[Federal Register: February 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 29)]
[Notices]
[Page 6948-6952]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12fe04-33]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Department of Defense Selection Criteria for Closing and
Realigning Military Installations Inside the United States
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Defense, in accordance with section 2913(a)
of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law
101-510, as amended, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note, is required to publish the
final selection criteria to be used by the Department of Defense in
making recommendations for the closure or realignment of military
installations inside the United States.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 12, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike McAndrew, Base Realignment
and Closure Office, ODUSD(I&E), (703) 614-5356.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Final Selection Criteria
The final criteria to be used by the Department of Defense to make
recommendations for the closure or realignment of military
installations inside the United States under the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended, 10 U.S.C.
2687 note, are as follows:
In selecting military installations for closure or realignment, the
Department of Defense, giving priority consideration to military value
(the first four criteria below), will consider:
Military Value
1. The current and future mission capabilities and the impact on
operational readiness of the Department of Defense's total force,
including the impact on joint warfighting, training, and readiness.
2. The availability and condition of land, facilities and
associated airspace (including training areas suitable for maneuver by
ground, naval, or air forces throughout a diversity of climate and
terrain areas and staging areas for the use of the Armed Forces in
homeland defense missions) at both existing and potential receiving
locations.
3. The ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization, and future
total force requirements at both existing and potential receiving
locations to support operations and training.
4. The cost of operations and the manpower implications.
Other Considerations
5. The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including
the number of years, beginning with the date of completion of the
closure or realignment, for the savings to exceed the costs.
6. The economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of
military installations.
7. The ability of both the existing and potential receiving
communities' infrastructure to support forces, missions, and personnel.
8. The environmental impact, including the impact of costs related
to potential environmental restoration, waste management, and
environmental compliance activities.
B. Analysis of Public Comments
The Department of Defense (DoD) received a variety of comments from
the public, members of Congress, and other elected officials in
response to the
[[Page 6949]]
proposed DoD selection criteria for closing and realigning military
installations inside the United States. The Department also received a
number of letters from members of Congress regarding BRAC selection
criteria before publication of the draft criteria for comment. The
Department has treated those letters as comments on the draft criteria
and included the points raised therein in our assessment of public
comments. The comments can be grouped into three categories: general,
military value, and other considerations. The following is an analysis
of these comments.
(1) General Comments
(a) Numerous commentors expressed support for the draft criteria
without suggesting changes and used the opportunity to provide
information on their particular installations. DoD understands and
greatly appreciates the high value that communities place on the
installations in their area and the relationships that have emerged
between the Department and local communities. Both the BRAC legislation
and DoD's implementation of it ensure that all installations will be
treated equally in the base realignment and closure process.
(b) Several commentors gave various reasons why a particular
installation, type of installation, or installations designated by
Congress as unique assets or strategic ports, should be eliminated from
any closure or realignment evaluation. Public Law 101-510 directs DoD
to evaluate all installations equally. The Department has issued
guidance to all DoD Components instructing them to treat all
installations equally.
(c) Some commentors indicated the selection criteria should reflect
the statutory requirement of section 2464 of title 10, United States
Code, to maintain a core logistics capability, and the statutory
limitation of Section 2466 that the Department spend no more than 50%
of its depot-level maintenance and repair funds to contract for the
performance of such workload. Consistent with the development and
application of the criteria used in all previous rounds, it is
inappropriate to include any statutory constraints in the selection
criteria because they are too varied and numerous and could preclude
evaluation of all installations equally. The absence of these
requirements in the text of the criteria, however, should not be
construed as an indication that the Department will ignore these or any
other statutory requirements or limitations in making its final
recommendations.
(d) The Department did not receive any requests from local
governments that a particular installation be closed or realigned
pursuant to section 2914(b)(2) of Public Law 101-510, which states that
the Secretary shall consider any notice received from a local
government in the vicinity of a military installation that the local
government would approve of the closure or realignment of the
installation. A few private citizens, however, asked that a particular
installation be closed or that operations be restricted to limit noise
or other community impacts.
(e) A few commentors expressed concern over the broad nature of the
criteria and requested greater detail, including in some cases requests
for definitions, specificity regarding select functions, and
explanations of when a closure as opposed to a realignment was
appropriate. While the Department appreciates a desire for detail, the
inherent mission diversity of the Military Departments and Defense
Agencies makes it impossible for DoD to specify detailed criteria that
could be applied to all installations and functions within the
Department. Broad criteria allow flexibility of application across a
wide range of functions within the Department.
(f) A few commentors recommended assigning specific weights to
individual criteria and applying those criteria uniformly across the
Department. It would be impossible for DoD to specify weights for each
criterion that could be applied uniformly to all installations and
functions because of the inherent mission diversity within the
Department. Other than the requirement to give the military value
criteria priority consideration, the numbering reflected in the listing
of the criteria are not intended to assign an order of precedence to an
individual criterion.
(g) One commentor suggested that section 2687 of title 10, United
States Code, requires the Department to exclude military installations
with less than 300 authorized civilian positions from consideration for
closure or realignment under BRAC. While section 2687 allows the
Department to close or realign such installations outside the BRAC
process, it does not preclude their consideration within BRAC. In order
for the Department to reconfigure its current infrastructure into one
in which operational capacity maximizes both warfighting capability and
efficiency, it must undertake an analysis of the totality of its
infrastructure, not just those with 300 or more authorized civilian
positions.
(h) Some commentors were concerned that BRAC would be used as a
``back door'' method of privatizing civilian positions. DoD's civil
service employees are an integral part of successful accomplishment of
defense missions. Section 2904 specifically limits the ability of the
Secretary of Defense to carry out a privatization in place of a
military installation recommended for closure or realignment to
situations where that option is specified in the recommendations of the
Commission and determined by the Commission to be the most cost-
effective method of implementation of the recommendation. Therefore, if
any closure or realignment recommendation includes privatization, it
will be clearly stated in the recommendation.
(i) One commentor suggested that the Department needed to conduct a
comprehensive study of U.S. military installations abroad and assess
whether the existing U.S. base infrastructure meets the needs of
current and future missions. The BRAC statute applies to military
installations inside the United 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. As a parallel action, the Secretary of Defense has already
undertaken a comprehensive study of global basing and presence--the
Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS). BRAC will
accommodate any decisions from that study that relocate forces to the
U.S. DoD will incorporate our global basing strategy into a
comprehensive BRAC analysis, thereby ensuring that any overseas
redeployment decisions inform our recommendations to the BRAC
Commission.
(j) A few commentors cautioned the Department against using the
authority provided by section 2914(c) to close and retain installations
in inactive status because of the negative effect such action might
have on the relevant local community. The Department recognizes that
job creation gained through the economic reuse of facilities is
critically important to mitigate the negative impact of BRAC
recommendations. As such, the Department will exercise the utmost
caution and consideration when exercising its authority to retain
installations in an inactive status. It should be noted that the
Department has always had this authority, even though its appearance in
the authorizing legislation for the 2005 round would indicate it is a
new authority. As such, the Department's actions in the four previous
base closure rounds demonstrate that it will be exercised judiciously.
[[Page 6950]]
(k) A few commentors asked the Department to give priority to
relocating activities within the same state or local community. The
Department recognizes that the economic impact of BRAC reductions can
be lessened by moving functions to geographically proximate locations.
As specified in the BRAC legislation, however, military value must be
the primary consideration when making these decisions. Specifically,
those factors that are set out in criteria one through four are the
most important considerations when selecting receiving locations.
(2) Military Value Comments
(a) A majority of comments received dealt with the military value
criteria. In the aggregate, military value refers to the collection of
attributes that determine how well an installation supports force
structure, functions, and or missions.
(b) One commentor was concerned that the Department would lose
sight of the value of service-unique functions when applying criteria
that include reference to jointness. The Department recognizes the
distinct military value provided by both service-unique functions and
those functions that are performed by more than one service.
Accordingly, the Secretary established a process wherein the Military
Departments are responsible for analyzing their service-unique
functions, while Joint Cross-Service Groups, which include
representatives from each of the military services, analyze the common
business-oriented support functions.
(c) A few commentors were concerned that criterion two, which
captures the legislative requirements set out in Section 2913(b)(1)-
(3), did not recite verbatim the language in the BRAC statute. They
urged incorporation of ``Preservation of'' into the final criteria to
ensure that the 2005 BRAC round preserve the infrastructure necessary
to support future military requirements. Selection criteria must
facilitate discriminating among various military installations,
assessing the value of each and comparing them against each other to
see which installations offer the greatest value to the Department.
Criteria one through three compare the respective assets of different
military installations against each other, valuing those with more of
those assets more highly than those without those assets. By valuing
the installations with more of these assets higher, the Department
``preserves'' these valuable assets set out in the criteria. If the
Department were to modify the criteria to include ``preservation,'' as
suggested in the comment, we would be forced to assess how an
installation ``preserves'' something rather than whether an
installation possesses the assets worthy of preservation, potentially
undercutting the statutory factors rather than furthering those
factors. While the criteria proposed by the Secretary do not recite the
statutory language verbatim, they do fully reflect the nine factors set
out in the statute, and as such are legally sufficient. Additionally,
the Department does not agree with the assertion that the criteria must
contain the word ``preservation'' in order to comply with congressional
intent. The report of the Committee of Conference to accompany S. 1438,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, refers to
the preceding list of requirements as ``factors that must be evaluated
and incorporated in the Secretary's final list of criteria.'' The BRAC
statute does not require, as a matter of law, a verbatim recitation of
the factors set out in Section 2913. On the contrary, a requirement for
a verbatim recitation is inconsistent with the requirements for
publication of draft criteria, an extensive public comment period, and
finalization of criteria only after reviewing public comments. If the
Secretary were bound to adopt the statutory language as his criteria,
the detailed publication process required by Congress would be
meaningless.
(d) A few commentors stressed the importance of maintaining a surge
capacity. Surge requirements can arise for any number of reasons,
including contingencies, mobilizations, or extended changes in force
levels. Criteria one and three capture the concept of surge capacity as
they are currently drafted. As was the case with the criteria used in
the past three rounds of BRAC, criterion one requires the Department to
consider ``current and future'' mission capabilities and criterion
three assesses the ``ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization
and future total force requirements''. In 1999, after three rounds of
BRAC using these criteria (and similar criteria used in the first round
of BRAC), the Department looked closely at its ability to accommodate
increased requirements and found that even after four rounds of base
realignments and closures it could accommodate the reconstitution of
1987 force structure--a significantly more robust force than exists
today--which is a more demanding scenario than a short term
mobilization. Further, as required by Section 2822 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136), the
Secretary, as part of his assessment of probable threats to national
security, will determine the ``potential, prudent, surge requirements
to meet those threats.''
(e) Numerous commentors stated that previous BRAC rounds failed to
evaluate research, development, test and evaluation, engineering,
procurement, and technical facilities accurately, because of the lack
of effective criteria to consider the features essential to their
performance. They noted that the criteria applied to such facilities in
previous rounds were largely the same criteria that were applied to
operations, training and maintenance facilities serving very different
functions. DoD highly values its research, development, test and
evaluation, engineering, procurement, and technical facilities.
Research, development, engineering, procurement and other technical
capabilities are elements of military value captured within criteria
one through four. The Department will consider military value in a way
that incorporates these elements.
(f) Several commentors also raised concerns that the criteria did
not take into account the availability of intellectual capital,
critical trade skills, a highly trained work force, allied presence,
and the synergy among nearby installations and between DoD facilities
and nearby industrial clusters and academic institutions. DoD
appreciates the importance of having an available pool of intellectual
capital and critical trade skills that make up, and allow us to recruit
and retain, a highly trained and experienced work force, as well as the
synergy provided by nearby facilities. To the extent that the
availability of highly skilled civilian or contractor work forces and
relationships with local institutions and other installations influence
our ability to accomplish the mission, they are captured in criteria
one, three and seven.
(g) Some commentors urged DoD to consider strategic location and
irreplaceable properties and facilities as part of military value. The
availability and condition of land and facilities are an integral part
of military value, specifically covered under criterion two.
Furthermore, the strategic location of DoD facilities informs criteria
one and three.
(h) Some commentors said that an installation's demonstrated
ability to transform, streamline business operations, and manage
successful programs should be considered as part of military value. In
some instances commentors praised the outstanding work of a particular
installation or group of installations. DoD recognizes and appreciates
the outstanding work done by its installations. Criteria one
[[Page 6951]]
and three capture both the ability to perform a mission and the quality
of that work--both of which, in turn, capture the willingness to
transform and streamline.
(i) Some commentors recommended that DoD consider an installation's
role in homeland defense, security, domestic preparedness, and the war
on terrorism as a part of military value. Some suggested that an
installation's proximity to and ability to protect vital national
assets, transportation facilities, major urban centers and
international borders was a key consideration, while others indicated
that geographic diversity or complete isolation should be the real
objective in order to enhance security. The security of our nation,
whether expressed as homeland defense, domestic preparedness, or
fighting the war on terrorism, is an important DoD mission. Both the
BRAC legislation and DoD's implementation of it ensure that homeland
defense and security are considered in the BRAC process. Specifically,
criterion two requires DoD Components to consider ``[t]he availability
and condition of land, facilities and associated airspace * * * as
staging areas for the use of the Armed Forces in homeland defense
missions.'' Additionally, as a mission of DoD, all of these issues are
captured by the requirements of criteria one and three.
(j) Some commentors noted that, in some areas of the country,
expanding civilian use of adjacent lands is encroaching upon military
properties and has impacted critical training requirements and
preparations for deployments. Some said that installations located in
rural regions with access to large areas of operational airspace over
land and water as well as direct ingress/egress routes from water to
land will be key to future military operational and training
requirements. The issue of encroachment is captured by criterion two
which requires the Department to consider the availability and
condition of land, facilities and associated airspace.
(k) Some commentors recommended that DoD consider the difficulty of
relocating missions and functions requiring federal nuclear licenses or
environmental permits, as part of military value. DoD recognizes the
importance of federal licenses and permits. The ability to accommodate
current and future force requirements, which includes Federal licensing
and permitting requirements, is covered under criteria one, two and
three. Furthermore, the impact of environmental compliance activities
(i.e., permits and licenses) is also specifically captured in criterion
eight.
(l) A few commentors were concerned that the ``cost of operations''
language in criterion four would not be a meaningful measure of
military value because it would appear to encourage the closure or
realignment of an installation in a high cost of living area, despite
important strategic reasons for retaining that installation. Because
DoD operates in a resource constrained environment, all resources--
land, facilities, personnel, and financial--have value. Monetary
resources are an inextricable component of military value because all
equipment, services, and military salaries are dependent on the
availability of this resource. Therefore, the extent to which one
installation can be operated at less cost than another is worthy of
consideration, particularly for business operations, although the
importance of this will vary depending on the function involved.
(3) Other Considerations
(a) Criteria five through eight deal with other considerations,
such as costs and savings and economic, community, and environmental
impacts.
(b) Some commentors recommended a standardized interpretation of
the cost criteria. The Department agrees that costs and savings must be
calculated uniformly. To that end, we are improving the Cost of Base
Realignment Actions (COBRA) model used successfully in previous BRAC
rounds to address issues of uniformity and will provide it to the
Military Departments and the Joint Cross-Service Groups for calculation
of costs, savings, and return on investment in accordance with
criterion five.
(c) Several commentors stated that total mission support costs
associated with reestablishing or realigning a military activity should
be considered, including such things as the costs of reestablishing
intellectual capital and relationships with nearby businesses and
academic institutions, the costs associated with mission disruption,
the costs of contractor relocations, and the availability and
reliability of raw materials and supplies. DoD has improved the Cost of
Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) model used in prior BRAC rounds to
more accurately and appropriately reflect the variety of costs of base
realignment and closure actions. DoD will provide it to the Military
Departments and the Joint Cross-Service Groups for calculation of
costs, savings, and return on investment in accordance with criterion
five.
(d) A few commentors stated DoD should consider the total resource
impact of a recommendation to the Federal Government and reflect both
costs and savings. The Department understands the decision making value
of comprehensive consideration of costs. In accordance with Section
2913(d), the Department's application of its cost and savings criterion
will ``take into account the effect of the proposed closure or
realignment on the costs of any other activity of the Department of
Defense or any other Federal agency that may be required to assume
responsibility for activities at the military installations.'' The
Department will issue guidance to the Military Departments and the
Joint Cross Service Groups that incorporates this requirement in the
application of criterion five.
(e) Some commentors asked that DoD consider the impact of closing
or realigning an installation on the local community and on military
retirees in the area who rely on the installation's medical facilities,
commissary, and other activities. While military value criteria must be
the primary consideration, the impact of a closure or realignment on
the local community, including military retirees residing therein, will
be considered through criteria five, six, and seven. The DoD Components
will calculate economic impact on existing communities by measuring the
effects on direct and indirect employment for each recommended closure
or realignment. These effects will be determined by using statistical
information obtained from the Departments of Labor and Commerce. This
is consistent with the methodology used in prior BRAC rounds to measure
economic impact.
(f) Some commentors asked that DoD recognize that their state,
facility or community was affected by closures and realignments in
prior BRAC rounds and that it, therefore, be protected in this round.
These and other commentors suggested that the Department view economic
impact cumulatively or take into account the need of a community for an
economic boost. Still others suggested that the current BRAC round
respect decisions made in prior BRAC rounds--and not take any action
inconsistent with a prior recommendation. DoD recognizes the impact
that BRAC can have on local communities, and makes every effort in the
implementation phase of BRAC to soften the effect of closures and
realignments on local communities. The BRAC statute, however,
specifically requires the Secretary to consider all military
installations in the United States equally, without regard to whether
that installation has previously
[[Page 6952]]
been considered for closure or realignment.
(g) The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) stated that
the draft criteria, if adopted, would add an element of consistency and
continuity in approach with those of the past three BRAC rounds. It
noted that its analysis of lessons learned from prior BRAC rounds
affirmed the soundness of these basic criteria and generally endorsed
their retention for the future, while recognizing the potential for
improving the process by which the criteria are used in decision-
making. It suggested that DoD clarify two issues: (1) The Department's
intention to consider potential costs to other DoD activities or
federal agencies that may be affected by a proposed closure or
realignment recommendation under the criterion related to cost and
savings, and (2) the extent to which the impact of costs related to
potential environmental restoration, waste management, and
environmental compliance activities will be included in cost and
savings analyses of individual BRAC recommendations.
As discussed above, DoD recognizes that the BRAC legislation
required it to consider cost impacts to other DoD entities and Federal
agencies in its BRAC decision-making and will issue implementing
guidance to ensure that such costs are considered under criterion five.
On the second point raised by GAO, which was echoed by a few other
commentors, DoD policy guidance has historically stipulated that
environmental restoration costs were not to be factored into analyses
of costs and savings when examining potential installations for
realignment and closure, since DoD was obligated to restore
contaminated sites on military installations regardless of whether or
not they were closed. DoD concurs with GAO that determining such costs
could be problematic in advance of a closure decision, since reuse
plans for BRAC properties would not yet be determined and studies to
identify restoration requirements would not yet be completed. As
suggested, DoD will issue guidance to clarify consideration of
environmental costs.
(h) A few commentors suggested that criterion seven--the ability of
both the existing and potential receiving communities'' infrastructure
to support forces, missions, and personnel `` be included in military
value and receive priority consideration. DoD has demonstrated in
previous BRAC rounds that factors falling within this criterion can be
applied within the military value criteria if they directly relate to
the elements of criteria one through four.
(i) A few commentors asked the Department to consider the social as
well as the economic impact on existing communities. The Department
recognizes that its installations can be key components of the social
fabric of the communities in which they are located, in both a positive
or negative sense. For instance, the BRAC statute requires that the
Department consider any notice received from a local government in the
vicinity of a military installation that it would approve of the
closure or realignment of the installation. Additionally, because
social impact is an intangible factor that would be difficult for the
Department to quantify and measure fairly, issues of social impact are
best addressed to the BRAC Commission during its process of receiving
public input.
(j) A few commentors wanted to ensure that, as the Department
considers the ability of community infrastructure to support the
military, DoD view that ability as evolving, and consider the
willingness and capacity of the community to make additional
investments. The infrastructure provided by the communities surrounding
our installations is a key component in their efficient and effective
operation. As the BRAC legislation has established a stringent
timetable for the Secretary to arrive at recommendations, the
Department must focus on the existing, demonstrated ability of a
community to support its installation, especially as potential
investment actions may not translate into reality.
(k) One commentor requested clarification that criterion eight ``
environmental impact `` includes consideration of the impact of the
closure or realignment on historic properties. As has been the case in
prior rounds of base closure, the Department will consider historic
properties as a part of criterion eight.
(l) Several commentors stated that the criteria should consider the
effect of closures and realignments on the quality of life and morale
of military personnel and their families. The Department agrees that
the quality of life provided to its military personnel and their
families significantly contributes to the Department's ability to
recruit and retain quality personnel. Military personnel are better
able to perform their missions when they feel comfortable that their
needs and those of their families are taken care of. Quality of life is
captured throughout the criteria, particularly criterion seven.
C. Previous Federal Register References
1. 55 FR 49678, November 30, 1990: Draft selection criteria and
request for comments.
2. 55 FR 53586, December 31, 1990: Extend comment period on
draft selection criteria.
3. 56 FR 6374, February 15, 1991: Final selection criteria and
analysis of comments.
4. 57 FR 59334, December 15, 1992: Final selection criteria.
5. 59 FR 63769, December 9, 1994: Final selection criteria
6. 68 FR 74221, December 23, 2003: Draft selection criteria and
request for comments.
7. 69 FR 3335, January 23, 2004: Extend comment period on draft
selection criteria.
Dated: February 10, 2004.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-3247 Filed 2-10-04; 2:04 pm]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
