BRAC: Using Lessons Learned to Address the Resource Challenges of Today

August 7, 2012

Dr. Craig College, Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Department of Army

Proposed Legislation

This proposed legislation would authorize two new rounds of base closures and realignments in FY13 and FY15 as a fair and effective way to eliminate excess Department of Defense infrastructure and to reconfigure what must remain.

2

Why a BRAC?• SecDef

- Reduced force structure creates excess capacity; a drain on resources which requires reduction in infrastructure

- DoD budget will reduce in any event- Greatly reduced overseas footprint; ready to do the same in CONUS- BRAC is the only way to effectively reduce excess infrastructure - In BRAC05 DOD spent $35B to save $16B during the six-year execution

phase and is now experiencing another $4B in recurring annual savings

• DUSD(I&E)- Private sector is cutting in response to federal government cuts - they

expect DoD to tighten our belts, too- BRAC in the ’90s generated $8B in annual recurring savings which

continue to this day - that’s our model for the next BRAC- BRAC processes provide enhanced abilities to assist communities

3

What is DOD Doing?

• Lessons learned from BRAC 05

• Continued overseas footprint reductions

• Continued improvements to real property, stationing, unit, and financial databases will improve support to another round of BRAC

• No activities in preparation for another BRAC, given wishes and possible legislation by Congress

4

What Did We Learn in BRAC 05?

• The importance of leadership, vision, mission, and guiding principles

• BRAC is not a periodic venture but a continuing opportunity

• Be a part of the team to generate trust and success

• Communication is key to success: precision, open, secure

• Military Value Analysis drives potential results

• Those who embrace change - and move out - succeed

5

What Can You Do? • DOD

– Continue transformation – Enhance data accuracy– Await Congressional approval

• Installations– Complete/update master plans– Improve data

• Communities– Partner with installations now and continuously– Prepare for change

6

Back-ups

7

8

BRAC Round

Closures Major Closures Realigns Force Structure Status

1988 77 6: Jefferson Proving Ground, IN; Lexington Army Depot (AD), KY; Army Materials Tech Lab, MA; Cameron Station, VA ; Presidio of San Francisco, CA; Fort Sheridan, IL

6 Cold War reductions

1991 5 4: Fort Ord, CA; Sacramento AD, CA; Fort Ben Harrison, IN; Fort Devens, MA

6 Cold War reductions

1993 1 1: Vint Hill Farms Station, VA 4 Cold War reductions

1995 29 10: Fort McClellan, AL; Fort Chaffee, AR; Oakland Army Base, CA; Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, CO; Savanna Army Depot Activity, IL; Fort Ritchie, MD; Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal, NJ; Seneca AD, NY; Fort Indiantown Gap, PA; Fort Pickett, VA

11 Cold War reductions

2005 11 + 387 RC site closures

10: Fort Gillem, GA; Fort McPherson, GA; Fort Monroe, VA; Fort Monmouth, NJ; Kansas Army Ammunition Plant (AAP), KS; Lone Star AAP, TX; Mississippi AAP, MS; Newport Chemical Depot, IN; Riverbank AAP, CA; USAG Michigan (Selfridge), MI

10 Growth due to Transformation (GTA, Modularization), OIF/OEF

Army BRAC History

Comparing BRAC Rounds

(TY $B)

Major Base

ClosuresMajor Base

Realignments

Minor Closures and Realignments

Costs1 ($B)

AnnualRecurring Savings 2

($B)

BRAC 88 16 4 23 2.7 1.0

BRAC 91 26 17 32 5.2 2.3

BRAC 93 28 12 123 7.5 2.7

BRAC 95 27 22 57 6.6 1.9

Total 97 55 235 22.0 8.0 3

BRAC 05 24 24 765 33.6 4.0

Note 1: As of the FY 2012 President’s Budget including supplements (Feb 2010) through FY 2001 for prior BRAC Rounds and as of Sep 2011 for BRAC 2005.Note 2: Annual recurring savings (ARS) begin in the year following each round’s 6-year implementation period: FY96 for BRAC 88; FY98 for BRAC 91; FY00 for BRAC 93; and FY02 for BRAC 95. These numbers reflect the ARS for each round starting in 2002 and are expressed in FY 08 dollars.Note 3: Does not add due to rounding.

9

Future BRAC• The Department of Defense requested additional BRAC authority in 2013

and 2015; Congress did authorize• The Army supports the need for additional rounds of BRAC to continue to

adjust our infrastructure to meet continuously changing requirements– Reductions in force structure and changes in global missions necessitate evaluation of

our CONUS facilities to optimize usage and capability in completing our diverse missions

– Force reductions produce excess capacity; excess capacity is a drain on resources– Budget pressure will not allow us to retain assets that are no longer relevant to current

and future needs– Only through BRAC can we align our infrastructure with our strategy and produce

savings to apply against enduring requirements

• The Army anticipates a comprehensive analysis to optimize infrastructure for the entire force; Active, Guard and Reserves, and to seek additional efficiencies in Joint initiatives. This could include re-stationing of overseas forces in CONUS

10

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000 BRAC 2005

Legacy BRAC

BRAC Property Conveyance

As of: 19 July 201211

Army Excess Acres Available

Acres Conveyed

% Conveyed

Acres Remaining

% Remaining

BRAC 2005 70,311 33,275 47% 37,036 53%Active Army 69,121 32,773 47% 36,347 53%Army Reserve 1,190 502 42% 688 58%

Legacy 209,291 178,555 85% 30,737 15%Total 279,602 211,830 76% 67,773 24%

Only 24% of All Excess BRAC Acres Remain

• Army BRAC generated over 279K excess acres; of which 212K (76%) has been disposed:

- Legacy BRAC rounds generated 209K excess acres and is 85% disposed

- BRAC 2005 generated 70K excess acres and is 47% disposed

• Remaining 68K acres includes property on 37 different installations and 106 RC sites

• Though historical trending data suggests that disposal timelines will experience delays, the current projection is for 100% of all remaining excess property to be conveyed by 2021

• Factors impacting conveyance timelines:- Delays triggered by changes recipient requirements

- New or increasingly stringent environmental compliance requirements

- Funding availability (current environmental cost to complete ~ $1.3B)

11

Summary

• Only through BRAC can we align our infrastructure with our strategy and produce savings to apply against enduring requirements

• Absent this authority, the Army will be forced to retain installation infrastructure that is excess to its requirements and thereby jeopardize spending on forces, training, and modernization

12