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 ClosuresMajor ClosuresRealignsForce Structure Status : 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 6Cold War reductions : Fort Ord, CA; Sacramento AD, CA; Fort Ben Harrison, IN; Fort Devens, MA 6Cold War reductions : Vint Hill Farms Station, VA 4Cold War reductions : 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 11Cold War reductions 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 10Growth due to Transformation (GTA, Modularization), OIF/OEF Army BRAC History

Comparing BRAC Rounds (TY $B) Major Base Closures Major Base Realignments Minor Closures and Realignments Costs 1 ($B) Annual Recurring Savings 2 ($B) BRAC BRAC BRAC BRAC Total BRAC 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 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

BRAC Property Conveyance As of: 19 July 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