The Largest Security-Cleared Career Network for Defense and Intelligence Jobs - JOIN NOW


Fort Monroe

Fort Monroe, which was once the Home of Headquarters TRADOC, is located in the city of Hampton, close to Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Yorktown, Newport News, and Williamsburg. Rich in history and beauty, it is one of the best family vacation areas in Virginia. Historic sites, unique museums, and countless miles of scenic waterways are here for your discovery. Not only are the base facilities outstanding, but we've also been blessed with an outstanding location. Fort Monroe is located at the tip of the Virginia Peninsula and is at the heart of extensive historical, commercial, vacation and defense activities. When Fort Monroe construction was completed in 1834, it was referred to as the "Gibraltar of Chesapeake Bay."

Today its significance has expanded as the home of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). TRADOC supports the Army's operational fighting forces through the development of doctrine and equipment requirements, in designing organization, and in training for combat. To carry out its mission, Fort Monroe supports a daytime population of about 2,096, including 1,105 people in uniform, 1,991 civilian and contract employees, and about 814 family members residing on post. Fort Monroe is surrounded by historic civilian communities that are well known for their beautiful beaches, recreational sports, water activities, parks, and cultural opportunities.

Fort Monroe was built between 1819 and 1834, but the history of fortifications on the site goes back much further. As early as 1608, Captain John Smith recognized the importance of building a fort at Point Comfort, as the English colonists called this land. In 1609 they built Fort Algernourne here, with the mission of protecting the approaches to the colony at Jamestown. Throughout the colonial period, there were other fortifications at this site, but none lasted very long.

When the United States entered the War of 1812 against Great Britain, the young nation soon found that its old systems of defense were inadequate to protect its coasts and port cities. The capture and burning of Washington, D.C. in 1814 was a hard lesson. But from that experience grew a new system of coastal defenses, of which the first and largest was Fort Monroe.

Fort Monroe's original mission was to protect the entrance to Hampton Roads and the several port cities that had access to its waters. The fort accomplished this mission by mounting an impressive complement of the most powerful artillery of the time, 32-pounder guns with a range of over one mile. This was just enough range to cover the main shipping channel into the area. In 1824, the fort received another important mission when it was chosen as the site for the Army's new Artillery School of Practice.

During the Civil War, Fort Monroe was quickly reinforced so that it would not fall to Confederate forces. In cooperation with the Navy, troops from Fort Monroe extended Union control along the coasts of the Carolinas. Several land operations against Confederate forces also were mounted from the fort, notably the battle of Big Bethel in June 1861, Major General George McClellan's Peninsula Campaign of 1862 and the siege of Suffolk in 1863. In 1864 the Army of the James was formed at Fort Monroe. Fort Monroe is also the place at which Major General Benjamin Butler made his famous "contraband" decision, by which escaping slaves reaching Union lines would not be returned to bondage.

Over time the armament at the fort was improved, taking advantage of new technologies. In addition, the fort controlled several subinstallations around Hampton Roads, making the area one of the most heavily defended in the United States. By World War II Fort Monroe served as headquarters for an impressive array of coast artillery guns ranging from 3-inch rapid fire guns to 16-inch guns capable of firing a 2,000 pound projectile 25 miles. In addition, the Army controlled submarine barriers and underwater mine fields. But this vast array of armaments was all made obsolete by the development of the long-range bomber and the aircraft carrier.

After the operational armament was removed, Fort Monroe received a mission that it still maintains to this day. Since World War II the major headquarters that have been stationed here have all been responsible for training soldiers for war. Since 1973 Fort Monroe has been home to the Training And Doctrine Command, which combines the training of soldiers with the development of operational doctrine and the development and procurement of new weapons systems.

BRAC 2005

DoD Recommendation: DoD recommended to close Fort Monroe. Its recommendation would relocate the US Army Training & Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Headquarters, the Installation Management Agency (IMA) Northeast Region Headquarters, the US Army Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM) Northeast Region Headquarters and the Army Contracting Agency Northern Region Office to Fort Eustis, VA. It would also relocate the US Army Accessions Command and US Army Cadet Command to Fort Knox, KY.

DoD Justification: This recommendation would close Fort Monroe, an administrative installation, and would move the tenant Headquarters organizations to Fort Eustis and Fort Knox. It would enhance the Army's military value, would be consistent with the Army's Force Structure Plan, and would maintain adequate surge capabilities to address future unforeseen requirements. The closure would allow the Army to move administrative headquarters to multi-purpose installations that provide the Army more flexibility to accept new missions. Both Fort Eustis and Fort Knox had operational and training capabilities that Fort Monroe lacks and both have excess capacity that coult be used to accept the organizations relocating from Fort Monroe.

The recommended relocations also would retain or enhance vital linkages between them relocating organizations and other headquarters activities. TRADOC HQs would be moved to Fort Eustis in order to remain within commuting distance of the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) HQs in Norfolk, VA. JFCOM oversees all joint training across the military. IMA and NETCOM HQs would be moved to Fort Eustis because of recommendations to consolidate the Northeastern and Southeastern regions of these two commands into one Eastern Region at Fort Eustis. The ACA Northern Region would be relocated to Fort Eustis because its two largest customers are TRADOC and IMA. The Accessions and Cadet Commands would be relocated to Fort Knox because of recommendations to locate the Army's Human Resources Command at Fort Knox. The HRC recommendation included the collocation of the Accessions and Cadet Commands with the Recruiting Command, already at Fort Knox and would create a Center of Excellence for military personnel and recruiting functions by improving personnel life-cycle management.

DoD Estimated Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this recommendation would be $72.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense during the implementation period would be a saving of $146.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after implementation would be $56.9M with a payback expected in 1 year. The net present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years would be a savings of $686.6M.

This recommendation would affect the U.S. Post Office, a non-DoD Federal agency. In the absence of access to credible cost and savings information for that agency or knowledge regarding whether that agency would remain on the installation, the Department assumed that the non-DoD Federal agency will be required to assume new base operating responsibilities on the affected installation. The Department further assumed that because of these new base operating responsibilities, the effect of the recommendation on the non-DoD agency would be an increase in its costs. As required by Section 2913(d) of the BRAC statute, the Department had taken the effect on the costs of this agency into account when making this recommendation.

DoD Economic Impact on Communities Estimate: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 2,275 jobs (1,013 direct and 1,262 indirect jobs) over the 2006 - 2011 period in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC metropolitan statistical area, which would be 0.2 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I of DoD's 2005 BRAC Recommendations.

DoD Community Infrastructure Assessment: DoD's review of community attributes revealed no significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and personnel. When moving from Fort Monroe to Fort Eustis, DoD estimated that the following local area capabilities would improve: Child Care, Population and Transportation. When moving from Fort Monroe to Fort Knox, DoD estimated that the following local area capabilities would improve: Child Care, Cost of Living, Education and Safety. The following capabilities would not be as robust: Employment and Medical. There were no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation, according to DoD.

DoD Environmental Impact Estimate: Closure of Fort Monroe would necessitate consultations with the State Historic Preservation Office to ensure that historic properties would continue to be protected. Increased operational delays and costs would be likely at Fort Knox in order to preserve cultural resources and tribal consultations might be necessary. An Air Conformity determination and New Source Review and permitting effort would be required at Fort Eustis. Significant mitigation measures to limit releases might be required at Fort Eustis to reduce impacts to water quality and achieve US EPA water quality standards. This recommendation would require spending approximately $2.0M for environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. Although no restoration costs were reported, Fort Monroe would have a probable Military Munitions Response Program site that might require some combination of UXO sweeps, clearance, munition constituent cleanup, remediation, and land use controls. Because the Department would have a legal obligation to perform environmental restoration regardless of whether an installation were closed, realigned, or remained open no cost for environmental remediate was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation would not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation was reviewed. There were no known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation, according to DoD.

Community Concerns: The community offered a partnership with the Army through the Hampton Industrial Development Agency to construct an office complex and lease-back arrangement with the Army. It was concerned that the BRAC process precluded the Army from talking to the Community about viable alternatives to closure of Fort Monroe. The Community believed that the history and unique nature of the installation necessitates its continued use. This argument was further supported by what the Community believes will be ordnance cleanup costs greatly exceeding any of the Army's estimates. The Community reminded the Army that the main portion of Fort Monroe's property contains a reversion provision and must be returned to the State of Virginia in an environmentally clean condition. It contended that property boundaries are now encumbered with historic facilities that will complicate the reversion and will likely lead to litigation. The Community concluded that because of the large number of historic facilities, historic events, cost of cleanup and title issues, Fort Monroe is most suited for continued military use. If these issues could be resolved, the community concedes that Fort Monroe has a very high reuse potential.

Commission Findings: The Commission found no reason to disagree with DoD's overall recommendation but noted that the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) move to Fort Eustis in Newport News, VA, is based on a construction cost estimate that anticipates utilizing facilities to be vacated by the Transportation School. Accordingly, construction of Headquarters, TRADOC at any other location such as Fort Story is not in keeping with the intent of the recommendation. The Commission found that Fort Monroe is a National Historical Landmark and that some or all of the real property of the landmark contains a reversion to the State of Virginia. The State advised the Commission that property boundaries are now encumbered with facilities in the historic district, complicating the reversion. The Commission urges the Army to begin early consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and other State officials to ensure preservation of these historic assets. The Commission found that the Secretary of Defense reported to the Commission that a Military Munitions Response Program would likely be required at Fort Monroe but reported no estimate of cost. However, the Commission notes that DoD's Defense Environmental Programs annual report to Congress for fiscal year 2004 showed an estimated cost of $201 million for cleanup at Fort Monroe. The Commission found that the Joint Task Force-Civil Support, a new major tenant on Fort Monroe, was not identified in the Secretary of Defense's recommendations and will require relocation during the implementation period.

Commission Recommendation: The Commission found the Secretary's recommendation consistent with the final selection criteria and force structure plan. Therefore, the Commission approved the recommendation of the Secretary.



Join the mailing list

Page last modified: 05-07-2011 02:48:15 ZULU