As described at the beginning of this report, DOD recognized the need for additional base closures and realignments following the 1995 closure round and made repeated efforts to gain congressional authorization for an additional closure round. Congress authorized an additional round for 2005 with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The 2002 Act essentially extended the authority of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, which had authorized the 1991, 1993, and 1995 rounds, with some modifications for the 2005 base closure round. In a memorandum dated November 15, 2002, the Secretary of Defense issued initial guidance outlining goals and a leadership framework for the 2005 BRAC round. In doing so, he noted that “At a minimum, BRAC 2005 must eliminate excess physical capacity; the operation, sustainment and recapitalization of which diverts scarce resources from defense capability.” However, specific reduction goals were not established. At the same time, the Secretary’s guidance for the 2005 round depicted the round as focusing on more than the reduction of excess capacity. He said that “BRAC 2005 can make an even more profound contribution to transforming the Department by rationalizing our infrastructure with defense strategy.” He further noted that “A primary objective of BRAC 2005, in addition to realigning our base structure to meet our post-Cold War force structure, is to examine and implement opportunities for greater joint activity.” Toward that end, the Secretary indicated that organizationally the 2005 BRAC analysis would be two pronged. Joint cross-service teams would analyze common business-oriented functions, and the military departments would analyze service-unique functions. The Secretary of Defense established two senior groups to oversee and guide the BRAC 2005 process from a departmental perspective. The first was the Infrastructure Executive Council (IEC), which was designated the policy-making and oversight body for the entire process, and the second, a subordinate group, was the Infrastructure Steering Group (ISG), created to oversee the joint cross-service analyses and integrate that process with the military departments’ own service-unique analyses. Each of the military departments also established BRAC organizations, which had oversight from senior leaders. Likewise, each of the joint cross-service teams, under the purview of the ISG, was led by senior military or civilian officials, with representation from each of the services and relevant defense agencies. DOD’s BRAC leadership structure is shown in figure 1. DOD developed a draft set of 77 transformational options that once approved, were expected to constitute a minimum analytical framework upon which the military departments and joint cross-service groups would conduct their respective BRAC analyses. Because of a lack of agreement among the services and OSD, the draft options were never formally approved, but they remained available for consideration by analytical teams and were referenced by some groups in support of various BRAC actions being considered. (See app. XV for a list of the draft transformational options.) To some extent, the analyses and recommendations of each of the services and joint cross-service groups were also influenced by various guiding principles or policy imperatives developed by the respective service or joint cross-service groups, such as the need to preserve a particular capability in a particular location. The legislation authorizing the 2005 BRAC round, enacted as part of the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization Act, required DOD to give priority to selection criteria dealing with military value and added elements of specificity to criteria previously used by DOD in prior BRAC rounds. Subsequently, The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 codified the entire selection criteria and added the word “surge” to one previously used criterion related to potential future contingencies and mobilization efforts. In large measure, the final criteria closely followed the criteria DOD employed in prior rounds, with greater specificity added in some areas, as required by Congress. Figure 2 shows DOD’s selection criteria for 2005, with changes from BRAC 1995 denoted in bold. To ensure that the selection criteria were consistently applied, OSD established a common analytical framework to be used by each military service and joint cross-service group. Each service and group adapted this framework, in varying degrees, to its individual activities and functions in evaluating facilities and functions and identifying closure and realignment options. Despite the diversity of bases and cross-service functions analyzed, each of the groups was expected to first analyze capacity and military value of its respective facilities or functions, and then to identify and evaluate various closure and realignment scenarios and provide specific recommendations. Scenarios were derived from data analysis and transformational options, as well as from goals and objectives each group established for itself as it began its work. Figure 3 depicts the expected progression of that process. An initial part of the process involved an overall capacity analysis of specific locations or functions and subfunctions at specific locations. The analysis relied on data calls to obtain certified data to assess such factors as maximum potential capacity, current capacity, current usage, excess capacity, and capacity needed to meet surge requirements. The military value analysis consisted of assessments of operational and physical characteristics of each installation, or specific functions on an installation related to a specific joint cross-service group’s area of responsibility. These would include an installation’s or function’s current and future mission capabilities, physical condition, ability to accommodate future needs, and cost of operations. This analysis also relied on data calls to obtain certified data on the various attributes and metrics used to assess each of the four military value criteria and permit meaningful comparisons between like installations/facilities with reference to the collective military value selection criteria. DOD officials used these data to develop comparative military value scores for each installation/facility or for categories of facilities serving like functions. The scenario development and analysis phase focused on identifying various realignment and closure scenarios for further analysis. These scenarios were to be derived from consideration of the department’s 20- year force structure plan, capacity analysis, military value analysis, and transformational options; applicable guiding principles, objectives, or policy imperatives identified by individual military services or joint cross- service groups; and military judgment. Each component had available for its use an optimization or linear programming model that could combine the results of capacity and military value analyses and other information to derive scenarios and sets of alternatives. The model could be used to address varying policy imperatives or objectives, such as minimizing the number of sites, minimizing the amount of excess capacity, or maximizing the average military value. A BRAC review group could also direct variations that would, for example, eliminate as much excess capacity as possible while maintaining an average military value at least as high as the original set of sites. OSD policy guidance has historically specified that priority consideration be given to military value in making closure and realignment decisions, but that priority was specifically mandated by the legislation authorizing the 2005 BRAC round. At the same time, historic practice and the 2005 authorizing legislation both required consideration of additional issues included in selection criteria 5 through 8, detailed below: Criterion 5—costs and savings: This criterion consists of measures of costs and savings and the payback periods associated with them. Each component assessed costs using the Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) model that was used in each of the BRAC rounds since 1988. Appendix XIII summarizes improvements that have been made to the model over time and more recently for the 2005 round. Criterion 6—economic impact: This criterion measures the direct and indirect impacts of a BRAC action on employment in the communities affected by a closure or realignment. Appendix XIV provides a more complete description of how economic impact was assessed and the changes made to improve the assessment for this round. Criterion 7—community infrastructure: Selection criterion 7 examines “the ability of the infrastructure of both the existing and potential receiving communities to support forces, missions, and personnel.” The services and joint cross-service groups considered information on demographics, childcare, cost of living, employment, education, housing, medical care, safety and crime, transportation, and public utilities of the communities impacted by a BRAC action. Criterion 8—environmental impact: Selection criterion 8 assesses “the environmental impact, including the impact of costs related to potential environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities” of closure and realignment recommendations. In considering this criterion, the services and joint cross-service groups focused mainly on potential environmental impacts while acknowledging, when appropriate, known environmental restoration costs associated with an installation recommended for closure or realignment. Waste management and environmental compliance costs were factored into criterion 5. However, under OSD policy guidance, environmental restoration costs were not considered in the cost and savings analyses for evaluating individual scenarios under criterion 5. DOD is obligated to restore contaminated sites on military bases regardless of whether they are closed, and such costs could be affected by reuse plans that cannot be known at this time but would be budgeted for at a later time when those plans and costs are better identified. Each of the military departments produced reports with closure and realignment recommendations, as did each of the joint cross-service groups, the results of which are summarized in appendixes III through XII. Figures 4 and 5 show, respectively, the 33 major closures and 30 major realignments that have been recommended by DOD where plant replacement values exceed $100 million for major base closures and net losses of 400 or more military and civilian personnel for major base realignments. While the 2005 BRAC round, like earlier BRAC rounds, was chartered to focus on United States domestic bases, DOD separately had under way a review of overseas basing requirements that had implications for the domestic BRAC process. In a September 2004 report to Congress, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy provided an update on DOD’s “global defense posture review.” It noted that once completed, the changes stemming from the review would result in the most profound reordering of United States military forces overseas as the current posture has been largely unchanged since the Korean War.