Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
702696
label
Cheney (Defense) [1991] [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
702696
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Cheney (Defense) [1991] [2]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
29187-006
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Chief of Staff to the President (George H. W. Bush Administration)
John Sununu Cabinet Agencies Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
702696
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
3b31fef897f49ce0
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
1998-0004-F[2]
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Cabinet Agencies Files
OA/ID Number:
29187
Folder ID Number:
29187-006
Folder Title:
Cheney (Defense) [1991] [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
15
25
6
4
DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION
1625 K STREET, N.W. SUITE 400
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-1604
202-653-0823
JIM COURTER, CHAIRMAN
COMMISSIONERS:
July 1, 1991
WILLIAM L. BALL, III
HOWARD H. CALLAWAY
GEN. DUANE H. CASSIDY, USAF (R
ARTHUR LEVITT, JR.
JAMES SMITH II, P.E.
ROBERT D. STUART, JR.
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
On behalf of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, we
are pleased to submit a report containing both a review of the Defense
Secretary's April 12 list and our recommendations for the closure or
realignment of U.S. military installations.
In preparing this report, the Commission reviewed thousands of pages
of oral testimony and written documentation. All of our work was subject
to public scrutiny. We held 28 hearings across the United States,
visited 47 military installations and met face-to-face with hundreds of
representatives in surrounding communities. Among the many people who
presented expert testimony were members of Congress and officials
representing the Pentagon, the General Accounting Office and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Ultimately, this report reflects the independent judgment of the
Commission's seven members. Not one of our decisions was easy. Each of
the installations recommended for closure enjoys a proud history of
service to the United States. Moreover, we recognize that base closure
creates economic hardship that only time and initiative can overcome.
Nevertheless, budget constraints, coupled with changing national security
requirements, compel the United States to reduce its military overhead
costs. I am convinced that our recommendations will strengthen this
country's ability to meet its international responsibilities.
Respectfully yours,
Jim Courter
Chairman
Min
Ball.
Rhar D.
William L. Ball, III Robert D. Stuart, Jr.
James C. Smith II, P.E.
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
MM.
Arthur Levitt, Jr.
Howard H. Callary Gen. Duane H. Cassidy, USAF (I
Howard H. Callaway
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission
Report to the President
1991
Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission
Report to the President
1991
DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION
1625 K STREET, N.W. SUITE 400
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006-1604
202-653-0823
JIM COURTER, CHAIRMAN
COMMISSIONERS:
July 1, 1991
WILLIAM L. BALL, III
HOWARD H. CALLAWAY
GEN. DUANE H. CASSIDY, USAF (RET)
ARTHUR LEVITT. JR.
JAMES SMITH II, P.E.
ROBERT D. STUART, JR.
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
On behalf of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, we
are pleased to submit a report containing both a review of the Defense
Secretary's April 12 list and our recommendations for the closure or
realignment of U.S. military installations.
In preparing this report, the Commission reviewed thousands of pages
of oral testimony and written documentation. All of our work was subject
to public scrutiny. We held 28 hearings across the United States,
visited 47 military installations and met face-to-face with hundreds of
representatives in surrounding communities. Among the many people who
presented expert testimony were members of Congress and officials
representing the Pentagon, the General Accounting Office and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Ultimately, this report reflects the independent judgment of the
Commission's seven members. Not one of our decisions was easy. Each of
the installations recommended for closure enjoys a proud history of
service to the United States. Moreover, we recognize that base closure
creates economic hardship that only time and initiative can overcome.
Nevertheless, budget constraints, coupled with changing national security
requirements, compel the United States to reduce its military overhead
costs. I am convinced that our recommendations will strengthen this
country's ability to meet its international responsibilities.
Janes Respectfully yours,
Jim Courter
Min William Ball. L. Ball, III That? Robert D. Stuart, Chairman Jr. CSuit
James C. Smith II, P.E.
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
MAT.
Arthur Levitt, Jr. Howard H. Callaway
Howard H. Callary
Gen. Duane H. Cassidy, USAF (Ret.)
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Report to the President July 1, 1991
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
EX-1
Chapter 1: History of Base Closures
1-1
Chapter 2: Department of Defense Procedures to Develop Recommended List
2-1
Chapter 3: The Role of the General Accounting Office
3-1
Chapter 4: The Work of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission
4-1
Chapter 5: Closure and Realignment Recommendations of the Commission
5-1
Chapter 6: Communities and Base Reuse
6-1
Appendices
A. Public Law 101-510, Title XXIX
A-1
B. Force-Structure Summary
B-1
C. Selection Criteria for Base Closures and Realignments
C-1
D. Department of Defense's Closure and Realignment
Recommendations
D-1
E. Commissioners' Biographies
E-1
F. Commission Staff
F-1
G. Hearings
G-1
H. Site Visits
H-1
I. Menu of Options
I-1
i
Executive Summary
Executive
On
November 5, 1990, President
George Bush signed Public Law 101-510,
Title XXIX (the Defense Base Closure and
Summary
Realignment Act of 1990), establishing the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission to ensure a timely,
independent, and fair process for closing
and realigning U.S. military installations.
This statute required the Secretary of
Defense to submit a list of proposed
military base closures and realignments to
the Commission by April 15, 1991. In
accordance with the statute, these
recommendations were to be based upon a
force-structure plan submitted to Congress
with the Department of Defense (DoD)
budget request for fiscal year (FY) 1992
and selection criteria developed by DoD
with public comment. Anticipated levels of
funding for defense in the FY 1992-97
period and a reassessment of the probable
threats to the United States drove the
force-structure plan. The present
administration viewed changing world
order as an opportunity to implement
measured defense reductions. However,
Congress has seized upon the reduced
threat to our national security and
mandated a sharp decline in defense
funding. The graph on the next page
showing DoD's budget authority depicts
Ex-1
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
360
DOD BUDGET AUTHORITY
(CONSTANT DOLLARS IN BILLIONS)
APRIL 1989 PLAN
Average Real Increase = 1.2% per year
330
ACTUAL
FY 91 DOD BUDGET
Average Real Decline = 2% per year
300
270
FY 1991 = -11.3%
Cumulative Real Decline:
1990-1992 = 12%
1985-1992 = 24%
FY 92 DOD BUDGET
1985-1996 = 34%
Average Real Decline = 3% per year
after FY 91
240
FY 85
FY 86
FY 87
FY 88
FY 89
FY 90
FY 91
FY 92
FY 93
FY 94
FY 95
this dramatic decline in funding since the
allies. These events had dramatic impacts
mid-1980s.
on U.S. military requirements. In addition,
The Commission's purpose was to
the growing U.S. budget deficit provided
ensure that the proposals submitted by
an impetus to cut U.S. military spending.
DoD did not deviate substantially from the
Therefore, DoD is planning to decrease
force structure and the eight selection
the U.S. military by approximately 25
criteria. Where it identified such
percent over the next five years.
deviations, the Commission was authorized
Clearly, fewer forces require fewer
to add or delete bases. The Commission's
bases. By eliminating unnecessary
founding legislation calls for this process
facilities, limited dollars can go to vital
to be repeated in 1993 and 1995.
military needs. Balancing the base
The end of the Cold War, evidenced
structure with the new force-structure plan
by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and
will make DoD more efficient, streamline
the formal dissolution of the Warsaw Pact
the defense infrastructure, and enhance
in 1991, fundamentally altered the military
national security.
threat posed by the Soviet Union and its
Ex-2
Executive Summary
This Commission differs from
every major site proposed for closure was
previous base-closure efforts; its purpose
visited by at least one commissioner.
was to make independent recommendations
These visits enabled the commissioners to
to the President based on its review of the
gain a firsthand look at the installations.
Secretary of Defense's April 1991
Commissioners also heard from members
proposal to close 43 bases and realign 29.
of the public about the effect that closure
The 1988 DoD Commission, on the other
would have on local communities.
hand, developed its own list of proposed
The Commission also received public
closures, which it presented to the
testimony in Washington, D.C., from
Secretary of Defense and Congress.
members of Congress, DoD officials, and
The U.S. General Accounting Office
other expert witnesses. Public hearings,
(GAO) was involved closely in the
providing community leaders an
process. It acquired data from DoD and
opportunity to comment, were held at 14
prepared a review of DoD's proposals,
other locations across the country.
which was forwarded to Congress and the
The Commission recognizes that some
Commission on May 16, 1991. It also
communities depend greatly on these
assisted the Commission in its own review
installations. It notes, however, in the long
of data by detailing staffers to the
term, and with effort and initiative,
Commission and providing assistance from
communities can overcome the hardships
field staff.
caused by base closures. In fact, history
The 1991 Defense Base Closure and
has shown many post-closure economies
Realignment Commission's
are stronger and more stable.
recommendations emerged from a uniquely
According to a survey by DoD's
open process, in which testimony and
Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA),
viewpoints were heard from community
between 1961 and 1990 approximately
and congressional leaders. This process
158,000 new jobs had been created to
insulated the Commission from partisan
replace nearly 93,000 jobs lost as a result
politics. All meetings were open to the
of base closures. The OEA has also been
public. Transcripts of hearings and data
working with 21 communities located near
received by the Commission were
bases recommended for closure by the
available for public review. Furthermore,
1988 Base Realignment and Closure
Ex-3
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
Commission and has provided $1.6 million
Research Facility, VA
in grants to help develop reuse plans.
Since the Commission wanted to
Department of the Navy
devote its entire effort to considering the
bases under study for closure or
Construction Battalion Center,
realignment, an after-action report will be
Davisville, RI
prepared and forwarded to the President
Hunters Point Annex to Naval Station
and Congress. The report will offer the
Treasure Island, CA
Commission's guidance for improving the
Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, CA
base-closing process.
Naval Air Station Chase Field, TX
Based on the Commission's review-
Naval Air Station Moffett Field, CA
and-analysis and deliberations process, it is
Naval Station Long Beach, CA
recommending to the President that 36
Naval Station Philadelphia, PA
bases be closed and 43 bases be realigned.
Naval Station Puget Sound, Sand Point,
These actions will result in FY 1992-97
WA
savings of $2.3 billion, with one-time costs
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, PA
of $4.1 billion. The savings from these
7 RDT & E Engineering and Fleet Support
actions will total $1.5 billion annually.
Activities
The following list summarizes closure and
realignment actions of the 1991
Department of the Air Force
Commission.
Bergstrom Air Force Base, TX
Carswell Air Force Base, TX
Recommended for
Castle Air Force Base, CA
Closure:
Eaker Air Force Base, AR
England Air Force Base, LA
Department of the Army
Grissom Air Force Base, IN
Loring Air Force Base, ME
Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN
Lowry Air Force Base, CO
Fort Devens, MA
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, SC
Fort Ord, CA
Richards-Gebaur Air Reserve Station, MO
Sacramento Army Depot, CA
Rickenbacker Air Guard Base, OH
Harry Diamond Lab Woodbridge
Ex-4
Executive Summary
Williams Air Force Base, AZ
Mountain Home Air Force Base, ID
Wurtsmith Air Force Base, MI
Recommended to
Recommended for
Stay Open:
Realignment:
Department of the Army
Department of the Army
Fort McClellan, AL
Army Corps of Engineers
Aviation Systems Command/Troop
Department of the Navy
Support Command, St. Louis, MO
Naval Training Center Orlando, FL
Fort Chaffee, AR
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA
Fort Dix, NJ
Fort Polk, LA
Letterkenny Army Depot, PA
Department of the Air Force
Rock Island Arsenal, IL
Moody Air Force Base, GA
10 RDT&E Laboratories
7 Medical Laboratories
Department of the Navy
Midway Island Naval Air Facility
7 RDT&E Engineering and Fleet
Support Activities
Department of the Air Force
Beale Air Force Base, CA
Goodfellow Air Force Base, TX
MacDill Air Force Base, FL
March Air Force Base, CA
Mather Air Force Base, CA
Ex-5
1991 BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION
CLOSURES AND REALIGNMENTS
1
3/1
32
26
. 2
33
4
3
30
34
26
27
36
.
5
29.
6
8
15*
24
28
Ex-6
23
.
9
.
22
10
13
21.
36
12
14
16
20
19
17
37
11
18
+
Closures and Realignments
28.
Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana
1.
Naval Station Puget Sound (Sand
29.
Rickenbacker Air Guard Base,
Point), Washington
Ohio
2.
Mountain Home Air Force Base,
30.
Letterkenny Army Depot,
Idaho
Pennsylvania
3.
Beale Air Force Base, California
31.
Loring Air Force Base, Maine
4.
Mather Air Force Base, California
32.
Fort Devens, Massachusetts
5.
Sacramento Army Depot,
33.
Construction Battalion Center
California
Davisville, Rhode Island
6.
Naval Station Treasure Island
34.
Fort Dix, New Jersey
(Hunters Point Annex), California
35.
Philadelphia Naval Station,
7.
Naval Air Station Moffett Field,
Pennsylvania
California
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard,
8.
Castle Air Force Base, California
Pennsylvania
9.
Fort Ord, California
36.
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base,
10.
Naval Station Long Beach,
South Carolina
California
37.
MacDill Air Force Base, Florida
11.
Naval Air Facility Midway Island,
Midway
12.
Marine Corps Air Station Tustin,
NOT PICTURED ON MAP
California
13.
March Air Force Base, California
- 17 Realignments and 7 Closures of
14.
Williams Air Force Base, Arizona
Naval Research, Development,
15.
Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado
Testing & Engineering,
16.
Carswell Air Force Base, Texas
Engineering & Fleet Support
17.
Bergstrom Air Force Base, Texas
Activities
18.
Naval Air Station Chase Field,
- Realignment of Combat Materiel
Texas
Research Lab and Medical Lab 21
19.
Fort Polk, Louisiana
20.
England Air Force Base, Louisiana
21.
Fort Chaffee, Arkansas
22.
Eaker Air Force Base, Arkansas
23.
Richards-Gebaur Air Reserve
Station, Missouri
24.
ASC/Troop Support Command,
Missouri
25.
Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois
26.
Wurtsmith Air Force Base,
Michigan
27.
Grissom Air Force Base, Indiana
Ex-7
History of Base Closures
Chapter 1:
In the early 1960s, then-Secretary of
Defense Robert S. McNamara closed many
bases to reduce military overhead.
Secretary McNamara created within DoD
the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA)
to ease the economic impacts of closures
History of
on affected communities and to allow the
reuse of former bases. In the early 1970s,
Base Closures
and in response to the end of the Vietnam
War, hundreds of military facilities across
the country closed.
In the 1960s and again in the 1970s,
accusations were widespread that base
closures were being used by the executive
branch to punish uncooperative legislators.
This sentiment prompted Congress in 1977
to pass section 2687 of title 10, United
States Code, which required DoD to notify
Congress if an installation became a
closure candidate, and it also applied the
National Environmental Policy Act to
base-closure recommendations. These
stipulations, combined with Congress's
reluctance to close military bases,
effectively prevented DoD from closing
any major military installation.
The 1980s saw a rapid military
expansion as a result of a dramatic
increase in defense spending. In 1985,
Senator Barry Goldwater recognized the
need for DoD to rid itself of excess base
1-1
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
capacity. He asked Secretary of Defense
former Congressman Jack Edwards,
Caspar Weinberger to submit an
recommended that 86 bases be closed fully
"illustrative" list of military bases for
and 59 others be closed partially or
closure. A hearing was held to discuss the
realigned. These changes would, according
twenty-two bases on Secretary
to commission estimates, generate an
Weinberger's list, but no further action
annual savings of $693.6 million.
was taken.
1990 DoD Proposals
1988
In an effort to reshape and reduce the
Commission
military infrastructure, Secretary of
Defense Dick Cheney in January 1990
proposed closing 36 bases in the United
States. The congressional response was
By 1988, while the structure of the
reminiscent of the base-closing rounds of
U.S. armed forces had changed, the base
the 1960s and 1970s. Congressional critics
structure remained unaltered. Therefore,
claimed that the list unfairly targeted
on May 3, 1988, Secretary of Defense
districts represented by Democrats.
Frank Carlucci chartered the Defense
Others charged that Congress again was
Secretary's Commission on Base
institutionally incapable of making
Realignment and Closure, ordering it to
decisions that were good for the country
conduct an independent study of the
but painful for some congressional
domestic military base structure and to
districts.
recommend installations for realignment
The list was not acted upon by the
and closure. In October 1988, Congress
Congress, but the groundwork was laid for
passed and President Reagan signed Public
a second base-closing commission.
Law 100-526, the Defense Authorization
Amendments and Base Closure and
Realignment Act.
The 1988 commission, chaired by
former Senator Abraham Ribicoff and
1-2
History of Base Closures
1991 Base Closure
facilities, and air space
Contingency and mobilization
and Realignment
requirements
Cost and manpower implications
Commission
The remaining criteria were
Return on investment
The Defense Base Closure and
Local economic impact
Realignment Act of 1990 (see Appendix
Impact on community infrastructure
A) intends, as the law says, "to provide a
Environmental impact
fair process that will result in the timely
closure and realignment of military
The Commission received DoD's
installations inside the United States."
proposed list of closures and realignments
The process was built around the
after the following process: First, the
following standards:
Army, Navy, and Air Force analyzed their
own base structures, comparing them
The force-structure plan submitted
against the force-structure plan and the
to Congress with the DoD budget
selection criteria. The services then
request for fiscal year 1992 (see
submitted their proposals to Secretary
Appendix B)
Cheney, who on April 12, 1991 sent
Eight selection criteria finalized by
DoD's recommendations to the
DoD after public comment (see
Commission. The Commission was
Appendix C)
required to send its recommendations to
the President by July 1, 1991.
Of the eight criteria, the first four
The statutory test to be applied by the
concerned military value, which were to
Commission in justifying modifications to
receive preference.
DoD's recommended list involves
"substantial deviation" from the force-
Current and future mission
structure plan and selection criterion. The
requirements
Commission could recommend changes for
Availability and condition of land,
1-3
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
those bases where a substantial deviation
realign those installations listed in the
was established.
report within two years and complete the
action within six years.
Approval by the President
and Congress
Differences between the
1988 and 1991 Commissions
The law requires the President to
approve or disapprove the Commission's
recommendations by July 15, 1991. An
Both commissions were set up to
approved report will be sent to Congress.
overcome the political paralysis that had
If the President rejects the report, it will
prevented the closure of bases during the
be returned to the Commission for
previous decade. The recommendations of
revision. The Commission must submit to
the 1988 commission were driven largely
the President by August 15 a revised
by the need to size a bloated base
report. The President then has 15 days to
infrastructure to a reduced threat and force
approve or disapprove the report. The
structure. The 1991 commission was
President must send an approved report to
driven by further reductions in DoD
Congress by September 1, 1991. If he
budgets and dramatic changes in Eastern
does not approve the report, the closure
Europe.
process for 1991 comes to an end with no
Structurally, the differences between
action.
these two commissions are significant. The
Once the Commission's
1988 commission was chartered by and
recommendations are approved by the
reported to the Secretary of Defense.
President, the Congress has 45 legislative
Congress codified the authority of that
days, or until it adjourns for the session,
commission when it passed Public Law
to consider them. Changes to the approved
100-526. The 1991 commission, on the
recommendations are not allowed. Unless
other hand, was established by law from
Congress enacts a joint resolution
the outset. Its members were appointed by
disapproving the Commission's proposals,
the President and confirmed by the Senate.
the Secretary must begin to close or
1-4
History of Base Closures
the outset. Its members were appointed by
restrictive and had prevented the closing of
the President and confirmed by the Senate.
several obsolete installations.
Other differences between these two
Congress, through Title XXIX of
commissions resulted primarily from the
Public Law 101-510, established the 1991
lessons learned in the congressional debate
Defense Base Closure and Realignment
that followed the 1988 base closure and
Commission to redress these issues. The
realignment recommendations.
process is open, commissioners have
After publication of the 1988 list,
visited all major affected bases, and GAO
affected members of Congress leveled
has been an integral part of the process.
three major charges against the
commission process. First, they contended
the process had been secretive. In fact,
hearings had been closed and information
on the ranking of facilities and transcripts
of commission meetings were hard to
Composition of the
obtain. Second, Congress noted many of
1991 Commission
the affected facilities had not been visited
by commissioners. Such visits, believed
the legislators, might have helped the
The commissioners were chosen for
commissioners verify information included
their distinguished legislative, business,
in the staff reports. Finally, they
military, and diplomatic backgrounds. Six
complained that faulty data had been used
were appointed by President Bush--four in
to reach the final closure
consultation with House and Senate
recommendations. Congress believed GAO
majority leaders and two with the advice
or another independent organization should
of House and Senate minority leaders. The
have reviewed the information and data for
other appointments were made
accuracy.
independently by the President. All
Commission members and legislators
commissioners required Senate
also said that the panel's mandate to
confirmation.
recover the cost within six years was too
The staff was drawn from back-
1-5
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
Environmental Protection Agency. Under
the Commission's founding legislation, no
more than one-third of the staff could be
detailed from DoD. Divisional directors
(including the staff director) were civilians
hired directly by the Commission. The
Commission also hired independent
consultants from the Logistics Management
Institute, who helped design and
participated in the review and analysis of
the services' recommendations.
1-6
Department of Defense Procedure to Develop Recommended List
On
Chapter 2:
April 12, 1991, Secretary of
Defense Dick Cheney presented to
Congress and the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Commission a list of
military installations proposed for
realignment or closure. The list
Department of
recommended 43 base closures and 29
realignments and was the product of an
Defense
extensive DoD review of military bases.
DoD began its review of bases on
December 10, 1990, by establishing policy
Procedures to
guidance for all services to follow. A DoD
steering committee developed the final
Develop
eight base-evaluation criteria for
congressional approval and issued several
Recommended
implementing memoranda. Within this
general framework, each service was
allowed the flexibility to design an analysis
List
plan around its unique missions and
structure.
Four additional memoranda were
issued to clarify the DoD review process.
Army
In November 1990 the Secretary of
the Army established the Total Army
Basing Study and tasked this study group
to recommend potential closures and
realignments.
2-1
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
The Army divided its installations
as the VCNO (Vice Chief of Naval
into seven main categories and analyzed
Operations) study. It was later called the
each category quantitatively using five
OpNav Study because it was initiated in
existing measures of merit, which were
February 1990 by the Office of the Chief
then defined in terms of DoD's selection
of Naval Operations.
criteria 1-4 (military value) and criterion 7
The Base Structure Committee
(community infrastructure). Each measure
grouped all of its installations into
was weighted to reflect the Army's view
categories and determined which categories
of its importance. The measures of merit
contained excess capacity. There, it
and attributes were used to determine the
searched for closure and realignment
military value of the installations. These
options.
rankings served as a point of departure
The Base Structure Committee had
from which the analysts applied their
intended to use the study prepared by the
military judgment to recommend closures
OpNav group, but the committee members
and realignments.
were not satisfied with the total utility of
The Army applied the return-on-
the data or weights used in the OpNav
investment and impact criteria to bases that
study. The Base Structure Committee used
ranked low in military value.
the data from the OpNav study as a
Senior Army staff reviewed the
starting point and began a series of
Army's final proposals and recommended
hearings, in which senior Navy officials
the list for approval. The Secretary of the
briefed the committee on their respective
Army and the Army Chief of Staff
activities.
approved this list.
The committee members combined
their professional military judgment with
Navy
the data gleaned from these interviews and
existing data from the OpNav study to
The Secretary of the Navy established
arrive at their base-closure
a six-member Base Structure Committee in
recommendations. As a result, these
December 1990 to determine the Navy's
judgments sometimes differed from the
closure and realignment candidates.
assessments one might make using the raw
The Base Structure Committee used
empirical data.
information from a study originally known
2-2
Department of Defense Procedure to Develop Recommended List
The Navy assigned color codes to
Unlike the Army and Navy, Air
bases in the categories with excess
Force analyzed all bases according to all
capacity. The color codes were assigned to
eight selection criteria. The executive
a base by assuming that it could be closed
group developed 80 subelements to provide
and assessing what impact its closure
specific data points for each criterion.
would have on the Navy's mission. Like
The Air Force prepared color ratings
the Army, the Navy considered community
for the subelements and used these ratings
support (criterion 7) in its analysis of the
to rank and group bases. The Secretary of
military value of bases.
the Air Force selected bases for closure
Once the Base Structure Committee
from the options developed by the
had selected bases for possible closure or
executive group.
realignment, it evaluated criteria 5, 6, and
8 for these proposals.
The Base Structure Committee
presented its nominations to the Secretary
of the Navy, who recommended to the
Secretary of Defense naval installations for
closure or realignment.
Air Force
The Secretary of the Air Force
appointed a Base Closure Executive Group
of five general officers and five senior-
executive-service officials.
The Air Force collected data by
distributing standard questionnaires--
general, environmental, and air space--to
each Air Force base. The executive group
sorted the Air Force bases into five
categories and ten subcategories, and
examined each to identify excess capacity.
2-3
Role of the General Accounting Office
Chapter 3:
T he General Accounting Office did
not become involved in the 1988 process
until after that commission published its
report. Then Congress called upon GAO to
examine the commission's methodology,
findings, and recommendations.
The Role of
GAO's recommendations addressed
ways to ensure data accuracy, which cost
the General
factors and economic impacts should be
considered, how to develop specific criteria,
and how to measure employment impacts.
Accounting
To ensure GAO's role during the
1991 commission's analysis, Congress gave
GAO a clear role in the 1991 process.
Office
Under section 2903 (d)(5) of Title
XXIX, Public Law 101-510, Congress
called on the Comptroller General to do two
things: assist the Commission in its review
of the Secretary of Defense's
recommendations; and transmit an
independent report to Congress and the
Commission containing GAO's analysis of
DoD's proposals and processes.
At least one GAO professional
served on each of the Commission's Army,
Navy, and Air Force review-and-analysis
teams. These individuals were fully
integrated into all review-and-analysis
efforts.
GAO also helped the Commission's
researchers verify the data used by the
3-1
a E # $
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
services. GAO field personnel visited some
Navy's ship-berthing capacity to decide how
39 bases to gather firsthand information and
many naval stations the Navy needs to
verify data selected by the Commission.
support its fleet. If only the recommended
bases are closed, concluded GAO, the Navy
would still have significant excess ship-
The GAO Report
berthing capacity. GAO did not evaluate the
Navy's methodology for air stations,
GAO released its report, titled
shipyards, or labs.
Observations on the Analyses Supporting
GAO conducted a "sensitivity check"
Proposed Closures and Realignments, on
on DoD's estimation of the number of years
May 16, 1991. The Assistant Comptroller
it would take to recover closing costs. This
General testified before the Commission on
entailed projecting a 50 percent and 100
May 17. GAO's findings paralleled much of
percent increase in one-time costs. While
the Commission staff's work up to that time,
the payback periods for many of DoD's
but provided detail--especially on costs and
recommendations changed little, there were
savings.
some closure or realignment proposals
GAO found that the Army and Air
where a 50 percent increase in one-time
Force could document their use of the force-
costs would increase the number of years for
structure plan and the military-value criteria.
payback from 4 to 100 years.
While there were differences in the way the
GAO also discovered inconsistencies
services developed military-value rankings,
in service costs, savings estimates, and
these differences were insignificant.
payback calculations. Despite DoD guidance
Therefore, GAO concluded in its report, the
to the contrary, the Army, Navy, and Air
recommendations by the Army and Air
Force used budget data for other than 1991
Force were "adequately supported."
dollars as their baselines. The result of these
However, GAO concluded that the
inconsistencies were overstatements of
Navy did not offer enough documentation to
estimated annual savings and a shortening of
prove whether or not its process followed
the payback period for several closures.
the force structure and the selection criteria,
preventing GAO from evaluating specific
Navy recommendations. GAO analyzed the
3-2
The Work of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
T he Commission was empowered to
ensure that the DoD recommendations did
Chapter 4:
not deviate substantially from Title XXIX of
Public Law 101-510. The law also required
the Commission to conduct its proceedings
in public and open its records and
deliberations to public scrutiny.
The Work of
Four concurrent activities provided the
Commission with information. First, the
Commission held 15 hearings in
the Defense
Washington, D.C., to receive information
from DoD, legislators, and other experts.
Second, the Commission encouraged public
comments by holding 14 regional and site
Base Closure
hearings, where it received testimony on
bases being considered for closure or
realignment. Third, the commissioners
visited the major facilities proposed for
and
closure. Finally, the Commission's research
staff reviewed the services' processes and
data to help commissioners arrive at their
Realignment
recommendations and to ensure that they
had adhered to the statutory standards.
The input from communities potentially
affected by base closures was tremendous.
Commission
Community and elected leaders were tireless
advocates for their military installations. In
the two and a half months the Commission
conducted its business, it received more than
143,000 letters and more than 100 phone
calls a day. This level of input uncovered
4-1
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
for Commissioners every possible argument
nel, and training. These individuals
that could be proffered on behalf of potential
responded to questions and supplied infor-
impact bases.
mation to the Commission. The Commission
The Commission set up review-and-
studied this data to determine whether the
analysis teams--Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Navy's compliance with selection criteria
Special--to evaluate the services' processes.
and the force-structure plan was adequate.
The Commission's teams focused on the
The Navy provided additional explana-
process each service used to adhere to
tion for its decisions. The Commission, with
legislative requirements.
GAO's help, obtained and analyzed several
The Army team's review paralleled the
hundred items of data from some 29 naval
Army's process. The team determined whe-
installations across the country. Moreover,
ther the Army considered all bases and
the Commission examined the Navy's
whether its categorization of bases and use
berthing capacity in detail.
of attributes were sound. The Commission
The Commission's Air Force team first
did this by comparing the major activities on
checked to see that the Air Force had
Army bases with the "measures of merit"
studied its facilities by identifying all Air
and attributes developed by the Army to
Force bases and checking updated manpower
ensure that all eight criteria were addressed.
documents. Second, the team examined the
The Commission then looked at the Army's
categories and subcategories used by the Air
proposals in terms of the capacity needed to
Force to compare bases. Third, the team
house its forces in 1995 as envisioned by the
checked the Air Force's analysis of capacity
force-structure plan.
within categories and for individual
The Navy presented a special challenge
facilities. The team also reviewed decisions
to the Commission. Its selection process was
to exclude certain categories from further
more subjective and less documented than
consideration due to a lack of excess
that of either the Army or the Air Force. To
capacity. Then the team checked the Air
determine whether the Navy complied with
Force application of the eight criteria to the
the law, the Commission's staff held a series
remaining bases. In this step, the team first
of meetings with members of the Navy's
examined the individual bases that were
Base Structure Committee and other high-
excluded as "militarily or geographically
ranking naval officers--including the heads
unique or mission essential." Finally, the
of naval aviation, surface warfare, person-
team considered the application of the eight
4-2
The Work of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
selection criteria to the remaining 72 bases.
These activities provided the
Commission with the information it needed
to arrive at its recommendations in
accordance with the standards mandated in
the law. The commissioners used it to
develop a "menu of options"--potential
additions and substitutions to the DoD
proposals (see Appendix H). The
Commission's final recommendations are
presented in Chapter 5.
4-3
The Defense Base Closure and
Chapter 5:
Realignment Commission has completed
its review and analysis of the Department
of Defense recommendations for base
closures and realignments, as transmitted
to the Commission on April 12, 1991, by
Closure and
the Secretary of Defense. This chapter
contains the recommendations made by
this Commission.
Realignment
In recommending to the services where
to move their units, missions, or forces,
Recommenda-
the Commission recognizes that the
military must retain some flexibility. The
force-structure plan itself is not a rigid
tions of the
document because it reflects a world that
is changing rapidly.
Aside from recommendations on
Commission
the status of particular bases, the
Commission also made two general
recommendations.
First, the Commission observed, it
is DoD policy to operate military hospitals
primarily to support active-duty military
personnel. Congress established the
Civilian Health and Medical Program of
5-1
the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) to
Fort Ord,
care for the medical needs of non-active-
duty beneficiaries. Closures of military
hospitals normally follow closures of bases
California
with active-duty populations served by
those hospitals, with CHAMPUS covering
Category: Fighting (Maneuver)
the beneficiaries in that area. In addition,
Mission: 7th Infantry Division
Costs to Close: $150.8 million
assignments of active-duty health-care
Savings: 1992-97: $-38.8 million; Annual: $70.4 million
specialists are tied directly to support of
Payback: 2 years
active-duty forces. The Commission
recommends that DoD confer with
Department of Defense
Congress regarding these policies and
Recommendation:
report to the Commission in time for the
Close Fort Ord and relocate the 7th
1993 Base Closure and Realignment
Infantry Division (Light) from Fort Ord to
Commission to consider the issue of
Fort Lewis, Washington.
hospital closures.
The Army currently can house 13
Second, with the closure of bases
divisions in the United States, but in 1995
bearing the names of American heroes
will have 12 divisions. Fort Ord ranks
such as President Benjamin Harrison; Ira
relatively low in its category. Moving the
C. Eaker, astronaut Virgil "Gus" Grissom,
7th Infantry Division from Fort Ord to
and World War I pilot, Eddie
Fort Lewis reduces excess capacity,
Rickenbacker, the Commission urges the
maintains flexibility, and capitalizes on the
President to find some other means to
operational deployability and security
honor the contributions of these great
attributes at Fort Lewis.
Americans.
Detailed information on each of the
Community Concerns:
Commission's base-closure-and-
The community asserted that Fort
realignment decisions is presented below,
Ord was penalized in the Army's ranking
including the rationale for each
for being small, but that it is perfectly
recommendation. Substantial deviations
suited to train a light division. The
from the application of the force-structure
community argued that the Army could
plan and the final criteria have been
build (or enhance) an airfield at Fort Ord
identified, where applicable.
for approximately $60-$120 million. The
5-2
community stated that closing Fort Ord
was not a factor in the Army's
would increase unemployment by 25
recommendation. The Commission found
percent. The community also argued that
that family housing is limited and
the land value included in DoD's
expensive. There are currently 1,365
recommendation was overstated. Finally,
families inadequately housed at Fort Ord.
the community asserted that adequate
The Commission also found that training
family housing existed at Fort Ord for all
for the division, while readily available, is
of the soldiers assigned to the installation.
split among three different installations--
Fort Ord proper, Fort Hunter-Liggett, and
Commission Findings:
Camp Roberts.
The Commission found that all
installations in this category were treated
Recommendation:
fairly. It also found that moving the 7th
The Commission finds DoD's
Infantry Division from Fort Ord to Fort
recommendation did not deviate
Lewis optimizes the use of Fort Lewis.
substantially from the force-structure plan
The Commission also found that there will
and the selection criteria. The
be an excess capacity of two installations
Commission, therefore, recommends the
in the category at the end of 1995. The
closure of Fort Ord, California; and the
Commission finds that the community
movement of the 7th Infantry Division
assertion for deployability has some merit;
from Fort Ord to Fort Lewis, Washington.
however, stationing the division at Fort
This recommendation does not impact on
Lewis does enable the division to use
the status of Fort Hunter-Liggett. Fort
nearby McChord Air Force Base for its
Hunter-Liggett therefore remains open and
deployment. Currently, the 7th Infantry
is still recognized as a valuable asset to the
Division uses a civilian airport or travels
Army and DoD.
150 miles to Travis Air Force Base. The
Commission found that building an airfield
Fort Polk, Louisiana
at Fort Ord (or enhancing the existing
airfield) will cost approximately $97
Category: Fighting (Maneuver)
Mission: 5th Infantry Division (5 MX)
million; however, environmental concerns
Costs to Close: $303 million
may prevent the construction.
Savings: 1992-97: None $-34.2 million; Annual: $22.9 million
Payback: 5 years
The Commission agreed that the
land value was overstated, but the issue
5-3
Department of Defense
Commission Findings:
Recommendation:
The Commission found that excess
Realign 5th Infantry Division
capacity will exist at Fort Polk after
(Mechanized) to Fort Hood, Texas, from
completion of the recommended
Fort Polk, Louisiana; move the Joint
realignment. However, it also found that
Readiness Training Center (JRTC) from
the Army will likely use this excess
Fort Chaffee, Arkansas, to Fort Polk.
capacity to house forces that may return
Realign the 199th Separate Motorized
from overseas or to station other Army or
Brigade (SMB) from Fort Lewis,
DoD activities. Additionally, the
Washington, to Fort Polk.
Commission finds that Fort Polk does not
This realignment allows the Army
have enough training facilities or maneuver
to station the JRTC at the installation best
acreage to support both a division and the
suited to its requirements (Fort Polk) and
JRTC at Fort Polk. The Commission
to house two divisions at its finest fighting
estimates that the unemployment impact
installation (Fort Hood). Realignment of
will be severe.
the 199th SMB from Fort Lewis to Fort
Polk to serve as the opposing force for
Recommendation:
units training at the JRTC enhances the
The Commission finds that the
JRTC capabilities and opens space at Fort
DoD's recommendation did not deviate
Lewis for the 7th Infantry Division
substantially from the force-structure plan
(Light).
and the selection criteria. The
Commission, therefore, recommends the
Community Concerns:
realignment of the 5th Infantry Division
The community argued that the
(Mechanized) from Fort Polk to Fort
DoD recommendation would create excess
Hood, the JRTC from Fort Chaffee to Fort
capacity at Fort Polk. It also stated that
Polk, and the 199th SMB from Fort Lewis
unemployment would increase six to eight
to Fort Polk.
percentage points as a result of the
combination of the Fort Polk
Fort Chaffee, Arkansas
recommendation and the Air Force's
Category: Major Training Areas
proposal to close England Air Force Base.
Mission: Major Maneuver and Training
Costs to Close: $303 million
Savings: 1992-97: $-34.2 million; Annual: $22.9 million
Payback: 5 years
5-4
Commission Findings:
Department of Defense
The Commission found that both
Recommendation:
Forts Chaffee and Polk were evaluated as
Close Fort Chaffee, retaining the
potential sites for the JRTC. The selection
facilities and training area to support the
of Fort Polk as the site for JRTC is the
Reserve Component. Station the current
result of an Army stationing study that
Active Component tenant, the Joint
evaluated alternative locations.
Readiness Training Center (JRTC),
The Commission also found that
permanently at Fort Polk, Louisiana
unemployment will increase by four
(outlined in DoD's recommendation for
percentage points. The counties of
Fort Polk).
Sebastian, Crawford, and Franklin, which
are immediately adjacent to Fort Chaffee,
Community Concerns:
will incur 90 percent of the increase. The
The community argued that
Commission also finds there are no
economic impacts will extend farther than
permanent facilities at Fort Chaffee and
DoD stated.
the Army would incur substantial military
Additionally, the community
construction costs in preparing Fort
claimed that Fort Chaffee provides a more
Chaffee to be the permanent home of the
challenging, versatile training environment
JRTC.
than Fort Polk and that Fort Polk was
The Commission found that Fort
never considered as a candidate for the
Chaffee currently has an active component
JRTC. The local citizens also argued that
garrison and that the garrison will continue
DoD overstated costs for facilities to
to exist at Fort Chaffee after JRTC is
support the JRTC. For example, a hospital
moved to Fort Polk and Fort Chaffee
and housing are available in the
reverts to primarily supporting of reserve
community and need not be constructed.
component training. This has been
Finally, the community argued that World
confirmed with DoD.
War II facilities can be rehabilitated to
meet the needs of JRTC at a cost of $79
Recommendation:
million rather than the DoD estimate of
The Commission finds DoD's
$224 million.
recommendation did not deviate
substantially from the force-structure plan
and the selection criteria. The
5-5
Commission, therefore, recommends that
Community Concerns:
Fort Chaffee be returned to its semi-active
The community argued that the
status with an Active Component garrison
land value included in DoD's
to be used in support of Reserve
recommendation ($82.6 million) was
Component training and that a permanent
overstated. The community also argued
Joint Readiness Training Center be
that Fort Dix could be used for many
established at Fort Polk, Louisiana.
alternate purposes, including the U.S.
Army Reserve Command headquarters, a
Reserve Center of Excellence for training,
Fort Dix, New Jersey
or the site of other DoD activities that are
now in leased space in the Washington,
Category: Fighting (Major Training Areas)
Mission: Reserve Component Training
D.C., area.
Costs to Close: $30.2 million
The community asserted that the
Savings: 1992-97: $60.5 million; Annual: $25.3 million
Payback: o years
unemployment impact would be large and
that the word "close" in DoD's
Department of Defense
recommendation was not clear. The
Recommendation:
community was concerned that the word
Close Fort Dix, relocating active
"closure" would preclude Fort Dix from
organizations that do not directly support
being available as a potential receiver of
the Reserve Component (except those that
other Reserve Component training
cannot be relocated elsewhere). Retain
missions or as a potential receiver of other
only those facilities and training areas
DoD activities. The community further
necessary to support Reserve Component
argued that Fort Dix, while ranking second
training. This proposal changes the 1988
in its category based on military-value
Base Realignment and Closure
calculations, was selected for closure
Commission's recommendation to maintain
because of potential savings.
Fort Dix in a semi-active status. It is
The community asserted that Fort Dix
driven by a desire to reduce base
was not given full credit for its quality-of-
operations and real-property-maintenance
life attributes, such as family housing.
costs by eliminating excess facilities and
relocating tenants that do not support the
Commission Findings:
Reserve Component.
The Commission found that DoD
did not treat all installations in this
category equally. Four other lower-ranked
5-6
bases were deferred from further
The Commission recommends that
consideration because of uncertainty in the
Fort Dix be realigned to support the
Reserve Component force structure and
Reserve Component force structure
because the results of a study addressing
through retention of an Active Component
the Reserve Component training strategies
garrison and essential facilities (which
and management of major training areas
include essential portions of Walson Army
were not known.
Hospital and housing facilities), ranges,
The Commission found that, while
and training areas to support Reserve and
the land value may have been overstated,
Active Component training. The
it had no impact on the final decision.
Commission also recommends that the
Moving certain active missions off
Defense Medical Facilities Office (DFMO)
Fort Dix to better align its role as a
determine the medical facilities
Reserve Component training center is
requirement to support the Fort Dix and
reasonable, but the Army should not
McGuire Air Force Base area and ensure
declare facilities excess without
implementation of the most effective
determining what role Fort Dix will play
solution.
in the future Reserve Component force
structure.
The Commission further
encourages DoD to study the benefits of
Fort Benjamin Harrison,
the collocation of Fort Dix and McGuire
Indiana
Air Force Base for mobilization.
Category: Initial Entry Training/Branch School
Mission: Army Soldier Support Center;
Recommendation:
Defense Finance and Accounting Service
The Commission finds DoD's
Cost to Close: $206 million
Savings: 1992-97: $-123.8 million; Annual: $36.9 million
recommendation deviates substantially
Payback: 4 years
from the force-structure plan by not
allowing for the uncertainties in the future
Department of Defense
reorganization of Reserve Component
Recommendations:
division forces. The recommendation also
Close Fort Benjamin Harrison and
deviates substantially from selection
realign the Soldier Support Center from
criterion 1.
Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, to Fort
Jackson, South Carolina, to initiate the
Soldier Support Warfighting Center.
5-7
Relocate U.S. Army Recruiting Command
Commission Findings:
from Fort Sheridan to Fort Knox rather
The Commission found that Fort
than Fort Benjamin Harrison. This part of
Jackson is a more economical location for
the proposal is a revision to the 1988
the Army Soldier Support Warfighting
BRAC recommendations. Retain Building
Center than Fort Benjamin Harrison. It
1 for the continued use by the Defense
found that the missions at Fort Benjamin
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
Harrison do not require extensive
and retain part of Fort Benjamin Harrison
facilities, and thus can be easily realigned
for the Army reserves.
at minimal costs.
Fort Benjamin Harrison was rated
The Commission found that
lowest in its category. It has limited
Building 1 is underused. Building 1 is the
expansion capability, high operating costs,
current home of a branch Defense Finance
and high real-property-maintenance costs.
and Accounting Service responsible for the
Department of the Army. The Commission
Community Concerns:
is aware of an ongoing Defense
The community argued that the
Management Review initiative to
Army Soldier Support Warfighting Center
consolidate and streamline DoD's Finance
would be more suitable at Fort Benjamin
and Accounting Services. DoD should
Harrison. Moving the two branch schools
look closely at using adequate excess
from Fort Jackson to Fort Benjamin
government-owned facilities when
Harrison would be easier than sending six
evaluating its overall facility requirements.
schools from Fort Benjamin Harrison to
Fort Jackson. The community also
Recommendation:
claimed that closing Benjamin Harrison
The Commission recommends to
would cause significant job loss.
the President the closure of Fort Benjamin
Fort Benjamin Harrison has been a major
Harrison; the realignment of the Soldier
source of employment for the handicapped
Support Center to Fort Jackson, South
and minorities and serves thousands of
Carolina; and the retention of the
retirees.
Department of Defense Finance and
The community also argued that
Accounting Service, Indianapolis Center.
Building 1 is currently underused, thus
We also recommend the revision of the
DoD should relocate functions currently in
BRAC 1988 recommendation, relocating
leased space to Building 1.
the U.S. Army Recruiting Command
5-8
(USAREC) from Fort Sheridan to Fort
Arizona, to be collocated with the
Knox rather than Fort Benjamin Harrison.
Intelligence School.
The Commission also recommends an
Retain the Pelham Range for use by
adjustment in the DoD recommendation.
the Alabama National Guard. Retain the
We find that the Secretary deviated
Special Operations Test Site and a reserve
substantially from criterion 2, the
enclave. Put Chemical Decontamination
availability and condition of land and
Training Facility (CDTF) in caretaker
facilities at both the existing and potential
status.
receiving locations. Because of this, the
Fort McClellan was recommended
Commission recommends to the President
for closure because it is the home of the
the closure of Building 1.
smallest Army training center, and most of
The Commission further
its missions and facility requirements can
recommends that DoD submit its
be met elsewhere.
consolidation plan of Defense Finance and
Accounting Service to the 1993 Base
Community Concerns:
Closure and Realignment Commission.
The local community contended that
DoD did not accurately assess the military
value of live-agent training at Fort
Fort McClellan, Alabama
McClellan. The decision to place the
CDTF in caretaker status was not
Category: Initial Entry Training/ Branch School
Mission: Army Military Police School, Army Chemical School
predicated upon military value, but rather
and Defense Polygraph Institute.
on budgetary constraints. The loss of use
Costs to Close: N/A
Savings: 1992-97: N/A
of the CDTF could be detrimental to all
Payback: N/A
three services' chemical readiness and
national security. The CDTF is the only
Department of Defense
known live-agent training facility in the
Recommendation:
free world.
Close Fort McClellan and realign
Local officials claimed that
chemical and military police schools to
environmental impediments and resulting
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to create
costs will prevent the CDTF from being
the Maneuver Support Warfighting Center.
replicated at another installation.
Move the Defense Polygraph School from
Fort McClellan to Fort Huachuca,
5-9
Finally, closure of Fort McClellan
compliance with stringent environmental
could result in a CHAMPUS cost of $278
laws.
million by the year 2007.
The Commission recognized the
value of live-agent training in chemical
Commission Findings:
defense.
The Commission questioned
maintaining the CDTF in caretaker status
Recommendation:
because it could contribute little if any to
The Commission found a substantial
chemical defense preparedness. The CDTF
deviation from criteria 1 the current and
could not be reactivated quickly.
future mission requirements and the impact
Moreover, the Army would have to obtain
of operational readiness of the Department
environmental permits for reactivation if
of Defense's total force and criterion 2,
the facility is shut down for more than one
the availability and condition of land,
year, and start-up costs could range from
facilities, and associated airspace at both
four to seven million dollars.
the existing and potential receiving
Furthermore, depending upon the
locations. Thus, the Commission
environmental and regulatory standards,
recommends that Fort McClellan remain
the permitting process is currently
open.
estimated to require three to five years.
The Commission basically agreed
with experts in the chemical field that
Fort Devens, Massachusetts
CDTF has high military value. The
Category: Command and Control
Mission: 10th Special Forces Group
Commission also agreed with the
Cost to Close: $160.2 million
commanding general of the U.S. Army
Savings: 1992-97: $30.8 million; Annual: $55.2 million
Combined Arms Center that if a new
Payback: 0 years
CDTF cannot be built at the receiving
Department of Defense
base, then relocating the chemical school
Recommendation:
should not be implemented.
Close Fort Devens, retaining only
The Commission has not received any
those facilities to support Reserve
indication that another CDTF can be
Component training. Create a small
duplicated at any other installation.
Reserve enclave on Fort Devens's main
Duplicating the CDTF would require
post and retain approximately 3,000 acres
for use as a regional training center.
5-10
Retain the Headquarters, Information
also claimed that the training ranges were
Systems Command (ISC) and supporting
adequate to support the 10th SFG. Finally,
elements at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and
the community argued that the proposed
Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; and relocate
closure will have a significant impact on
selected ISC elements from Fort Belvoir,
the local economy and that the Army
Virginia, to Fort Ritchie, Maryland, or
overstated the expected land value of the
another location in the national capital
properties to be sold.
region (a change to the 1988 Base
Realignment and Closure Commission
Commission Findings:
recommendations). Relocate the 10th
The Commission found that all
Special Forces Group (SFG) from Fort
installations in this category were treated
Devens to Fort Carson, Colorado.
fairly. It also found that the change to the
The Army will soon need fewer
1988 Base Realignment and Closure
command-and-control installations. Fort
Commission's recommendation to leave
Devens ranked ninth out of eleven
the ISC at Fort Huachuca, Fort
installations in its category and is not
Monmouth, and the National Capital
critical to either the midterm management
Region does not violate the law.
of the Army's build down or the long-term
Additionally, a 1989 GAO report revised
strategic requirements of the Army's
the 1988 Commission's findings regarding
command-and-control installation structure.
recurring savings, from $21 million to
$8.1, million and the payback periods
Community Concerns:
from 0 years to a range of 43 to 200
The community argued that the DoD
years. The Commission also found that
recommendation violates the law because it
because the Headquarters, ISC had not left
changes the 1988 Base Realignment and
Fort Huachuca, the mission may best be
Closure Commission's recommendation,
continued there, avoiding construction
which never was enacted. It also claimed
costs of approximately $74 million at Fort
that the Army would be better served by
Devens.
having the Headquarters, ISC located
The Commission found that the
nearer to a "center of high technology."
training area at Fort Devens could not
The community argued that closing Fort
adequately support the 10th SFG training.
Devens will remove the active Army
It has insufficient maneuver space, a small
presence in New England. The community
drop zone, limits on demolition training,
5-11
and limits on weapon firing. The
to Fort Devens from Fort Huachuca,
proximity to a civilian airport also affects
Monmouth and Belvoir, and leased space
high-altitude, low-opening operations.
in the National Capital Region as
Army presence will remain in New
recommended by the 1988 Base
England for Reserve Component support,
Realignment and Closure Commission,
recruiting, and other activities.
retain Headquarters, ISC at Fort Huachuca
The Commission also found that the
and support elements at Fort Monmouth,
Army will retain 4,600, not 3,000 acres
and relocate selected ISC elements from
for Reserve Component training. This has
Fort Belvoir to Fort Ritchie or another
been confirmed with the Department of the
location in the national capital region.
Army. The Commission found that Fort
Devens has newly constructed facilities
and that DoD should make maximum use
of these facilities in future stationing
U.S. Army Corps of
decisions. The Commission estimates
Engineers
civilian unemployment would increase by
Category: Corps of Engineers
two percentage points. The Commission
Mission: Military and Civil Works
did not include any proposed land sale in
Costs to Close: $266 million
its calculations and found that this did not
Savings: 1992-97: $238 million; Annual: $112 million
Payback: 2 years
change the Army's decision.
Department of Defense
Recommendation:
Recommendation:
The Commission finds that DoD's
Consider reorganization of the U.S.
recommendation did not deviate
Army Corps of Engineers under legislation
substantially from the force-structure plan
separate from that which established the
and the final selection criteria. The
Base Realignment and Closure
Commission, therefore, recommends the
Commission (PL 101-510). The Corps of
closure of Fort Devens and the retention of
Engineers conducted a reorganization study
4,600 acres and those facilities essential to
and submitted it as a part of the
support Reserve Component Training
Department of the Army's
requirements; and realignment of the 10th
recommendation to DoD. The Secretary of
SFG to Fort Carson. Instead of moving
Defense removed the Corps of Engineers
Headquarters, ISC and supporting elements
5-12
from his submission to the Base Closure
workload. The boundaries for the new
and Realignment Commission.
divisions were based on watershed
locations and optimizing customer support.
Community Concerns:
The selection of division headquarters was
The communities argued that the
based solely on the ranking of existing
study had not been properly reviewed by
headquarters. The number of districts and
congressional committees charged with
their headquarters were based primarily on
oversight of the Corps of Engineers. They
their military ranking and their civil works
also argued that reducing the number of
rankings. In some cases, selections did not
divisions from ten to six had no rational
follow the rankings to account for needed
foundation and that the boundaries that
geographic dispersion and unique
describe these new divisions and districts
capabilities.
were not determined in a consistent
The Commission found that the
manner. The communities stated that the
unemployment impacts would increase by
great distances between these new
no more than two percentage points in any
divisions and district headquarters and
one area; however, these rates are
their respective field offices would create
independent of any other action that may
inefficiencies. Finally, the communities
be occurring in the respective areas. The
argued that the proposed realignment
implementation costs may be overstated
would have a significant impact on the
because it is not known exactly how many
local economies and regions.
personnel will elect to retire or quit as
opposed to relocating.
Commission Findings:
The Commission also found that
The Commission found that the Corps
6,600 authorized positions would be
of Engineers reorganization plan is based
transferred and an additional 2,600
on a business-like approach. It combines
authorized positions would be eliminated.
like functions at the division level where
This represents approximately 22 percent
area coverage can be provided, thus
of the Corps of Engineers total work force
relieving the districts of some of their
and 47 percent of the work force available
administrative functions. The number of
for reorganization.
divisions selected was based on four
These transfers and eliminations occur
options. Each option considered command
at the district and division level. Four
and control factors and balanced the
division and fourteen districts headquarters
5-13
are eliminated to reduce the span of
Realign Army Laboratories
control and increase operational
(Lab 21 Study), Adelphi and
efficiencies. However, project and
construction offices in support of the
Aberdeen, Maryland
districts are not affected by the
Category: Industrial-Commodity Oriented Installations
reorganization.
Mission: Research, Development and Testing
Costs to Realign: $281.8 million
Savings: 1992-97: $-106.0 million; Annual: $44.7 million
Recommendations:
Payback: 4 years
The Commission recommends the
Department of Defense
realignment of the Army Corps of
Recommendation:
Engineers. We find that the Secretary
Establish the Combat Material
deviated substantially from criterion 1,
Research Laboratory (CMRL), at Adelphi,
current and future mission requirements
Maryland. The Army Material Technology
and criteria 4, cost and manpower
Laboratory (AMTL), now in Watertown,
implications. Such realignment will be
Massachusetts, not be split among Detroit
accomplished primarily through the
Arsenal, Michigan; Picatinny Arsenal,
elimination of a number of Corps of
New Jersey; and Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
Engineers division and district
Instead, realign the AMTL to Aberdeen
management headquarters located in the
Proving Ground (APG), Maryland.
United States. The realignment will not be
Collocate the Structures Element at
initiated until July 1, 1992 and will
NASA-Langley Research Center,
conform to the 1991 Corps of Engineers
Hampton, Virginia. This proposal is a
Reorganization Study, unless legislation is
revision to the recommendations of the
enacted by the Congress providing an
1988 Base Realignment and Closure
alternative realignment by July 1, 1992, in
Commission.
which event the Secretary will initiate the
realignment as determined by the
Community Concerns:
legislation.
The Community argued the Base
Closure and Realignment Commission
should wait for the recommendations on
laboratory realignments from the Advisory
Commission on consolidation and
Conversion of Defense Research and
5-14
Development Laboratories. The latter
recommends the closure of Harry Diamond
commission is an advisory group
Laboratory in Woodbridge, Virginia, and
established by law to provide
realignment of the laboratories to establish
recommendations to the Secretary of
the Combat Material Technology
Defense on how to effectively reorganize
Laboratory at Adelphi, Maryland, and
the research and development structure.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.
The community also argued portions of the
The following specific realignments are
realignment were not cost effective and
included:
would adversely impact readiness.
Move the Army Research Institute
Commission Findings:
MANPRINT function from Alexandria,
The Commission found the industrial-
Virginia, to Aberdeen Proving Ground
commodity oriented installations were
(APG), Maryland.
treated equally. The Commission found
that the DoD studies and Defense
Move the 6.1 and 6.2 materials
Management Review Decision regarding
elements from the Belvoir Research and
laboratory realignments were creditable
Development Center, Virginia, to APG,
and rational. The Army reviewed ten
Maryland.
scenarios for the realignment of the
laboratories and this proposal was cost
Move the Army Materials Technology
effective. The realignment of the Army
Laboratory (AMTL) (less Structures
Material Technology Laboratory functions
element) from Watertown, Massachusetts,
to a single site was determined to have
to APG, Maryland (change to the
operational and cost advantages over the
recommendations of the 1988 Base
triple-site option recommended by the
Realignment and Closure Commission).
1988 Base Realignment and Closure
Commission.
Move the AMTL structures element to
the Army Aviation Aerostructures
Recommendation:
Directorate collocated at NASA-Langley
The Commission finds DoD's
Research Center at Hampton, Virginia,
recommendations did not deviate
and expand the mission at that site to form
substantially from the force-structure plan
an Army Structures Directorate (change to
and the criteria. The Commission
5-15
the recommendations of the 1988 Base
Move the Fuze Development and
Realignment and Closure Commission).
Production Mission (armament related)
from Harry Diamond Laboratories,
Move the Directed Energy and Sensors
Adelphi, Maryland, to Picatinny Arsenal,
Basic and Applied Research element of the
New Jersey.
Center for Night Vision and Electro-Optics
from Fort Belvoir, Virginia, to Adelphi,
Move the Fuze Development and
Maryland.
Production Mission (missile related) from
Harry Diamond Laboratories, Adelphi,
Move the Electronic Technology
Maryland, to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.
Device Laboratory from Fort Monmouth,
New Jersey, to Adelphi, Maryland.
The Secretary of Defense must defer
implementation until January 1, 1992 in
Move the Battlefield Environment
order to consider the recommendations and
Effects element of the Atmospheric
findings of the Advisory Commission on
Science Laboratory from White Sands
Consolidation and Conversion of Defense
Missile Range, New Mexico, to Adelphi,
Research and Development Laboratories
Maryland.
and consult with the appropriate
committees of the Congress thereon.
Collocate the Ground Vehicle
Propulsion Basic and Applied Research
from Warren, Michigan, with the Army
Aviation Systems Command
Aviation Propulsion Directorate, at the
NASA-Lewis Research Center in
and Troop Support
Cleveland, Ohio. They will form the Army
Command, St. Louis,
Propulsion Directorate.
Missouri
Move the Harry Diamond Laboratories
Category: Industrial-Commodity Oriented Installations
Woodbridge Research Facility element to
Mission: Logistics Support
Costs to Realign: $6.4 million
CMRL, Adelphi, Maryland, and
Savings: 1992-97: $33.5 million; Annual: $22.5 million
close/dispose of the Woodbridge, Virginia,
Payback: Immediate
facility.
5-16
Department of Defense
activities from leased space to government-
Recommendation:
owned facilities and provide appropriate
Merge Aviation Systems Command
recommendations to the 1993 Base Closure
(AVSCOM) and Troop Support Command
and Realignment Commission.
(TROSCOM) in St. Louis, Missouri, as
part of the Defense Management and
Letterkenny Army Depot,
Report decision to consolidate the
Pennsylvania
inventory control point.
Category: Industrial-Depot
Mission: Depot Maintenance
Community Concerns:
Costs to Realign: $36.4 million
There were no formal expressions
Savings: 1991-97: $27.0 million; Annual: $17.7 million
Payback: Immediate
from the community.
Department of Defense
Commission Findings:
Recommendation:
The Commission found the
Realign the Headquarters; Depot
consolidation of inventory control points
Systems Command, including the Systems
and resultant elimination of an inventory
Integration Management Activity (SIMA),
control point was a rational approach to
from Letterkenny Army Depot,
management efficiencies. The cost
Pennsylvania, to Rock Island Arsenal,
efficiencies of merging AVSCOM and
Illinois, and merge it with the Armaments
TROSCOM support the DoD proposal.
Munitions and Chemical Command to
form the Industrial Operations Command.
Recommendation:
Realign the Materiel Readiness Support
The Commission finds that the DoD
Activity from Lexington-Blue Grass Army
recommendation did not deviate
Depot, Kentucky, and the Logistics
substantially from the force-structure plan
Control Activity from Presidio of San
and the final selection criteria. The
Francisco, California, to Redstone
Commission recommends the merger of
Arsenal, Alabama. The latter proposal is
AVSCOM with TROSCOM as proposed.
a revision to the recommendations of the
Also, the Commission recommends that
1988 Base Realignment and Closure
the Army evaluate the relocation of those
Commission, which relocated Materiel
5-17
Readiness Support Activity to Letterkenny
of the activities designated for relocation.
Army Depot.
The Commission determined that the
formation of the Industrial Operations
Community Concerns:
Command in a single location was
The community argued that the Depot
operationally more effective. The
Systems Command need not be relocated
realignments of Depot Systems Command,
in order to form the Industrial Operations
the Materiel Readiness Support Activity,
Command. The new command could
and the Logistics Control Agency were
operate effectively in a split configuration.
also determined to be economical. The
Additionally, the community believed that
relocation of SIMA was operationally
the SIMA was a separate entity that
expedient in the long term and beneficial
supported a variety of customers.
to the economy at the receiving location
Relocating that activity would result in an
(Rock Island Arsenal), which is losing a
unwarranted up-front cost and an
large number of employees because of
additional operational cost to support to
other base realignment and closure actions.
the entire customer base. The community
was also concerned that the realignments
Recommendations:
would degrade the mission because
The Commission finds the DoD
experienced personnel would not move.
recommendation did not deviate
substantially from the force-structure plan
Commission Findings:
and final selection criteria. Therefore, the
The Commission found that the
Commission recommends that DoD realign
depots were treated equally. The
Depot Systems Command with the Systems
formation of the Industrial Operations
Integration Management Activity to Rock
Command and resultant reduction of the
Island and form the Industrial Operations
number of subordinate commands was a
Command. Additionally, it recommends
rational approach to management
that the Materiel Readiness Support
efficiencies.
Activity and the Logistics Control Agency
The Commission did consider
be realigned at Redstone Arsenal as
alternative ways to form the Industrial
proposed. This proposal is a revision to
Operations Command and to realign each
the recommendations of the 1988 Base
5-18
Closure Commission which directed
medical research, development, test, and
Material Readiness Support Activity to
evaluation facilities. The proposal also
relocate from Lexington-Bluegrass Army
recommends the collocation of seven Tri-
Depot to Letterkenny.
Service medical research programs at
existing Army, Navy, and Air Force
medical laboratories as follows: the Army
Tri-Service Project Reliance
blood research with the Navy; the Army
combat dentistry with the Navy; Army
Study, Various Locations
directed energy (laser and microwave)
Category: Commodity-Oriented Installation
bioeffects with the Air Force; elements of
Mission: Research, Development and Testing
Costs To Realign: $24.3 million
the Army and Navy biodynamics with the
Savings: 1992-97: $71.0 million; Annual: $6.9 million
Air Force; Navy and Army toxicology
Payback: Less than 1 year
(environmental quality and occupational
Department of Defense
health) with the Air Force; Navy infectious
Recommendation:
disease research and Air Force
Execute the Tri-Service Project
environmental medicine (heat physiology)
Reliance medical research study by
with the Army.
reducing the number of Army medical
research labs from nine to six.
Community Concerns:
Disestablish the Letterman Army
The various communities argued that
Institute of Research (LAIR), Presidio of
the Commission should wait to recommend
San Francisco, California (change to the
laboratory realignments until the Federal
1988 Base Realignment and Closure
Advisory Commission on the
Commission recommendation); disestablish
Consolidation and Conversion of Defense
the U.S. Army Institute of Dental
Research and Development Laboratories
Research, Washington, D.C.; and
has finished its study. The latter
disestablish U.S. Army Biomedical
Commission is an advisory group
Research Development Laboratory, Fort
established by law to recommend to the
Detrick, Maryland. Consolidate the
Secretary of Defense how to reorganize
Army's trauma-research and medical-
the research-and-development structure.
materiel-development with existing Army
5-19
Maryland. Realign LAIR's research
Commission Findings:
programs in the following manner (change
The Commission found the
to recommendations of the 1988 Base
disestablishment of LAIR and realignment
Realignment and Closure Commission):
of its residual functions offers more
operational and cost advantages than the
Move trauma research to the U.S.
option recommended by the 1988 Base
Army Institute of Surgical Research, Fort
Realignment and Closure Commission.
Sam Houston, Texas.
The Commission determined that its
jurisdiction did include authority to
Collocate blood research with the
recommend realignment and closure of
Naval Medical Research Institute,
laboratories without the input of the
(NMRI), Bethesda, Maryland.
Federal Advisory Commission.
Collocate laser bioeffects research
Recommendation:
with the Armstrong Laboratory, Brooks
The Commission finds DoD's
Air Force Base, Texas.
recommendation did not deviate
substantially from the force-structure plan
Disestablish U.S. Army Biomedical
and the final selection criteria. The
Research Development Laboratory at Fort
Commission recommends the
Detrick, Maryland, and transfer medical
disestablishment of the LAIR and
material research to the U.S. Army
realignment, as explained under
Medical Material and Development
"Department of Defense
Activity at Fort Detrick. Collocate
Recommendations," of the associated
environmental and occupational toxicology
medical functions to the locations
research with the Armstrong Laboratory at
specified below. Specific actions and
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
realignments are:
Disestablish the U.S. Army Institute
Disestablish LAIR as part of the
of Dental Research, Washington, D.C.,
closure of the Presidio of San Francisco.
and collocate combat dentistry research
Cancel the design and construction of the
with the Naval Dental Research Institute at
replacement laboratory at Fort Detrick,
Great Lakes Naval Base, Illinois.
5-20
Move microwave bioeffects research
Arsenal, Illinois, to Redstone Arsenal,
from Walter Reed Army Institute of
Alabama, as part of the Defense
Research, (WRAIR), Washington, D.C.,
Management Review's inventory control
and collocate with Armstrong Laboratory,
point consolidations.
Brooks Air Force Base, Texas.
Collocate infectious disease research
Community Concerns:
at NMRI with WRAIR.
The community argued that the Army
Move biodynamics research from
miscategorized Rock Island Arsenal as a
U.S. Army Aeromedical Research
production installation. The community
Laboratory, Fort Rucker, Alabama, and
also noted that Rock Island Arsenal had
collocate with Armstrong Laboratory at
excess administrative space and
Wright-Paterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
consolidation could occur at Rock Island
Move heat physiology research from
instead of Redstone Arsenal. The
USAFSAM [now called Armstrong
community also noted that the workforce
Laboratory at Brooks Air Force Base,
at Rock Island had a higher skill- level
Texas] and collocate with U.S. Army
base and private-sector pay rates were
Research Institute of Environmental
lower.
Medicine, Natick, Massachusetts.
Commission Findings:
The Commission found that the
Rock Island Arsenal,
industrial-commodity oriented installations
were treated equally. The Commission
Illinois
found the consolidation of inventory
Category: Industrial-Commodity Oriented Installations
control points would yield cost
Mission: Production
Cost to Realign: $65.2 million
efficiencies that support the DoD
Savings: 1992-97: $-18.2 million; Annual: $38.8 million
realignment proposal.
Payback: 1 Year
The Commission found categorization
Department of Defense
of Rock Island Arsenal was debatable, but
Recommendation:
did not affect the proposed realignment.
Realign of the Armament, Munitions,
Rock Island Arsenal does have excess
and Chemical Command from Rock Island
capacity, but it is inefficient to consolidate
5-21
the inventory control point at Rock Island.
Department of Defense
Redstone Arsenal has a slightly higher
Recommendation:
skill-level base and lower government pay
Close Sacramento Army Depot.
rate.
Transfer the ground communication's
The Commission did consider
electronic maintenance workload from
alternatives such as splitting the inventory
Sacramento Army Depot, California, to
control point or separating the inventory
Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania;
control point from its parent command.
Anniston Army Depot, Alabama; Red
However, it determined the DoD
River Army Depot, Texas; Letterkenny
realignment to be more operationally
Army Depot, Pennsylvania; and Corpus
sound and cost effective.
Christi Army Depot, Texas. Retain 50
acres for Reserve Component use.
Recommendation:
The Commission finds DoD's
Community Concerns:
recommendation did not deviate
The community agreed with the
substantially from the force-structure plan
closure of Sacramento Army Depot, but
and the final selection criteria. The
disagreed with the transfer of all workload
Commission recommends that the Army
outside the Sacramento area. The
realign the Armaments, Munitions, and
community argued about the personnel
Chemical Command as proposed and form
disruption following closure and said that
a single inventory control point at
the DoD proposal did not contain a
Redstone Arsenal.
sufficient degree of DoD-wide interservice
consolidation. It proposed an alternative
plan that consolidated all ground
communications electronics in two centers:
Sacramento Army Depot,
Tobyhanna Army Depot on the East Coast
California
and Sacramento Air Logistics Center at
McClellan Air Force Base (Sacramento,
Category: Industrial-Depot
California) on the West Coast.
Mission: Logistics Support
Costs to Close: $84.9 million
Savings: 1992-97: $33.4 million; Annual: $55.8 million
Payback: Immediate
5-22
Commission Findings:
Recommendation:
The Commission found that all
The Commission finds that DoD
industrial-depots were treated equally.
deviated substantially from criterion 5.
There was excess maintenance capacity for
Therefore the Commission recommends
ground communications electronics and
the closure of Sacramento Army Depot
Sacramento Army Depot ranked the lowest
and the realignment of its workload by
of the installations with communications-
competition to ensure the most cost-
electronics maintenance capability.
effective distribution of work. The
DoD did consider the alternative
Secretary of Defense will develop
proposal of consolidation of the ground
statements of work and a plan to conduct a
communications electronics at Tobyhanna
public-public competition. This
Army Depot and McClellan Air Force
competition will determine how best to
Base. The Commission found that the
distribute the workload currently
DoD decision not to use McClellan Air
performed at Sacramento Army Depot,
Force Base was due to the high man-hour
among those depots in the DoD plan
rates that resulted in higher costs for depot
(Tobyhanna Army Depot, Anniston Army
level maintenance work.
Depot, Corpus Christi Army Depot, Red
The Commission found that both the
River Army Depot, Letterkenny Army
DoD proposal and the community
Depot) and the Sacramento Air Logistics
counterproposal were rational approaches
Center at McClellan Air Force Base. The
to the distribution of the ground
implementation plan will include the
communications electronics maintenance
logical groups of items to be competed, a
workload after closure of the Sacramento
time-phased schedule, and source selection
Army Depot. The Commission also
criteria. The competition will begin as
developed modifications of the community
soon as possible. The Communications
plan. The DoD approach provided the
Systems Test Activity from Sacramento
larger savings, and the Commission's
Army Depot will be realigned to Fort
modification of the community proposal
Lewis, Washington. As much as 50 acres
required fewer people to relocate.
of Sacramento Army Depot may be
retained for Reserve Component use. The
residual supply mission at Sacramento
5-23
Army Depot will be transferred to the
Southern California ships. Finally, the
Defense Depot West at Sharpe Depot or
closure would produce significant savings.
Tracy Depot.
Community Concerns:
The community argued that the
Navy's Base Structure Committee
Naval Station Long Beach,
overturned an earlier recommendation by
the OpNav working group not to close
California
Long Beach. The community claimed the
Category: Naval Station
Base Structure Committee was intent on
Mission: Support Homeported Ships and Shipyard
Costs to Close: $118.6 million
protecting new strategic homeports,
Savings: 1992-97: 201.8 million; Annual: $85.2 million
specifically Naval Station Everett,
Payback: Less than 1 year
Washington, currently under construction.
Department of Defense
The community maintained that a draft
Recommendation:
GAO report on strategic homeports, now
Close Naval Station Long Beach and
released, advocated deleting Everett and
the supporting Naval Hospital Long Beach.
keeping Long Beach open. The community
Transfer ship-support functions and a
claimed that the Navy overstated berthing
parcel of land to the Long Beach Naval
capacity.
Shipyard. Reassign ships to other Pacific
The community also asserted that the
Fleet homeports.
station supports a large regional reserve
The Navy has considerable excess
presence, has excellent access to open sea
pier capacity on the West Coast and will
and Southern California training areas, can
be able to accommodate its 1997 force
homeport a nuclear-powered carrier, and
structure at the more essential ports of San
provides critical support for the shipyard.
Diego and Everett. Long Beach rated low
The community stated that the
in military value because its facilities are
economic impact of closure would be high,
deficient and require military construction,
claiming that Navy ships constitute 97
the location is expensive, and, unlike San
percent of local private repair work.
Diego, it lacks capacity to homeport all
Finally, the community believed the Navy
underestimated the military construction
5-24
required at receiving locations, thus
Currently Long Beach piers do not serve a
understating the actual payback period.
nuclear carrier. Upgrading one of its pier's
to homeport a nuclear carrier would cost
Commission Findings:
$75 million.
The Commission found that the
The Commission found that the
OpNav group recommendation was not
potential savings from closure are high.
definitive, the Navy did in fact evaluate its
The Navy should expand the San Diego
homeports, and the GAO report did not
homeport area to include private repair
compare the homeports against other naval
facilities now in the Long Beach area in
stations as the community alleged. Halting
order to ameliorate local job loss, which is
construction at Everett would remove too
projected to be only two-tenths of one
little of the Navy's excess berthing
percentage point.
capacity.
The declining force structure enables
Recommendation:
San Diego and Everett to provide all the
The Commission finds the DoD
naval station berthing required in 1997.
recommendation did not deviate
The declining number of Naval
substantially from the force-structure plan
Reserve ships enables the Navy to
and the final selection criteria. Therefore,
relinquish the support provided by Long
the Commission recommends the closure
Beach.
of Naval Station Long Beach and the
The Commission found that closing
supporting Naval Hospital Long Beach.
Long Beach would eliminate more than
Ship support functions and a parcel of land
two-thirds of the Navy's excess berthing
will be transferred to the naval shipyard.
capacity on the West Coast. However, the
Ships assigned to the naval station will be
Navy will have to continue to use San
reassigned to other Pacific Fleet
Diego piers classified as inadequate until
homeports. Alternate use of the hospital
funds become available to meet its stated
facilities should be explored by the
requirement to replace them.
Veterans Administration, Public Health
While most piers are classified as
Service, state and local governments and
substandard, only $17 million would be
the community.
required to make them adequate.
5-25
Naval Station Philadelphia,
further believes that the Navy failed to
consider costs at receiving bases, the high
Pennsylvania
cost of environmental cleanup after
Category: Naval Stations
closure, and the ability of assigned Naval
Mission: Support Shipyard and Assigned Ships
Costs to Close: $53.5 million
Reserve ships to tap the large local reserve
Savings: 1992-97: $55.9 million; Annual: $40.4 million.
pool.
Payback: Less than 1 year.
Department of Defense
Commission Findings:
Recommendation:
The naval station has no piers.
Close Naval Station Philadelphia.
Assigned ships are berthed at the shipyard,
Reassign ships to other Atlantic Fleet
which the station supports. Closing the
homeports, close the naval base, and
shipyard will remove the station's primary
move the Naval Damage Control Training
mission. Assigned ships must steam a
Center to the Naval Training Center, Great
relatively long distance to reach the open
Lakes, Illinois. Transfer remaining
ocean, which can lengthen reserve drill
tenants to other bases or retain them in
weekends and affect retention. Closure
leased space. Retain the regional brig.
will account for a relatively small fraction
Naval Station Philadelphia was graded
of the overall local job loss resulting from
low in military value because of significant
closing the entire naval complex. Closure
facility deficiencies that would require
will produce significant savings.
construction to correct, its high-cost
location, and the elimination of the
Recommendation:
requirement to support the naval shipyard,
The Commission finds that DoD's
which DoD is also recommending for
recommendation did not deviate
closure.
substantially from the force-structure plan
and the final selection criteria. Therefore,
Community Concerns:
the Commission recommends the closure
The Philadelphia community believes
of Naval Station Philadelphia.
the naval shipyard should remain open,
Ships assigned to the Naval Station
and therefore the naval station must also
will be reassigned to other Atlantic Fleet
remain open to support it. The community
homeports. The office of Commander,
5-26
Naval Base Philadelphia will close. The
Hunters Point Annex has low military
Naval Damage Control Training Center, a
value because of significant encroachment
major tenant, will move to the Naval
that will result from Congressionally-
Training Center at Great Lakes, IL. Other
mandated outleasing to the city of San
tenants will transfer to other bases or
Francisco. The infrastructure at the base is
remain in leased space. The regional brig
deficient. Moreover, this closure will have
will remain.
little impact on the economy or
environment of the San Francisco area.
Implementation costs will be minimal.
Hunters Point Annex to
Community Concerns:
Naval Station Treasure
The community is anxious to gain use
Island, San Francisco,
of the land that Hunters Point occupies and
California
thus did not argue against closure.
Category: Naval Stations
Commission Findings:
Mission: Support Tenant Activities
Costs to Close: 0
The Commission found that few
Savings: 1992-97: $325,000; Annual: $319,000
tenants use the facilities and that the piers
Payback: Less than 1 year
are not in use. Closure removes 15,900
Department of Defense
feet of excess berthing capacity. The
Recommendation:
outlease obligation renders the large Dry
Close Hunters Point Annex. Outlease
Dock 4 unusable for emergent repairs.
the entire property, with provisions for
Recommendation:
continued occupancy of space by
The Commission finds the DoD
Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion,
and Repair; Planning, Engineering,
proposal did not deviate substantially from
Repair, and Alterations Detachment; and a
the force-structure plan and the final
contractor-operated test facility. This is a
selection criteria. Therefore, the
change to the 1988 Base Realignment and
Commission recommends closing the
Hunters Point Annex to Naval Station
Closure Commission recommendation.
Treasure Island. Outlease the entire
5-27
property, with provisions for continued
culminating in the loss of almost one-half
occupancy of space by Supervisor of
of the property. Commander, Naval Base
Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair;
Seattle, the Navy's Pacific Northwest
Planning, Engineering, Repair, and
regional coordinator, will move to
Alterations Detachment; and a contractor-
Submarine Base Bangor, consistent with
operated test facility. This is a change to
his concurrent responsibilities as
the 1988 Base Realignment and Closure
Commander Submarine Group Nine.
Commission recommendation.
Commanding Officer, Naval Station Puget
Sound, will move to Naval Station Everett
when construction there is completed.
Naval Station Puget Sound
Since most existing Sand Point billets will
remain in the area and since new billets
(Sand Point), Washington
will be added at Everett, economic impacts
Category: Naval Station
will be slight.
Mission: Support Staff and Tenant Activities
Costs to Close: $28.4 million
Savings: 1992-97 $-22.9 million; Annual: $1.6 million
Community Concerns:
Payback: 100 years
The community did not argue against
Department of Defense
the closure of Sand Point. The local
Recommendation:
government plans to use the land for park
Close Naval Station Puget Sound
expansion and has proposed additional
(Sand Point). Relocate most functions and
community uses. The main community
activities to Everett, Washington. Retain
concerns were expeditious cleanup of the
the regional brig and a small surrounding
site and the incompatibility of the
parcel of land. Dispose of the rest of the
remaining Navy brig with planned park
property. This changes the 1988 Base
use.
Realignment and Closure Commission's
recommendation to partially close this
Commission Findings:
base.
Naval Station Sand Point has no
Sand Point received a low grade for
mission, its facilities are poor, and it
military value because previous functions
cannot contribute significantly to meeting
and missions had been reduced,
surge requirements. The major tenants are
5-28
relocating. The current small overhead
Department of Defense
explains the long payback period.
Recommendation:
Close Naval Air Station Chase Field,
Recommendation:
retain the capability to be operated as an
The Commission finds that DoD's
outlying field (OLF), and retain the air
recommendation did not deviate
operations personnel necessary to operate
substantially from the force-structure plan
it. Disestablish air training squadrons and
and the final selection criteria. Therefore,
all other tenants. Expand air training
the Commission recommends the closure
squadrons at Naval Air Station Kingsville,
of Puget Sound Naval Station (Sand
Texas, and Naval Air Station Meridian,
Point). A majority of the functions will be
Mississippi, to handle any increased
relocated to Everett, Washington. The
student output. Improve Kingsville
regional brig and a small surrounding
runways for safety and efficiency with
parcel of land maybe retained by the
additional flight operations.
Secretary after study. The Navy will
Projected reductions of carrier and air
dispose of the remainder of the property.
wing force structure reduces the annual
This is a change to the 1988 Base Closure
strike pilot training rate (PTR)
Commission recommendation to partially
requirement, creating an excess of
close the installation.
approximately one base. Chase Field
graded lower in military value because of
infrastructure deficiencies identified as
Naval Air Station Chase
facility construction required for the
introduction of the T-45 trainer. Chase
Field, Beeville, Texas
Field was determined to more readily
Category: Naval Air Stations
function as an OLF than Naval Air Station
Mission: Naval Aviation Training
Costs to Close: $47.7 million
Kingsville, and Naval Air Station
Savings: 1992-97: $-7.5 million; Annual: $24.7 million
Meridian. Finally, realignment of Chase
Payback: Less than 1 year
Field is more easily reversible should
force-structure increase to the point where
base reconstitution may become required.
5-29
Community Concerns:
airspace, encroachment, and weather were
The community principally argued that
not significant enough to be a basis for a
the Navy plan was excessively wasteful,
closure recommendation. The relevant
inflicted economic and environmental
issues were determined to be relative cost
damage, ignored real savings, and was
and military value.
predicated on false information, doubtful
The Commission found that DoD
data, and improbable projections. The
underestimated the costs to relocate the T-
community asserted that Naval Air Station
45 from Naval Air Station Kingsville to
Chase Field was the most productive strike
Naval Air Station Chase Field.
training base, suggesting that Naval Air
Naval Air Station Kingsville was
Station Meridian was the most logical
considered too expensive to relocate.
choice for closure due to its lower
Naval Air Station Meridian and Naval Air
productivity and greater savings achieved
Station Chase Field became the potential
by consolidation of training in South
candidates for closure. Geographical
Texas. The community also made issue of
diversity and cost were predominant
superior airspace and zoning ordinances
factors in retaining Naval Air Station
that insured long term freedom from both
Meridian.
land and airspace encroachment.
Recommendations:
Commission Findings:
The Commission agrees with the DoD
The Commission found that DoD's
recommendation to close Naval Air Station
closure recommendation was consistent
Chase Field. However, the Commission
with projected force-structure reductions
finds that, in recommending the retention
with the exception that the requirement for
of an OLF, the DoD substantially deviated
an outlying field is not fully supported by
from the force structure plan. Projected
projected PTR requirements. The surge
reductions of carrier and air wing force
requirement for 600 PTR was revised to
structure reduce Navy-wide pilot training
450 by the Vice Chief of Naval
rate requirements to a level that does not
Operations.
require retention of the Chase Field as an
The Commission assessed that issues of
OLF.
relative productivity, airfield design,
5-30
The Commission also found that the
four bases in the maritime patrol aircraft
DoD substantially deviated from criterion
subcategory. The base suffers from severe
6 in that realignment to retain an OLF
ground and airspace encroachment. There
imposes significantly greater adverse
is no potential for increased aircraft
economic impact on the local community
operations. Moffett Field is located in a
than closure of the entire air station.
high-cost area. Finally, a force-structure
The Commission therefore
reduction of 25 percent results in an excess
recommends the complete closure of Naval
of one base in this subcategory.
Air Station Chase Field, including the
OLF.
Community Concerns:
The community argued that the
benefits afforded by Moffett Field are
Naval Air Station Moffett
essential to the San Francisco Bay Area
Field, California
economy and to the nation. The long-term
Category: Naval Air Stations/Maritime Patrol Aircraft
coexistence between businesses and the
Mission: Maritime Patrol Aircraft Support
naval air station is profitable to the federal
Costs to Close: $112 million
government. If the naval air station were
Savings: 1992-97: $104.8 million; Annual: $72.4 million
Payback: Less than 1 year
to close, the base should remain federally
operated and maintained so that defense
Department of Defense
contractors can continue to use the air
Recommendation:
facilities. While Moffett Field may no
Close Moffett Field, decommission
longer meet national military needs, it
three active-duty maritime patrol
remains a crucial part of the high-
squadrons, and redistribute the remaining
technology and aerospace industries.
squadrons among Naval Air Stations
Jacksonville, Florida; Barbers Point,
Commission Findings:
Hawaii; and Brunswick, Maine.
The Commission found that DoD's
Consolidate the P-3 Fleet Replacement
closure recommendation was consistent
Squadron operations at Naval Air Station
with projected force-structure reductions.
Jacksonville, Florida.
It was also consistent with the aircraft-
Moffett Field ranked low among all
relocation plan proposed by DoD and with
naval air stations and lowest among the
5-31
recent military construction that supports
Naval Air Station Whidbey
it. Under that plan, the maritime patrol
Island, Washington
force will move from its traditional 50-50
split between fleets to a new deployment
Category: Carrier Airwing Support
Mission: A-6 attack and EA-6B electronic warfare aircraft
strategy with 40 percent of the force in the
Costs to Close: N/A
Pacific Fleet and 60 percent in the Atlantic
Savings: N/A
Payback: N/A
Fleet. The Commission found that ground
and airspace encroachment at Naval Air
Department of Defense
Station Moffett Field and quality of life
Recommendation:
problems for Navy personnel in the San
Close Whidbey Island and the
Francisco Bay Area are significant.
supporting Naval Hospital Oak Harbor.
Transfer aviation activities to Naval Air
Recommendation:
Station Lemoore, California. Retain the
The Commission finds that the
ranges in Navy custody.
Secretary's recommendation on Naval Air
Force-structure reductions in aircraft
Station Moffett Field did not deviate
carriers and carrier airwings, and the
substantially from the force-structure plan
imminent departure of the A-6 Intruder
and the final selection criteria. Therefore,
medium-attack aircraft from the Navy's
the Commission recommends closing
inventory argued for the closure of
Naval Air Station Moffett Field;
Whidbey Island. Lemoore, where the
transferring assigned P-3 aircraft to Naval
Navy wants to consolidate all West Coast
Air Stations Jacksonville, Brunswick, and
attack squadrons, has available capacity.
Barbers Point; and consolidating P-3 Fleet
Whidbey's single-runway configuration
Replacement Squadron operations at Naval
limits operational flexibility and future
Air Station Jacksonville. Additionally, the
growth. Whidbey's outlying field is
Commission suggests that the base remain
encroached.
in federal custody in support of non-DoD
The economic consequences will be
agencies and industry. The Secretary
the most severe of any proposed closure, a
should consult with NACA on possible
58.3 percent loss in jobs.
use.
5-32
Community Concerns:
replacement aircraft should become
The community argued that the
available.
economic impact would be devastating--
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island
almost 84 percent unemployment after
operates from two runways with only one
closure. The community argued that the
being operational at a time. This affects
base's mission is not diminishing, since the
operational flexibility and growth in that it
A-6E is being rewinged.
limits the ability to conduct field carrier
Whidbey actually has two runways,
landing practice. The functional wing
optimized for variable winds, and the base
commander conducts this training through
offers flexible training with its outlying
use of the Outlying Field Coupeville.
field.
While this optimizes training and enhances
Moreover, the EA-6B will be unable
the single runway operations, noted in the
to perform its electronic warfare mission
DoD recommendation, it exacerbates the
at Lemoore, which lacks the ranges. The
encroachment at the outlying field. The
airspace at Lemoore is too limited for
encroachment issue at outlying field
receipt of all Whidbey's aircraft. Further,
Coupeville is significant. The A-6 and
DoD underestimated the construction costs
EA-6B aircraft are two of the loudest
a move to Lemoore would entail.
aircraft in the Navy inventory. The local
Finally, the closure of Whidbey
community has not passed any zoning
Island would leave a demographic void
ordinances that preclude development near
with regard to the Naval Reserves.
the airfield. The community has organized
an aggressive campaign focusing on
Commission Findings:
abating the noise. The Commission found
The Commission found that the A-6
that the noise and encroachment issues are
force structure reduces at a rate no greater
moderate relative to other Navy bases.
than that associated with projected carrier-
Expansion of the base is possible. With
air-wing force-structure reductions. While
the exception of Naval Air Station
the A-6 aircraft is reaching the end of it's
Lemoore, all carrier support naval air
operating service life, major aircraft
stations rate worse than Naval Air Station
modifications are being incorporated that
Whidbey Island with respect to
extend its wing life until 2005, when a
encroachment on air installation
5-33
compatible use zone management. This
The Commission found excess
issue can be resolved without closing the
capacity at Naval Air Station Lemoore, the
base.
relocating base for the Whidbey Island
The Spectrum Aviation Division of
aviation tenants. But not enough capacity
the Federal Aviation Administration
exists to preclude DoD's estimate of more
documented projected impacts to operating
than $300 million in military construction
and training the EA-6B aircraft in
to accommodate the aircraft from Whidbey
California. The interference to national
Island. Based on varying accounts of the
airspace system will degrade air safety and
construction requirements by Navy
efficiency.
organizations, the Commission found the
The Commission found that while
estimate could well grow. The
excess capacity exists at training ranges in
Commission found the return on
California and Nevada, no coordination
investment to be high.
was conducted with DoD, other federal
agencies, and local governments toward
Recommendation:
facilitating the 100 percent growth in
The Commission finds that DoD
tactical aircraft in the Central California
deviated substantially from the force-
operating areas. The need to perform this
structure plan and from criteria 1 and 3 by
coordination was recommended in the
not accurately focusing on the current and
Navy analysis, An Analysis of Naval
future mission requirements of the carrier
Airspace Utilization and Requirements
medium-attack mission, it also inaccurately
(Project Blue Air Update) of November 2,
assessed the availability of land, facilities
1987. The report documented the traffic-
and airspace at the current location and the
flow problems through choke-point
full impacts on facilities and airspace at
corridors between the California and
Naval Air Station Lemoore. Therefore the
Nevada operating areas. The congestion
Commission recommends that Naval Air
imposes severe limits on the number of
Station Whidbey Island and the supporting
aircraft that can be handled as well as
Naval Hospital Oak Harbor remain open.
significant traffic-flow management
problems for the Federal Aviation
Administration.
5-34
Marine Corps Air Station
helicopter support to Twentynine Palms
integrates it more closely with training for
Tustin, California
Camp Pendleton ground forces.
Category: Marine Corps Air Station
Helicopter facilities at Camp Pendleton are
Mission: Support Marine Corps Aviation
Costs to Close: $590.4 million
located too far from training areas at
Savings: 1992-97: $56.8 million; Annual: $0.4 million
Twentynine Palms to permit MAG-39 to
Payback: 100 years
play an integral role in ground-force
Department of Defense
training.
Recommendation:
Close Marine Corps Air Station
Community Concerns:
(MCAS) Tustin, retaining family housing
The community supports closure of
and related personnel facilities to support
MCAS Tustin so the property can be
MCAS El Toro, California. Combine
commercially developed, thereby
Marine Aircraft Group (MAG) 16 with
increasing the community tax base. The
MAG 39 from Camp Pendleton and
community also supports eliminating
transfer the combined MAG, along with
helicopter noise pollution. There is a
the Tustin's headquarters components and
minor economic impact of 0.1% to 0.3%.
related units, to a new air station to be
built at the Marine Corps Air Ground
Commission Findings:
Combat Center at Twentynine Palms,
The Commission found that there was
California.
not a significant force-structure reduction
Before relocation, MAG 16 and MAG
dictating the closure of a MCAS; however,
39 at MCAS Camp Pendleton, California,
MCAS Tustin has only a slight excess
will be combined. Projected requirements
capacity. There is significant community
necessitate restructuring aviation support to
encroachment and there are increasing
complement combined-arms training. Only
limitations on airspace used by low-flying
MCAS Yuma, Arizona, which has a
helicopters. The same factors that limit
unique mission, ranked lower than Tustin
the base's military value provide MCAS
in military value. The air station and its
Tustin with an unusually high
air space are being encroached. The aging
redevelopment value.
facilities have many deficiencies. Moving
5-35
Recommendation:
Philadelphia Naval
The Commission finds that the
Shipyard, Pennsylvania
Secretary's recommendation on MCAS
Tustin deviated substantially from criterion
Category: Naval Shipyards
Mission: Repair, Maintenance, and Overhaul of Navy Ships
2, availability and condition of land and
Costs to Close: $102 million
facilities at receiving locations, and criteria
Savings: 1992-97: $38.1 million; Annual: $36 million
Payback: 2 years
4, cost implications.
Therefore, the Commission
Department of Defense
recommends the closure of MCAS Tustin
Recommendation:
and the retention of the family housing and
Close Philadelphia Naval Shipyard
related personnel support facilities in
and preserve for emergent requirements.
support of MCAS El Toro. It further
Retain the propeller facility (shops and
recommends MAG 16 be composited with
foundry), Naval Inactive Ships
MAG 39 and relocated to Marine Air
Maintenance Facility, and Naval Ship
Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms
System Engineering Station in active status
or Camp Pendleton or both and with MAG
on shipyard property.
39 continued tenancy at Marine Corps Air
Changes in the force structure will
Station Camp Pendleton.
reduce ship-repair requirements and
Further, the Secretary of Defense
terminate the carrier service life extension
shall propose for consideration in the fiscal
program (CV-SLEP). Closure of a naval
year 1992 or 1993 Defense Authorization
shipyard is necessary to balance the
Bill a fair-market exchange of land and
Navy's industrial infrastructure with this
facilities for construction of military
reduced workload. Maintaining the
facilities at Twentynine Palms or Camp
shipyard in mothball status will allow its
Pendleton. If a fair exchange is not
use for unplanned requirements or its
authorized in fiscal year 1992 or 1993,
reconstitution if future needs are greater
then the Secretary of Defense should
than now anticipated.
proceed with the relocation to Twentynine
Palms or Camp Pendleton or both,
Community Concerns:
utilizing the Defense Base Closure
The community stated that
Account.
Philadelphia provides the skilled workforce
5-36
and facilities that the Navy will need to
pursue legislative relief to force reversion
repair its large conventional ships in the
or outleasing of shipyard property to the
future. It believes that the shipyard is
city.
particularly well suited to repair Aegis-
equipped ships because of specialized
Commission Findings:
public and private industrial facilities in
The Commission found that the
the area. The community also claimed that
overall public shipyard workload is falling
Philadelphia is the most cost-effective and
significantly because of force reductions
efficient public shipyard, with the lowest
and budget limitations. The projected
man-day rate and highest productive ratio.
workload in nuclear shipyards during the
This, along with its facilities for repairing
1990s was found to limit the potential for
large ships, justifies keeping the facility
closing any nuclear shipyard until the late
open during the 1990s, even at a reduced
1990s.
workload level, until the conventional ship
The largest portion of Philadelphia's
workload increases.
recent workload has been CV-SLEP,
The community pointed to the recent
which the Navy desires to terminate.
congressional decision to require the
However, Congress has passed legislation
aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy to
that requires a CV-SLEP at Philadelphia.
undergo a CV-SLEP in Philadelphia, as a
The Commission found that this CV-SLEP
reason not to consider the shipyard for
should be completed in mid-1996, about a
closure--the planned schedule runs too
year before the required closure date.
close to the end of the required closure
Workload is available that could be
milestone date.
diverted from public and private East
The impact on the city of Philadelphia
Coast shipyards to Philadelphia to bring its
would be severe, particularly when added
activity up to levels that justify keeping it
to proposed closures of other Philadelphia-
open. However, this would limit the
area bases. The community believes that
Navy's ability to meet its target of putting
this is too large an impact for any single
30 percent of its repair work in private
region to bear. If Philadelphia Naval
yards. It may increase costs at public
Shipyard is closed and mothballed, the
shipyards, such as Norfolk, which would
community stated that it would vigorously
lose workload. The Commission found that
5-37
retaining Philadelphia active at a low
Naval Training Center
employment level, such as the 1,200-
Orlando, Florida
person option considered by the Navy,
would increase the cost for work
Category: Training
Mission: Recruit Training, Service School Command,
performed at Philadelphia over the cost for
Nuclear Power Schools
the same work performed at a public
Cost to Close: N/A
Savings: N/A
shipyard with a traditional staffing level.
Payback: N/A
The Commission found that the
combination of carrier-capable drydocks at
Department of Defense
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Newport News
Recommendation:
Shipbuilding, and the mothballed drydocks
Close Naval Training Center (NTC)
at Philadelphia provide capacity for
Orlando and the supporting Naval Hospital
unplanned requirements.
Orlando. The recruit training will be
absorbed by NTC Great Lakes, Illinois,
Recommendation:
and NTC San Diego, California. The
The Commission finds that the
nuclear training function and all "A"
Secretary's recommendation did not
schools will be relocated.
deviate substantially from the force-
Force-structure reductions decrease
structure plan and the final selection
requirements for basic recruit and follow-
criteria. Therefore, the Commission
on training. As a result, slightly over two
recommends the closure and preservation
Recruit Training Commands (RTCs) can
of Philadelphia Naval Shipyard for
accommodate future requirements, leaving
emergent requirements. The propeller
an excess capacity of approximately one
facility, Naval Inactive Ships Maintenance
RTC. Major savings can only be realized
Facility, and Naval Ship System
by closure of a complete NTC.
Engineering Station will remain in active
NTC Orlando was graded lowest in
status on shipyard property.
military value for the following key
reasons: First, the Navy wants to retain
the NTC in San Diego because of its
collocation with major fleet concentrations.
Second, significant capital is invested in
5-38
complex, sophisticated, and expensive
capacity adversely affected its overall
training devices, systems, and buildings at
ranking.
NTC Great Lakes. Third, NTC Great
Lakes has expansion and surge capability;
Commission Findings:
NTC Orlando does not. And finally,
The Commission found that DoD
Naval Hospital Orlando was
based its closure recommendation of NTC
identified for closure as a "follower"
Orlando on the basis of excess capacity in
because of its reduced support to the
the recruit training assets. The
active-duty population in the area.
Commission found that although NTC
Orlando has excess capacity in recruit
Community Concerns:
training, this excess did not carry over to
The community claimed that the Navy
the other training schools. The
improperly rated NTC Orlando lowest in
Commission also found that DoD based its
expansion capability. The community also
closure recommendation of Orlando on an
argued that one of the reasons for
overall low military rating and that this
excluding NTC Great Lakes from
rating was significantly influenced by a
consideration for closure was the estimated
low rating for criterion 3. Further, the
cost to relocate its extensive training
Commission found that NTC Orlando had
devices, but that the training devices are
more surge capacity than NTC San Diego
not recruit related.
which received a high rating for criterion
The community argued that the
3. The Commission also found that
major reason for not proposing the closure
Orlando has much more land than NTC
of San Diego was, its collocation with the
San Diego, on which to develop additional
fleet, which is not recruit related. Also,
facilities in the event of mobilization
the Navy omitted the infrastructure costs at
requirements.
Great Lakes to accommodate the Orlando
The Commission found that the
move. The community also noted that
Navy's analysis was very sensitive to one-
extensive pharmacy costs had been omitted
time costs due to the sizable military
from the hospital COBRA computations.
construction (MILCON) required to
And finally, the community claimed that
relocate the Orlando schools to NTC Great
failure to consider Orlando's mobilization
Lakes. The original COBRA submitted by
5-39
the Navy yielded a 12-year payback and a
Construction Battalion
$57.1 million annual savings. An updated
Center Davisville,
COBRA submitted by the Navy indicates a
20-year payback and a 35.5 million dollar
Rhode Island
annual savings after six years. The
Commission's COBRA run on NTC
Category: Construction Battalion Centers
Mission: Mobilization and Logistics Support to Reserve Seabees
Orlando yielded a cost to close of $423.2
Costs to Close: $36.6 million
million and a payback period of 100 years.
Savings: 1992-97: $-12.8 million; Annual: $5.5 million
Payback: 10 years
Recommendation:
Department of Defense
The Commission finds that with
Recommendation:
regard to the DoD recommendation to
Close Davisville and relocate three
close Naval Training Center Orlando the
sets of equipment and tools for Reserve
Secretary deviated substantially from
Naval Mobile Construction Battalions
criteria 3 and 5 by not considering he
(RNMCB) and other prepositioned war
significant surge capacity as required for
reserve material stock to the other
mobilization and by overestimating return
Construction Battalion Centers at Gulfport,
on investment. Therefore, the Commission
Mississippi, and Port Hueneme,
recommends that the Naval Training
California.
Center and the Naval Hospital Orlando
The projected reduction of RNMCBs
remain open.
and ability of the other construction
battalion centers to provide required
mobilization support enables reduction in
the Naval Construction Force support
infrastructure. The personnel-support
facilities at Davisville are deteriorated and
the facility will no longer be designated as
a site for mobilizing reserve personnel.
5-40
Community Concerns:
of Construction Battalion Center
The community stated that Davisville
Davisville.
had historically been critical for support of
the Seabees and that the support is still
needed, particularly for storage space and
Naval Air Facility Midway
equipment repair. The community
Island
questioned the need to build new
warehouse space when existing Davisville
Category: Naval Air Stations/Other Unique
Mission: Logistic Support
buildings could continue to be used. The
Costs to Close: $7.2 million
community also was concerned about the
Savings: 1992-97: $33.8 million; Annual: $6.9 million
Payback: Less than 1 year
loss of jobs in an economically depressed
area.
Department of Defense
Recommendation:
Commission Findings:
Realign Naval Air Facility Midway
The Commission found that many of
Island. Eliminate the mission. Retain
the facilities at Davisville are deteriorated
caretaker presence to support intermittent
and unusable. The ability of the other two
joint special operations.
construction battalion centers to support
Naval Air Facility Midway Island was
the major Naval Construction Force effort
a likely candidate for realignment because
during Desert Shield/Storm demonstrated
the site-specific mission requirements are
the ability of these bases to provide
reducing and the degradations to joint
required support without Davisville.
operations are acceptable.
Recommendation:
Community Concerns:
The Commission finds that the DoD
The Naval Air Facility Midway
recommendation on Construction Battalion
Island's civilian population is comprised of
Center Davisville did not deviate
230 contract personnel. The community
substantially from the force-structure plan
expressed no concerns with regard to the
and the final selection criteria. Therefore,
realignment.
the Commission recommends the closure
5-41
Commission Findings and
and Ocean Surveillance Center; Naval
Recommendation:
Surface Warfare Center; and Naval
The Commission finds that the
Undersea Warfare Center.
Secretary's recommendation did not
deviate from the force-structure plan and
Community Concerns:
the final selection criteria. Therefore, the
The communities argued that
Commission recommends realigning Naval
implementing the consolidation plan would
Air Facility Midway Island. Eliminate the
disrupt the RDT&E, engineering, and
mission and operate under a caretaker
fleet-support functions these activities
status.
perform. Much of this disruption, they
claimed, would result from the loss of key
scientists and engineers who would be
Navy Research,
unwilling to relocate.
Communities expressed concern that
Development, Test and
the Navy underestimated the costs of the
Evaluation, Engineering,
consolidation, that it failed to evaluate all
alternatives, and that the new warfare
and Fleet Support Activities
centers would not emphasize research and
development sufficiently. The communities
Category: Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation
Mission: Research and Engineering Facilities
requested the Commission to wait for the
Costs to Consolidate: $513 million
completion of the DoD Advisory
Savings: 1992-97: $-119 million; Annual: $107 million
Commission on Consolidation and
Payback period: 2-6 years (varies by warfare center)
Conversion of Defense Research and
Department of Defense
Development Laboratories study before
Recommendation:
making any recommendations.
Close 10 and realign 16 Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation
Commission Findings:
(RDT&E), Engineering and Fleet Support
The Commission found that the DoD
Facilities as part of a facility consolidation
did not adequately examine the availability
plan. Create four centers: Naval Air
of alternative facilities for the location of
Warfare Center; Naval Command, Control
the East Coast In-Service Engineering
5-42
Directorate, which the DoD proposed to
Closures:
be located in Portsmouth, VA. Existing
Integrated Combat Systems Test Facility,
facilities may be available in Charleston,
San Diego, CA
SC, elsewhere in the Norfolk metropolitan
Naval Electronic Systems Engineering
area, or at other locations. Additionally,
Center, San Diego, CA
the Committee found that development in
Naval Electronic Systems Eng. Center,
the Portsmouth area could affect the
Vallejo, CA
Navy's ability to conduct tests on radars
Naval Mine Warfare Engineering Activity,
and communications equipment. While the
Yorktown, VA
Commission found inaccuracies in the
Naval Space Systems Activity,
DoD cost and savings estimates, these
Los Angeles, CA
errors were insignificant.
Naval Ocean Systems Center Detachment,
Kaneohe, HI
Recommendation:
Naval Weapons Evaluation Facility,
The Commission finds that, with one
Albuquerque, New Mexico
exception, the Secretary's proposal for
closure and realignment of RDT&E,
Realignments:
Engineering, and Fleet Support Activities
David Taylor Research Center
did not deviate substantially from the force
Detachment, Annapolis, MD
structure plan and the selection criteria.
Naval Air Development Center,
In its recommended establishment of
Warminster, PA
Naval Command, Control and Ocean
Naval Air Engineering Center,
Surveillance Center's East Coast In-
Lakehurst, NJ
Service Engineering Directorate in
Naval Air Propulsion Center, Trenton, NJ
Portsmouth, VA., the Commission finds
Naval Avionics Center, Indianapolis, IN
that the Secretary deviated substantially
Naval Coastal Systems Center,
from criteria 2 and 4 by not examining
Panama City, FL
fully all available alternatives for location
Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, MD
of the Directorate.
Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, KY
The Commission recommends the
Naval Surface Weapons Center
following closures and realignments.
Detachment, White Oak, MD
5-43
Naval Underwater Systems Center
reorganization will require the careful
Detachment, New London, CT
development and execution of personnel
Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering
management plans to minimize the
Station, Keyport, WA
disruption of critical research and
Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA
development activities in the Navy
Naval Weapons Support Center, Crane, IN
laboratory system.
Pacific Missile Test Center, Point Magu,
California
Trident Command and Control Systems
Lowry Air Force Base,
Maintenance Activity, Newport, RI
Colorado
Naval Sea Combat Systems Engineering
Station, Norfolk, VA
Category: Training
Mission: Technical Training Center
Additionally, the Commission
Cost to Close: $222.5 million
recommends to the President that the
Savings: 1992-97: $-44.5 million; Annual: $42.2 million
Payback: 5 years
Secretary defer implementation of this
consolidation plan until January 1, 1992 in
Department of Defense
order to give the Secretary time to
Recommendation:
consider the findings and recommendations
Close Lowry Air Force Base and
of the DoD Advisory Commission on
redistribute all technical training to the
Consolidation and Conversion of Defense
remaining technical training centers. The
Research and Development Laboratories
1001st Space Systems Squadron Defense
and to consult with the appropriate
Finance and Accounting Service and Air
committees of the Congress.
Force Reserve Personnel Center remain at
The Commission also believes there is
Lowry. The Lowry Technical Training
a clear role for the Advisory Commission
Center will inactivate.
to advise the Secretary of how best to
Lowry's long-term military value was
implement this consolidation plan so as to
low compared with other bases in its
minimize the impact of the turbulence it
category. Its ranking suffered because base
could create, including the loss of key
facilities ranked below the category
personnel. Clearly, the challenge of
average and the lack of a runway limits its
undertaking such a comprehensive
ability to accept additional missions.
5-44
Additionally, it is the second-least
downgraded equally with regard to future
expensive base to close in this category.
mission capabilities. Lowry's base
facilities rated lower than the category
Community Concerns:
average. The Commission found that the
The community argued that Lowry
cost of training per student is a function of
was penalized too severely for the lack of
the type of training conducted at Lowry
a runway and that the DoD criteria placed
and not a function of the physical
too much emphasis on runway operations.
properties of Lowry Air Force Base.
The community also noted that the base
Concerning the remaining technical
has a favorable cost-per-student-trained
training capacity, the closure of Chanute
ratio when compared with the other
and Lowry removes 33 percent of the
technical training centers. It also argued
training infrastructure. The Air Force's
that the closure of Lowry would reduce
projected accessions are 50 percent of
too much infrastructure in light of the
what they were in the 1980s, when there
fiscal year 1988 decision to close Chanute
were six training centers. Therefore, the
Air Force Base. The elimination of two
one-third reduction in facilities allows for
large training centers does not allow
surge capability if and when it is required.
enough infrastructure to handle a quick
The Department of Defense should look
surge in training that might be required.
closely at using the excess facilities created
by this closure when evaluating the
Commission Findings:
Department's overall facility requirements
The Commission found that all
such as the consolidation of the Defense
training bases were treated fairly and
Finance and Accounting Service.
Lowry did rank low in its category. The
lack of a runway was considered correctly
Recommendation:
since it does limit future mission
The Commission finds that the DoD
capabilities. However, the lack of a
recommendation on Lowry Air Force Base
runway did not penalize Lowry when
did not deviate substantially from the
evaluated for supporting the current
force-structure plan and the final selection
mission. Three training bases lacking
criteria. Therefore, the Commission
active runway operations were all
recommends the closure of Lowry Air
5-45
Force Base and the redistribution of all
Force Base rather than move to Bergstrom
technical training to the remaining tech
Air Force Base as recommended by the
training centers. The 1001st Space Systems
1988 Commission. Finally, move the
Squadron Defense Finance and Accounting
712th Air Support Operations Center
Service, and the Air Force Reserve
Squadron to Fort Hood, Texas.
Personnel Center remain open, in
Bergstrom ranked relatively low in
cantonment areas as proposal by the
the flying/tactical category based on its
Secretary Defense.
long-term military value compared with
other bases in the category. The base
suffers from ground and regional airspace
Bergstrom Air Force Base,
encroachment. The regional airspace is
increasingly stressed by growth in air
Texas
traffic. There are insufficient suitable air-
Category: Flying/Tactical
to-ground or electronic combat ranges
Mission: Tactical Reconnaissance, RF-4
Cost to Close: $39.8 million
nearby for flight training. Finally, the
Savings: 1992-97: $128 million; Annual: $36.3 million
capacity of on-base family housing is
Payback: 2 years
below average compared with other bases
Department of Defense
in the category.
Recommendation:
Close Bergstrom and retire the
Community Concerns:
assigned RF-4 aircraft. The 67th Tactical
The community claimed that
Reconnaissance Wing will inactivate.
Bergstrom simply needs a new mission. It
Maintain the existing Air Force Reserve
declared that the base is strategically
units in an enclosed area if the base is
located to support Fort Hood, Texas, with
converted to a civil airport. Relocate the
Close Air Support operations and airlift for
12th Air Force Headquarters, 12th Tactical
operational or exercise deployments. The
Intelligence Squadron, and 602nd Tactical
community also was concerned that the
Air Control Center Squadron to Davis-
closure recommendation was based upon
Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. The
the impression that the base would
41st Electronic Combat Squadron will
definitely be converted to a commercial
remain in place at Davis-Monthan Air
airport. The community minimized the
5-46
severity of ground and airspace
the Air Force to operate it there. The Air
encroachment.
Force Reserve units shall remain in a
cantonment area if the base is converted to
Commission Findings:
a civil airport. If no decision on a civil
The Commission found that DoD's
airport is reached by June 1993, the
closure recommendation was not tied to
reserve units will be redistributed. If the
the conversion of the airfield to a civil
reserve units stay but the airport is not an
airport. However, there is an option to
economically viable entity by the end of
maintain the Air Force Reserve unit if the
1996, these units would also be
airfield is converted to commercial use.
redistributed. The 12th Air Force
The lack of adequate ranges and increasing
Headquarters 12th TAC Intelligence
encroachment limit the base's overall
Squadron and the 602nd Tactical Air
military value. Other tactical units such as
Control Center Squadron will relocate to
the 149th Tactical Fighter Group at Kelly
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona.
Air Force Base, Texas, can adequately
The 712th Air Support Operations Center
support Fort Hood. Finally, Fort Hood
Squadron will relocate to Fort Hood,
uses its own Grey Army Airfield for airlift
Texas. The 41st Electronic Combat
operations.
Squadron will remain in place at Davis-
Monthan Air Force Base.
Recommendation:
The Commission finds that the DoD
recommendation on Bergstrom Air Force
England Air Force Base,
Base did not deviate substantially from the
Louisiana
force-structure plan and the final selection
criteria. Therefore, the Commission
Category: Flying/Tactical
Mission: Tactical Fighters, A-10
recommends that Bergstrom Air Force
Cost to Close: $40.3 million
Base close and that the assigned RF-4
Savings: 1992-97: $176 million; Annual: $47.2 million
Payback: 1 year
aircraft retire. The 67th Tactical
Reconnaissance Wing will inactivate. The
Regional Corrosion Control Facility will
remain if it continues to be economical for
5-47
Department of Defense
DoD understated the combined economic
Recommendation:
impact of England's closure and Fort
Close England and retire or
Polk's realignment.
redistribute all aircraft among remaining
Active and Reserve Component units.
Commission Findings:
Inactivate the 23rd Tactical Fighter Wing.
The Commission found that the
Realign one A/OA-10 squadron to Eglin
airspace and weather can impact the
Air Force Base, Florida, and one to
military value of the base. With its
McChord Air Force Base, Washington.
surrounding airspace England can meet
England ranked relatively low in the
current mission requirements, but will not
flying/tactical category. The long-term
be able to support future missions.
military value of England is limited by
Concerns that the current mission degraded
available airspace for training and by
the base rankings were unfounded. Air
weather, for which England ranked lowest
Force proposals to provide support to the
in its category. The Air Force
Army were reasonable and formally
acknowledged the advantage of England's
endorsed by the Army. Finally, the
proximity to Fort Polk, but stated that
combined economic impact of the two
other bases could support the Army. Also,
adjustments was substantially higher than
the cost to close is low while the savings
for a single base.
are high.
Recommendation:
Community Concerns:
The Commission finds that the DoD
The community argued that England's
recommendation on England Air Force
mix of weather was good for training. It
Base did not deviate substantially from the
stated that the local airspace, low-altitude
force-structure plan and the selection
military operating areas, and availability of
criteria. Therefore, the Commission
higher-altitude airspace were not
recommends the closure of England Air
adequately considered. It questioned
Force Base and the redistribution of one
whether the Air Force could meet the
squadron to Eglin Air Force Base, one
Army's needs at Fort Polk if England
squadron to McChord Air Force Base, and
closed. The community also stated that
the retirement of other remaining assigned
5-48
aircraft, including the 23rd Tactical
F-16 training wing. DoD did not
Fighter Wing.
recommend full closure because of the
high cost to relocate two large joint
headquarters.
MacDill Air Force Base,
Community Concerns:
Florida
The community argued that the
Category: Flying/Tactical
reduction in the base's hospital staff
Mission: Tactical Fighter Training and Joint Headquarters,
F-16
associated with the population drawdown
Cost to Realign: $31.0 million
will reduce support to a large retired
Savings: 1992-97: $53 million; Annual: $20.4 million
population and increase CHAMPUS costs.
Payback: 2 years
While it acknowledged airspace
Department of Defense
congestion, the community argued that
Recommendation:
airspace problems and accident potential in
Realign and partially close MacDill
the Phoenix area are significantly worse.
Air Force Base. The aircraft realign to
Loss of the airfield was also presented as
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona; the Joint
degrading the ability of the joint
Communications Support Element moves
headquarters to fulfill their missions. In
to Charleston Air Force Base, South
particular, the community argued that a
Carolina; the airfield closes; and the
classified mission at MacDill required a
remainder of MacDill becomes an
dedicated airfield. The community also
administrative base.
expressed the concern that realignment was
The long-term military value of
the first step toward closure.
MacDill is limited by pressure on airspace,
training areas, and low-level routes.
Commission Findings:
MacDill is not located near Army units
The Commission found that MacDill
that would offer joint-training
was located in an area with increasing
opportunities. MacDill also has ground
pressure on airspace and therefore
encroachment. Drawdown in the force
restricted training capabilities. The
structure results in the need for one less
increased CHAMPUS costs associated with
base closures were factored into the Air
5-49
Force analysis. The CHAMPUS program
the Commission recommends the
was developed to address medical needs of
realignment and partial closure of MacDill
all non-active duty beneficiaries since DoD
Air Force Base; the realignment of the
policy precludes manning a hospital solely
aircraft to Luke Air Force Base, Arizona;
to meet the needs of a retired population.
the movement of the Communications
In this case the increased cost was due to
Support Element to Charleston Air Force
the large number of retirees.
Base, South Carolina; and the closure of
The Commission examined the broad
the airfield and the remainder of MacDill
comparisons between Phoenix and Tampa
becomes an administrative base.
raised by the community. Detailed review
revealed that resulting force structure was
Myrtle Beach Air Force
below historic highs and that air traffic
procedures were workable. The
Base, South Carolina
Commission also noted that Luke has
Category: Flying/Tactical
exceptional training airspace to the south,
Mission: Tactical Fighters, A-10
Cost to Close: $54.4 million
which is connected to Luke by established
Savings: 1992-97: $76.0 million; Annual: $30.2 million
routing.
Payback: 2 years
Arguments that the missions DoD
Department of Defense
plans to retain (both unclassified and
Recommendation:
classified) at MacDill require a military
Close Myrtle Beach and redistribute
airfield were found wanting. The
all aircraft to modernize other Active and
Commission also noted the high cost of
Reserve Component units. Inactivate the
total closure and the low cost and
354th Tactical Fighter Wing. The DoD
reasonable savings of realignment.
recommendation also states that there be
one active squadron each at Shaw and
Recommendation:
Pope Air Force Bases.
The Commission finds that the
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base's long-
Secretary's recommendation on MacDill
term military value was low compared
Air Force Base did not deviate
with other bases in its category. Its
substantially from the force-structure plan
ranking suffered because of weather,
or the final selection criteria. Therefore,
ground encroachment, and because of its
5-50
location in a region where special use
Regarding support to the Army, the
airspace is being stressed increasingly by
Commission found that Shaw Air Force
growth in air traffic. Additionally, the cost
Base, North Carolina, provides the needed
to close is low while the savings are high.
support to Army units in the area.
Community Concerns:
Recommendation:
The community argued that Myrtle
The Commission finds that the DoD
Beach was incorrectly downgraded for
recommendation on Myrtle Beach Air
ground encroachment and that the weather
Force Base did not deviate substantially
does not downgrade the base's ability to
from the force-structure plan and the final
meet its mission. The community also
selection criteria. Therefore, the
noted that the base was recently identified
Commission recommends the closure of
as one of the best in the Air Force and has
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base and the
the potential to house a composite wing,
redistribution of all assigned aircraft to
which was not considered by the Air
other Active and Reserve Component
Force. It also argued that the closure of
units, and that one active A/OA-10
Myrtle Beach was an example of the Air
squadron be realigned to Shaw and Pope
Force's failure to consider providing close-
Air Force Bases.
air support to the Army.
Commission Findings:
Moody Air Force Base,
The Commission found that all
Georgia
flying/tactical bases were treated fairly and
Myrtle Beach did rank low in its category.
Category: Flying/Tactical
Mission: Tactical Fighters, F-16
It does have training limitations, and
Cost to Close: N/A
projections indicate increasing pressure on
Savings: 1992-97: N/A
Payback: N/A
airspace. Weather and airspace do degrade
Myrtle Beach's military value and justify
Department of Defense
its low ranking. The base has low closure
Recommendation:
cost and favorable savings.
Close Moody Air Force Base and
redistribute all aircraft to modernize other
5-51
active and reserve component units. The
commercial aviation is evident, the routing
347th Tactical Fighter Wing will
around Moody's airspace and repeated
inactivate.
examples of the Federal Aviation
Moody's long-term military value
Administration providing additional
compared unfavorably with other bases in
airspace to Moody argue against training
its category. Its ranking suffered because
capability decreasing in the future. Sorties
of weather and its location in a region
have been lost to weather, but the Air
where special-use airspace is being
Force has successfully overcome this
stressed increasingly by growth in air
problem in the past and should be able to
traffic. Additionally, it is the least costly
do so in the future. The closure of Moody
base in its category to close.
provides only small savings that justifies
leaving what has been recognized as one
Community Concerns:
of the best bases in the Air Force, for
The community argued that Moody
installation excellence, open.
was incorrectly downgraded for airspace
and that the weather does not downgrade
Recommendation:
the base's ability to meet its mission. The
The Commission finds that DoD
community also noted that the base was
substantially deviated from selection
recently identified as the best in the Air
criteria 1, 2, and 3 in recommending the
Force and has growth potential for a
closure of Moody Air Force Base.
composite wing, potential that was not
Specifically, DoD did not adequately
considered by the Air Force. It also argued
consider the military value of Moody Air
that the closure of Moody was an example
Force Base in its assessment of the extent
of the Air Force's failure to consider
of the impact of weather and airspace
support to the Army.
problems. Therefore, the Commission
recommends Moody remain open.
Commission Findings:
The Commission found that Moody's
minor training limitations are successfully
managed and the wing can meet its
training needs. While an increase in
5-52
Carswell Air Force Base,
and the contractor has defaulted. The Air
Force projects this housing to be unusable
Texas
for the extended future.
Category: Flying/Strategic
Mission: Strategic Bombardment and Air Refueling, B-52 and
KC-135
Community Concerns:
Cost to Close: $45.6 million
The community claimed that many
Savings: 1992-97: $156 million; Annual: $45.5 million Payback:
subelement scores were incorrect and that
1 year
the "corrected" scores would change the
Department of Defense
overall rating for the base. The community
Recommendation:
minimized the impact and severity of
Close Carswell Air Force Base and
airspace encroachment, citing excellent
transfer the assigned B-52H aircraft to
procedures and equipment used to control
Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. The
aircraft in the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport
assigned KC-135 aircraft will transfer to
area. Similarly, it declared that the
the Air Reserve Component, and the 7th
existing ground encroachment in both the
Bombardment Wing will inactivate. The
clear and accident zones will decrease.
436th Strategic Training Squadron
The community was also concerned about
relocates to Dyess Air Force Base, Texas.
the disposition of the base hospital. The
Maintain the existing Air Force Reserve
hospital serves the active-duty military
units in a cantonment area.
members and their dependents, as well as
Carswell ranked low based on its
many retirees. The community was also
long-term military value compared with
concerned about the economic impact on a
other bases in its category. The base is
region already hard hit by other cuts in the
poorly located for wartime bomber or
defense industry.
tanker employment. The base has the
worst ground and regional airspace
Commission Findings:
encroachment in its category. The regional
The Commission found very few
airspace will continue to be stressed by
errors in the subelement scores, and the
aggressive aviation growth in the area.
full Air Force process was validated by the
Finally, much of the on-base housing is
GAO. Carswell is in an area of continued
unusable because it is under renovation
aviation growth and strong pressure on
5-53
regional airspace. Additionally, there is
Savings: 1992-97: $63.0 million; Annual: $52.7 million
Payback: 2 years
commercial and residential encroachment
in the protected zones off either end of the
Department of Defense
runway. The poor location for wartime
Recommendation:
employment and ground and airspace
Close Castle Air Force Base and
encroachment limit the base's future
transfer the assigned B-52G conventional
military value.
aircraft to K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base,
Michigan. Transfer the assigned KC-135
Recommendation:
aircraft to other Active or Reserve
The Commission finds that the
Component units. Transfer the B-52 and
Secretary's recommendation on Carswell
KC-135 Combat Crew Training mission to
Air Force Base did not deviate
Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington.
substantially from the force-structure plan
The 93rd Bombardment Wing will
and the final selection criteria. Therefore,
inactivate.
the Commission recommends the closure
Castle ranked relatively low based on
of Carswell Air Force Base and the
its long-term military value compared with
transfer of the assigned B-52 aircraft to
other bases in the category. The base is in
Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. The
a relatively poor location for wartime
assigned KC-135 aircraft should transfer to
bomber employment. Its ranking also
the Air Reserve Component. The 436th
suffered because of its relatively poor
Strategic Training Squadron will relocate
location for wartime and peacetime air-
to Dyess Air Force Base. The existing Air
refueling operations. The base endures
Force Reserve units will remain in a
local ground and regional airspace
cantonment area.
encroachment. The regional airspace is
being increasingly stressed by growth in
air traffic. Finally, the condition of the
Castle Air Force Base,
facilities at Castle is below the average of
other bases in the same category.
California
Category: Flying/Strategic
Mission: Strategic Bombardment, Air Refueling, and Combat
Crew Training School; B-52 and KC-135
Cost to Close: $99.2 million
5-54
Community Concerns:
selection criteria. Therefore, the
The community claimed that Castle
Commission recommends closing Castle
was incorrectly categorized as a strategic/
Air Force Base and transferring the
flying base when, in its opinion, the
assigned B-52 aircraft to K.I. Sawyer Air
primary mission of the base is initial
Force Base. Transfer the assigned KC-135
training of B-52 and KC-135 aircrews. It
aircraft to other Active or Reserve
declared Castle has unique attributes to
Component units. Transfer the B-52 and
perform this training mission, including its
KC-135 Combat Crew Training missions
many aircrew-training devices, access to
to Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington.
numerous airfields, and transient student
quarters. Finally, it believes that moving
Eaker Air Force Base,
the training mission would be short-sighted
Arkansas
because the longevity of the B-52 is in
question.
Category: Flying/Strategic
Mission: Strategic Bombardment and Air Refueling, B-52 and
KC-135
Commission Findings:
Cost to Close: $18.5 million
Savings 1992-97: $221.0 million; Annual: $52.9 million
The Commission found that the base
Payback: Less than 1 year
was properly categorized along with other
flying/strategic bases. It is in a poor
Department of Defense
location for wartime bomber and tanker
Recommendation:
employment. Regional airspace and local
Close Eaker Air Force Base and
ground encroachment also degrade its
transfer the assigned KC-135 aircraft to
overall military value. The DoD force-
other Active or Reserve Component units.
structure plan includes the B-52 aircraft
The assigned B-52G Air Launched Cruise
until past the turn of the century.
Missile aircraft retire. The 97th
Bombardment Wing will inactivate.
Recommendation:
Eaker ranked relatively low in the
The Commission finds that the
flying/strategic category based on its long-
Secretary's recommendation on Castle Air
term military value compared with other
Force Base did not deviate substantially
bases in the category. The base is in a
from the force-structure plan and the final
relatively poor location to support wartime
5-55
bomber employment. Its ranking also
than one year. The economic impact on
suffered because of the limited opportunity
the community from the closing of Eaker
for peacetime use of tanker assets and
will be among the most significant in the
access to bombing ranges. The base
Air Force.
experiences some current restrictions on
access to bombing ranges and expects
Recommendation:
future restrictions as well. Finally, the
The Commission finds that the
capacity of the facilities are below the
Secretary's recommendation on Eaker Air
average of other bases in the same
Force Base did not deviate substantially
category.
from the force-structure plan and the final
selection criteria. Therefore, the
Community Concerns:
Commission recommends the closure of
The community claimed that Eaker is
Eaker Air Force Base. The assigned B-52
close to many air-refueling tracks, and
aircraft will retire, and the assigned KC-
removing assigned KC-135s will
135 aircraft will transfer to other Active or
exacerbate a regional peacetime air-
Reserve Component units.
refueling tanker shortfall. It also stated that
Eaker has better weather than many
northern strategic bases. The community
Grissom Air Force Base,
was especially concerned with the
Indiana
economic impact of the closure.
Category: Flying/Strategic
Mission: Strategic Air Refueling, KC-135
Commission Findings:
Cost to Close: $24.9 million
The Commission found that, although
Savings: 1992-97: $157 million; Annual: $48.3 million
Payback: 1 year
Eaker is close to many designated air
refueling tracks, it is still relatively distant
Department of Defense
from an area of high air-refueling
Recommendation:
requirements. Eaker is in a relatively poor
Close Grissom Air Force Base and
location for wartime bomber and tanker
transfer the assigned KC-135 aircraft to
employment. The cost to close Eaker is
the Air Reserve Component. The
low, and the pay back is achieved in less
EC-135 aircraft will retire and the 305th
5-56
Air Refueling Wing will inactivate.
the bases military value. Grissom is the
Grissom ranked below average in the
fourth lowest cost to close in the category
flying/strategic category based on its long-
and offers a significant annual savings.
term overall military value compared with
Closing the base will have a negative
other bases in the category. The base's
economic impact on the local community.
location provides limited opportunity for
Finally, the condition of facilities at
peacetime use of tankers and access to
Grissom graded lower than the category
bombing ranges. Finally, Grissom costs
average.
the fourth least to close in the category
and the savings generated after closure are
Recommendation:
substantial.
The Commission finds that the DoD
recommendation on Grissom Air Force
Community Concerns:
Base did not deviate substantially from the
The community claimed that Grissom
force-structure plan and the final selection
has no airspace restrictions and that
criteria. Therefore, the Commission
expansion capability is unlimited around
recommends the closure of Grissom Air
the base. The community also highlighted
Force Base, the retirement of assigned EC-
that, because of its distance to the coast,
135 aircraft, the inactivation of the 305th
the base's survivability is enhanced due to
Air Refueling Wing, and the transfer of
its midwestern location. Also, the existing
KC-135 aircraft to the Air Reserve
ramp can accommodate additional aircraft
Component.
and the quality of life at Grissom is better
than at several bases not recommended for
closure.
Loring Air Force Base,
Maine
Commission Findings:
The Commission found that the base
Category: Flying/Strategic
Mission: Conventional Bombardment and Air Refueling, B-52
was properly graded. The base has no
and KC-135
flying restrictions and can expand.
Cost to Close: $46.6 million
Savings: 1992-97: $182 million; Annual: $61.8 million Payback:
However, the distance to air-refueling
1 year
receivers and primary ranges diminishes
5-57
Department of Defense
did not adequately consider the economic
Recommendation:
impact.
Close Loring Air Force Base and
transfer the assigned B-52 aircraft to K.I.
Commission Findings:
Sawyer and disperse KC-135 aircraft to
The Commission found that, although
Active and Reserve Component units.
Loring is the closest base to potential
Loring ranked relatively low in the
targets east of the United States, the
flying/strategic category based on its long-
advantage is relative when the total
term military value compared with other
mission is considered. Loring is rated
bases in the category. The base's location
lower in military value because of the
provides limited opportunity for peacetime
limited opportunity for peacetime use of
use of tankers and access to bombing
tankers and access to bombing ranges. The
ranges. The condition of base facilities is
condition of the facilities are below the
below the average of other bases in the
command's average and the cost of
category. The cost to close Loring is low
required upgrades to meet the current and
and the savings are among the highest of
future missions is high. Loring has only
the bases in, this subcategory.
one fully operational runway and one pre-
launch survivability runway. The annual
Community Concerns:
savings will be the highest of all bases
The community claimed that Loring is
closed in the flying/strategic category. The
the closest base to conventional and
economic impact on the Loring community
strategic targets east of the United States.
will be severe.
It also pointed out that Loring has two
fully operational runways. Further, it
Recommendation:
stated that the base is near air-refueling
The Commission finds that the
routes, base facilities are adequate to meet
Secretary's recommendation on Loring Air
current mission requirements, not enough
Force Base did not deviate substantially
credit was given for improvements to
from the force-structure plan and the final
facilities, distance to bombing ranges is
selection criteria. Therefore, the
not a significant factor, and the Air Force
Commission recommends the closure of
Loring Air Force Base, the transfer of the
5-58
assigned B-52 aircraft to K.I. Sawyer, and
Community Concerns:
the dispersal of the KC-135 aircraft to
The community claimed that
active and Air Reserve Component units.
Wurtsmith has no airspace restrictions and
that all operational requirements for the
assigned aircraft can be met without
Wurtsmith Air Force Base,
interference. The community also stated
that closing Wurtsmith would have
Michigan
significant negative economic impact on
Category: Flying/Strategic
northern Michigan. It directly challenged
Mission: Strategic Bombardment and Air Refueling, B-52 and
KC-135
individual ratings of the Air Force Base
Cost to Close: $29.1 million
Closure Executive Group. In addition it
Savings: 1992-97: $256 million; Annual: $63.3 million
argued for keeping Wurtsmith open and
Payback: 1 year
closing K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base,
Department of Defense
Michigan.
Recommendation:
Close Wurtsmith Air Force Base and
Commission Findings:
transfer the assigned KC-135 aircraft to
The Commission found that the base
the Air Reserve Component. The B-52G
was properly graded. The base has no
Air Launched Cruise Missile aircraft will
flying restrictions and can perform all
retire and the 379th Bombardment Wing
operations required to sustain the mission.
inactivates.
However, the distance to scored training
Wurtsmith ranked below average in
routes is significant and lowers the
the flying/strategic category based on its
efficiency of the missions at Wurtsmith.
long-term overall military value compared
Also, tankers must travel a significant
with other bases in the category. The low
distance to air-refueling receivers.
ranking results from the base's distance to
Wurtsmith costs the third least to close in
primary low-altitude training routes and
the category and offers the highest annual
peacetime air-refueling training
savings of any Air Force base closure.
requirements. Finally, Wurtsmith costs the
Closing the base will have a severe
third least to close in the category and the
economic impact on the local community.
savings generated after closure are high.
5-59
Finally, K.I. Sawyer graded higher overall
Williams ranked low in the flying/
in military value than Wurtsmith.
training category and lowest for airspace
encroachment--a problem that is expected
Recommendation:
to worsen. The condition of its facilities
The Commission finds that the DoD
also ranked lowest. Williams's closure
recommendation on Wurtsmith Air Force
will have the least severe impact on its
Base did not deviate substantially from the
local community of any of the bases in its
force structure plan and the final selection
category.
criteria. Therefore, the Commission
recommends the closure of Wurtsmith Air
Community Concerns:
Force Base, the transfer of KC-135 aircraft
The community argued principally
to the Air Reserve Component, and the
that the Air Force did not give Williams
retirement of the assigned B-52G aircraft
enough credit for its excellent weather and
and the inactivation of the 379th
incorrectly rated its facilities. The
Bombardment Wing.
community believed that DoD placed too
much emphasis on airspace without
recognizing adjustments made in the region
Williams Air Force Base,
to alleviate encroachment problems. In
addition, the community claimed the
Arizona
closure and movement of the Aircrew
Category: Flying/Training
Training Research Facility will be too
Mission: Flying/Training, T-37 and T-38
Cost to Close: $26.7 million
costly.
Savings 1992-97: $222 million; Annual: $54.1 million
Payback: 1 year
Commission Findings:
The Commission found that all
Department of Defense
flying/training bases were treated fairly
Recommendation:
and Williams ranked lowest in its
Close Williams and retire or
category. It has the most severe airspace
redistribute all aircraft. Inactivate 82nd
problems--a situation that is only projected
Flying/Training Wing. Move Aircrew
to worsen. Projected air traffic growth of
Training Research Facility to Orlando,
65 percent by 2005, civilian traffic cutting
Florida.
5-60
into instrument training, and the potential
Training Research Facility to Orlando,
of a new regional airport are a few of the
Florida, and the deactivation of the 82nd
problems.
Flying/Training Wing.
The Air Force did consider a recent
agreement with the Federal Aviation
Administration to improve the utility of
Richards-Gebaur Air
one of Williams' Military Operating
Reserve Base, Missouri
Areas. However, this adjustment fails to
address the more pressing problem of
Category: Air Reserve Component Bases
Mission: Tactical Fighters, A-10
minimum airspace. Williams has the
Cost to Close: $47.6 million
minimum airspace per sortie considered
Savings: 1992-97: $-4 million; Annual: $12.9 million
Payback: 5 years
safe and the least of any flying/training
base.
Department of Defense
Williams did rate highest in the
Recommendation:
category for weather. However, even with
Close Richards-Gebaur Air Force
added emphasis this rating could not
Base and transfer the 442nd Tactical
overcome deficiencies in other areas.
Fighter Wing to Whiteman Air Force
Finally, Orlando, in addition to being
Base, Missouri. The 36th Aeromedical
the least expensive alternative for the
Evacuation Squadron and the 77th and
relocation of the lab, also provides
78th Aerial Port Squadrons will transfer to
synergism by collocating Air Force and
Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado.
Navy elements working in the same area.
Since the joint-use plan with the
Kansas City Department of Aviation,
Recommendation:
which was envisioned 12 years ago, has
The Commission finds that the
not materialized, the Air Force Reserve
Secretary's recommendation did not
has borne a substantial portion of the
deviate substantially from the force-
operating costs of this airfield. The
structure plan and the final selection
economically viable airport that the Air
criteria. Therefore, the Commission
Force anticipated and the expected
recommends the closure of Williams Air
reduction in costs have not materialized.
Force Base, the transfer of the Aircrew
Therefore, relocating the Reserve activities
5-61
to an active Air Force base would achieve
The Air Force's payback period would be
significant cost savings. Consideration was
seven years, not five years. The
given to the recruiting needs of these units
recruitment area and the travel distance
to ensure that the realignment meets
required is within the Air Force guidance.
military requirements and is cost effective.
The move will enable the unit to use
The long-term effect on training is
additional training ranges and support Fort
minimal since Whiteman has similar access
Leonard Wood, Missouri. Fort Riley,
to training ranges, low-level routes, and
Kansas, and Fort Sill, Oklahoma, will get
Army exercise areas.
their support from Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma.
Community Concerns:
The community stated that the units
Recommendation:
would not be able to use current training
The Commission finds that the
ranges and could not support Fort Riley
Secretary's recommendation did not
and Fort Sill. It also stated that the move
deviate substantially from the force-
would adversely affect recruitment,
structure plan or the final selection
retention, and training because of the
criteria. Therefore, the Commission
reduced population available for
recommends the closure of Richards-
recruitment. In addition, it stated that the
Gebaur Air Reserve Base, the transfer of
cost to move was understated because the
the 442nd Tactical Fighter Wing to
missile wing would not move as soon as
Whiteman Air Force Base, and the transfer
anticipated.
of the 36th Aeromedical Evacuation
Squadron and the 77th and 78th Aerial
Commission Findings:
Port Squadrons to Peterson Air Force
The Commission found that the Air
Base.
Force's and community's cost estimates
for relocating to Whiteman were incorrect.
There will be some additional
rehabilitation costs for temporary facilities,
but the relocation costs would not be as
much as envisioned for new construction.
5-62
Rickenbacker Air Guard
Community Concerns:
The community questioned the costing
Base, Ohio
methodology and claimed that the costs to
Category: Air Reserve Component Bases
move the Air Reserve Component units
Mission: Tactical Fighters and Air Refueling, A-7, and KC-135
Cost to Close: $106.1 million
were understated. It also said that the eight
Savings 1992-97: $-16 million; Annual: $22.7 million
criteria were not consistently applied. In
Payback: 5 years
addition, it claimed that moving three
more flying units to Dayton would cause
airspace congestion. It also claimed that
Department of Defense
because Dayton's population is one-half
Recommendation:
the size of the population of Columbus,
Close Rickenbacker Air Guard Base
recruiting will be hurt.
and transfer the 160th Air Refueling
Group and the 907th Tactical Airlift Group
Commission Findings:
to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
The Commission found that the
The 4950th Test Wing will consolidate
community's cost estimate was for
with the Air Force Flight Test Center at
building all new facilities at Wright-
Edwards Air Force Base, California.
Patterson. The community did not
Since the Air Reserve Component
recognize that the Air Force was using
units located at Rickenbacker are the
vacated facilities. Small additional
predominate users of the airfield, the
increases in air traffic will be manageable.
support costs for these activities are high
Using the Air Force's recruiting
and the relocation of the units could bring
guidelines, locating the units in Dayton
about significant savings. Transferring the
does not degrade the recruiting base. The
units to Wright-Patterson keeps the Air
Air Force modified its selection criteria for
National Guard units in Ohio and reduces
Air Reserve Component bases first by
the costs to move, since the 4950th would
determining if there was a significant cost
vacate useable facilities. Also, moving the
savings, and then by applying the eight
Guard and Reserve units to Dayton would
criteria. An underlying concern was the
increase the overall recruiting area
moving of Air National Guard units across
population. In addition, collocation with
active forces will improve operations.
5-63
state lines. This did not adversely affect
Texas, and realign the technical training
the selection process.
fire course to Goodfellow unless a
satisfactory and cost-effective contract can
Recommendation:
be arranged. The 1988 Commission on
The Commission finds that the
Base Realignment and Closure
Secretary's recommendation on
recommended that both of these courses be
Rickenbacker Air Reserve Base did not
realigned to Goodfellow Air Force Base,
deviate substantially from the force-
Texas.
structure plan and the final selection
criteria. Therefore, the Commission
Commission Findings and
recommends the closure of Rickenbacker
Recommendation:
Air Guard Base, the transfer of the 160th
The Commission finds that the DoD
Air Refueling Group and the 907th
recommendation on realignment of
Tactical Airlift Group to Wright-Patterson
Goodfellow Air Force Base did not deviate
Air Force Base, and the consolidation of
substantially from the force structure and
the 4950th Test Wing from Wright-
the final selection criteria. Therefore, the
Patterson Air Force Base with the Air
Commission recommends the realignment
Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air
of the fuels training from Goodfellow Air
Force Base.
Force Base to Sheppard Air Force Base.
Goodfellow Air Force Base,
Beale Air Force Base,
Texas
California
Category: Training
Category: Flying/Strategic
Mission: Technical Training
Mission: Strategic Reconnaissance and Air Refueling, U-2,
TR-1 and KC-135
Department of Defense
Recommendation:
Department of Defense
Recommendation:
As part of the closure of Chanute Air
Force Base, Illinois, realign the fuels
Realign Undergraduate Navigator
training to Sheppard Air Force Base,
Training and the 323rd Flying Training
Wing from Mather Air Force Base,
5-64
California, to Randolph Air Force Base,
Department of Defense
Texas, instead of realigning to Beale Air
Recommendation:
Force Base as recommended by the 1988
Realign 45 Air Force Audit Agency
Commission on Base Realignment and
manpower authorizations from Norton Air
Closure.
Force Base, California, to the National
Capital Region instead of to March Air
Community Concerns:
Force Base as recommended by the 1988
The economic impact will harm an
Commission on Base Realignment and
already depressed area.
Closure. The remaining 139 manpower
authorizations will transfer to March Air
Commission Findings and
Force Base as directed by the 1988
Recommendation:
Commission.
The Commission finds that the DoD
recommendation on realignment of Beale
Commission Findings and
Air Force Base did not deviate
Recommendation:
substantially from the force structure on
The Commission finds that the DoD
the final selection criteria. The economic
recommendation on realignment of these
impact will not be severe. Therefore, the
limited manpower authorizations did not
Commission recommends the realignment
deviate substantially from the force
of Undergraduate Navigator Training and
structure and the final selection criteria.
the 323rd Flying Training Wing from
Therefore, the Commission recommends
Mather Air Force Base to Randolph Air
the realignment of the 45 Air Force Audit
Force Base, California.
Agency manpower authorizations from
Norton Air Force Base to the National
Capital Region and the transfer of 139
manpower authorizations from Norton Air
March Air Force Base,
Force Base to March Air Force Base.
California
Category: Flying/Strategic
Mission: Air Refueling, KC-10
5-65
Mather Air Force Base,
California
Mountain Home Air Force
Category: Flying/Training
Mission: Navigator Training, T-43 and T-37
Base, Idaho
Category: Flying/Tactical
Department of Defense
Mission: Tactical Fighter and Electronic Warfare, F-111 and
Recommendation:
EF-111
Realign the 940th Air Refueling
Group from Mather Air Force Base to
Department of Defense
McClellan Air Force Base. Leave the
Recommendation:
323rd Flying Training Wing Hospital open
Realign the remaining F-4G aircraft
as an annex to McClellan Air Force Base
to the Idaho and Nevada Air National
instead of leaving the 940th Air Refueling
Guard; inactivate the 35th Tactical
Group at Mather Air Force Base and
Training Wing; maintain the 41st
closing the 323rd Flying Training Wing
Electronic Combat Squadron at Davis-
Hospital, as recommended by the 1988
Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona; realign
Commission on Base Realignment and
the EF-111 aircraft assigned from
Closure.
Mountain Home Air Force Base to Cannon
Air Force Base, New Mexico. Establish a
Commission Findings and
composite wing at Mountain Home.
Recommendation:
The Commission finds that the DoD
Commission Findings and
recommendation did not deviate
Recommendation:
substantially from the force-structure and
The Commission finds that the DoD
final selection criteria. Therefore, the
recommendation did not deviate
Commission recommends the realignment
substantially from the force-structure plan
of the 940th Air Refueling Group from
and the final selection criteria. Therefore,
Mather Air Force Base to McClellan Air
the Commission recommends the
Force Base and the retention of the 323rd
following: Realign the remaining F-4G
Flying Training Wing Hospital as an annex
aircraft to the Idaho and Nevada Air
to McClellan Air Force Base.
National Guard; inactivate the 35th
5-66
Tactical Training Wing; maintain the 41st
Electronic Combat Squadron at Davis-
Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona; realign
the EF-111 aircraft assigned from
Mountain Home Air Force Base to Cannon
Air Force Base, New Mexico. Establish a
composite wing at Mountain Home.
5-67
Communities and Base Reuse
Chapter 6:
Communities will have a wide range
of experiences in developing reuse
proposals. Even as the Commission
conducted its review, a few communities
were already developing plans for reusing
base facilities. While short-term economic
Communities
impacts from base closures are unavoidable,
communities can take steps to mitigate these
impacts and use the former base to stimulate
and Base
new economic growth.
Full economic recovery from base
Reuse
closure is dependent upon timely disposition
of the facilities and land vacated by the
services. The Secretary of Defense should
do everything in his power to ensure a
timely transfer of these valuable assets to the
local communities.
Mobilizing for Reuse
Reusing former military base
property offers communities the best
opportunity to rebuild their economies. The
buildings and facilities can fill residential,
commercial, and industrial needs and thus
can replace jobs and income lost. Airfields
are especially marketable because of the
national shortage of available hangar space.
Several communities that lost bases as a
result of the 1988 base-closing commission
6-1
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
have taken advantage of this opportunity for
creativity present in a community.
a quick economic turnaround.
Attracting permanent tenants for the
property, once disposal occurs, is an integral
Economic
part of a community's strategy for economic
recovery.
Adjustment
Successes can result from two things:
early creation of an organization to plan and
Assistance
implement a suitable base reuse strategy,
and aggressive marketing of base assets and
available facilities.
DoD created the Economic
DoD's Office of Economic
Adjustment Program for this purpose in
Adjustment (OEA) surveyed reuse of closed
May 1961. Since 1970, DoD has rendered
military installations between 1961 and 1990
adjustment assistance through the President's
and concluded that 158,000 new jobs had
Economic Adjustment Committee (EAC),
been created to replace 93,000 jobs lost as a
which is composed of 18 federal
result of base closures.
departments and agencies and chaired by the
There are six steps that communities
Secretary of Defense.
can take in preparing a strategy for reusing
EAC works with representatives of
a closed installation:
local, state and federal agencies to develop
Form a reuse committee
strategies and coordinate action plans that
Work with federal and state
will generate new job opportunities and to
representatives
alleviate the social and economic impacts
Maintain close relations with DoD
resulting from DoD program changes. To
Be active in the planning process
assist communities, the Secretary of Defense
Use federal and state programs
can make grants to qualified local
Hire experts to fill any gaps in
government entities for development of
your professional staff.
community-adjustment plans.
Each community will have unique
The transition period (often three to five
opportunities and constraints. The successful
years) in securing new civilian uses can be
implementation of any base-reuse strategy
difficult for many communities. But the
hinges upon harnessing the energy and
6-2
Communities and Base Reuse
difficult for many communities. But the
restoration process and thereby speed local
experience of communities affected by
economic recovery.
earlier base closures clearly indicates
communities can adjust successfully.
DoD is forming a task force to report
More recently, OEA has been working
on ways to improve interagency
with 21 communities that are near bases
coordination of environmental-
recommended for closure by the 1988 Base
response actions; streamline and
Closure and Realignment Commission.
consolidate regulations, practices, and
OEA has provided $1.6 million in grants to
policies; and improve environmental
the affected communities to help develop
restoration at closing bases.
reuse plans and is working through the EAC
DoD has established a model program
to help these communities implement their
that will test ways of expediting
reuse plans.
cleanup and accelerating the
contracting process. The program will
also probe alternatives that will help
Environmental Restoration
avoid disputes, concurrent regulatory
review, and options for local reuse
at Closing Bases
while cleanup is in progress.
DoD is reemphasizing ongoing
DoD is obligated under the Defense
efforts, including expanded use of
Environmental Restoration Program and the
interagency agreements that detail
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
restorations at National Priority List
Compensation and Liability Act to restore
sites and memoranda of agreement
contaminated sites on military bases.
between DoD and states for resolving
Within the capabilities of technology
technical disputes at National Priority
and the availability of funds, DoD is
List sites.
committed to restoring closing bases to safe
condition. The Department of Defense Base
Closure Account 1990 can be used to fund
Homeowners Assistance
this environmental restoration.
DoD also has several initiatives
Program
under way to expedite the environmental
6-3
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
The Homeowners Assistance Program, in
operation since 1966, assists DoD military
The Displaced Employee Program
and civilian employees who are forced to
provides for priority placement referral of
move as a result of a base closure.
separated employees to other federal
The government helps eligible employees
agencies. In addition, DoD and the Office of
who cannot sell their homes within a
Personnel Management have initiated a
reasonable amount of time by either buying
project to link data systems. Upon
their homes for 75 percent of the pre-
completion, the linked systems will support
closure-announcement value or reimbursing
a significantly expanded Defense Referral
them for most of the lost equity should the
System.
homeowners sell the house for less than the
The communities that will lose bases as a
value before the closure was announced.
result of the 1991 closure and realignment
The program also provides relief for
process face an uncertain future. Local
displaced employees facing foreclosure.
leaders, with the assistance of federal and
The program is initially funded with
state agencies, can steer a path from
appropriated funds; however, proceeds from
economic dislocation to economic growth.
the sale or rental of government-purchased
houses replenish the fund.
Civilian Employee Assistance
The DoD Priority Placement Program is
another program that was originally
established to help DoD civilian employees
adjust to the base closures of the 1960s.
A state-of-the-art automated referral is
currently in operation. In the years since its
inception, the referral system has helped
more than 98,000 employees find new
assignments. This cost-effective system
supports the Priority Placement Program.
6-4
Appendix A: Title XXIX, Public Law 101-510
104 STAT. 1808
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
TITLE XXIX-DEFENSE BASE CLOSURES AND
REALIGNMENTS
Defense Base
PART A-DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION
Closure and
Realignment Act
SEC. 2901. SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSE
of 1990.
10 USC 2687
(a) SHORT TITLE.-This part may be cited as the "Defense Base
note.
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990".
(b) PURPOSE.-The purpose of this part is to provide a fair process
that will result in the timely closure and realignment of military
installations inside the United States.
10 USC 2687
SEC. 2902. THE COMMISSION
note.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.-There is established an independent commis-
sion to be known as the "Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission". (b) DUTIES.-The Commission shall carry out the duties specified
for it in this part.
(c) APPOINTMENT.-(1)(A) The Commission shall be composed of
eight members appointed by the President, by and with the advise
and consent of the Senate.
President.
(B) The President shall transmit to the Senate the nominations for
appointment to the Commission-
(i) by no later than January 3, 1991, in the case of members of
the Commission whose terms will expire at the end of the first
session of the 102nd Congress;
(ii) by no later than January 25, 1993, in the case of members
of the Commission whose terms will expire at the end of the
first session of the 103rd Congress; and
(iii) by no later than January 3, 1995, in the case of members
of the Commission whose terms will expire at the end of the
first session of the 104th Congress.
(2) In selecting individuals for nominations for appointments to
the Commission, the President should consult with-
(A) the Speaker of the House of Representatives concerning
the appointment of two members;
(B) the majority leader of the Senate concerning the appoint-
ment of two members;
(C) the minority leader of the House of Representatives
concerning the appointment of one member; and
(D) the minority leader of the Senate concerning the appoint-
ment of one member.
(3) At the time the President nominates individuals for appoint-
ment to the Commission for each session of Congress referred to in
paragraph (1)(B), the President shall designate one such individual
who shall serve as Chairman of the Commission.
(d) TERMS.-(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), each member
of the Commission shall serve until the adjournment of Congress
sine die for the session during which the member was appointed to
the Commission.
(2) The Chairman of the Commission shall serve until the con-
firmation of a successor.
(e) MEETINGS.-(1) The Commission shall meet only during cal-
endar years 1991, 1993, and 1995.
Public
(2)(A) Each meeting of the Commission, other than meetings in
information.
which classified information is to be discussed, shall be open to the
public.
A-1
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
104 STAT. 1809
(B) All the proceedings, information, and deliberations of the
Commission shall be open, upon request, to the following:
(i) The Chairman and the ranking minority party member of
the Subcommittee on Readiness, Sustainability, and Support of
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, or such other
members of the Subcommittee designated by such Chairman or
ranking minority party member.
(ii) The Chairman and the ranking minority party member of
the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities of the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives,
or such other members of the Subcommittee designated by such
Chairman or ranking mincrity party member.
(iii) The Chairmen and ranking minority party members of
the Subcommittees on Military Construction of the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House of Represent-
atives, or such other members of the Subcommittees designated
(f) VACANCIES.-A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the
by such Chairmen or ranking minority party members.
same manner as the original appointment, but the individual ap-
pointed to fill the vacancy shall serve only for the unexpired portion
of the term for which the individual's predecessor was appointed.
the Chairman, shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of
(g) PAY AND TRAVEL EXPENSES.-(1)(A) Each member, other than
the minimum annual rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code,
for each day (including travel time) during which the member is
engaged in the actual performance of duties vested in the Commis-
sion. (B) The Chairman shall be paid for each day referred to in
subparagraph (A) at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the
minimum annual rate of basic pay payable for level III of the
Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Members shall receive travel expenses, including per diem in
lieu of subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title
5, United States Code.
(h) DIRECTOR OF STAFF.-(1) The Commission shall, without regard
to section 5311(b) of title 5, United States Code, appoint a Director
who has not served on active duty in the Armed Forces or as a
civilian employee of the Department of Defense during the one-year
period preceding the date of such appointment.
(2) The Director shall be paid at the rate of basic pay payable for
level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5,
United States Code.
(i) STAFF.-(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the Director, with
the approval of the Commission, may appoint and fix the pay of
additional personnel.
(2) The Director may make such appointments without regard to
the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appoint-
ments in the competitive service, and any personnel so appointed
may be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to classification
and General Schedule pay rates, except that an individual so ap-
pointed may not receive pay in excess of the annual rate of basic pay
payable for GS-18 of the General Schedule.
(3) Not more than one-third of the personnel employed by or
detailed to the Commission may be on detail from the Department
of Defense.
A-2
Appendix A: Title XXIX, Public Law 101-510
104 STAT. 1810
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
(4) Upon request of the Director, the head of any Federal depart-
ment or agency may detail any of the personnel of that department
or agency to the Commission to assist the Commission in carrying
out its duties under this part.
assistance, including the detailing of employees, to the Commission
(5) The Comptroller General of the United States shall provide
in accordance with an agreement entered into with the Commission.
tract, to the extent funds are available, the temporary or intermit-
(j) OTHER AUTHORITY.-(1) The Commission may procure by con-
tent services of experts or consultants pursuant to section 3109 of
title 5, United States Code.
(2) The Commission may lease space and acquire personal prop-
erty to the extent funds are available.
Commission such funds as are necessary to carry out its duties
(k) FUNDING.-(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
under this part. Such funds shall remain available until expended.
the second session of the 101st Congress, the Secretary of Defense
(2) If no funds are appropriated to the Commission by the end of
transfer, for fiscal year 1991, to the Commission funds from the
Department may of Defense Base Closure Account established by section until
207 of Public Law 100-526. Such funds shall remain available
expended. (1) TERMINATION.-The Commission shall terminate on December
31, 1995.
10 USC 2687
SEC. 2903. PROCEDURE FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BASE
note.
CLOSURES AND REALIGNMENTS
documents submitted to Congress in support of the budget for and
(a) FORCE-STRUCTURE PLAN.-(1) As part of the budget justification the
Department of Defense for each of the fiscal years 1992, 1994, the
Armed Forces based on an assessment by the Secretary of
1996, the Secretary shall include a force-structure plan for the
probable threats to the national security during the six-year period made
beginning with the fiscal year for which the budget request is for
and of the anticipated levels of funding that will be available
national defense purposes during such period.
(2) Such plan shall include, without any reference (directly that or
indirectly) to military installations inside the United States
may be closed or realigned under such plan-
(A) a description of the assessment referred to in paragraph
(1); (B) a description (i) of the anticipated force structure during
and at the end of each such period for each military department the
(with specifications of the number and type of units in of
the units that will need to be forward based (with a justification
active and reserve forces of each such department), and (ii)
thereof) during and at the end of each such period; and
(C) a description of the anticipated implementation of such
(3) The Secretary shall also transmit a copy of each such force-
force-structure plan.
structure plan to the Commission.
Federal
December 31, 1990, publish in the Federal Register and transmit be
(b) SELECTION CRITERIA.-(1) The Secretary shall, by no later than to
Register,
publication.
the congressional defense committees the criteria proposed to for
used by the Department of Defense in making recommendations the
the closure or realignment of military installations inside
United States under this part. The Secretary shall provide an
A-3
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
104 STAT. 1811
opportunity for public comment on the proposed criteria for a period
of at least 30 days and shall include notice of that opportunity in the
publication required under the preceding sentence.
(2)(A) The Secretary shall, by no later than February 15, 1991, Federal
publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the congressional
Register,
publication.
defense committees the final criteria to be used in making rec-
ommendations for the closure or realignment of military installa-
tions inside the United States under this part. Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), such criteria shall be the final criteria to be used,
along with the force-structure plan referred to in subsection (a), in
making such recommendations unless disapproved by a joint resolu-
tion of Congress enacted on or before March 15, 1991.
(B) The Secretary may amend such criteria, but such amendments
may not become effective until they have been published in the
Federal Register, opened to public comment for at least 30 days, and
then transmitted to the congressional defense committees in final
form by no later than February 15 of the year concerned. Such
amended criteria shall be the final criteria to be used, along with
the force-structure plan referred to in subsection (a), in making such
recommendations unless disapproved by a joint resolution of Con-
gress enacted on or before March 15 of the year concerned.
(c) DOD RECOMMENDATIONS.-(1) The Secretary may, by no later
Federal
than April 15, 1991, April 15, 1993, and April 15, 1995, publish in the
Register,
publication.
Federal Register and transmit to the congressional defense commit-
tees and to the Commission a list of the military installations inside
the United States that the Secretary recommends for closure or
realignment on the basis of the force-structure plan and the final
criteria referred to in subsection (b)(2) that are applicable to the
year concerned.
(2) The Secretary shall include, with the list of recommendations
published and transmitted pursuant to paragraph (1), a summary of
the selection process that resulted in the recommendation for each
installation, including a justification for each recommendation.
(3) In considering military installations for closure or realign-
ment, the Secretary shall consider all military installations inside
the United States equally without regard to whether the installation
has been previously considered or proposed for closure or realign-
ment by the Department.
(4) The Secretary shall make available to the Commission and the
Comptroller General of the United States all information used by
the Department in making its recommendations to the Commission
for closures and realignments.
(d) REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE COMMISSION.-(1) After
Public
information.
receiving the recommendations from the Secretary pursuant to
subsection (c) for any year, the Commission shall conduct public
hearings on the recommendations.
(2)(A) The Commission shall, by no later than July 1 of each year
Reports.
in which the Secretary transmits recommendations to it pursuant to
subsection (c), transmit to the President a report containing the
Commission's findings and conclusions based on a review and analy-
sis of the recommendations made by the Secretary, together with
the Commission's recommendations for closures and realignments of
military installations inside the United States.
(B) In making its recommendations, the Commission may make
changes in any of the recommendations made by the Secretary if the
Commission determines that the Secretary deviated substantially
A-4
Appendix A: Title XXIX, Public Law 101-510
104 STAT. 1812
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
from the force-structure plan and final criteria referred to in subsec-
tion (c)(1) in making recommendations.
(3) The Commission shall explain and justify in its report submit-
ted to the President pursuant to paragraph (2) any recommendation
made by the Commission that is different from the recommenda-
tions made by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (c). The Commis-
sion shall transmit a copy of such report to the congressional
defense committees on the same date on which it transmits its
recommendations to the President under paragraph (2).
(4) After July 1 of each year in which the Commission transmits
recommendations to the President under this subsection, the
Commission shall promptly provide, upon request, to any Member of
Congress information used by the Commission in making its rec-
ommendations.
Reports.
(5) The Comptroller General of the United States shall-
(A) assist the Commission, to the extent requested, in the
Commission's review and analysis of the recommendations
made by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (c); and
(B) by no later than May 15 of each year in which the
Secretary makes such recommendations, transmit to the Con-
gress and to the Commission a report containing a detailed
analysis of the Secretary's recommendations and selection
Reports.
(e) process. REVIEW BY THE PRESIDENT.-(1) The President shall, by no later
than July 15 of each year in which the Commission makes rec-
ommendations under subsection (d), transmit to the Commission and
to the Congress a report containing the President's approval or
disapproval of the Commission's recommendations.
(2) If the President approves all the recommendations of the
Commission, the President shall transmit a copy of such rec-
ommendations to the Congress, together with a certification of such
approval. (3) If the President disapproves the recommendations of the
Commission, in whole or in part, the President shall transmit to the
Commission and the Congress the reasons for that disapproval. The
Commission shall then transmit to the President, by no later than
August 15 of the year concerned, a revised list of recommendations
for the closure and realignment of military installations.
(4) If the President approves all of the revised recommendations of
the Commission transmitted to the President under paragraph (3),
the President shall transmit a copy of such revised recommenda-
tions to the Congress, together with a certification of such approval.
(5) If the President does not transmit to the Congress an approval
and certification described in paragraph (2) or (4) by September 1 of
any year in which the Commission has transmitted recommenda-
tions to the President under this part, the process by which military
installations may be selected for closure or realignment under this
part with respect to that year shall be terminated.
10 USC 2687
SEC. 2904. CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
note.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary shall-
(1) close all military installations recommended for closure by
the Commission in each report transmitted to the Congress by
the President pursuant to section 2903(e);
(2) realign all military installations recommended for realign-
ment by such Commission in each such report;
A-5
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
104 STAT. 1813
(3) initiate all such closures and realignments no later than
two years after the date on which the President transmits a
report to the Congress pursuant to section 2903(e) containing
the recommendations for such closures or realignments; and
(4) complete all such closures and realignments no later than
the end of the six-year period beginning on the date on which
the President transmits the report pursuant to section 2903(e)
containing the recommendations for such closures or
(b) realignments. CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL.-(1) The Secretary may not
carry out any closure or realignment recommended by the Commis-
sion in a report transmitted from the President pursuant to section
2903(e) if a joint resolution is enacted, in accordance with the
provisions of section 2908, disapproving such recommendations of
the Commission before the earlier of-
(A) the end of the 45-day period beginning on the date on
which the President transmits such report; or
(B) the adjournment of Congress sine die for the session
during which such report is transmitted.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1) of this subsection and subsections
(a) and (c) of section 2908, the days on which either House of
Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of more than
three days to a day certain shall be excluded in the computation of a
period.
10 USC 2687
SEC. 2905. IMPLEMENTATION
note.
(a) IN GENERAL.-(1) In closing or realigning any military installa-
tion under this part, the Secretary may-
(A) take such actions as may be necessary to close or realign
any military installation, including the acquisition 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 from a military
installation being closed or realigned to another military
installation, and may use for such purpose funds in the Account
or funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for use in
planning and design, minor construction, or operation and
maintenance;
Community
(B) provide-
(i) economic adjustment assistance to any community
action programs.
located near a military installation being closed or re-
aligned, and
(ii) community planning assistance to any community
located near a military installation to which functions will
be transferred as a result of the closure or realignment of a
military installation,
if the Secretary of Defense determines that the financial re-
sources available to the community (by grant or otherwise) for
such purposes are inadequate, and may use for such purposes
funds in the Account or funds appropriated to the Department
of Defense for economic adjustment assistance or community
planning assistance;
(C) carry out activities for the purposes of environmental
Environmental
restoration and mitigation at any such installation, and may
protection.
use for such purposes funds in the Account or funds appro-
priated to the Department of Defense for environmental res-
toration and mitigation;
A-6
Appendix A: Title XXIX, Public Law 101-510
104 STAT. 1814
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
(D) provide outplacement assistance to civilian employees
employed by the Department of Defense at military installa-
tions being closed or realigned, and may use for such purpose
funds in the Account or funds appropriated to the Department
of Defense for outplacement assistance to employees; and
(E) reimburse other Federal agencies for actions performed at
the request of the Secretary with respect to any such closure or
realignment, and may use for such purpose funds in the Ac-
count or funds appropriated to the Department of Defense and
available for such purpose.
Environmental
(2) In carrying out any closure or realignment under this part, the
protection.
Secretary shall ensure that environmental restoration of any prop-
erty made excess to the needs of the Department of Defense as a
result of such closure or realignment be carried out as soon as
possible with funds available for such purpose.
(b) MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY.-(1) The Adminis-
trator of General Services shall delegate to the Secretary of Defense,
with respect to excess and surplus real property and facilities
located at a military installation closed or realigned under this
part-
(A) the authority of the Administrator to utilize excess prop-
erty under section 202 of the Federal Property and Administra-
tive Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483);
(B) the authority of the Administrator to dispose of surplus
property under section 203 of that Act (40 U.S.C. 484);
(C) the authority of the Administrator to grant approvals and
make determinations under section 13(g) of the Surplus Prop-
erty Act of 1944 (50 U.S.C. App. 1622(g)); and
(D) the authority of the Administrator to determine the avail-
ability of excess or surplus real property for wildlife conserva-
tion purposes in accordance with the Act of May 19, 1948 (16
U.S.C. 667b).
(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (C), the Secretary of Defense shall
exercise the authority delegated to the Secretary pursuant to para-
graph (1) in accordance with-
(i) all regulations in effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act governing the utilization of excess property and the disposal
of surplus property under the Federal Property and Administra-
tive Services Act of 1949; and
(ii) all regulations in effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act governing the conveyance and disposal of property
under section 13(g) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 (50
U.S.C. App. 1622(g)).
(B) The Secretary, after consulting with the Administrator of
General Services, may issue regulations that are necessary to carry
out the delegation of authority required by paragraph (1).
(C) The authority required to be delegated by paragraph (1) to the
Secretary by the Administrator of General Services shall not in-
clude the authority to prescribe general policies and methods for
utilizing excess property and disposing of surplus property.
(D) The Secretary of Defense may transfer real property or facili-
ties located at a military installation to be closed or realigned under
this part, with or without reimbursement, to a military department
or other entity (including a nonappropriated fund instrumentality)
within the Department of Defense or the Coast Guard.
(E) Before any action may be taken with respect to the disposal of
any surplus real property or facility located at any military installa-
A-7
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
104 STAT. 1815
tion to be closed or realigned under this part, the Secretary of
Defense shall consult with the Governor of 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
concerned. (c) APPLICABILITY OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF
1969.-(1) The provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply to the actions of the
President, the Commission, and, except as provided in paragraph (2),
the Department of Defense in carrying out this part.
(2)(A) The provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 shall apply to actions of the Department of Defense under this
part (i) during the process of property disposal, and (ii) during the
process of relocating functions from a military installation being
closed or realigned to another military installation after the receiv-
ing installation has been selected but before the functions are
relocated. (B) In applying the provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 to the processes referred to in subparagraph (A),
the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the military depart-
ments concerned shall not have to consider-
(i) the need for closing or realigning the military installation
which has been recommended for closure or realignment by the
Commission; (ii) the need for transferring functions to any military
installation which has been selected as the receiving installa-
tion; or
(iii) military installations alternative to those recommended
or selected.
(3) A civil action for judicial review, with respect to any require-
ment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to the extent
such Act is applicable under paragraph (2), of any act or failure to
act by the Department of Defense during the closing, realigning, or
relocating of functions referred to in clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph
(2)(A), may not be brought more than 60 days after the date of such
act or failure to act.
(d) WAIVER.-The Secretary of Defense may close or realign mili-
tary installations. under this part without regard to-
(1) any provision of law restricting the use of funds for closing
or realigning military installations included in any appropria-
tions or authorization Act; and
(2) sections 2662 and 2687 of title 10, United States Code.
10 USC 2687
SEC. 2906. ACCOUNT
note.
(a) IN GENERAL.-(1) There is hereby established on the books of
the Treasury an account to be known as the "Department of Defense
Base Closure Account 1990" 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;
(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 for 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 congressional defense committees; and
A-8
Appendix A: Title XXIX, Public Law 101-510
104 STAT. 1816
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
(C) proceeds received from the transfer or disposal of any
property at a military installation closed or realigned under this
(b) part. USE OF FUNDS.-(1) The Secretary may use the funds in the
Account only for the purposes described in section 2905(a).
(2) When a decision is made to use funds in the Account to carry
out a construction project under section 2905(a) and the cost of the
project will exceed the maximum amount authorized by law for a
minor military construction project, the Secretary shall notify in
writing the congressional defense committees of the nature of, and
justification 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.
(c) REPORTS.-(1) No later than 60 days after the end of each fiscal
year in which the Secretary carries out activities under this part,
the Secretary shall transmit a report to the congressional defense
committees 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
2905(a) during such fiscal year.
(2) Unobligated funds which remain in the Account after the
termination of the Commission shall be held in the Account until
transferred by law after the congressional defense committees re-
ceive the report transmitted under paragraph (3).
(3) No later than 60 days after the termination of the Commission,
the Secretary shall transmit to the congressional defense commit-
tees a report containing an accounting of-
(A) all the funds deposited into and expended from the Ac-
count or otherwise expended under this part; and
(B) any amount remaining in the Account.
10 USC 2687
SEC. 2907. REPORTS
note.
As part of the budget request for fiscal year 1993 and for each
fiscal year thereafter for the Department of Defense, the Secre-
tary shall transmit to the congressional defense committees of
Congress-
(1) a schedule of the closure and realignment actions to be
carried out under this part in the fiscal 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's
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.
10 USC 2687
SEC. 2908. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION REPORT
note.
(a) TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION.-For purposes of section 2904(b),
the term "joint resolution" means only a joint resolution which is
introduced within the 10-day period beginning on the date on which
the President transmits the report to the Congress under section
2903(e), and-
(1) which does not have a preamble;
A-9
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
104 STAT. 1817
(2) the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows:
"That Congress disapproves the recommendations of the De-
fense Base Closure and Realignment Commission as submitted
by the President on -", the blank space being filled in with
the appropriate date; and
(3) the title of which is as follows: "Joint resolution disapprov-
ing the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission.".
(b) REFERRAL.-A resolution described in subsection (a) that is
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.
(c) DISCHARGE.-If the committee to which a resolution described
in subsection (a) is referred has not reported such resolution (or an
identical resolution) by the end of the 20-day period beginning on
the date on which the President transmits the report to the Con-
gress under section 2903(e), such committee shall be, at the end of
such period, discharged from further consideration of such resolu-
tion, and such resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar
of the House involved.
(d) CONSIDERATION.-(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
previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) for any
Member of the respective House to move to proceed to the consider-
ation of the resolution (but only on the day after the calendar day on
which such Member announces to the House concerned the Mem-
ber's intention to do so). All points of order against the resolution
(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 consid-
eration of the joint resolution without intervening motion, order, or
other business, and the resolution shall remain the unfinished
business of the respective House until disposed of.
(2) Debate on the resolution, and on all debatable motions and
appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 2
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 resolu-
tion 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 the conclusion of the debate on a resolu-
tion 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 occur.
(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the applica-
tion of the rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as
A-10
Appendix A: Title XXIX, Public Law 101-510
104 STAT. 1818
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
the case may be, to the procedure relating to a resolution described
in subsection (a) shall be decided without debate.
(e) CONSIDERATION BY OTHER HOUSE.-(1) If, before the passage 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 (B)(ii).
(B) 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
(ii) 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.
(f) RULES OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE.-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
that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.
10 USC 2687
SEC. 2909. RESTRICTION ON OTHER BASE CLOSURE AUTHORITY
note.
(a) IN GENERAL-Except as provided in subsection (c), during the
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and
ending on December 31, 1995, this part shall be the exclusive
authority for selecting for closure or realignment, or for carrying
out any closure or realignment of, a military installation inside the
United States.
(b) RESTRICTION.-Except as provided in subsection (c), none of the
funds available to the Department of Defense may be used, other
than under this part, during the period specified in subsection (a)-
(1) to identify, through any transmittal to the Congress or
through any other public announcement or notification, any
military installation inside the United States as an installation
to be closed or realigned or as an installation under consider-
ation for closure or realignment; or
(2) to carry out any closure or realignment of a military
installation inside the United States.
(c) EXCEPTION.-Nothing in this part affects the authority of the
Secretary to carry out-
(1) closures and realignments under title II of Public Law 100-
526; and
(2) closures and realignments to which section 2687 of title 10,
United States Code, is not applicable, including closures and
A-11
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
104 STAT. 1819
realignments carried out for reasons of national security or a
military emergency referred to in subsection (c) of such section.
10 USC 2687
SEC. 2910. DEFINITIONS
note.
As used in this part:
Base Closure Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1).
(1) The term "Account" means the Department of Defense
(2) The term "congressional defense committees" means the
Committees on Armed Services and the Committees on Appro-
priations of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.
(3) The term "Commission" means the Commission estab-
lished by section 2902.
(4) 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 Department of Defense,
including any leased facility.
(5) The term "realignment" includes any action which both
reduces and relocates functions and civilian personnel positions
but does not include a reduction in force resulting from work-
load adjustments, reduced personnel or funding levels, or skill
imbalances. (6) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Defense.
(7) 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.
SEC. 2911. CLARIFYING AMENDMENT
Section 2687(e)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by inserting "homeport facility for any ship," after
"center,"; and
(2) by striking out "under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a
military department" and inserting in lieu thereof "under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, including any leased
facility,".
Part B-Other Provisions Relating to Defense Base
Closures and Realignments
SEC. 2921. CLOSURE OF FOREIGN MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
10 USC 2687
note.
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.-It is the sense of the Congress that-
(1) the termination of military operations by the United
States at military installations outside the United States should
be accomplished at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense at
the earliest opportunity;
(2) in providing for such termination, the Secretary of Defense
should take steps to ensure that the United States receives,
through direct payment or otherwise, consideration equal to the
fair market value of the improvements made by the United
States at facilities that will be released to host countries;
(3) the Secretary of Defense, acting through the military
component commands or the sub-unified commands to the
combatant commands, should be the lead official in negotiations
relating to determining and receiving such consideration; and
(4) the determination of the fair market value of such
improvements released to host countries in whole or in part by
A-12
Appendix A: Title XXIX, Public Law 101-510
104 STAT. 1820
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
the United States should be handled on a facility-by-facility
(b) basis. RESIDUAL VALUE.-(1) For each installation outside the United
States at which military operations were being carried out by the
United States on October 1, 1990, the Secretary of Defense shall
transmit, by no later than June 1, 1991, an estimate of the fair
market value, as of January 1, 1991, of the improvements made by
the United States at facilities at each such installation.
(2) For purposes of this section:
(A) The term "fair market value of the improvements" means
the value of improvements determined by the Secretary on the
basis of their highest use.
(B) The term "improvements" includes new construction of
facilities and all additions, improvements, modifications, or ren-
ovations made to existing facilities or to real property, without
regard to whether they were carried out with appropriated or
nonappropriated funds.
(c) ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL ACCOUNT.-(1) There is established
on the books of the Treasury a special account to be known as the
"Department of Defense Overseas Military Facility Investment
Recovery Account". Any amounts paid to the United States, pursu-
ant to any treaty, status of forces agreement, or other international
agreement to which the United States is a party, for the residual
value of real property or improvements to real property used by
civilian or military personnel of the Department of Defense shall be
deposited into such account.
(2) Money deposited in the Department of Defense Overseas Mili-
tary Facility Investment Recovery Account shall be available to the
Secretary of Defense for payment, as provided in appropriation Acts,
of costs incurred by the Department of Defense in connection with
facility maintenance and repair and environmental restoration at
military installations in the United States. Funds in the Account
shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 2922. MODIFICATION OF THE CONTENT OF BIANNUAL REPORT OF
THE COMMISSION ON ALTERNATIVE UTILIZATION OF MILI-
TARY FACILITIES
(a) USES OF FACILITIES.-Section 2819(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989 (Public Law 100-456; 102 Stat.
2119; 10 U.S.C. 2391 note) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking out "minimum security facili-
ties for nonviolent prisoners" and inserting in lieu thereof
"Federal confinement or correctional facilities including shock
incarceration facilities";
(2) by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph (3);
(3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new para-
graph (4):
"(4) identify those facilities, or parts of facilities, that could be
effectively utilized or renovated to meet the needs of States and
local jurisdictions for confinement or correctional facilities;
10 USC 2391
(b) and". EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by subsection (a)
note.
shall take effect with respect to the first report required to be
submitted under section 2819 the National Defense Authorization
Act, Fiscal Year 1989, after September 30, 1990.
A-13
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
104 STAT. 1821
SEC. 2923. FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AT MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS SCHEDULED FOR CLOSURE INSIDE THE
UNITED STATES
(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There is hereby au-
thorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense Base
Closure Account for fiscal year 1991, in addition to any other funds
authorized to be appropriated to that account for that fiscal year,
the sum of $100,000,000. Amounts appropriated to that account
pursuant to the preceding sentence shall be available only for
activities for the purpose of environmental restoration at military
installations closed or realigned under title II of Public Law 100-526,
as authorized under section 204(a)(3) of that title.
(b) EXCLUSIVE SOURCE OF FUNDING.-(1) Section 207 of Public Law
100-526 is amended by adding at the end the following:
10 USC 2687
"(b) BASE CLOSURE ACCOUNT To BE EXCLUSIVE SOURCE OF FUNDS
note.
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.-No funds appro-
priated to the Department of Defense may be used for purposes
described in section 204(a)(3) except funds that have been authorized
for and appropriated to the Account. The prohibition in the preced-
ing sentence expires upon the termination of the authority of the
Secretary to carry out a closure or realignment under this title.".
(2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) does not apply with
respect to the availability of funds appropriated before the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(c) TASK FORCE REPORT.-(1) Not later than 12 months after the
10 USC 2687
note.
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress a report containing the findings and rec-
ommendations of the task force established under paragraph (2)
concerning— (A) ways to improve interagency coordination, within existing
laws, regulations, and administrative policies, of environmental
response actions at military installations (or portions of installa-
tions) that are being closed, or are scheduled to be closed,
pursuant to title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments
and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526);
and
(B) ways to consolidate and streamline, within existing laws
and regulations, the practices, policies, and administrative
procedures of relevant Federal and State agencies with respect
to such environmental response actions so as to enable those
actions to be carried out more expeditiously.
(2) There is hereby established an environmental response task
force to make the findings and recommendations, and to prepare the
report, required by paragraph (1). The task force shall consist of the
following (or their designees):
(A) The Secretary of Defense, who shall be chairman of the
task force.
(B) The Attorney General.
(C) The Administrator of the General Services Administra-
tion.
(D) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency. (E) The Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army.
(F) A representative of a State environmental protection
agency, appointed by the head of the National Governors
Association.
A-14
Appendix A: Title XXIX, Public Law 101-510
104 STAT. 1822
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
(G) A representative of a State attorney general's office,
appointed by the head of the National Association of Attorney
Generals. (H) A representative of a public-interest environmental
organization, appointed by the Speaker of the House of Rep-
resentatives.
10 USC 2687
SEC. 2924. COMMUNITY PREFERENCE CONSIDERATION IN CLOSURE AND
note.
REALIGNMENT OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
In any process of selecting any military installation inside the
United States for closure or realignment, the Secretary of Defense
shall take such steps as are necessary to assure that special consid-
eration and emphasis is given to any official statement from a unit
of general local government adjacent to or within a military
installation requesting the closure or realignment of such installa-
tion.
SEC. 2925. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BASE CLOSURE COMMISSION
(a) NORTON AIR FORCE BASE.-(1) Consistent with the rec-
ommendations of the Commission on Base Realignment and Closure,
the Secretary of the Air Force may not relocate, until after
September 30, 1995, any of the functions that were being carried out
at the ballistics missile office at Norton Air Force Base, California,
on the date on which the Secretary of Defense transmitted a report
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives as described in section 202(a)(1) of Public Law 100-
526. (2) This subsection shall take effect as of the date on which the
report referred to in subsection (a) was transmitted to such Commit-
tees. (b) GENERAL DIRECTIVE.-Consistent with the requirements of sec-
tion 201 of Public Law 100-526, the Secretary of Defense shall direct
each of the Secretaries of the military departments to take all
actions necessary to carry out the recommendations of the Commis-
sion on Base Realignment and Closure and to take no action that is
inconsistent with such recommendations.
10 USC 2687
SEC. 2926. CONTRACTS FOR CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
note.
ACTIVITIES
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF MODEL PROGRAM.-Not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall establish a model program to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the base closure environmental restoration program.
(b) ADMINISTRATOR OF PROGRAM.-The Secretary shall designate
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environment as the
Administrator of the model program referred to in subsection (a).
Reports.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary shall report to the Secretary of
Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition.
(c) APPLICABILITY.-This section shall apply to environmental res-
toration activities at installations selected by the Secretary pursu-
ant to the provisions of subsection (d)(1).
(d) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.-In carrying out the model program,
the Secretary of Defense shall:
(1) Designate for the model program two installations under
his jurisdiction that have been designated for closure pursuant
to the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure
and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526) and for which
A-15
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
104 STAT. 1823
preliminary assessments, site inspections, and Environmental
Impact Statements required by law or regulation have been
completed. The Secretary shall designate only those installa-
tions which have satisfied the requirements of section 204 of the
Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Re-
alignment Act (Public Law 100-526).
(2) Compile a prequalification list of prospective contractors
for solicitation and negotiation in accordance with the proce-
dures set forth in title IX of the Federal Property and Adminis-
trative Services Act (Public Law 92-582; 40 U.S.C. 541 et seq., as
amended). Such contractors shall satisfy all applicable statutory
and regulatory requirements. In addition, the contractor se-
lected for one of the two installations under this program shall
indemnify the Federal Government against all liabilities,
claims, penalties, costs, and damages caused by (A) the contrac-
tor's breach of any term or provision of the contract; and (B) any
negligent or willful act or omission of the contractor, its employ-
ees, or its subcontractors in the performance of the contract.
(3) Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
solicit proposals from qualified contractors for response action
(as defined under section 101 of the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42
U.S.C. 9601)) at the installations designated under paragraph
(1). Such solicitations and proposals shall include the following:
(A) Proposals to perform response action. Such proposals
shall include provisions for receiving the necessary
authorizations or approvals of the response action by appro-
priate Federal, State, or local agencies.
(B) To the maximum extent possible, provisions offered
by single prime contractors to perform all phases of the
response action, using performance specifications supplied
by the Secretary of Defense and including any safeguards
the Secretary deems essential to avoid conflict of interest.
(4) Evaluate bids on the basis of price and other evaluation
criteria.
(5) Subject to the availability of authorized and appropriated
funds to the Department of Defense, make contract awards for
response action within 120 days after the solicitation of propos-
als pursuant to paragraph (3) for the response action, or within
120 days after receipt of the necessary authorizations or approv-
als of the response action by appropriate Federal, State, or local
agencies, whichever is later.
(e) APPLICATION OF SECTION 120 OF CERCLA.-Activities of the
model program shall be carried out subject to, and in a manner
consistent with, section 120 (relating to Federal facilities) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620).
(f) EXPEDITED AGREEMENTS.-The Secretary shall, with the concur-
rence of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
assure compliance with all applicable Federal statutes and regula-
tions and, in addition, take all reasonable and appropriate measures
to expedite all necessary administrative decisions, agreements, and
concurrences.
(g) REPORT.-The Secretary of Defense shall include a description
of the progress made during the preceding fiscal year in implement-
ing and accomplishing the goals of this section within the annual
A-16
Appendix A: Title XXIX, Public Law 101-510
104 STAT. 1824
PUBLIC LAW 101-510-NOV. 5, 1990
report to Congress required by section 2706 of title 10, United States
Code. (h) APPLICABILITY OF EXISTING LAW.-Nothing in this section af-
fects or modifies, in any way, the obligations or liability of any
person under other Federal or State law, including common law,
with respect to the disposal or release of hazardous substances or
pollutants or contaminants as defined under section 101 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601).
DIVISION C-OTHER NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI-DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
SECURITY PROGRAMS
PART A-NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 3101. OPERATING EXPENSES
Funds are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of
Energy for fiscal year 1991 for operating expenses incurred in
carrying out national security programs (including scientific re-
search and development in support of the Armed Forces, strategic
and critical materials necessary for the common defense, and mili-
tary applications of nuclear energy and related management and
support activities) as follows:
(1) For weapons activities, $3,795,381,000, to be allocated as
follows:
(A) For research and development, $1,092,218,000.
(B) For weapons testing, $437,268,000.
(C) For weapons safety, $160,000,000, to be derived from
funds available under subparagraph (A) or (B) or both.
(D) For production and surveillance, $2,161,180,000.
(E) For program direction, $104,715,000.
(2) For defense nuclear materials production, $1,892,770,000,
to be allocated as follows:
(A) For production reactor operations, $811,457,000.
(B) For processing of defense nuclear materials, including
naval reactors fuel, $628,969,000.
(C) For supporting services, $292,043,000.
(D) For uranium enrichment for naval reactors,
$117,801,000.
(E) For program direction, $42,500,000.
(3) For verification and control technology, $181,484,000.
(4) For nuclear materials safeguards and security technology
development program, $83,934,000.
(5) For security investigations, $65,000,000.
(6) For new production reactors, $134,900,000.
(7) For naval reactors development, $569,200,000.
SEC. 3102. PLANT AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
Funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of
Energy for are fiscal year 1991 for plant and capital equipment (includ-
ing maintenance, restoration, planning, construction, acquisition,
modification of facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized
A-17
Force-Structure Summary
Appendix B:
Background
Force-
Public Law 101-510 required the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the
Structure
Congress and to the Commission a force
structure plan for fiscal years (FY) 1992
through 1997. The Secretary submitted the
Summary
plan to Congress on March 19, 1991, and to
the Commission on March 23, 1991.
The force-structure plan incorporates an
assessment by the Secretary of the probable
threats to the national security during the
FY92-97 period and takes account of the
anticipated levels of funding for this period.
The plan comprises three sections:
The military threat assessment,
The need for overseas basing, and
The force structure, including the
implementation plan.
The force-structure plan is classified
SECRET. What follows is an unclassified
summary of the plan.
Military Threat
Assessment
(Note: Taken verbatim from Department of
Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Report, April 1991)
For 40 years, the Soviet Union and its
B-1
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
surrogates posed the principal threat to U.S.
The Nuclear Threat. The most
interests and objectives. However,
enduring concern for U.S.
America's security agenda is being rewritten
leadership is that the Soviet Union
because of the collapse of East European
remains the one country in the
communism, the demise of the Warsaw
world capable of destroying the
Pact, ongoing changes within the Soviet
United States with a single,
Union, the reshaping of the U.S.-Soviet
devastating attack. However, the
relationship, and a reduction in Soviet
rationale for such an attack is
conventional military power. This
difficult to construe. Nevertheless,
redefinition of our threat perception has
until and unless the Soviet strategic
been accelerated by the emergence and
nuclear arsenal is vastly modified,
intensification of both new and historical
the cornerstone of U.S. military
regional quarrels, one of which has already
strategy must continue to be a
brought the United States into armed conflict
modern, credible, flexible, and
in the Persian Gulf. Threats to U.S. interests
survivable nuclear deterrent force.
range from the enmity of nations like North
The Conventional Threat. Even
Korea and Cuba, to pressures from friend
though Soviet military power is
and foe alike to reduce U.S. presence
reducing and changing in form and
around the world. In addition, our efforts to
purpose, the Soviet state still will
promote regional stability and to enhance the
have millions of well armed men in
spread of democracy will continue to be
uniform and will remain the
challenged by insurgencies and terrorism.
strongest military force on the
Eurasian landmass. As leader of the
Free World, the United States must
Threats
maintain, in conjunction with our
allies, the conventional capability to
counterbalance the might of the
Even with the promise of a greatly
Soviet Union's huge conventional
reduced Soviet force posture in Eastern
forces.
Europe, certain crucial constants endure in
our long-term assessment of Soviet military
capability and global threats.
B-2
Force-Structure Summary
Across the Atlantic
obligations will place continuing demands on
our Armed Forces. Escort operations in the
Persian Gulf, conducted for over two years,
Looking eastward from our Atlantic
established the precedent of U.S. military
shore, the focus of U.S. security concern
intervention to protect the free flow of oil.
has shifted from Western Europe to the
Then, just as the Soviets and the Iran-Iraq
defense of both Europe and the Persian
war receded as threats to regional stability,
Gulf. With respect to Europe, the demise of
Iraq emerged from eight years of war with
the Warsaw Pact, Soviet retrenchment
a fanatic zeal, a large arsenal, a shattered
within its borders, German unification, and
economy, overwhelming foreign debts, and
the prospect of economic integration embody
a trumped-up quarrel with Kuwait. Even
the success of collective defense, as well as
though Iraq has been ejected from Kuwait
the imperatives for new approaches to
by the United Nations-sponsored and U.S.-
collective security. Although the prospect of
led international coalition, the region still
a concerted military threat to Western
faces an uncertain future. We will maintain
Europe from the east has faded dramatically,
our commitment and expect to significantly
continuing political and economic instability
reduce, but not entirely eliminate, our forces
in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union
in this region.
presents new concerns. Consequently, we
and our North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Immediate security concerns for many
(NATO) partners are conducting a thorough
nations in Southwest Asia will be
review of alliance strategy. The broad
lessened because of the resounding
outlines of a new force posture are already
defeat of the Iraqi military during
emerging and include highly mobile units,
Operation Desert Storm. Over the
some of which will be restructured into
longer term, however, a number of
multinational formations. The number of
problems including the prospect of
active units will be scaled back, and
Iraqi rearmament, the Arab-Israeli
increasing reliance will be placed on
peace process, and subsequent
mobilization and reconstitution.
reconfiguration of regional security
Looking across the Mediterranean to the
arrangement, and relationships will
Middle East and Persian Gulf, regional
complicate defense planning and
threats to U.S. vital interests and enduring
shape strategic choices for all parties
B-3
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
in the region.
could initiate a gradual transition toward a
While Iraq will require perhaps a
partnership in which Republic of Korea
decade to rebuild its military
armed forces assume the leading role.
capabilities to prehostilities levels,
Should deterrence fail, however, in-place
Baghdad will likely remain a
and reinforcing U.S. forces would still be
disruptive political force in the
required. For the region as a whole, a
region. The calculus of regional
modest level of U.S. military presence--
security will shift as Western coalition
principally maritime--will be essential to
forces draw down and political
preserve stability, encourage democracy,
leaders are challenged to construct a
and deter aggression.
more stable and predictable regional
environment. The prospect of regional
instability will likely remain the chief
cause of concern among most political
The Rest of the World
and military decision makers for at
least the next two or three years.
This broad characterization is not intended
to either diminish or denigrate the
importance of U.S. interests, friends, and
Across the Pacific
allies in regions beyond Europe, the Middle
East, and the Pacific. Rather, the nature and
The divided Korean peninsula stands in
urgency of threats beyond those especially
stark contrast to the dissipating Cold War in
compelling locales are such that the threats
Europe. However, the U.S. security burden
can be dealt with by a judicious mix of
is being eased by the continuing surge of
active forces adequate to protect the most
democracy, economic growth, and military
vital U.S. interests and by units with
capacity in South Korea. Our reassessment
specialized capabilities and mobility for
of regional security concerns concluded that
crises at the lower end of the spectrum.
the United States could undertake a prudent
The more important point is that many
phased series of steps to reduce its force
regional disputes are becoming increasingly
presence in Korea modestly--as well as
lethal with the proliferation of advancing
Japan and elsewhere in the Pacific--and
technological weapons.
B-4
Force-Structure Summary
is the continuing need for robust, though
The Need for
reduced, forward presence. Overseas basing
remains important to the execution of
Overseas Basing
peacetime forward presence and to regional
contingency operations during crises.
Foreign bases enhance deterrence, contribute
In August 1990, the President, while
to regional stability, and facilitate rapid
speaking of our changing defense strategy,
response by U.S. forces in meeting threats.
said: "Our new strategy must provide the
In both Europe and Asia, a continuing
framework to guide our deliberate
forward-deployed presence will be
reductions to no more forces than we need
maintained in sufficient strength to deter
to guard our enduring interests--the forces to
aggression and fulfill mutual security treaty
exercise forward presence in key areas, to
obligations. However, the rapidly changing
respond effectively to crises, to retain the
security environment has dictated changes to
national capacity to rebuild our forces
the overseas deployments of American
should this be needed
and to
forces.
maintain an effective deterrent." This
strategy necessitates maintaining a balance
between Continental United States (CONUS)
basing and overseas basing. To provide the
Europe
foundation for any national military strategy,
the military must maintain facilities in
These changes will be most noticeable in
CONUS for active and reserve forces for
Europe where a dramatic reduction in U.S.
such purposes as strategic offense, tactical
forward-based forces will occur. The United
warning and assessment of an attack on the
States will continue to maintain an
United States, training, research and
appropriate mix of conventional and nuclear
development, mobilization, maintenance and
forces, modernized where necessary, to
supply, homeporting, counterdrug
serve as the keystone to deterrence. The
operations, contingency planning, and day-
continuing U.S. presence there signifies our
to-day management of the various
commitment to deter aggression and is vital
components of the military.
to regional stability in an uncertain era of
Balancing the need for CONUS facilities
shifting military balances and. political
B-5
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
relationships. Similarly, our ability to
competition, some reductions will occur. A
reinforce Europe in a crisis and maintain the
10 to 12 percent reduction by the end of
necessary and scaled-back but ready
1992 in the 135,000 personnel currently
reception and basing facilities there becomes
forward-deployed in Asia is already
increasingly important as our forward
underway. The U.S. presence at bases in
presence is reduced.
Japan, Korea, and the Philippines has
historically been accepted and generally
Middle East and
welcomed as a significant contribution to
regional stability. Even if the U.S. basing
Persian Gulf
structure in the region experiences changes
in the years to come, continuing U.S.
presence and access to the region will
In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, the
remain important to preserve strategic
United States and its allies will be best
interests and regional stability.
served by a continued, modest military
presence within the region. We have an
enduring commitment to this region
The Force Structure
requiring us to restore and preserve regional
stability. It has become increasingly clear
that the traditional terms of American
Reflecting the reduced chance of global
presence in the Gulf region have been
conflicts, the President's FY 1992-1993
forever transformed, and future events in
budget [and its accompanying Future Years
this region will shape the nature of U.S.
Defense Program (FYDP)] includes
presence.
reductions in the U.S. force structure that
continues a prudently phased plan for
reaching the force targets established for the
new strategy and threat projections. By the
Asia
end of 1995, U.S. forces will approximate
those targets and be well below FY 1990
levels. The FY 1995 force will also be
In Asia, where potential regional
substantially restructured so as to support
aggressors have long presented a more likely
the new strategy most effectively and
threat to stability than has superpower
B-6
Force-Structure Summary
efficiently.
Strategic forces are programmed to be
scaled back in accordance with expectations
regarding arms reductions agreements and to
enable the Department of Defense to
maintain credible strategic deterrence at the
least cost. Retirement of the MINUTEMEN
II force will begin in 1992. Retirements of
submarines with the POSEIDON missile will
be accelerated. During the 1990s, the
current mix of 34 POSEIDON and
TRIDENT submarines will be reduced to a
force of 18 TRIDENT submarines. Air
Force strategic bombers will decrease from
268 in 1990 to 181 in 1995.
Conventional forces will be restructured
to include significant airlift and sealift
capabilities, substantial and highly effective
maritime and amphibious forces, a
sophisticated array of combat aircraft,
special operations forces, Marine Corps
divisions, and heavy and light Army
divisions.
Compared to 1990 force levels, by the
end of FY 1995 the Army will have 6 fewer
active divisions; the Navy will have 94
fewer battle force ships, 1 less aircraft
carrier and 2 fewer carrier air wings; and
the Air Force will have 10 fewer tactical
fighter wings.
B-7
Selection Criteria for Base Closures and Realignments
Appendix C:
Military Value
(given priority consideration)
1. Current and future mission requirements
and the impact of operational readiness of
Selection
the Department of Defense's total-force.
Criteria
2. The availability and condition of land,
facilities, and associated airspace at both the
existing and potential receiving locations.
3. The ability to accommodate contingency,
mobilization, and future total force
requirements at both the existing and
potential receiving locations.
4. The cost and manpower implications.
Return on Investment
5. The extent and timing of potential costs
and savings, including the number of years,
beginning with the date of completion of
closure or realignment, for the savings to
exceed the costs.
Impacts
6. The economic impact on local
communities.
7. The ability of both the existing and
potential receiving communities'
infrastructures to support forces, missions,
and personnel.
8. The environmental impact.
C-1
Department of Defense's Closure and Realignment Recommendations
Appendix D
Recommended
Closures:
Department of
Department of the Army
Fort Chaffee, AR
Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN
Defense's
Fort Dix, NJ
Fort Devens, MA
Fort McClellan, AL
Closure and
Fort Ord, CA
Sacramento Army Depot, CA
Realignment
Harry Diamond Lab Woodbridge
Research Facility, VA
Recommenda-
Department of the Navy
tions
Chase Field Naval Air Station, TX
Hunters Point Annex, CA
Long Beach Naval Station, CA
Moffett Field Naval Air Station, CA
Orlando Naval Training Center, FL
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, PA
Philadelphia Naval Station, PA
Sand Point (Puget Sound) Naval
Station, WA
Tustin Marine Corps Air Station, CA
Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, WA
10 RDT&E, Engineering and Fleet
Support Activities
Davisville Construction Battalion
Center, RI
Department of the Air Force
Bergstrom Air Force Base, TX
Carswell Air Force Base, TX
Castle Air Force Base, CA
Eaker Air Force Base, AR
England Air Force Base, LA
Grissom Air Force Base, IN
Loring Air Force Base, ME
Lowry Air Force Base, CO
D-1
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
Moody Air Force Base, GA
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, SC
Richards-Gebaur Air Reserve Station, MO
Rickenbacker Air Guard Base, OH
Williams Air Force Base, AZ
Wurtsmith Air Force Base, MI
Recommended
Realignments:
Department of the Army
Army Research Institute, Alexandria, VA
Aviation Systems Command/Troop
Support Command, St. Louis, MO
Fort Belvoir, VA
Fort Detrick, MD
Fort Monmouth, NJ
Fort Polk, LA
Harry Diamond Laboratories, MD
Letterkenny Army Depot, PA
Rock Island Arsenal, IL
White Sands Missile Range, NM
Department of the Navy
Midway Island Naval Air Facility,
Midway
16 RDT&E Engineering and Fleet
Support Activities
Department of the Air Force
MacDill Air Force Base, FL
D-2
Appendix E:
Jim Courter, chairman, represented
the 12th district of New Jersey in the U.S.
House of Representatives from 1978 until
Commissioner
1990. While in Congress, he chaired the
House Military Reform Caucus and served
Biographies
on the following subcommittees of the
House Armed Services Committee: Military
Installations and Facilities, Procurement and
Military Nuclear Systems, and Research and
Development. In 1983 he wrote and
shepherded through Congress a law that
created the Office of Defense Test and
Evaluation, an ombudsman and advisory
office that ensures weapons are properly
field-tested before they are mass-produced.
Mr. Courter is today senior partner of the
law firm he founded, Courter, Kobert,
Laufer, Purcell and Cohen, in Hackettstown,
New Jersey.
William L. Ball III has been
Secretary of the Navy, assistant to the
President for legislative affairs, and
administrative assistant to Senator John
Tower. He has served on the Senate Armed
Services Committee staff and in the U.S.
Navy. Today, Mr. Ball is president of the
National Soft Drink Association in
Washington, D.C.
E-1
Howard H. (Bo) Callaway
Exchange. Mr. Levitt served in the U.S. Air
Force and is on the board of the Rockefeller
was a Member of Congress from Georgia
Foundation.
prior to serving as Secretary of the Army.
He was the manager of President Gerald
Ford's 1976 campaign, and he is now
James C. Smith II, P.E., was
chairman of GOPAC in Washington, D.C.
a member of the Secretary of Defense's
He is also the chief executive officer and
1988 Commission on Base Realignment and
principal owner of the Crested Butte
Closure. For many years he was a staff
Mountain Resort. He served in the U.S.
member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services
Army in Korea.
Committee. Dr. Smith is an engineer by
training and served in the U.S. Army, time
General Duane H. Cassidy,
that included two tours in Vietnam. Today,
he is a vice president of Brown & Root
U.S. Air Force (Retired) was
U.S.A., Inc., an engineering and
commander-in-chief of the U.S.
construction company located in Houston,
Transportation Command and of the Military
Texas.
Airlift Command. He served in the Air
Force for more than 30 years. During this
Robert D. Stuart, Jr., was U.S.
time, he served in Vietnam, commanded the
ambassador to Norway from 1984 to 1989,
Military Airlift Command's 21st Air Force,
after serving as president, chief executive
and was deputy chief of staff for manpower
officer, and then chairman of the board of
and personnel. General Cassidy is now vice
The Quaker Oats Company. Ambassador
president for logistics technology at CSX
Stuart is president of the Council of
Corporation in Richmond, Virginia.
American Ambassadors, vice chairman of
the Illinois Commission on the Future of
Arthur Levitt, Jr., is chairman of
Public Service, and president of North Star
the board at Levitt Media Company. He
Investments. He served in the U.S. Army in
founded the American Business Conference,
Europe during World War II.
was a director of the President's Private
Sector Survey on Cost Control, chairman of
the 1980 White House Small Business
Conference, and chairman and chief
executive officer of the American Stock
E-2
Commissioners' Biographies
Appendix F:
Matthew P. Behrmann, Director of Staff
Paul J. Hirsch, Director of Review and
Analysis
Benton L. Borden, Deputy Director of
Review and Analysis
Cary Walker, Director of Communications
Commission
and Public Affairs
Caroline Cimons, Director of
Administration
Staff
Robert J. Moore, General Counsel
Col. Wayne Purser, USAF, Senior
Military Executive*
Professional and
Administrative
Staff
David Anderson
Rodell Anderson**
Follin Armfield
Jill Bates
Jacqueline Nguyen Bossart
Steven A. Bowers
Roderick M. Bricksin*
LtCol. Randle K. Bunner, USAF*
LtCol. Michael Burchett, USA*
Marvin Casterline**
Elizabeth Combs
Robert L. Crosslin***
Michael T. Damgard
F-1
Capt. Tim Fletcher, USAF*
Lynn M. Schmidt
Glenn E. Flood*
Paul Sheridan
Kenlyn Foster
Maj. Thomas L. Snyder, USA*
Kim Fuller
Beverly A. Spagg##
James P. Gallagher
Maj. Glenn F. Spears, USAF*
James S. Grichar#
Jacob Sprouse**
David Hadwiger
Priscilla W. Stegenga
Cdr. John Hart, USN*
Alexandra B. Stephenson
LtCol. John Hertel, USMC*
Richard A. Tendler
William James***
Capt. Jerry Vernon, USN*
Patricia Keller
S. Alexander Yellin
Kevin Kenneth Kirk
David Yentzer*
Steven N. Kleiman*
Vic Zangla**
Col. Warren Lamont, USAF*
Jill Fredricks Lehtonen
Stacey Lukens
Margaret McCarthy
* Detailee from Department of Defense
Erin McElroy
** Detailee from General Accounting
Grant W. McGuire
Office
Tobias G. Messitt
*** Consultant from Logistics
Stephen R. Moffitt
Management Institute
William B. Moore***
#
Detailee from Federal Emergency
Clay Nettles
Management Agency
Trevor L. Neve***
## Detailee from Environmental Protection
John J. Patrick
Agency
Suzanne J. Petrie
Wendi Lou Petsinger
James K. Phillips
Kristina E. Potts
J. Robert Reale
Barry D. Rhoads
Alonzo Robertson
Timothy R. Rupli
Robert Salthouse***
F-2
Appendix G
Washington
D.C.
Hearings
Hearings and
Site Visits
Presentation of Department of Defense
Recommendations
15 April 1991
1100 Longworth House Office Building
26 April 1991
Presentation of Force Structure Plan and
Department of Defense Methodology
1100 Longworth House Office Building
10 May 1991
Presentation on Land Value, Environment,
and Economic Impact
1100 Longworth House Office Building
14 May 1991
Presentation of GAO Report on the
Department of Defense Analyses Supporting
Proposed Closures and Realignments
1100 Longworth House Office Building
21 - 22 May, 1991
Congressional Testimony on Military Facility
Closures and Realignments
215 Dirksen Senate House Office Building
G-1
5 June 1991
Los Angeles Regional Hearing
Testimony on the Army Corps of Engineers
8 May 1991
2167 Rayburn House Office Building
California Museum of Science and History,
Kinsey Auditorium
6 - 7 June 1991
Commission Deliberations
Denver Regional Hearing
Office of Thrift Supervision
13 May 1991
Washington, D.C.
Denver Auditorium
13 - 14 June 1991
Fort Worth, Texas Regional Hearing
Commission Deliberations
14 May 1991
General Services Administration Building
Will Rogers Memorial Center
Washington, D.C.
Jacksonville, Florida Regional Hearing
28, 29, 30 June 1991
23 May 1991
Commission Deliberations
Prime F. Osborn Convention Center
2167 Rayburn House Office Building
1100 Longworth House Office Building
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Regional
Hearing
24 May 1991
REGIONAL
Philadelphia Civic Center
HEARINGS
Boston, Massachusetts Regional Hearing
28 May 1991
State House, Gardner Auditorium
San Francisco Regional Hearing
6 - - 7 May 1991
California Palace of the Legion of Honor
G-2
Indianapolis Regional Hearing
Regional Hearing - Kingsville NAS
30 May 1991
21 June 1991
Indianapolis Convention Center
Kingsville Naval Air Station, TX
Regional Hearing, Marine Corps Recruit
Depot
17 June 1991
Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego
17 June 1991
Regional Hearing, Washington, D.C.
334 Cannon House Office Building
Regional Hearing - Goodfellow Air Force
Base
18 June 1991
San Angelo Civic Auditorium
Regional Hearing - Plattsburgh Air Force
Base
20 June 1991
Plattsburgh Air Force Base, New York
Regional Hearing - Meridian Naval Air
Station
21 June 1991
Temple Theatre, Meridian, Mississippi
G-3
Appendix H
Military
Army
Installa-
Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN
Fort Chaffee, AR
Fort Devens, MA
tions
Fort Dix, NJ
Fort McClellan, AL
Fort Ord, CA
Visited by
Rock Island Arsenal, IL
Sacramento Army Depot, CA
Commis-
Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA
sioners
Navy
Hunters Point Annex, CA
Long Beach Naval Shipyard, CA
Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, CA
Marine Recruit Training Center San Diego,
CA
Naval Air Development Center,
Warminster, PA
Naval Air Station Chase Field, TX
H-1
Naval Air Station Kingsville, TX
MacDill Air Force Base, FL
Naval Air Station Lemoore, CA
Moody Air Force Base, GA
Naval Air Station Meridian, MS
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, SC
Naval Air Station Moffett Field, CA
Plattsburgh Air Force Base, NY
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA
Richards-Gebaur Reserve Station, MO
Naval Electronic Systems
Rickenbacker Air Guard Base, OH
Engineering Center, Charleston, SC
Sacramento Air Logistics Center, CA
Naval Station Long Beach, CA
Williams Air Force Base, AZ
Naval Station Philadelphia, PA
Wurtsmith Air Force Base, MI
Naval Station Sand Point, WA
Naval Station Staten Island, NY
Naval Underwater Systems Center,
New London, CT
Naval Training Center Orlando, FL
Naval Training Center San Diego, CA
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, PA
Air Force
Bergstrom Air Force Base, TX
Carswell Air Force Base, TX
Castle Air Force Base, CA
Eaker Air Force Base, AR
England Air Force Base, LA
Goodfellow Air Force Base, TX
Grissom Air Force Base, IN
Loring Air Force Base, ME
Lowry Air Force Base, CO
H-2
Appendix I: Menu of Options
Base
Category
Study For
Army
Army Corps of Engineers*
Close/Realign
Fort Richardson, AK
Fighting/Maneuver
Close
Fort Drum, NY
Fighting/Maneuver
Close
Fort McCoy, WI*
Major Training
To Reserves
Fort Pickett, VA*
Major Training
To Reserves
Fort A.P. Hill, VA*
Major Training
To Reserves
Fort Indiantown Gap, PA*
Major Training
To Reserves
Fort Buchanan, PR*
Major Training
To Reserves
Fort Hamilton, NY*
Command and Control
Close/Realign
Fort Totten, NY*
Command and Control
Close/Realign
Navy
Long Beach Naval
Shipyard
Close
Shipyard, CA*
Treasure Island, CA*
Naval Station
Close/Realign
Staten Island, NY*
Homeport
Close
Pascagoula, MS
Homeport
Close
Mobile, AL
Homeport
Close
Everett, WA
Homeport
Close
Ingleside, TX
Homeport
Close
Marine Corps Logistics
Industrial/Depot
Realign
Base, Barstow, CA
Naval Electronic Systems
Industrial/Depot
Realign
Engineering Center,
San Diego, CA
Naval Aviation Depot,
Industrial/Depot
Realign
Jacksonville, FL
U.S. Marine Corps Depot,
Industrial/Depot
Realign
Albany, GA
Naval Aviation Depot,
Industrial/Depot
Realign
Norfolk, VA
Naval Aviation Depot,
Industrial/Depot
Realign
Pensacola, FL
NAS Meridian, MS*
Naval Air Station
Close
NAS Kingsville, TX*
Naval Air Station
Close
NAS Agana, Guam
Naval Air Station
Close
Great Lakes, IL
Training Center
Close/Realign
San Diego Naval Recruit
Training Center
Close/Realign
Training Depot, CA*
San Diego Marine Recruit
Training Center
Close/Realign
Training Depot, CA*
I-1
Air Force
Goodfellow, TX*
Training
Close
Plattsburgh, NY*
Flying/Strategic
Close
Griffiss, NY
Flying/Strategic
Close
Homestead, FL
Flying/Tactical
Close
Mountain Home, ID
Flying/Tactical
Close
MacDill, FL*
Flying/Tactical
Close
* Indicates Commission continued to consider base for closure or realignment after June 7.
I-2
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
1625 K Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20006-1604
printed on recycled paper