Moines, as identified

Army Reserve Center, Gaithersburg, in GSA survey report of December 2, 1983

Maryland for closure. The Army Reserve (GSA Inventory Control Number 2100-

has relocated to a new site and there is 20264), are recommended for closure. Fort

no longer any military mission supported Des Moines is on the National Register of

80
20264), are recommended for closure. Fort Program. Cleanup is independent of the

Des Moines is on the National Register of closure action.

Historic Places and the Defense

Department should coordinate with the -. The Commission recommends the

State Historic Preservation Office and the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant for partial Advisory Council on Historic Preservation closure. Approximately 900 acres on the

to develop appropriate preservation north side of the installation that do not

guidelines. There are no relocation costs support any miliary mission are

associated with this recommendation. One recommended for closure. There are no

building and some of the land are relocation costs associated with this

contaminated with pesticides and other recommendation since no personnel are

contaminates, possibly asbestos and PCB, assigned in this area. No significant Cleanup of these sites is covered by the environmental problems are anticipated Defense Environmental Restoration from the closure.

81
INDEX OF AFFECTED BASES

Alabama Ammunition Plant, AL ... 59 Jefferson Proving Ground, IN ... 64

AMTL Watertown, MA ... 60 Kapalama Military

Anniston Army Depot, AL ... 56 Reservation Phase Il, HI ... 62

Beale AFB, CA ... 77 Keesler AFB, MS ... 74

Bennett ANG Facility, CO ... 80 Kirtland AFB, NM ... 78

Bergstrom AFB, TX ... 76 Letterkenny Army Depot, PA ... 58

Cameron Station, VA ... 54 Lexington Army Depot, KY ... 57

Cannon AFB, NM ... 76 Lowry AFB, CO ... 74

Cape St. George, FL ... 65 March AFB, CA ... 78

Carswell AFB, TX ... 79 Mather AFB, CA ... 76

Chanute AFB, IL ... 74 McChord AFB, WA ... 78

Coosa River Annex, AL ... 56 McClellan AFB, CA ... 77

Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ ... 76 Mountain Home AFB, ID ... 75, 76

Detroit Arsenal, MI ... 61 Navajo Depot, AZ ... 56

DMA Brookmont, MD ... 80 Naval Hospital Philadelphia, PA ... 72

DMA Herndon, VA ... 80 Naval Reserve Center

Eaker AFB, AR ... 79 (Coconut Grove), FL ... 80

Fairchild AFB, WA ... 79 Naval Station Galveston, TX ... 72

Fort Belvoir, VA ... 55, 61, 68 Naval Station Ingleside, TX ... 73

Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN ... 53, 60 Naval Station Lake Charles, LA ... 73

Fort Bliss, TX ... 53 Naval Station Long Beach, CA ... 71

Fort Carson, CO ... 54, 56, 64 Naval Station New York

Fort Des Moines, IA ... 80 (Brooklyn), NY ... 70

Fort Detrick, MD ... 56 Naval Station New York

Fort Devens, MA ... 67 (Staten Island), NY ... 70

Fort Dix, NJ ... 52 Naval Station Pearl Harbor, HI ... 71

Fort Douglas, UT ... 53 Naval Station Puget Sound

Fort Holabird, MD ... 67 (Everett), WA ... 70

Fort Huachuca, AZ ... 68 Naval Station Puget Sound

Fort Jackson, SC ... 53 (Sand Point), WA ... 70

Fort Knox, KY ... 53 Naval Station San Diego, CA ... 71

Fort Lee, VA ... 53 Naval Station San Francisco

Fort Leonard Wood, MO ... 53 (Hunters Point), CA ... 71

Fort McPherson, GA ... 68 New Orleans Military

Fort Meade, MD ... 67 Ocean Terminal, LA .. , 59

Fort Monmouth, NJ ... 68 Nike Kansas City 30, MO ... 65

Fort Sheridan, IL ... 59 Nike Philadelphia 41/43, NJ ... 64

Fort Wingate, NM ... 57 Nike Site, Aberdeen

George AFB, CA ... 75 Proving Ground, MD ... 67

Goodfellow AFB, TX ... 74 Norton AFB, CA ... 77

Hamilton Army Airfield, CA ... 63 Pease AFB, NH ... 78

Hawthorne Army Picatinny Arsenal, NJ ... 61

Ammunition Plant, NV ... 57, 66 Plattsburgh AFB, NY ... 79

Indiana Army Pontiac Storage Fac., MI ... 58

Ammunition Plant, IN ... 81 Presidio of San Francisco, CA ... 55

82
Pueblo Army Depot,CO ... 66

Red River Army Depot, TX ... 67

Redstone Arsenal, AL ... 58

Salton Sea Test Base, CA ... 80

Schofield Barracks, HI ... 62

Seneca Army Depot, NY ... 58

Sheppard AFB, TX ... 74

Tacony Warehouse, PA... 63

Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA ... 58

Tooele Army Depot, UT ... 67

U.S. Army Reserve Center, MD ... 80

Umatilla Army Depot, OR ... 65

Various Family Housing Sites ... 62

Wurtsmith AFB, MI ... 79

Yuma Proving Ground, AZ ... 64

83
Appendix I

Redevelopment in Twenty Communities

Mobile, Alabama: The city secured 3,500 Bangor, Maine: An aircraft-servicing

new jobs with Teledyne-Continental facility and a satellite campus for the

Motors, International Paper, and the University of Maine were established at

University of South Alabama at Brookley Dow Air Force Base, with a total of 2,470

Air Force Base and another 1,300 new, jobs.

private-sector jobs at the former Theodore

Army Terminal. Presque Isle, Maine: Missile hangers were

converted to facilities for manufacturing

Benicia, California: Private developers shoes, plywood, and potato products,

have replaced the former arsenal with creating 1,100 jobs.

facilities for Exxon, Sperry and an

automobile-importing operation, for a total Boston, Massachusetts: Charlestown Naval

of 5,510 jobs. Shipyard has become a historic park and

a commercial and residential complex.

Colorado Springs, Colorado: Ent Air The South Boston annex has become an

Force Base has been converted into the industrial park. Boston Army Base has

National Olympic Training Center. become a commercial office facility.

Orlando, Florida: McCoy Air Force Base Springfield, Massachusetts: Digital is now a municipal airport and an Equipment, Milton Bradley and Smith &

industrial park with a total of 3,049 new Wesson are now located at the Springfield

jobs. Arsenal, together with the new Springfield

Technical College, providing 3,300 jobs.

Albany, Georgia: The former Albany

Naval Station has been converted to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan:

industrial facilities for the Miller Brewery Geographically isolated Kincheloe Air

Co. and the Kroger Co., with a total of Force Base has provided 990 new

2,000 new jobs. manufacturing jobs and a state minimumsecurity prison.

Brunswick, Georgia: Glynco Naval Air

Station now provides a home for the Neosho, Missouri: Over 2,300 new jobs

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center have been created at Camp Crowder and

and a new municipal airport, for a total of Air Force Plant No. 65 by new industrial

1,200 jobs. firms and Crowder College.

Salina, Kansas: Schilling Air Force Base Edison, New Jersey: Raritan Arsenal has

provides facilities for Beech Aircraft, a been transformed into an industrial park

food production operation, and two with 13,100 employees. RCA, American

vocational schools, for a total of 4,900 jobs. Hospital Supply, Nestle, R.H. Macy,

84
Schwinn Bicycles, Michelin and the Greenville, South Carolina: Donaldson Air

Middlesex County Community College are Force Base has become an industrial

located there. complex that includes facilities for Union

Carbide, 3-M Company, Norwich

Roswell, New Mexico: Walker Air Force Pharmaceutical, and others, for a total of

Base is the site for Greyhound's bus 3,500 jobs.

manufacturing facility and other privatesector firras, along with Eastern New Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo Air Force Base

Mexico University, for a total of 2,770 new is now home to Bell Helicopter and Texas

jobs. ",tate Technical Institute, with a total of

1,030 jobs.

Toledo, Ohio: Rossford Arsenal is used by

Hunt Foods, Owens Illinois, Ace Hardware, Mineral Wells, Texas: Fort Wolters has

Michael Owens Junior College and Penta been converted to an industrial park and

County Vocational School, for a total of the Weatherford College campus, for a

3,900 jobs. total of 1,300 jobs.

Quonset Point, Rhode Island: A new

general-aviation airport and port-authority

industrial park provide 7,000 jobs.

85
Appendix J

Public Hearings and Witnesses

DEFENSE MISSIONS JUNE 8, 1988

Hon. William Roth Hon. Richard Armey

VADM J. A. Baldwin USN Hon. John 0. Marsh, Jr.

GEN Carl E. Vuono, USA Hon. John W. Shannon

Hon. William L. Ball, III ADM Carlisle A.H. Trost, USN

GEN Thomas R. Morgan, USMC Hon. James McGovern

GEN Larry D. Welch, USAF LTG Kincent M, Russo, USA

Gene R. La Rocque Fred Thompson

Stephen Moore

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT JULY 7, 1988

Hon. Charles A. Bowsher Frank C. Conahan

William C. Wright Edward Lashman

Gordon Davis William Laubernds

Hon. Herman Costello Robert Edgell

Gary Engebretson Orson G. Swindle, III

Paul J. Dempsey Dr. Robert M. Rauner

Dr. John Lynch Paul W. Johnson

Frank P. Cipolla Dr. Alan S. Gregerman

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES JULY 28, 1978

William H. Parker III Lewis D. Walker

Gary D. Vest CAPT Richard H. Rice, Jr.,USN

Dinah Bear William D. Dickerson

Brock Evans Lynn A. Greenwalt

Barry Breen

LESSONS LEARNED SEPTEMBER 14, 1988

Hon. Robert S. McNamara Hon. Paul R. Ignatius

FUTURE BASING NEEDS OCTOBER 6, 1988

MG Wilson A. Shoffner, USA Marcy Agnon

VADM Stanley R. Arthur, USN Hon. R. James Woolsey

LTG William G. Carson, Jr., USMC Dr. Edward N. Lutmwak

MG Walter E. Webb, III, USA F Hon. Fred W/de

Richard Brody

86
ADDITIONAL VIEW
Additional View of Thomas F. Eagleton

I harbor one strong additional view which I feel compelled to state. The cooperation

with the Commission's efforts varied significantly from service to service.

The Air Force ultimately gave its cooperation. The Army begrudgingly gave its

reluctant cooperation. The Navy stonewalled and got away with it. Intransigence paid off.

When the new Secretary of Defense looks to further base closings as a means of trimming

the Pentagon budget, he should most certainly start with the Navy. The Navy "refused to

play" this time; it should be obliged to next time.

88