<DOC>
[DOCID: f:2910422.wais]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Hutchison, Stevens, Burns, and Feinstein.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENT OF JAMES C. BRYAN, CHAIRMAN, CHARLESTON NAVAL
COMPLEX REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. I am going to go ahead and call the
meeting to order even though our first witness is not here. I
want to go expeditiously forward, so what I think I will do is
go straight to the third panel of community witnesses. Since
only two of the three second panel members are here, I would
like to just go ahead and ask our third panel to come forward,
and I will make my opening statement as you are coming forward.
That would be: Paul Roberson, who I see; James Bryan from
Charleston, South Carolina; and Robert Leonard from Sacramento,
California; and of course, retired Air Force Brigadier General
Paul Roberson of San Antonio.
Good morning. I would like to call to order this hearing of
the Subcommittee on Military Construction Appropriations.
Today's hearing will examine the base realignment that resulted
in nearly 400 base closures or realignments. Congress has
authorized another round to begin in 2005.
BRAC has a worthy goal, to reduce the cost to the taxpayer
of maintaining infrastructure that our military no longer
needs. But achieving that goal is a complex and difficult
challenge. Determining future requirements for military
infrastructure is difficult at any time, but this is
particularly so today. New threats to our country have emerged.
Our military forces are undergoing an organizational and
technological transformation. Political relationships with some
of our traditional allies are changing while potential new
allies are emerging.
All of these factors have implications for the size of our
military force and where we put it. Making sensible decisions
about closing military facilities in the midst of this
uncertainty will be difficult, and I am concerned about our
ability to do it right.
Because of training constraints and changed geographic
priorities, it is possible that some of the forces we have
based overseas now could move home. It does not make sense to
close facilities in the United States if we are likely to have
to recreate them in a few years at a great expense.
BRAC also can be a wrenching process for local communities
that host military installations. Base closures can have
devastating effects on local economies. In some cases it can be
really devastating; In other cases, communities have recovered
well from the closures. The GAO noted in a report last year
that as of October 2001, 130,000 jobs at major installations
had been lost to BRAC, only 79,000 had been recreated. Whatever
the economic effect is, the process is disruptive.
We have three panels today to help us understand this
issue. The panel with which we will start is made up of people
who have had real life experience in the communities, taking a
closed base and turning it into something productive.
So with that, I want to ask my Ranking Member and friend
Senator Feinstein for her remarks, and then we would like to
hear from you.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and
thank you for holding this hearing. Thank you, gentlemen, for
being here today. I would like to put my full statement in the
record, but I would like to make just a few comments.
On the assumption that we are going to have another BRAC
round in 2005, it is my hope that we, just as the chairman has
said, can avoid some of the pitfalls we experienced in the
past. So I hope that what this hearing accomplishes is the
elucidation of ways that we can minimize the economic upheaval
for local communities and maximize our efforts to expedite the
transfer of closed installations to local communities.
Now, the GAO calculates that the Defense Department has
already spent over $7 billion on BRAC environmental cleanup and
will have to spend another $3.5 billion to complete these
cleanups. McClellan--and I want to welcome Mr. Leonard--is a
case in point in California. Primarily because of delays due to
environmental cleanup, the Defense Department has yet to
transfer half of the total amount of excess base property. Half
of the total amount of excess base property has not been
transferred because of the need for environmental cleanup.
So cleanup from prior base closures is a very high priority
issue, as you know, for me, and I think it has got to become a
priority in evaluating the costs and reuse potential of future
closures.
Now, Madam Chairman, one of the things that is happening--
and this is a small diversion, but I think it is appropriate--
in your State, in my State, and in 20 other States is the
permeation of a chemical ingredient which was the primary
ingredient in rocket propellants in munitions and explosives
called perchlorate. Perchlorate has contaminated water supplies
in 22 States from California and Colorado to Massachusetts and
Maryland. It can impair thyroid function and may well affect
the physical and mental development of children.
The situation is particularly serious, gentlemen, in
California. State health officials so far have detected the
presence of perchlorate in 292 groundwater wells operated by 80
different water agencies. The problem is most severe in
southern California, where 267 of the contaminated wells are
located.
I have expressed my concerns in November of last year with
letters to Secretary Rumsfeld and Administrator Whitman,
Secretary Rumsfeld because the primary contractor and the
primary user was the Defense Department and is the Defense
Department. The Defense Department renounces any responsibility
and I gather is going to renounce any liability, and I
profoundly disagree.
I would like to introduce into the record three letters
that I have sent. Another one is on the way that Senator Reid
of Nevada and I will send to the Secretary, outlining the
history of the facility at Henderson, Nevada, which was
actually begun by the Department of Defense and then contracted
to Kerr McGee, and what that perchlorate infusion from that
facility has done in the State of California.
[The information follows:]
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, November 27, 2002.
Hon. Secretary of Defense,
Department of Defense, Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301.
Dear Secretary Rumsfeld: I am writing to bring your attention to
the growing problem of perchlorate contamination in Southern
California's groundwater supplies and to request that the Department of
Defense provide clean-up funding through the Formerly Used Defense
Sites program to eligible communities as soon as possible.
According to a recent report by the California Department of Health
Services, perchlorate has been detected in 284 groundwater wells
operated by 75 different water agencies throughout the State.
Collectively these agencies serve 24.8 million people, representing 71
percent of the State's population. The problem is most severe in
Southern California, where 267 of the contaminated wells are located.
The growing number of perchlorate contaminated wells is all the
more alarming in the context of California's efforts to reduce its
consumption of Colorado River water under the terms of the
Quantification Settlement Agreement. While California water districts
are working diligently to devise strategies to reduce the State's need
for imported water, perchlorate contamination is threatening the native
water supplies these agencies are relying upon to meet local needs. The
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California estimates that in
its service area alone, lost well production due to Perchlorate
contamination could reach 57,000 acre feet annually.
The problem is particularly acute in the Inland Empire, where a
seven mile long plume was discovered earlier this year in an area
formerly occupied by the Army and several defense contractors involved
in munitions manufacturing and storage, The plume, which is moving 2 to
3 inches per day, has contaminated 22 drinking water wells in western
San Bernardino County, jeopardizing water supplies for approximately
500,000 local residents and businesses. Replacement water is generally
unavailable due to lack of infrastructure and up to eight times more
expensive than groundwater in the limited cases where it can be
imported. Local officials have informed my staff that the problem is so
severe that without Federal assistance, the region faces a very real
possibility of water rationing or of having to supply customers with
bottled water.
Because many of the contaminated sites in Southern California
involve former defense facilities, the Department of Defense bears a
special responsibility to help remedy the situation. I would appreciate
hearing from you whether you intend to make FUDS funding available to
assist in the clean-up of perchlorate contaminated wells in Southern
California.
Thank you for you very much for your immediate attention to this
important matter.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator.
______
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, January 7, 2003.
Ms. Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios
Building, Washington, DC 20460.
Dear Administrator Whitman: Thank you for your prompt response to
my letter of November 27, asking for the assistance of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in cleaning up perchlorate
contamination in California's water supply. While I appreciate the
steps that your agency has taken on this issue to date, I request that
the EPA accelerate clean up efforts to reduce perchlorate contamination
in local groundwater supplies and in Colorado River water.
I want to stress the enormity of this issue and its importance to
California. Perchlorate has already contaminated water supplies in more
than 22 States, including California, where State health officials
recently reported 294 groundwater wells have been impacted.
Additionally, perchlorate has seeped into the Colorado River, which
provides the drinking water for nearly 20 million people in Southern
California, Nevada and Arizona.
It is currently estimated that 450 pounds of perchlorate leech into
the groundwater near Henderson, Nevada each day, and that water then
enters Lake Mead and the Colorado River via the Las Vegas Wash. The
impact of this contamination is particularly devastating to
California's water supply.
To address this issue, I convened a roundtable meeting on
perchlorate contamination at the Metropolitan Water District
headquarters on December 19, 2002. At that meeting, I was briefed on
the scope and severity of the contamination from local, State, and
Federal officials including Keith Takata, Superfund Division Director
from U.S. EPA Region IX.
In my view, further efforts are needed to clean up perchlorate
contamination as quickly as possible to protect the 20 million water
users in Southern California and elsewhere who depend on the Colorado
River for their drinking water.
To help accelerate clean up efforts, I urge the EPA to take the
following actions:
Set a Federal drinking water standard for perchlorate as soon as
possible.--While I understand EPA is currently evaluating whether to
establish a drinking water standard, existing scientific research
already strongly suggests that perchlorate can pose serious health
risks, especially to pregnant women and children. Federal regulation is
clearly warranted, and promulgation of national standards should help
accelerate clean-up efforts.
Provide clearer guidance on goals for cleanup.--Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection currently requires a cleanup goal of 18 ppb
based on a memorandum from the U.S. EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) to Regional Administrators dated June 18, 1999. U.S.
EPA's more recent risk assessment recommended a reference dose
equivalent to a drinking water concentration of 1 part per billion
(ppb). California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
revised the draft public health goal to a range of 2 to 6 ppb. Based on
these recommendations, ORD should revise its interim guidelines and
establish an appropriate standard goal more closely meeting the range
adopted by California. Nevada and other States should be directed to
immediately use the lower number adopted by California and other
States.
Closely oversee clean up efforts in Henderson, Nevada.--U.S. EPA
Region IX should ensure that all practicable steps are taken by Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection to reduce the perchlorate load in
Colorado River water supplies by intercepting the ground water as close
to the Las Vegas Wash as possible and intercepting perchlorate
contamination immediately adjacent to the La Vegas Wash.
Thank you very much for you consideration of this request. I
appreciate your attention to this issue and hope that EPA will continue
to work to reduce perchlorate contamination in the water supply.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Now, I believe that the Defense
Department is directly or indirectly responsible for the bulk
of perchlorate contamination, and unless the Federal Government
takes positive action we will be sticking many small
communities with a huge problem they did not create. Frankly,
this is not acceptable.
Madam Chairman, in your State a congressionally-mandated
study is underway to assess perchlorate contamination in the
Boss and Leon River watersheds from the Naval Weapons
Industrial Reserve Plant in Madrid. Nine western Texas counties
where the Department has tested rockets have recently found
perchlorate contamination in their groundwater. I have gotten
nothing but the most perfunctory responses. It's just not
acceptable.
The Department has a responsibility and I believe you have
a liability. So I do not intend to drop this subject. I intend
to do everything I can in various bills to see that the Defense
Department begins to deal with the problem that all of the
evidence points has been created by that Department.
So I thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
With that, let me call first on Mr. James Bryan, the
chairman of the Charleston Naval Complex Development Authority.
Mr. Bryan. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein.
In April 1996, the Charleston Naval Base received its
honorable discharge.
Senator Hutchison. Let me just ask each of you if you would
limit your remarks to maybe 4 minutes and then just summarize
what you have and then we would like to ask some questions.
Mr. Bryan. Okay, I will start again. In April of 1996, our
naval base received its honorable discharge and embarked on a
whole new life appropriate to the 21st century. As the
organization charged with guiding the base in its new life, we
recognized that our first and most important task was the
creation of jobs. Today the facilities abandoned by the
military are being reborn as viable economic assets. New jobs
by the thousand are replacing those lost when the base was
closed and the property is again becoming a resource for the
benefit and enjoyment of South Carolina citizens.
Back in 1993 when base closure was announced, everyone was
pronouncing doom and gloom for Charleston. Now I can say we are
a success story because of the Government was not heavy-handed
with its disposal procedure. We benefited from the cooperation
of the U.S. Navy OEA and the fact that everything flowed
through a no-cost economic development conveyance to the
Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority.
There was no map to point the way to success. If property
had been disposed of through a public sale or, worse, land
banking, I am convinced that I would not be here today speaking
of our successes. Thanks to the cooperation and assistance from
Federal and State officials, I can currently report that we
host 74 commercial and 10 Federal tenants at the naval complex.
The important thing is that they make up our naval complex
family and contribute to the employment of 5,400 workers, a
$265 million annual payroll. Overall they pay more than $141
million that has been spent on renovations, infrastructure, and
improvements, and unemployment in the immediate three-county
area is actually lower than it was in 1993.
What I would like to do is just hit on some things that I
think worked for the reconversion of this type property,
starting with the no-cost economic development conveyance. We
are a success story because the Government was not heavy-handed
in its disposal procedure. We benefited from the cooperation of
the U.S. Navy OEA and the fact that everything flowed through a
no-cost economic development conveyance.
The no-cost economic development conveyance allowed us to
address the deteriorated utilities and infrastructure without
the additional burden of paying for the property that had been
donated 100 years before. Even with agreed-upon zoning in
place, a public sale to the highest offeror we believe is a
recipe for disaster.
Interim leasing: To my knowledge, we have the only shipyard
in America that has been successfully converted from public to
private use.
Supplemental funding: Like many other State boards and
agencies, our LRA was given no funding appropriation through
the State Government. Thankfully, OEA funding was available
initially to support the LRA office activities, and separate
State legislation provided some additional funds through fees
collected in the Charleston County area.
Federal grant assistance: Charleston has been successful in
securing approximately $38 million in grant funding from the
U.S. Economic Development Administration.
The lease evaluation criteria and process: As a State
agency, Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority was
required to establish a tenant selection and approval process.
Rather than going with the highest amount of rent offered, this
process allowed our LRA to consider the number, quality, and
type of jobs created.
Community effort: After the closure announced in 1993,
rather than engaging in a prolonged fight against the decision,
the citizens of Charleston took action and formed a regional
development alliance to attract business and industry to the
entire area.
I think, to touch on a few things that I think does not
work under these scenarios: fighting the closure decision.
Don't waste time, money, manpower trying to reverse the
decision to close the facility. Rather, spend time and efforts
on recovery.
I think a thing that does not work is allowing the Navy to
retain the lease income. The newly-formed organization needs
the moneys from the lease of these properties to operate and
improve the infrastructure.
Another slight hurdle was the Navy's standard lease of 5
years does not work for someone that is willing to invest
millions of dollars in a shipyard. So we were able to obtain
some long-term leases along the way, 30-year leases I think,
that helped with our success.
The McKinney Act was a tough one to deal with. Because of
the type property that we have, I think every nonprofit
organization that may touch the McKinney Act in one way or
another, we have to deal with them before you can move ahead
with the process of development or redevelopment.
prepared statement
The restoration advisory boards: We think that the LRA
should be the one, the voice of the community. The LRA should
be comprised of members of the community and the groups, not
being fragmented and trying to protect turf. We feel like that
was something that needs to be looked at in the future.
To save time, I will be willing to answer any questions
now.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James C. Bryan
introduction
For more than a hundred years, the North Charleston waterfront
property known today as ``the Navy Base'' has played a defining role in
our community. Through the 1800s it was the location of Chicora Park,
an idyllic setting where the ladies and gentlemen of Charleston would
arrive by trolley to picnic by the Cooper River. As the century turned,
the property's character changed, and its importance was magnified many
fold.
On August 12, 1901, the land was sold to the U.S. Government for
the construction of a Navy yard. The property soon became a strategic
keystone, and its docks the site of many an emotional farewell as young
sailors went to sea to protect and defend the American way of life.
In April of 1998, the Navy Base received its honorable discharge
and embarked on a whole new life appropriate to the 2lst Century. As
the organization charged with guiding the base into its new life, we
recognized that our first and most important task was the creation of
jobs. Today, facilities abandoned by the military are being reborn as
vital, thriving economic assets. New jobs--by the thousands--are
replacing those lost when the base was closed and the property is again
becoming a resource for the benefit and enjoyment of South Carolina's
citizens. Back in 1993 when base closure was announced, everyone was
pronouncing doom and gloom for Charleston. Now I can say what many
others are saying: closure of the Charleston Naval Complex will prove,
in the long run, to be a good thing for our community. We are a success
story because the government was not heavy-handed with its disposal
procedure. We benefited from cooperation with the U.S. Navy, the OEA,
and the fact that everything flowed through a no-cost Economic
Development Conveyance to the Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment
Authority. There was no map to point the way to success, but we moved
ahead. Senator Fritz Hollings has been a true champion of the project,
helping to secure funding when it was most necessary. If this property
had been disposed of through a public sale or worse, land-banking, I am
convinced that I would not be here reporting on our success.
Thanks to cooperation and assistance from Federal and State
officials, I can report that we currently host 74 commercial and 10
Federal tenants at the naval complex. The important thing is that they
all make up our naval complex family and contribute to the employment
of 5,400 workers with a $265 million annual payroll. Overall today,
more than $141 million has gone into renovations and infrastructure
improvements and unemployment in the immediate three-county area is
actually lower than it was in 1993. Hopefully, you all have a copy of
our annual report that was produced last year. It contains all of the
statistics and some great success stories about our tenants. There are
many great stories to tell. Earlier this year, landmark legislation was
passed that opened the door for the much needed State Ports Authority
expansion at the naval complex. The RDA was directed by State law to
turn over the leased shipyard and residential areas to the City of
North Charleston and later transfer the southern end of the naval
complex to the State Ports Authority for its expansion. With the
continued cooperation and support from local governments and citizens,
we believe that this magnificent property will serve as an economic
engine for our State for many decades to come.
what made us successful
No-Cost Economic Development.--We are a success story because the
government was not heavy-handed with its disposal procedure. We
benefited from cooperation with the U.S. Navy, the OEA, and the fact
that everything flowed through a no-cost Economic Development
Conveyance to the Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority. The
no-cost economic development conveyance allowed us to address the
deteriorated utilities and infrastructure without the additional burden
of paying for property that had been donated 100 years before. Even
with agreed-upon zoning in place, a public sale to the highest offeror,
we believe, is a recipe for disaster.
Interim Leasing.--To my knowledge, we have the only shipyard in
America that has been successfully converted from public to private
use. By ``playing the hand we were dealt'' and using the interim-
leasing option, we had an up and running shipyard 6 months prior to
official closure of the base. Revenues from these leases allowed our
LRA to gradually assume all of the Navy's operations and maintenance of
the Base.
Supplemental Funding.--Like many other State boards and agencies,
our LRA was given no funding appropriation through State government.
Thankfully, OEA funding was available initially to support LRA office
activities and separate State legislation provided some additional
funds through fees collected in Charleston County, but OEA funds
eventually expired. While leasing income helped, it could not solely
support operations and maintenance of the Base. Our LRA was successful
in approaching the State legislature for funding under S.C.'s Rural
Development Act, which provided us with the State's withholding tax for
each Federal activity payroll on the Base. This funding source expires
in 2012, but provides around $2 million annually.
Federal Grant Assistance.--Charleston has been successful in
securing approximately $38 million in grant funding from the U.S.
Economic Development Administration. This funding has allowed and will
allow our LRA to improve the dilapidated water, sewer and storm water
systems left behind by the Navy.
Lease Evalutation Criteria and Process.--As a State agency, the
Charleston Naval Complex RDA was required to establish a tenant
selection and approval process. Rather than going with the highest
amount of rent offered, this process allowed our LRA to consider the
number, quality and type of jobs created, proposed use of the property,
capital investment, and the financial strength of the proposal among
other items. This legal process has served us well.
Community Effort.--After the closure announcement in 1993, rather
than engaging in a prolonged fight against the decision, the citizens
of Charleston took action and formed the Regional Development Alliance
to attract business and industry to the entire area.
Create A Stewardship of the Entrusted Property.--Select capable
people, with no personal agendas, to serve on redevelopment boards and
authorities. Restrict public officials from serving. In every decision,
the overall benefit to the property and the LRA must take priority over
the desires and mandates of any particular voting precinct or political
subdivision.
Staff.--Base Realignment and Closure is essentially real estate
development with a healthy helping of politics and diplomacy. Hire an
LRA staff with a strong background in real estate and supplement it
with some congressional staff experience. An LRA staff member fluent in
envirospeak should participate in environmental decision-making and
attend every environmental clean-up team meeting.
what doesn't work
Fighting the Closure Decision.--Don't waste time, money and
manpower trying to reverse the decision to close facility. Rather spend
your efforts on recovery.
Allowing the Navy to Retain Lease Income.--A newly formed LRA needs
the income from interim leasing to survive. Formulas that siphon lease
money from the LRAs are counterproductive.
The Navy's Standard Lease.--The standard lease itself wasn't
attractive to business and had to be renegotiated to allow some
security for the commercial tenant. The term of the lease was entirely
too short for substantial capital investment, and the Navy's retention
of lease income would have been an impediment to the LRA's assumption
of the operations and maintenance of the Base.
The McKinney Act.--This legislation has been changed, but it should
be eliminated and communities given the right to make decisions about
the presence of homeless or charitable agencies. Although this is a
noble cause, its goals may not be compatible with the highest and best
use of the property.
Resoration Advisory Boards.--The LRA should be the one voice of the
community.
other important points
From the beginning, Federal and commercial tenants have been able
to operate and cooperate as neighbors at the naval complex. The
location of the Border Patrol to the naval complex was a clear winner.
The majority of the agency's $28 million annual budget is spent
locally. Since 1996, the Border Patrol has trained more than 8,000
agents at the academy.
One of only 14 in the nation, the passport office on the naval
complex occupies a completely renovated facility where about 160
employees, almost all hired locally, process about 5,000 passport
applications a day. This office alone represents an investment of $9
million and the payroll pumps another $7 million per year into the
local economy. The 65,000 square foot office complex also serves as a
training facility. A 92,000 square foot State Dept. financial services
building is now in the works. It will be the ``hub'' of the
department's financial systems and will employ an additional 250
workers bringing the State Dept. total to over 630 workers.
Other Federal tenants include DFAS (Defense Finance and Accounting
Service--426 employees); NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration--125 employees); SPAWAR Systems Center--135 employees;
and the U.S. Coast Guard with 312 staff and crew members.
Our first industrial tenant, Charleston Marine Manufacturing
Company (CMMC) was in place literally within days. This company was
formed out of two well-established Charleston companies, Detyens
Shipyards and Metal Trades, Inc. CMMC officers signed a lease for one
of the yard's largest facilities and, within a week, Detyens had 300
employees working in ship repair in the giant No. 5 drydock. CMMC
President, Dick Gregory states that ``the RDA did things that no one
else had ever done. Companies had to prove viability and the condition
was that the facilities had to be used.'' We all had the same
objective: Put people back to work.
Almost immediately after the recovery of the H. L Hunley submarine
and its successful move to the unique freshwater tank in the Warren
Lasch Conservation Lab at the Naval Complex, the Center became a major
Charleston area tourist attraction. In just 3 months, the Center played
host to some 26,000 visitors--a figure made all the more astounding by
the fact that the visitors were only admitted on weekends. Many of the
world's most renowned conservationists and archeologists attended a
seminar held at the Center in 1999. Today, with a full-time staff of
21, including 11 respected international scientists, work continues to
attract attention from around the world.
Senator Hutchison. Great. Thank you so much, Mr. Bryan.
General Roberson, when the light is green that is 4
minutes, and then when it turns red that is the end and if you
could just summarize after that.
STATEMENT OF PAUL ROBERSON, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
GREATER KELLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SAN
ANTONIO, TEXAS
General Roberson. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchison. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here, and it is a particularly
great opportunity just to get a chance to see you and talk with
you. Senator Hutchison has been a great advocate for all of our
issues in Texas.
Kelly is a large part of my experience. Just for your
background, it is a large maintenance depot, employed about
19,000 people, closed in the 1995 BRAC. I would tell you that
the Air Force did a great job in managing that closure, moving
all those very critical missions and caring with a lot of
compassion for the 19,000 people that were affected by that
closure.
But I would also tell you that redevelopment is hard work.
For those of you who do not know, in 1995 I was two inches
taller and had a full head of black curly hair. You can see
what has happened to me in that time.
But we have learned some lessons from the Kelly experience.
I was intrigued when Senator Hutchison said that only half the
property has been transferred. In all the BRAC closures, it is
certainly clear to me that transfer of the property as soon as
possible is in the interest of the DOD to get it off its rolls
and in the interest of the community so that redevelopment can
continue.
We did an interesting thing at Kelly. We did a hot
turnover, where even though they took 6 years to close the
base, as they vacated specific premises we went ahead and had
them turn it over. So we actually began redevelopment a year
after the closure and it has been successful so far.
I think one of the reasons for success is the no-cost EDC.
That was very important to us and had a big impact on our long-
term business plan and it had a big impact on trying to
negotiate loans for line of credits and capital projects from
local banks. Not having that burden really helped us in those
negotiations.
Facilities are a major problem for every community and what
we find is that most military installations, the facilities are
not in very good condition. In fact, at Kelly we had 5 million
square feet of facilities that we have got to demolish. They
are just basically not commercially reusable, and that is a big
financial burden. It would be very helpful if there were a
supplement to the BRAC fund to assist with demolition of
facilities that are clearly unusable.
Utilities can be a nightmare, and I think that has been the
case for most communities. They do not meet codes, there is no
utility corridors, major upgrades are needed. Additionally,
some special utilities that we had at Kelly like steam and
compressed air were operated out of a central plant and that
simply does not work when you have got individual tenants,
maybe not all the facilities occupied. We are going to have to
decommission that and set up individual systems in each
facility. MILCON funds to address those kinds of issues would
be very helpful.
The environmental issues are probably the most contentious.
I personally have come to believe that negotiating a turnover
of the cleanup to communities with the funding to go with it
may be the most appropriate action, that it allows them to set
priorities and schedules.
Access to capital is a major problem and it would be very
helpful if DOD could or the Congress could implement a program
like the small business loan program, where federally
guaranteed loans could be available to communities to invest.
I think one of the glaring errors of past BRAC rounds has
been the lack of an inter-service approach to BRAC. I
personally believe that an inter-service approach--that
certainly is true I think in the area of maintenance depots,
which all the services have--could allow significantly greater
savings than we have realized so far.
prepared statement
Finally, I would just like to say that I think there is an
opportunity for partnerships in 2005. Unlike prior BRAC rounds,
most communities and States recognize that DOD does have excess
infrastructure and they recognize that we can be better off by
partnering and cooperating and finding innovative ways to
address those issues rather than going into a defensive crouch
and trying to maintain the status quo.
I would be more than happy to answer questions as we go
forward. I almost made it, Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Roberson
Good morning. My name is Paul Roberson--until recently, I was the
Executive Director of the Greater Kelly Development Authority, the
agency redeveloping Kelly AFB (1995 closure/realignment) in San
Antonio, Texas. My BRAC experience includes involvement in the San
Antonio Community's response to both the 93 and 95 BRAC rounds. The
BRAC 95 Commission selected Kelly AFB for closure/realignment. Since
1995, I have led the effort to redevelop Kelly. Additionally, through
my association with the City of San Antonio and while serving on the
Board of Directors of the National Association of Installation
Developers, I have had extensive discussions with community leaders in
other cities that have been faced with trying to mitigate the
significant economic impact of base closure. I have also been active in
assisting the State of Texas develop plans for the upcoming BRAC 2005.
Thus, I have seen the BRAC process from several different perspectives,
pre-BRAC and post-BRAC, public and private, local, State, and national.
Because my direct experience with military base transformation is
largely related to the realignment of Kelly Air Force Base, arguably
the most complex BRAC action ever undertaken by the Department of
Defense or any community, many of my observations will be based on that
experience. However I will also offer more general observations,
particularly as they relate to the State of Texas, before I conclude.
For your background, Kelly was a large aircraft/aeronautical
equipment maintenance Depot, with over 19,000 employees--mostly civil
service, 62 percent of whom were Hispanic. As the largest employer in
South Texas, Kelly had an enormous economic impact on the area. The
conventional wisdom was that ``there's no way they'll ever close
Kelly''. The reality was that the Air Force had excess capacity in its
depot structure and the BRAC Commission closed two of their five
depots.
Since that fateful decision, the redevelopment of Kelly has been
recognized by DOD and the private sector as one of the most successful
military base transitions in the nation. In this regard, I would like
to compliment the Air Force for the outstanding job they did in
planning and executing the closure. The movement of a very complex and
vital industrial mission was handled with minimal impact and with great
care and compassion for the 12,000 people involved. This was not a
trivial task. Perhaps, the factor that made this closure/realignment so
successful was the spirit of cooperation and partnership exhibited by
local leaders and Air Force officials. Within the constraints of law
and mission essential interests, the Air Force made every effort to
work with the Community to find solutions that supported the goals of
redevelopment.
And this leads to my first observation: Communities and the DOD can
be much more successful if they approach the BRAC process, both pre-
and post-BRAC in a spirit of partnership and cooperation. On the
Community's part, local leaders must recognize that DOD does, in fact,
have excess infrastructure and many installations are excessively
expensive to operate. In fact, communities/States can and should
cooperate with DOD in finding solutions to these issues. DOD, on its
part, should approach the 2005 BRAC with the goal of finding ways to
achieve reduction of infrastructure/costs and simultaneously
acknowledging the impact to local communities and the lack of
sufficient resources to repair neglected infrastructure. Kelly is an
example of this partnership after a closure/realignment decision. A
pro-active example of this cooperative spirit prior to a BRAC round is
the Brooks City-Base project in San Antonio. Although Brooks was not
selected by the BRAC commission for closure in 1995, San Antonio's
leadership recognized that Brooks was very costly to operate (Brooks
was on the DOD's 1995 list of bases recommended for closure). Together
with the Air Force, the City developed a concept to transfer ownership
and responsibility for the land and infrastructure to the City. The Air
Force leases back space they need for their missions, but no longer
have to bear the infrastructure costs associated with owning the
property. The City is now able to lease space and develop land and
facilities to their best use. This could well be a model for
partnerships for some installations and communities with similar
circumstances.
At Kelly, we have learned that redeveloping a closed military base
is really hard work--in fact, successfully transitioning an active
military installation to a thriving industrial park may be one of the
hardest jobs any community and its leadership can face. The most
significant issues that made this so hard for Kelly--and my
recommendations for your consideration for the 2005 BRAC--include the
following:
Transfer of Property.--The earliest possible transfer of property
serves the interests of the Community and the Service. At Kelly, the
Air Force decided to take the full 6 years authorized by law to close
the base. This made sense because of the size and complexity of the
industrial aircraft maintenance mission. At the time, the Community
agreed with this decision and rationalized that this would give us more
time to implement the Community's vision for redevelopment.
Fortunately, we did not wait for the base to be formally closed to
begin redevelopment. Rather, we initiated an innovative ``hot
turnover'' process whereby the Air Force transferred by lease,
buildings and land as they vacated premises. Thus, the redevelopment
actually began within a year of the closure decision. This process
worked well, and in effect we were receiving the property as rapidly as
the Air Force could turn it over, even though the base did not formally
close until 2001. As a general rule, turning over the property as soon
as possible allows the community to get on with redevelopment and the
Services to realize earlier infrastructure cost savings. Transfers
should continue to be executed through the Local Redevelopment
Authority as the primary representative of the community, unless there
is an extraordinary, mutually agreeable reason to do it differently. As
I said earlier, the property at Kelly was transferred by lease--in
fact, no deeds will be transferred until environmental remediation
actions are completed. Since some redevelopment ``deals'' go much more
smoothly with deeds, this may delay redevelopment. I will address this
issue in the section on Environmental.
No cost EDC.--I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important the
no-cost EDC was to the successful transition of Kelly. By getting title
to the property at no cost, the community can concentrate its limited
financial resources on preparing the site for redevelopment. No-cost
conveyances generally are completed quickly, getting the cost of
maintaining the base off of DOD's books. Prior to the no-cost EDC, it
was not unusual for negotiations between the Service and the Community
to drag on for years. This created a level of uncertainty that severely
impacted redevelopment activities. The no-cost EDC also was a major
factor in our successful negotiations with local banks for both line of
credit and capital project loans. As a result, I strongly recommend
continuation of the no-cost EDC, perhaps except where the value of the
property is such that it is in the interest of the community, as well
as the Service, to put the property up for sale.
Facilities.--Of the approximate 14 million square feet of buildings
on Kelly, about half are available for redevelopment. The remainder was
either retained by the Air Force/DOD or is in such poor condition they
are not suitable for commercial use and must be demolished. Because the
Air Force did not originally recommend closing Kelly (it was
recommended for downsizing in place), they did not anticipate, nor
program funds to realign certain missions. Consequently, several Air
Force/DOD missions have remained at Kelly in facilities that the
redevelopment agency was required to lease back to the military. This
accounts for approximately 2.4 million square feet. As you might
expect, these are some of the most modern and commercially marketable
facilities. The folks at KellyUSA jokingly state that they are looking
forward to the 2005 BRAC to close the rest of Kelly. The Air Force does
plan to construct new facilities to relocate these organizations to
Lackland AFB (which is adjacent to Kelly). While the primary objective
of this plan is to consolidate all Air Force organizations on Lackland,
the benefit to the community will be that many commercially useable
buildings will be available for redevelopment. In this regard, I
recommend support of funding requests for new construction at Lackland
that are part of the Air Force's fiscal year 2005 BRAC closure plan.
Approximately 5 million square feet of the 14 million square feet
of facilities at KellyUSA are in such condition they have absolutely no
commercial reuse value. We have demolished 1 million square feet of
buildings and an additional 4 million square feet remain to be
demolished. This demolition must be complete to clear the way for
construction of new facilities that meet commercial market place
standards. The cost of this demolition is a significant burden on the
redevelopment budget.
Unfortunately, of the 6.6 million square feet of buildings that are
available for reuse at Kelly, many require significant investment to
make them commercially marketable. As a matter of fact, one of our
large aviation tenants, Boeing, told me that the Air Force could do
work in the facilities, but there was no way the Air Force would allow
them to use the facilities to perform maintenance on Air Force aircraft
In this case, we had to find $30 million in financing to upgrade the
facilities and the ramp before the firm would agree to locate its
repair function at Kelly.
Facilities issues are complex (like most things in BRAC) and
contentious. However, I recommend that at the minimum, the BRAC account
should be supplemented to provide funding for demolition of clearly
unusable buildings and retrofits of useable facilities to meet local
safety and health requirements. Additionally, a ``pre-closure''
assessment by a certified property assessment team needs to be made of
the total demolition requirements, including their cost, and,
concurrently, an estimated cost to make the remaining, marketable
facilities code compliant.
Utilities.--One of the major issues that we faced at Kelly is that
the centralized heating and cooling utilities were designed and
constructed for operation across the entire base. For example, a single
steam plant produced heat for a major portion of the buildings at
Kelly. That concept worked well when the base was fully occupied by the
Air Force. However, after the buildings were conveyed to GKDA, we did
not have tenants in all of the buildings. There was simply no
economically viable method to reduce the ``output'' of the system to
that necessary to accommodate the needs of our tenants. Ultimately, the
centralized systems will be abandoned in favor of new stand-alone
components in individual buildings. MILCON funds should be made
available for redesign and modification of such utility systems to make
them more commercially viable.
Records/Data.--Similar to the facility/demolition issue, a thorough
pre-closure assessment of records, work orders, reports, maps,
databases, warranties, maintenance logs, contracts, hardware and
software products, utility bills, etc. would greatly benefit the
community. In many cases there have been serious information gaps that
create inefficiencies, unnecessary costs, and maintenance/construction
problems. Full disclosure through accurate, field verified data on all
facilities, utilities, contracts, and systems should be provided to the
community upon announcement of closure/realignment.
Personal Property.--Personal Property includes all the machinery,
tools, furniture, fixtures, and other equipment on the base. In the
case of Kelly, this personal property consisted of literally hundreds
of thousands of different items ranging from major engine test cells to
individual hand tools. No community would argue with the fact that the
DOD Components that are being relocated must take with them the
personal property that is required for successful mission
accomplishment. However, under the BRAC law provisions governing use of
personal property, any other military installation can come to the BRAC
base and ``request'' that personal property in excess of the needs of
the relocating unit be transferred to them. The current BRAC statute
should be amended to narrow the current exemptions placed on personal
property to give the community priority for personal property required
for redevelopment second only to the needs of the relocating unit.
Environmental.--In the case of Kelly, the environmental
contamination of the facilities, land and groundwater was the result of
many years of industrial uses that employed many toxic and hazardous
materials such as solvents. Unfortunately, a significant volume of
these contaminants ended up in the ground water below Kelly and has
migrated for miles outside the fence underneath nearly 20,000 homes.
The cleanup of this industrial waste has been the most contentious
issue between citizens in the community and the Air Force. DOD,
Congress and communities must continue to explore alternatives to the
``traditional'' approach toward cleanup. In many cases, it may be more
advantageous to both the Federal Government and the local communities
to transfer funds required for cleanup to the community and allow the
community leadership to deal with its citizens and restore the facility
to whatever level required by the community. Such a transfer would also
allow the Community to set the priorities and schedules for the cleanup
and expedite the transfer of deeds.
Access to Capital.--At Kelly, and at virtually all other BRAC
sites, one of the major challenges, if not the major obstacle, to
redevelopment is the ready availability of capital for investing in the
construction of new buildings/utilities/streets, deferred maintenance
and modernization of existing buildings or demolition of unusable
facilities. I do not know of a single redevelopment authority that has
not struggled with this issue. At Kelly, it is estimated that more than
$300,000,000 in investments will be required to modernize the
infrastructure to commercially equivalent standards. In San Antonio, or
any other community, it simply is not realistic for the redevelopment
authority to look to the local taxpayers to carry the total burden for
an investment of this magnitude. However, there may well be ways that
Congress and the Administration could help in this area. A program
similar to the Small Business Loan program should be developed whereby
a community could obtain low interest financing from commercial lending
institutions, with a Federal guarantee that the loans would be repaid.
Perhaps the Small Business Administration with very little additional
administrative cost could administer this program. The ``risk'' to the
Federal Government would be minimal but the benefits to communities
adversely affected by BRAC would be tremendous.
To summarize the Kelly experience, early transfer of the property;
continuation of the no-cost EDC; access to funding for demolition/
upgrade of key facilities and utilities; community friendly rules on
personal property; transfer of responsibility and funding for
environmental cleanup; and access to low cost, federally guaranteed
loans would significantly enhance the Community's ability to redevelop
a closed/realigned base. I believe these lessons are applicable to any
base selected for closure/realignment.
Let me now transition to more general observations based on my
discussions with communities around the country and especially my
experience within the State of Texas.
Role of States.--The role of State governments has varied around
the country. Some States have played a much more active role than
others. In Texas, the State did not take an active role in prior BRAC
rounds. However, we anticipate the State will be very active in
preparing for the 2005 BRAC, coordinating Communities' efforts and
assisting Communities to work with the Military Departments in seeking
ways to transform their installations into more cost effective
operations. The point I would like to make is that, while the State of
Texas wants to avoid closing bases, the attitude and approach is
focused on partnering with DOD and finding ways to achieve mutual
interests. This mindset is dramatically different than prior rounds
when most States and Communities went into a defensive crouch and did
not consider any alternative other than maintaining the status quo.
Collectively, DOD, the Congress, and the States, need to figure out how
to capitalize on this new attitude.
Interservice Opportunities.--One of the most glaring errors of
prior BRAC rounds was the absence of an Interservice or Cross-Service
approach. Depot level maintenance is a classic example. All the
services perform this function and therefore there are great
opportunities to improve productivity and reduce costs by consolidating
these Depots on an interservice basis. Numerous other functional areas
would benefit from the same approach. I realize that this is hard, but,
if done correctly, an interservice approach to BRAC 2005 may well be
more productive than the actions taken in all of the prior BRACs
combined.
Pre-BRAC Assessments by Services.--In past BRAC rounds, there have
been some serious mistakes. Within Texas the most glaring example was
the closure of Reese AFB--a pilot training base. After Reese's closure
it became painfully obvious that there was a shortage of pilot training
capacity. While I am sure the Service and DOD were acting in good faith
at the time, it is extremely important that the criteria used to
determine which bases to close/realign are able to withstand close and
aggressive scrutiny.
Partnerships.--Let me reiterate one more time the theme that I
emphasized at the beginning. There is a great opportunity for DOD/
States/Communities to partner and cooperate in seeking ways to
transform military installations into more cost effective operations.
In Texas, we are taking this approach. There clearly are going to be
cases where an installation will be closed, but this should not destroy
the partnership, rather, it opens up new opportunities for the
Community and DOD to work together on ways to enhance the
redevelopment.
Models for Pro-Active Initiatives.--Before I complete my comments,
I would like to briefly outline three different models that have been
developed in San Antonio. These models represent approaches to helping
DOD transform their infrastructure.
KellyUSA.--Because of the unique facilities/runway at Kelly, we
focused much of our marketing efforts to attract firms doing aircraft
maintenance. Our successes include major maintenance operations by
Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and several other aerospace firms. In
virtually all cases, these firms are doing depot maintenance under
contract with DOD. Thus, Kelly has emerged as a private business park,
with private business tenants performing depot level maintenance on
military aircraft/equipment under contract with DOD. We understand the
Air Force is very pleased with the significant cost savings over
government depots. This is one model for bases selected for closure/
realignment: privatize the mission (where appropriate) and conduct the
privatized mission in facilities transferred to the community. The
Service divests itself of infrastructure and associated costs; the work
is performed at a reduced cost; and the community gets a ``kick start''
toward redevelopment.
Brooks City-Base.--Brooks has not been ``BRACed'', but San Antonio
recognized that the base was expensive to operate. In partnership with
the Air Force, the property and infrastructure have been transferred to
the City, while the Air Force missions remained as tenants on City
property. The City can now develop property not occupied by the Air
Force for commercial purposes. While the Brooks City-Base is still in
the early stages of development, the prospects are excellent. This
model, or a variation of it, can be applied in a wide variety of
situations.
Fort Sam Houston.--This historic Army Post is using the legislation
authorizing ``Enhanced Use Leasing'' and a partnership with a private
developer to lease vacant facilities on the Post. If successful, this
would be another important model to transform military installations.
Senator Hutchison. You did make it, you did make it. And I
certainly know of your efforts personally and I think you made
the success by not fighting it, as you said, and hitting the
ground running and being very creative.
But the environmental issues, just as Senator Feinstein
said, are still there at Kelly and that is something we must
clear up in the next BRAC round.
Mr. Robert Leonard from Sacramento, California.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. LEONARD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
SACRAMENTO COUNTY AIRPORT SYSTEM
Mr. Leonard. Good morning, Senator Hutchison, Senator
Feinstein, Senator Stevens.
Prior to assuming my current position as assistant director
of the Sacramento County Airport System, I served as executive
director of the Sacramento County Department of Military Base
Conversion for 9 years. In that capacity, I led Sacramento
County's efforts as the local redevelopment authority for
Mather Air Force Base and McClellan Air Force Base.
Sacramento has become one of the most experienced
communities in the country with military base conversion as we
have dealt with three base closures. Mather Air Force Base,
Sacramento Army Depot, and McClellan Air Force Base have each
closed under the then-current BRAC process. Sacramento had a
base in the first round of BRAC, that was Mather in 1988
announced closure, and in the last round of BRAC, 1995, with
McClellan Air Force Base.
We have had first-hand experience and been a direct
participant in the evolution of the BRAC process. Although the
BRAC process and the forms of assistance and resources that
have been provided to base closure communities have
significantly improved over time--and I might add the tools
also made available to the military services working with
communities in base closure--I along with many others believe
there is room for much improvement.
Some of the themes, the three themes that I want to touch
upon, have been already briefly mentioned by Mr. Roberson:
environmental remediation. As you are aware, the majority of
BRAC sites have significant environmental remediation or
cleanup needs that simply must be dealt with. LRAs, or local
redevelopment authorities, must have certainty in site
characterization, a remediation plan, and, most importantly, a
remediation schedule and funding. These factors are most
critical in the development of a realistic reuse plan and the
attraction of private investment to support successful reuse
and economic recovery.
Six years ago the estimated cost to clean up McClellan was
approximately $832 million and was projected to take 30 years.
Today the cost is estimated to be $1.3 billion and is
anticipated to continue far beyond 2033. Approximately $350
million has been spent to this date.
Although this is a long-term program, incremental progress
on schedule is absolutely critical to support successful reuse.
Over the past 2 years, Air Force appropriation requests for
McClellan environmental programs have not been fully supported
by the Department of Defense or Congress and as a result the
cleanup schedule has been adversely affected. The achievement
of critical incremental milestones in the remediation program
has been delayed now 7 to 9 years and we see the impact of that
compounding over time.
Adequate resources must be made available on an ongoing
basis and in turn appropriately administered to maintain the
remediation schedules. The consequences of not doing so again
have a compounding negative impact on the successful reuse of
McClellan, Mather, and any other base reuse location.
In the cases of both McClellan and Mather, there have been
creative solutions to environmental remediation identified and
pursued through the partnering of the county, the Air Force,
and the environmental regulatory agencies which are a key
player in this process also. It is not just the Department of
Defense and the communities. These approaches have saved both
time and money and we must continue to look for them as we deal
with bases that are in the closing process and any future
bases.
Infrastructure and code compliance, the second key theme I
would like to touch upon. As we learned early in the base reuse
process of Mather and was reinforced with McClellan, successful
transition of infrastructure ownership and its operation are
critical to both the closure of the facility by the respective
service and also successful reuse of the LRA. The hot turnover
concept, as was previously mentioned, was also applied at
McClellan. This was a process that saw the infrastructure
transition years before the base closure, which allowed the
services to focus resources, specifically the Air Force, in
getting the base closed and allowed us to bring reuse
activities into the base.
No single element of infrastructure--water, sanitary sewer,
electrical, natural gas systems, for example--can be
overlooked. At essentially every closed military base that I am
aware of, this basic infrastructure, which was never developed
considering local, State codes, requires significant capital
investment. The same also unfortunately applies to building
codes.
The last area I would like to touch upon is the Federal
property transfer process. That process has improved
dramatically over time with the introduction of the economic
development conveyance and then in turn the no-cost EDC. These
tools were applied at both Mather and McClellan.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Although Sacramento County has no fears associated with
future rounds of base closure--we do not have any more bases in
our community--I would urge you to consider the no-cost EDC
methodology for disposing of military property in the future.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert B. Leonard
Good morning, Senator Hutchison, Senator Feinstein, and members of
the Committee. My name is Rob Leonard. I am currently Assistant
Director of the Sacramento County Airport System. The Sacramento County
Airport System is comprised of Sacramento International Airport, Mather
Airport, Sacramento Executive Airport, and Franklin Field. Prior to
assuming this position I served as Executive Director of the Sacramento
County Department of Military Base Conversion for 9 years. Sacramento
County is the Local Redevelopment Authority for the former McClellan
Air Force Base and Mather Air Force.
Sacramento has become the most experienced community in the country
with military base closure and conversion as we have dealt with three
base closures. Mather Air Force Base, the Sacramento Army Depot, and
McClellan Air Force Base have each been closed under the Base
Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) process. Sacramento had a base in
the first ``round'' of BRAC (1988) and also the last (1995) round of
BRAC. We have had first hand experience and have been a direct
participant in the evolution of BRAC process. Although the BRAC process
and the forms of assistance and resources provided to base closure
communities has significantly improved over time, I along with many
others, believe there was much room for improvement. My comments focus
on three key areas:
Environmental Remediation
As you are well aware, the majority of BRAC sites have significant,
environmental remediation or clean-up needs that simply must be dealt
with. Local Redevelopment Authorities must have certainty in the site
characterization, a remediation plan, and most importantly the
remediation schedule and funding. These factors are most critical in
development of a realistic reuse plan and the attraction of private
investment to support successful reuse and economic recovery.
Six years ago the estimated cost to clean-up McClellan was
approximately $832 million and was projected to take 30 years. Today,
the cost is estimated to be $1.3 billion and is anticipated to continue
far beyond 2033. Approximately $350 million has been spent to this
date. Although this is a long-term program, incremental progress, on
schedule, is critical to support successful reuse. Over the past 2
years the Air Force appropriation requests for the McClellan
environmental program have not been fully supported by the Department
of Defense and Congress; and as a result, the clean-up schedule has
been adversely affected. The achievement of critical milestones in the
McClellan remediation program is now anticipated to be delayed by seven
or more years.
Adequate resources must be made available on an ongoing annual
basis and, in turn, appropriately administered to maintain remediation
schedules. The consequences of not doing so have a compounding negative
impact on successful reuse of both McClellan and Mather, or any other
base reuse location.
In the cases of both McClellan and Mather there have been creative
solutions to environmental remediation identified and pursued through
the partnering of County, the Air Force, and the environmental
regulatory community. These approaches have saved both time and money.
We must continue to look for them and be open to them in the future.
Infrastructure and Code Compliance
As we learned early in the reuse process at Mather and was
reinforced at McClellan, successful transition of infrastructure
ownership and its operation is essential to support both the closure of
a base by the military and also early reuse success of the Local
Redevelopment Authority. The ``Hot Turnover'' of McClellan
infrastructure over 2 years prior to base closure is a model of success
compared to multi-year piecemeal experience at Mather.
No single element of infrastructure--water, sanitary sewer,
electrical and natural gas distribution systems, and telephone for
example, can be overlooked. At essentially every closed military base
that I am aware of the basic infrastructure, which was never developed
considering local or State code requirements or standards, requires
significant capital investment. The same fact unfortunately applies to
all buildings and structures. At McClellan the infrastructure and code
compliance investment identified in the reuse plan is $283 million. The
equivalent requirement at Mather is approximately $140 million.
Sacramento County has benefited from Federal grants, primarily from the
Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration, local and
State investment, and also private sector investment but we still have
a long way to go, over $330 million at the two former bases in
Sacramento County. A Federal low-interest loan program, in addition to
existing grant programs, may be appropriate to support both the
improvement and operation of infrastructure in the critical early years
of reuse following base closure.
Property Transfer
The Federal ``process'' for disposal of surplus property at a
closing military facility has substantially improved since the first
round of BRAC. The introduction of the Economic Development Conveyance
(EDC) followed by most recently the no cost EDC have made the Federal
property disposal process much less painful for both the military
service and the LRA. Although Sacramento County has no fears associated
with a future round of base closures, I would urge you to consider the
no cost EDC methodology for disposing of surplus military property in
the future.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much.
Mr. DuBois, we went ahead and started and we will be
through very shortly and call you.
Mr. DuBois. No problem.
Senator Hutchison. I know you had traffic problems.
I would like to just ask all three of you briefly. I think
from what you have said there are a couple of factors that keep
recurring. One is the land transfer and second the
environmental remediation. It has been said, by the Department
of Defense, that one of the problems is that a community will
not reach the decision about what it wants to do with the
property early enough that they can do a swift transfer and the
correct environmental remediation.
All three of you I think said it was not a factor in your
communities. But my question is how can we better help other
communities who are going to face this not run into
disagreements on land use that would cause them the delays that
all of you have said would be devastating to your communities?
General Roberson. Senator Hutchison, the afternoon--you may
recall, in fact, you were at the mission when it made the
decision in 1995. That afternoon, the Mayor of San Antonio at
the time appointed a communitywide group of people to plan a
vision for the redevelopment of Kelly that represented all the
aspects of the community. They worked for several months and
put together a vision for the redevelopment of Kelly and,
amazingly enough, that vision is still, in broad outline, what
we are still working on today, several years later.
So I think the key to it is an early decision by the
leadership of the community to get a broad involvement of the
community and to try to hammer out a vision that everybody can
buy into, and then use that as a blueprint for the future. If
you do not do that, I think you can end up with the kind of
debates and arguments that delay redevelopment over time.
Senator Hutchison. Any other comments?
Mr. Bryan. I think in our case under the hot turnover
scenario as we have all mentioned, early on Governor Carroll
Campbell sort of put together what we call the BEST Committee,
B-E-S-T, Building Economic Solutions----
Senator Feinstein. Pardon me, could you speak directly into
the mike. It's hard to hear.
Mr. Bryan. I am sorry, I am sorry.
As I said, early on Governor Carroll Campbell put together
a committee called the BEST Committee as a group of community
leaders to look at this property and see what possibility it
was best used for, and obviously after a year that plan was put
together and it enabled us to have a hot transfer while they
were still hammering out the cleanup, how that is going to
occur, when it occurs.
At this point I think we have some 350 acres out of 1,500
that have been transferred and this process is still ongoing
under the leasing scenario.
Mr. Leonard. I would concur that I think the most important
point is focused local leadership, and if you look at the
successful case studies around the country where the local
leadership has come together immediately following a closure
announcement and, rather than turf wars erupting in disputes
over who is in charge, bringing the local leadership together
to focus in turn on a reuse plan and transition of the
properties is absolutely critical.
There are case studies in California where you can see both
success and near-failure all because of the focus in
leadership.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
My last question. I do want to get in the record the issue
of the McKinney Act. We have faced it in BRACs, of course, but
we are also facing it in ongoing bases that want to take out
certain parts of a base or take out housing. So I want to ask
each of you what your experience was with the McKinney Act and
if you have any thoughts about eliminating it or if it could be
reworked in any way that would not affect the ability for a
reuse that would make sense so that it is all the same type of
reuse.
So anyone who would like to answer?
General Roberson. Maybe I can start, Senator. While I am
personally sympathetic with the goals of the McKinney Act, at
Kelly it was a great disaster for us. We did make a significant
amount of personal and real property available to legitimate
homeless organizations and it worked out fine, but there was
one group that turned out not to be a legitimate homeless
organization that did not get property and, after going through
the process, ended up taking us to Federal court, and that has
lingered on for 5 years as a matter of fact and cost the
redevelopment agency over a quarter of a million dollars in
legal fees, and finally is almost resolved now in our favor.
But it delayed the use of some property and obviously was a
significant financial burden on the redevelopment agency.
I guess I could get a little emotional about it because of
the impact on us. But I don't see any solution but to eliminate
the McKinney Act.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Leonard? Sorry.
General Roberson. In our case, early on we brought the
providers together to identify any of the local groups that may
be part of the group that could utilize the McKinney Act and we
dealt with this issue one time as we moved ahead. It was agreed
upon, anyone that was not on this list would not qualify 3
years down the road to come back in and try to secure a portion
of our base.
We successfully located some of the homeless providers and
they are there now, but it has been an ongoing scenario of new
folks coming in to say that they are entitled to this property
and then we have to go back to the original scenario that we
have, that we have dealt with at one time early on.
Senator Hutchison. Did you give up buildings or did you
give up land?
Mr. Bryan. Buildings and housing.
Senator Hutchison. So you did not have to give away land,
or did they not move the houses?
Mr. Bryan. No, the houses are still there and they are
occupying the houses. There were so many of the buildings that
they would like to have that they could not afford the
utilities and the upkeep on them. So we had to keep juggling
that around to giving them a supplement they could operate once
they got there. But we did not lose any land.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Leonard.
Mr. Leonard. Yes, two case studies. Mather, we as the LRA
brought all the homeless providers together and identified a
series of competing needs. We developed a program together and
then in turn, through the county Department of Human Services,
implemented that program with the county as lead agency, with
also HUD support to make that program go, and it remains a
success story to this date. So the county took property, real
property, through a homeless assistance conveyance to make that
program go.
McClellan, a different story. We attempted the same
approach. However, we had one provider within our community
which did not cooperate within this process. They laid claim to
some prime property on McClellan, validated their request, and
secured Federal sponsorship, and we have in essence been in a
multi-year experience of negotiating them away from that
property to another site on the base, also providing them in
essence a cash settlement to assist them in developing
additional facilities and running programs on McClellan and
also at another location.
Although, as Mr. Roberson indicated, I too am sympathetic
to the needs, I feel as though this is a real conflict and a
significant complicating factor in the military base reuse
process. So I would urge it be dispensed with.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much.
I was puzzled by your testimony. You say: ``Over the past 2
years the Air Force appropriation requests for the McClellan
environmental program has not been fully supported by the
Department of Defense and the Congress. As a result, the
cleanup schedule has been adversely affected. The achievement
of critical milestones in the remediation program is now
anticipated to be delayed by 7 or more years.''
This is because of lack of funding?
Mr. Leonard. Yes, yes, because of lack of funding and also
the application of funds that have been appropriated.
Senator, we wanted to express our appreciation for your
efforts over the last year in supporting our needs at
McClellan.
Senator Feinstein. I do not recall ever getting an
additional request, ever having one being brought to my
attention, and I am just asking my staff to go back and check
now, but I do not recall it at this time. So how much money are
you speaking of?
Mr. Leonard. Specifically, there is a request that we are
working on now for $20 million to support a sanitary sewer
replacement and environmental remediation at McClellan. This is
absolutely critical. We stand by with local funds to replace
the sewer system. However, because of radioactive materials
contaminating the sewer there is an additional requirement for
Air Force address of that issue.
Senator Feinstein. Is that the plutonium from the reactor?
Mr. Leonard. No, that is a separate issue. We also had
another site, referred to as CS-10, which has a $38 million
cleanup requirement, and I believe that is being funded over a
multi-year period. That is the plutonium site. The radiological
issues associated with sanitary sewer represent a different
issue for which funding is needed.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I am concerned that you are this
far behind. My question is what do you need this next year? You
mentioned the $20 million for the sewer and I gather the
community is putting in a like amount; is that correct?
Mr. Leonard. That is correct.
Mr. Bryan. How much do you need for the plutonium cleanup?
Mr. Leonard. I would have to check to see what the
additional number will be next year.
Senator Feinstein. Well, if you would do that I would
appreciate it. And I wish someone would talk to me directly
about it. I would appreciate that very much as well.
Mr. Leonard. Certainly.
Senator Feinstein. May I ask you, Mr. Bryan, a question
just to clear something up. What is the current relationship
between the redevelopment authority and the State legislature?
My understanding--I am unclear of how that status was resolved
in Charleston.
Mr. Bryan. I guess you are speaking of the recent
legislation that the property would be divided between the City
of North Charleston and the South Carolina State Ports
Authority.
Senator Feinstein. That is correct.
Mr. Bryan. That legislation has been passed that a portion
of the property would go to the City of North Charleston for a
redevelopment project that is part of their old village, which
is about 300 acres, 350 acres, and the rest of the 1,400 some
acres would be the South Carolina Ports Authority to build
their new terminal with some Federal tenants placed in those
areas that they will have to work around.
I have to tell you, I am concerned about the jobs that we
have in there now with that type of scenario. But the
legislation is passed; now it is my job to see that it goes
smoothly towards dividing it.
Senator Feinstein. Would you express your concerns a little
more fully, please?
Mr. Bryan. My concern is that the property on the naval
base and the money spent belongs to the taxpayers of the State
of South Carolina and that a portion of this property that
would go to the City of North Charleston may wind up as a
private development with private developers coming in. And when
the legislation was passed, we did an agreement with the City
of North Charleston on a development plan for that base that
they would pay the redevelopment authority the market value of
the property. When the legislation was passed, the legislation
was passed that they get it free of charge and then they are
able to sell it to their private developers. But the
redevelopment authority has no relationship whatsoever to the
developer. Ours is strictly with the city.
Senator Feinstein. I missed that. The redevelopment agency
has no relationship?
Mr. Bryan. Has no relationship with the developer. Our
relationship is strictly with the city of North Charleston. I
have some concerns about the project, but if it does not go our
relationship is with the city. We would have had to send a
development of this magnitude out on an RFP.
Senator Feinstein. So is what you are saying public land is
being given to a private entity for a profitmaking purpose? Is
that what you are saying?
Mr. Bryan. What I am saying is it is being given to the
City of North Charleston and the city is selling it to a
private developer, yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. At market rate?
Mr. Bryan. I hope so.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bryan. My main concern there was the jobs that are in
place and the long-term effect of a private development
collecting the rents and that sort of thing from these jobs and
the long-term sustainability was my concern.
Senator Feinstein. How many jobs are in place?
Mr. Bryan. 5,400.
Senator Feinstein. 5,400. So they would essentially be
lost?
Mr. Bryan. They have agreed to honor their term of lease.
We do have some 30-year leases in place, but when you are
operating a shipyard there is continual investment and I am not
sure you continue to invest if you think you may be going away
1 day. So I am concerned about that.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you, are the people satisfied
with that?
Mr. Bryan. ``The people'' as?
Senator Feinstein. In Charleston, the community.
Mr. Bryan. I think the City of North Charleston, which the
base is located in, is satisfied that they are getting some
riverfront property and that sort of thing. I think the
taxpayers as a whole for the Charleston region probably do not
quite understand how that could happen.
Senator Feinstein. So you are saying this would most likely
end up being office commercial or housing and the shipyard jobs
would be gone?
Mr. Bryan. I surely hope not. It is a shipyard that has 700
or 800 employees. It is just really doing a great job with
keeping people employed and bringing ships in. As I said, it
has been a very successful conversion and I hope that it
continues to be a shipyard for many years.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Mr. Bryan. At some point I feel that the local
redevelopment authority would probably go away faster now in
this scenario that the land is being divided. Once the land is
divided and the land is in the ports authority area and the
land is in the City of North Charleston and they start
collecting the rents and dealing with the issues, then maybe at
some point in that--I have devised a plan that maybe the local
redevelopment authority will go out of existence maybe December
31, 2004, if this plan continues in the way that it is going.
Now, whether the City of North Charleston keeps their own
LRA in place, I do not know. I know there has been some moves
in the future from the city to ask the State legislature to do
away with the redevelopment authority so that they can do their
projects now as they would like, without stumbling blocks. That
is really the way it is.
Senator Feinstein. Right. Thank you. I have to think about
this a little bit because I basically believe local
decisionmaking should determine the use of these bases. It is
an interesting decision for Charleston to make if they are
going to lose all those jobs.
Mr. Bryan. I think there was a real push to get the State
ports authority in an area that they could have their new
expansion. Daniel Island was a potential for years and the
legislature has basically said you are not going there, but let
us look at the Navy base. I think some concessions were made
for the City of North Charleston because they had some
ordinances in place that said there will be no port type
activity in the City of North Charleston. So I think some
concessions were made there, and hopefully in the long term it
will turn out to be good.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bryan. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Hutchison. Thank all of you for coming here from
your home towns to help us, because certainly this is a major
part of any BRAC that we have and your insights have been very
good and we will try to help other communities learn from your
experiences. Thank you.
General Roberson. Thank you.
Mr. Bryan. Thank you very much.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND F. DuBOIS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
Senator Hutchison. Now I would like to ask Mr. Ray DuBois,
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment.
Mr. DuBois. Madam Chairwoman, can you hear me?
Senator Hutchison. Yes, I can.
Mr. DuBois. I want to thank you very much for rearranging
the hearing today. To hear from folks like Paul Roberson and
Jim Bryan and Bob Leonard is for me very informative. It is,
after all, their experiences that have helped to inform the
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 round and the process
by which the Secretary is going to do the analysis.
I would like to begin by saying that, notwithstanding the
fact that I am in one of my other hats, the Director of
Administration and Management, and therefore own the motor pool
at the Pentagon, that still does not get me across the river on
time sometimes. I understand there was an incident on the
Memorial Bridge today that absolutely clogged all the arteries
in.
Senator Hutchison. Oh, that was why?
Mr. DuBois. Yes, yes, ma'am.
Now, today I am going to briefly open with a statement and,
with your forbearance, submit for the record my written
statement. But I thought it was important to just outline BRAC
2005, the process, the overseas basing issues that are on the
Secretary's desk, some reuse issues that in no small measure by
virtue of the inputs from folks like those who were in the
first panel, how we intend to relook at the reuse and disposal
issues.
BRAC environmental cleanup, of concern to this subcommittee
and to you and Senator Feinstein, as well as to us. I did
listen to the exchange on the McKinney Act and I might just
make one quick comment about that, and I understand that
Senator Feinstein made some remarks about the perchlorate issue
that I am prepared to at least answer as I see the process
going on in terms of looking at the reference dosage and risk
assessments there.
Of course, Secretary Rumsfeld appreciates the opportunity
that you have afforded me and in turn myself as his
representative to appear today before this Military
Construction Subcommittee. The issues of base realignment and
closure, both the process and product are clearly--and the
Secretary has testified to this effect--not something that one
wakes up in the morning and wants to do with great appreciation
and alacrity.
Having said that, there is no question that the critical
importance of the rationalization of our entire military
infrastructure for the Department is very, very important to
him. Now, some have implied recently that the Secretary's
attention has been somewhat diverted. I can assure you that it
is not all Iraq all the time. There are issues pertaining to
transformation of the Department that take up the Secretary's
time during the day also.
Now, BRAC--he personally has been involved in this BRAC
kickoff, if you will, and I will address that in a moment. To
reconfigure our current infrastructure, to include both the
war-fighting capability and the efficiency of our business
operations, is tantamount to success. Our expectation is by
removing excess infrastructure, excess capacity if you will, we
hope to save at least several billions of dollars per year.
Now, if we were able to do that we could then focus those funds
on facilities we actually need and turn wastes into war-
fighting, as well as quality of life improvements for the men
and women who serve and voluntarily serve in our military.
The Department will conduct this rationalization with an
eye toward ensuring that we assess the capacity across
installations maintained by the Military Services for the best
joint use possible. This is in many ways a different approach
than has been the case in the four prior rounds--best joint use
possible.
Now, we have examined carefully the experiences gained
through the management of the previous BRAC rounds and, looking
ahead to the next one, we have attempted to make a number of
process improvements to enhance our ability to arrive at the
right-sizing of our infrastructure, which will in turn
complement and support the business transformation activities
of the Department.
Now, the Secretary released a memorandum, which I believe
you have, in November of last year that, quote unquote, kicked
off the Department's BRAC process. It created an analytical
framework and a review and oversight process that we believe
improves and strengthens those of previous BRAC rounds and
which in point of fact takes into consideration several
suggestions some Senators and Members of the House in our
discussions over the past 2 years.
Now, for example, early on in the process the Secretary
will review and approve those functions within the Department
that will receive what we call joint cross-Service analysis as
well as establish the measurements of success, the metrics for
that analysis. Now, while the Services, the individual military
departments and Services, will evaluate their unique functions,
their unique military operational functions, those functions
which are determined to be common to more than one service,
business-oriented, and in point of fact functions that exist in
more than one service or reside in the private sector, they are
going to be evaluated from the get-go in a joint cross-Service
way. This is different from the prior rounds.
We recently established six broad areas to examine
functions for joint analysis. Now, you can imagine we could
have used various terms, and I will answer questions as best I
can on what these terms mean. But I think they are fairly self-
explanatory.
The first category is what we call industrial activities,
those activities that are again common to the Services across
the board and also activities which the private sector
performs, number one.
Number two, supply and storage, warehousing and so forth.
Number three, technical and laboratory.
Number four, education and training facilities.
Number five, medical facilities.
And number six, a sort of catch-all category that we call
administrative facilities. But in particular I should note that
this last category, the administrative category, will address
the national capital region, a region that, as we all know, has
in excess of 100,000 military and civilian personnel in the
employ of the Department of Defense, and every single military
service as well as the Secretary of Defense owns or controls
real estate in the national capital region and we believe that
only through a joint cross-Service approach could we
appropriately assess and rationalize that particular area.
Now, overseas: In this subcommittee at my last appearance,
we addressed some of the issues. But there is no question that
our installations transformation is not limited to the United
States and its territories. We are also assessing our
facilities overseas to determine the proper size and mix. As
you well know, since 1990, the Department has returned or
reduced operations at about 1,000 overseas sites, resulting in
a 60 percent reduction in our overseas infrastructure and in
particular a 66 percent reduction in Europe.
We continue to review the overseas basing requirements with
the assistance of the combatant commanders and we are currently
examining opportunities for both joint use of facilities and
land by the four Services together, consolidation of the
infrastructure, enhanced training areas--again a joint service
assessment.
Now, the Secretary, as you know, directed a comprehensive
review of our overseas presence in response to the interest and
the direction of some of the members of this subcommittee as
well as others in Congress. It also reflected his vision, which
was addressed in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) of
September 2001, to look at and comprehensively review that
infrastructure that was in support of our war-fighting plans
overseas.
Now, it has been asked, why hasn't the Secretary responded
to the requirement to submit to Congress a more complete report
in this regard. We received from the combatant commanders their
preliminary inputs last year. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, General Myers, requested that the Secretary delay his
report to Congress in order to review those reports, those
inputs, as well as the fact that we were about to appoint and
announce two new combatant commanders, one in Korea, General
Leon LaPorte, and the SACEUR or the European Commander, General
Jim Jones, and the Secretary believed that it was important to
get their initial views as well.
I can assure the committee, the subcommittee, however, that
the Secretary has in place a process which will address these
overseas basing requirements, to include reprogramming for
fiscal year 2003, as well as, where and when necessary,
presenting a budget amendment to this committee in the Senate
and your counterpart in the House, a possible budget amendment
for fiscal year 2004, prior to your markup.
With respect to reuse, you heard from the three witnesses
in the prior panel that local communities, when faced with a
closure, must address and grapple with a number of reuse and
redevelopment issues. The closure of a military base can be a
significant redevelopment challenge. After four rounds of BRAC,
there have been numerous success stories and, admittedly, there
have been some stories less than successful.
Reusing a military base is frequently the largest and most
complex economic redevelopment effort ever undertaken in that
particular community. Local reuse authorities work to harness
public and private sector resources to drive economic recovery
and growth.
Now, as of October 2002, the end of the last fiscal year, I
asked for a review of how many civilian jobs were created on
former military bases. It is in excess of 85,000, an 8 percent
increase from the previous year.
The timely transfer of property will always be a priority
for the Department and I recognize the importance of quick
access to the property in order to, yes, save DOD caretaker
costs, but also to leverage private development financing,
create new jobs, and generate new tax revenues.
Each military department has an extensive and varied
experience with BRAC reuse and disposal and I am sure you will
address that to the witnesses who follow me. Now, in order to
share those experiences and expertise and to ensure that the
Department of Defense is conducting reuse and disposal in the
most efficient and effective way possible, I have formed a
working group called the Reuse and Disposal Group, chaired by
my principal deputy, Mr. Philip Grone, former Deputy Staff
Director of the House Armed Services Committee, to work with
the Services and military departments and Members of Congress
and interested parties in the local communities to improve how
we go about BRAC reuse and disposal.
I look forward to reviewing with the Congress, perhaps
early next year, some of the ideas that we are coming up with.
Now, in conclusion, we have tried to do much within the
BRAC authority provided by the Congress. By consolidating and
realigning and reducing unneeded infrastructure, the Department
can indeed focus investments on maintaining and recapitalizing
what we actually require, resulting in ready facilities for the
war-fighters while more prudently using the taxpayers' money.
Change is rarely easy. Changes that we are asking of the
military departments and our communities are daunting. But we
look forward to working with you on this challenge.
Now, I did mention that I would quickly talk, if you would
permit me, Madam Chairman, about BRAC cleanup, an issue that
continues to, yes, in some ways vex myself and my three
Assistant Service Secretary colleagues. But it is important to
note that, with the help of the Congress, we have already spent
in excess of $7.5 billion on BRAC environmental requirements,
the majority of which of course has been devoted to BRAC
cleanup.
Now, it is true that there is still a cost to complete, not
an insignificant one, one that is approximated in excess of $4
billion to suffice the final cleanup requirements. But as I
have testified before, oftentimes environmental impediments
frustrate the community involved as well as the Department of
Defense, and these environmental impediments are not
necessarily driven by a statute, be it State or Federal.
Oftentimes it is driven by conflicts between State and Federal
regulators on the site and between local special interests who
have varying degrees of desires with respect to cleanup
remedies and land use controls most particularly.
Now, we plan to reinvigorate, and it is in this year's
defense authorization legislative proposal in front of you, in
front of the authorizing committees, we plan to reinvigorate
the President's Economic Adjustment Committee, which is an
organization comprised of all 23 Federal agencies and
departments, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to
use together our respective and collective influence, power,
and funding to attempt reconciliation at the local level and
appropriate funding for environmental cleanup and land use
planning.
Lastly, the McKinney Act. The Department of Defense wants
to go on record, I want to go on record, that we support the
goals of the McKinney Act, but, like most other public policy
statutes, sometimes they are difficult to administer, again
because of local special interest conflicts, especially for us
the quarterly requirements, the repetitive screening
requirements.
We believe that the McKinney Act as it applies to BRAC
would be much more workable if it was a one-time screening
requirement and once it has been concluded that the property is
not suitable or there is no interest, the property should be
free from further requirements. This constant rolling screening
I think is an impediment to ultimate reuse.
Now, the McKinney Act was originally designed as a property
transfer mechanism. Many homeless assistance providers,
however, expressed that they would rather have money than the
property because they find that they cannot necessarily make
use of the property that might be available to them in a BRAC
situation. Now, of course the Defense Department is not
authorized nor has Congress appropriated funding to us to
satisfy what may very well be important and legitimate concerns
on the part of the homeless organizations in that particular
community, and therefore we get caught in this local conflict
between jurisdictions and between interests.
prepared statement
I think I will stop there. I do appreciate your forbearance
in letting me address some of those issues that I understand
came up in your opening statements. I do know that Senator
Feinstein has some perchlorate concerns and rightly so, but I
will wait until I get asked the question if that is all right
with you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Raymond F. Dubois
Chairwoman Hutchison, Senator Feinstein, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, I welcome the opportunity
to appear before you today to discuss the base realignment and closure
(BRAC) process and the critical importance of the rationalization of
military infrastructure to the Department of Defense. Rationalizing our
infrastructure is an integral part of our effort to transform the
Department. New force structures must be accompanied by a new base
structure. Today I will discuss this Administration's approach to the
new BRAC round and our progress in implementing the prior rounds.
transforming bases and infrastructure
Since 1988, the Department of Defense has closed 97 major
installations and realigned missions at an additional 55 others.
Combined with the over 230 minor BRAC actions undertaken during the
four previous rounds of BRAC, the Department of Defense has
rationalized much of its infrastructure. Since the last round in 1995,
three successive Secretaries have argued for the need to further
rationalize defense infrastructure. In the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002, Congress was persuaded by the
case laid out by Secretary Rumsfeld and authorized an additional BRAC
round for 2005. We are grateful to the Congress for authorizing this
process. BRAC 2005 will reconfigure our current infrastructure to
improve both war fighting capability and efficiency. Our expectation is
that by removing additional excess capacity we hope to save several
billion dollars annually. We can then focus the funds on facilities we
actually need and turn waste into warfighting as well as [and] quality-
of-life improvements for the men and women who volunteer in service to
the Nation.
Prior BRAC actions have resulted in net savings to the Department
of Defense and its Components of approximately $17 billion, with annual
recurring savings of approximately $7 billion. These savings have been
thoroughly validated by the General Accounting Office. However,
savings, while critically important, are not the only benefit--in fact,
they are not even the primary benefit. The authority to realign and
close bases we no longer need will be a critical element of ensuring
the right mix of bases and forces within our warfighting strategy as we
transform the Department to meet the security challenges of the 21st
century.
Transformation requires rationalizing our base structure to better
match the force structure for the new ways of doing business. And the
Department will conduct this rationalization with an eye toward
ensuring we assess capacity across the installations maintained by the
military services for the best joint use possible, if that is
appropriate for the mission under review.
We have examined carefully the experiences gained through the
management of previous base realignment and closure rounds. Looking
ahead, to the next round in 2005, we have attempted to make a number of
process improvements to enhance our ability to arrive at a rightsizing
of our infrastructure which will complement and support the force and
business transformation activities of the Department.
conducting brac 2005
The Department's BRAC 2005 round will be based upon the general
template used in the three previous BRAC rounds. While I recognize that
there was some criticism regarding the implementation of the previous
Commission's recommendations, overall, the process worked well. In
fact, the review by the General Accounting Office of the Department's
1995 BRAC process concluded that the process was generally sound and
well documented and should result in substantial savings. The
Comptroller General concluded that as Congress considered the need for
future defense infrastructure reductions that it avail itself of a
process similar to that authorized in 1990 that govern the succeeding
three rounds of base realignment and closure. As a caution, however,
the General Accounting Office also recommended that the Department
needed to strengthen its leadership within the process, should there be
a future BRAC round, to maximize the opportunity for rationalization,
particularly in areas that could be considered joint or common business
and functional areas.
Both the Congress and the Department have responded affirmatively
to those recommendations. The Congress authorized a BRAC round for May
of 2005 based upon the successful construct of the previous three
rounds with the Secretary providing recommendations to an independent
commission which then holds public hearings and issues its
recommendations to the President who then forwards them to the Congress
for approval on an ``all or none'' basis. Similarly, the Secretary of
Defense, in his memorandum of November 15, 2002, that ``kicked off''
the Department's BRAC process created a review and oversight process
that is substantially strengthened from those in previous rounds.
The Secretary established an Infrastructure Executive Council,
chaired by the Deputy Secretary, and composed of the Secretaries of the
Military Departments and their Chiefs of Services, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics) as the policymaking and oversight body for
the entire BRAC 2005 process. The Secretary also established a
subordinate Infrastructure Steering Group chaired by the Under
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) and
composed of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Military Department Assistant Secretaries for installations and
environment, the Service Vice Chiefs, and myself.
This structure will permit the Secretary of Defense will approve
key elements of the process has, in fact, established a strengthened
joint process for BRAC 2005 that will advance transformation,
jointness, combat effectiveness, and the efficient use of taxpayer's
money by effectively capitalizing on the military value of our
installations. For example, early on in the process, the Secretary will
review and approve those functions within the Department that will
receive joint cross-service analysis and the metrics for that analysis.
While the Services will evaluate their unique functions, those
functions determined to be common business-oriented (i.e., the
functions exist in more than one service or reside in the private
sector) will be evaluated jointly for cross-servicing.
Along those lines, we have recently established six broad areas to
examine functions for joint analysis. Those broad areas are: Supply and
Storage, Industrial, Technical, Education and Training, Medical and
Administration. We are now in the process of designing the
organizational approach for a comprehensive analysis of these functions
for the Secretary's approval. In the previous round, the Department
constrained its joint cross-service analysis by limiting the authority
of the groups conducting the analysis and assigning them a much more
limited functional basis. Through the lessons learned from previous
rounds and the design of a process to mitigate the constraints imposed
in previous rounds, I am confident that BRAC 2005 will achieve its
potential to materially improve the manner in which military
infrastructure and supports our war fighting capability.
overseas
Our installations transformation is not limited to the United
States. We also are assessing our facilities overseas to determine the
proper size and mix. Since 1990, the Department of Defense has returned
or reduced operations at about 1,000 overseas sites, resulting in a 60
percent reduction in our overseas infrastructure and a 66 percent
reduction in Europe, in particular, and we continue to review overseas
basing requirements of the Combatant Commanders and examine
opportunities for joint use of facilities and land by the Services,
consolidation of infrastructure, and enhanced training. We have
undertaken a comprehensive review of our overseas presence, in response
to both the interest and direction of the Congress and the Secretary's
initiative. While this comprehensive review has not been completed, I
can assure the Subcommittee that we are working very hard on it and
will report to the Congress as it is completed.
base reuse and community profile
For local communities faced with a closure, of course, BRAC raises
a number of reuse and redevelopment issues. As the Members of this
Subcommittee know well, the closure of a military base can be a
significant redevelopment challenge. After four rounds of BRAC,
numerous success stories abound and, admittedly, some challenges
remain.
The closure of a military installation creates a hurdle and an
opportunity for local communities to reuse large parcels of land and
existing buildings in ways not previously envisioned. A closed
installation can be the affected community's greatest asset for
mitigating the impacts of the closure and charting a future that
diversifies the local economy and attempts to build on a community's
strengths.
Reusing a military base is frequently the largest and most complex
economic redevelopment effort ever undertaken in a community. Local
reuse authorities work to harness public and private sector resources
to drive economic recovery and growth. Reuse also creates an
opportunity to achieve multiple community goals, including the
diversification of the local economy through new job creation;
expansion of the tax-base; and satisfying a range of community needs
for new public facilities. Through the four previous rounds of BRAC,
the Military Departments transferred about 250,000 acres of land with
buildings and other improvements for reuse as non-Defense activities.
As of October 2002, over 85,000 new civilian jobs have been created on
former military bases--an 8 percent increase from the previous year.
The Defense Economic Adjustment Program seeks to assist Defense-
impacted communities, workers, and businesses. Over the past four
rounds of BRAC, the Department's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA)
has provided over $270 million in economic adjustment planning
assistance for the preparation of adjustment strategies, reuse plans,
and initial organizational staffing. In addition, $218 million has been
provided by the Department of Labor for worker adjustment assistance;
$405 million in aviation master planning and implementation assistance
from the Federal Aviation Administration; and, $568 million from the
Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration for
building construction, demolition, and other implementation activities.
Interagency coordination with the Departments of Health and Human
Services, Education, Justice, the Interior, and Transportation, has
also facilitated the transfer and effective reuse of more than 154,000
acres.
The Department recognizes the uniqueness of each community and has
provided a combination of technical and financial resources to support
the needs of the impacted community. These include:
--Organization.--A community's single point of contact for all
matters relating to the closure that is representative of the
impacted community and deliberates to reach a consensus on base
reuse and other local adjustment issues.
--Plan.--Community prescription for economic recovery in response to
the closure, including specific details on reuse of the former
military facility. The effort optimally takes into account the
Military Department's environmental baseline information along
with the community's economic strengths and opportunities. Job
creation and tax base expansion are common goals, although
public activity and non-revenue-generating activity
(institutional use, parks and recreational areas, hospitals,
schools, etc.) are included as well.
--Implementation.--community will seek to achieve a sustained mix of
public/private civilian activity on the former base consistent
with its redevelopment plan, yielding enough revenue to cover
the community's costs of reuse and the necessary private return
on investment. For some, this may take a considerable amount of
time.
Federal property disposal laws and special enhancements authorized
for BRAC locations provide a variety of acquisition mechanisms to
satisfy a diverse number of base reuse scenarios. Traditional public
benefit transfers have been available for public entities and certain
eligible non-profit organizations. These include use for aviation,
ports, prisons, education, health and historic monument purposes. BRAC
laws added the economic development conveyance (EDC) for job producing
activities like business and industrial uses. Initially this provision
was for transactions at or less than fair market value. Later Congress
made these transfers available at no cost. The fiscal year 2002
National Defense Authorization Act modified the EDC provision to make
the no-cost EDC a permissive action. There was also Congressional
direction that the Secretary seek fair market value consideration for
EDC transfers in BRAC 2005.
Despite this change to the EDC authority, a rich array of property
disposal and acquisition authorities and strategies remain. A recent
example of a mixed disposal is the former MCAS Tustin where the 1,585
acres were transferred under public benefit authorities for homeless
and park uses, under an EDC for primarily business development, and
much of the former military housing was sold at a public bid sale. In
addition the historic blimp hangar will be transferred to the City of
Tustin under an historic PBC. Numerous closed bases have been
transferred under multiple property disposal authorities that suit the
intended community uses.
From 1988 through 1995, approximately 387 closure or realignment
actions were approved and the Department has completed each action
within its respective statutory deadline. In implementing these
actions, the Department has sought to close the facilities quickly to
maximize savings and make property available for community reuse
objectives, including job creation. As of December 2002, the Military
Departments have disposed of 271,769 acres (53 percent) of the 510,747
acres that are being made available for disposal and local reuse. Of
the remaining inventory, roughly 189,559 acres are projected to be
transferred by the end of fiscal year 2004. Incidentally, approximately
82 percent of the remaining acreage lies in 6 installations where
environmental remediation must be completed. I am working closely with
each of the Military Departments as they seek to transfer this property
and remedy any impediments to disposal. The transfer of this property
is a priority for the Department and I recognize the importance of
quick access to the property in order to save DOD caretaker costs,
leverage private redevelopment financing, create new jobs, and generate
new tax revenues.
However, impediments exist that delay property disposal. Many are
environmental-related and have been encountered to varying degrees at
every location. They range from conflict between Federal and State
regulations or regulators; lack of policy on specific contaminants such
as unexploded ordnance to fragmented relationships among the clean-up,
disposal, and reuse interests.
There are also some that are inherently community-based (such as
delays in reuse planning and lack of capital for infrastructure
improvements). Others stem from the individual Military Department
efforts at property disposal, including inconsistent interpretation of
BRAC laws, regulations and policy and inefficiency in program execution
and administration.
Still other impediments arise when multiple interests are involved
in negotiations such as the Military Departments, local and/or State
regulators, local authorities and private developer/third party
interests over such items as local protection and maintenance,
development interests, cleanup levels, and land use controls. Lastly,
where impediments have been encountered, the Department has fostered a
partnership with the affected community to address the issues and
facilitate rapid reuse of the former installation.
Each Military Department has extensive and varied experience with
BRAC reuse and disposal. In order to share those experiences and
expertise, and to ensure that the Department of Defense is conducting
reuse and disposal in the most efficient and effective way possible for
all concerned, the Office of the Secretary of Defense is forming a
working group to examine potential improvements to the BRAC reuse and
disposal process.
brac and environmental cleanup
Very early on, the Department decided that expeditious cleanup of
BRAC property was a priority, and ambitiously established a goal to
have remediation response complete or remedies in place by the end of
fiscal year 2005. To guide our BRAC environmental remediation efforts
consistently, we use three over-arching principles:
--Protect human health and the environment.
--Make property available for reuse and transfer as soon as possible.
--Provide for effective community involvement.
The technical challenge of remediation is finding the
contamination; determining what is protective of human health and the
environment; determining a remedy that is safe, cost-effective, and
acceptable to the regulators and the community; and then implementing
the remedy. Simple to describe, but at times very difficult to do. Not
only is there a maze of Federal and State laws and regulations to
navigate, as well as regulatory and community stakeholders to consult,
but sequencing and completing the cleanup must take reuse needs,
priorities, and timelines into account.
The Department has made very good progress in remediation of
traditional hazardous substances. At the end of fiscal year 2002, 79
percent of all 4,900 hazardous substance cleanup sites had remedies in
place or response complete, and we project having 92 percent of our
cleanup sites at the remedy-in-place or response complete milestones by
end of fiscal year 2005. With continued support from Congress and
regulators, we are confident that this can happen. A few sites, due to
complex challenges or other obligations (e.g., Chemical
Demilitarization treaty obligations) will extend beyond fiscal year
2005.
Our BRAC military munitions response program (MMRP) will take
longer to complete, but we are making progress. At the end of fiscal
year 2002, 32 of our 74 BRAC MMRP sites are at the remedy-in-place or
response complete milestone, and we expect that number to grow to 45 by
the end of fiscal year 2005.
The Department continues its efforts to move BRAC properties to
communities faster while still maintaining our commitment to provide
appropriate environmental restoration. One initiative is early
transfer, in which the Components may transfer property by deed while
environmental restoration activities are on-going. This type of
transfer allows better integration of cleanup and redevelopment
activities. DOD has completed 15 such transfers using the early
transfer authority Congress provided in 1996.
As an example, the former Naval Shipyard Mare Island represents one
of DOD's largest early transfers. Early transfer resulted in disposal
of BRAC property years earlier than would have otherwise been possible.
In the case of Mare Island, the City of Vallejo entered into an
agreement with the Navy to continue remediation. The property was
transferred and redevelopment started much sooner than if the City of
Vallejo had to wait for the Navy to complete the cleanup. The 668 acre
Eastern Early Transfer Parcel transferred 4 years ahead of schedule on
March 26, 2002, and the 2,814 acre Western Early Transfer Parcel
transferred 10 years ahead of the previous schedule on September 20,
2002 In another example of early transfer, the Army and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection entered into an agreement
transferring 192 acres to the Bayonne Local Reuse Authority in December
2002. The agreement will allow the reuse authority to perform
environmental remediation activities in conjunction with the
redevelopment process.
As a further example, innovative contracting approaches are proving
effective in leveraging the strengths and capabilities of the private
sector to improve our remediation efforts. For example, guaranteed
fixed price remediation'' (GFPR), focuses on the outcome--DOD contracts
for the final remedy at fixed cost and time. During fiscal year 2002,
the GFPR contract awarded for activities at Fort Pickett, Virginia, was
at 15 percent less than the government estimate. The Navy also realized
similar cost avoidance at Charleston Naval Complex by using this
performance based contracting approach. Cost savings, of course, may
vary from site to site, but, local communities also gain from the time
saved in the initiation and length of remediation activities or by
having increased certainty by securing a final remedy in place by a
fixed date.
conclusion
The Department has done much within the BRAC authority provided by
the Congress. By consolidating, realigning and reducing unneeded
infrastructure, the Department can focus investments on maintaining and
recapitalizing what we actually require, resulting in ready facilities
for the war fighters while more prudently using taxpayer's money.
Change is rarely easy and the changes we are asking of the Military
Departments and our communities are daunting. We look forward to
working with you on this challenge.
In closing, I sincerely thank you for this opportunity. We
appreciate your strong support of our military construction program and
we look forward to continuing to work with this Subcommittee as we
reshape our global infrastructure.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much, Mr. DuBois.
I am going to try to introduce something, and perhaps I can
work with Senator Feinstein or others, to keep the McKinney Act
from doing some of the things that all three of our previous
witnesses mentioned as real problems. Not only was it never
intended that money should be coming out of the BRAC or the
Department of Defense as a substitute, but a quarter of a
million dollars in legal fees ongoing really hurts a
community's capabilities to move forward. So I hope we can make
some changes there.
Let me start with the issue that we have talked about many
times, and that is the overseas bases. How, in the changing
environment that we have now, with perhaps changing geographic
priorities and training constraints in certain areas, how can
you determine what you would be able to reasonably close in a
2005 BRAC process when things are changing so much with our
overseas commitments?
Mr. DuBois. Yes, ma'am. As I indicated, the Secretary of
Defense in the combatant commanders conference of now several
weeks ago discussed this with the Joint Chiefs and all the
combatant commanders, both the geographic combatant commanders
and the non-geographic--STRATCOM, TRANSCOM, et cetera. They
came to a conclusion, not surprising, that the overseas basing
infrastructure was in point of fact a legacy of the Cold War.
It needs to be rationalized, it needs to be reconfigured.
The Secretary discussed with them how fast that the
regional combatant commanders, the geographical commanders, in
concert with the Joint Chiefs and the specified commands, could
report to him on a long-term vision that would in point of fact
inform the domestic BRAC process over the next 2 years. I want
to just set that aside for a quick moment.
The most immediate requirement, however, is, are there any
programmed military construction projects in EUCOM or PACOM
authorized and appropriated in the fiscal year 2003 budget,
this fiscal year, which in the view of the combatant commanders
and the Joint Chiefs could be reprogrammed or changed. By
virtue of the fact that some bases--and I will speak
specifically to Korea--have been determined now by General
LaPorte--and the Army this morning reported to me that they
will be able to get back to me by early next week at the latest
with their views of General LaPorte's recommendations. Are
there bases that are enduring and are there bases that are not?
General LaPorte has identified those that he believes are
enduring and those that he believes are not. Now, this issue
obviously has a number of implications for host Nation support.
Korea does invest a considerable amount of money in supporting
U.S. forces in South Korea and therefore that discussion has
yet to take place.
Suffice it to say that we will ask Congress to reprogram
some money in terms of Korea as well as Europe from 2003
projects currently authorized and appropriated to other areas.
I will give you a hypothetical that in fact is grounded in
reality, although I hope you will appreciate the fact that I do
not want to state specifically at this moment Camp A or Camp Y.
But if the Second Infantry Division, for instance, in Korea was
scheduled to get a barracks at a particular location in Korea,
but General LaPorte thought it would be best to build those
very same barracks at another location because the other
location in point of fact is of an enduring quality, we will
ask for your permission to do that--same barracks, same fitness
center, same military construction projects, same amount of
money, but it will be done at a different location.
In 2004 we have asked General LaPorte to do the same thing.
Remember that these projects, especially the 2003 projects,
were originally planned for two and a half years ago. As you
pointed out, Madam Chairman, life has changed. The Secretary of
Defense has said we can no longer continue to support an
infrastructure, given the 21st century requirements that the
President has articulated and the Secretary of Defense is going
to implement.
How quickly the 2003-2004 recommendations will be presented
to Congress. As I indicated in my opening statement, I want to
do that before you go into markup. That is the only way that
this will work.
Senator Hutchison. I agree and appreciate it, because the
timing was not going to fit. So I appreciate your really
focusing on that and coming forward for the 2003-2004 request.
I would like to extend that, though, the relationship to the
2005 BRAC, and how can you go into a 2005 BRAC with the
uncertainties that you have now and will have over the next
year, and what kind of troop strength you might have there or
bring home because of training constraints or change. You may
take something out of Germany, for instance, and just bring it
home rather than sending it to the Czech Republic.
So how are you fitting in your foreign requirements with
the base closure that is going to be ongoing? The last thing
you want to do is close a base and then try, heaven forbid, to
reopen it. You do not want to do that. So how are you going to
assure that in 2005 when we are making the final round probably
of base closures that you have totally in hand the information
you need about foreign troop strength?
Mr. DuBois. Yes, ma'am. The Secretary in fact within the
last week has discussed with the Chairman how to answer your
very question. Let me just say in a phrase, the domestic BRAC,
those recommendations that will be finalized in the spring of
2005, could not be done intelligently unless there is a
rationalization of the overseas infrastructure. To that end,
the Secretary and the Chairman have discussed, as I indicated,
an integrated global presence and basing strategy approach.
How quickly--and he has also discussed it, they have
discussed it, with the combatant commanders and the Joint
Chiefs. How quickly they could pull together a reasonable
vision of what ought to be--and ``what ought to be'' means 10-
plus years out--remains to be seen. However, having been privy
to some of these conversations, the Secretary believes that
these kinds of initial reports and assessments from the
combatant commanders back to my office, the Joint Chiefs,
Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the chairman's office
by this summer will help us create a structure and a framework
that will have some definition, and I mean that sincerely--not
just some amorphous, well, we think we are going to have an end
strength of this amount over here, but some definition by the
end of the summer.
It is true that we have started the BRAC, domestic BRAC
process. However, we also know, as you have said and as I have
tried to indicate, the Secretary wants to inform that process
with an overseas vision as we get into it in more detail this
coming summer, so that when those final decisions are made some
time between the January and May time frame, or January and
March time frame of 2005, they will be fully informed by a
vision and a strategy for presence and basing overseas.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Let me ask my Ranking Member to see if she has any
questions, and then I have another round.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
I do have four questions. I will be brief on all except the
first, which is perchlorate. The Defense Department has said
that it is not willing to start cleanup of perchlorate until
there is a national standard, and this could take 3 to 5 years
or longer. So millions of Americans are drinking contaminated
water today.
Companies like Kerr McGee and Goodrich, and I want to
compliment them, have already spent millions on priority
actions to reduce the threat, and I would like to urge the
Defense Department to do so as well. One obvious priority
effort is to try to stem the flow of perchlorate into the
Colorado River from the former DoD facility at Henderson,
Nevada, which was owned by the United States Navy from 1951 to
1962. The perchlorate from this facility has spread to the
water supplies of millions in Arizona, in Nevada, in California
via the Colorado River.
Kerr McGee, which operated the facility after the Defense
Department, has built a state-of-the art ion exchange facility
and taken other measures in an attempt to address the problem.
They have been very forthcoming. The Defense Department has
done nothing.
I have a serious question for you which may take weeks to
research, but I would like to ask for a thorough answer. That
question is, given the necessary funding, what are the top
priority sites around the country for the Defense Department to
reduce perchlorate contamination in drinking water and what
initial measures would the Department take?
Mr. DuBois. Excuse me, Senator. I am just making sure that
I have got the notes here.
This is a very complex question. It is both science and
science policy, and I want the Congress to understand that the
Office of Management and Budget, the Council for Environmental
Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Department of Defense, NASA, and the Department of Energy,
along with the Office of Science and Technology Advisor to the
President, have all been meeting on a, I say regular basis, two
or three times a week for the past month, on this issue.
It has not gone unnoticed by those of us in the Executive
Branch that there are clearly issues, some of which are
mischaracterized, some of which are miscommunicated, but issues
that nonetheless must be addressed.
The Department is in my estimation not backing away from
their responsibilities to clean up perchlorate. We remain
committed to our obligations to meet the cleanup standards, and
I underline the word ``standards,'' established through the
environmental restoration process. Now, there is at present
no--I repeat, no--Federal regulatory standard for perchlorates.
EPA, as I indicated, working with the agencies that I just
listed as well as with the States and the tribes and water
suppliers and the public, is evaluating perchlorate as an
environmental contaminant.
You indicated in your statement that perchlorate has
contaminated drinking water. Now, the question is, as I
understand it, Senator Feinstein, what is the appropriate
reference dose for perchlorate in drinking water that may
create a risk or not? Given the fact that the science is in
question both from the point of view of the folks who assembled
the data and evaluated the data, because there is enough
question as to what is the appropriate draft reference dose, in
order to eventually establish a standard EPA and the executive
branch are going to refer this issue to a panel of the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS).
It is not, from what I have been told, a 3 to 5-year
proposition. We understand that the NAS is going to address
this issue. How long it will take for them to address the
issue, the scientific aspects of the issue, is not--I am not
aware of. I understand, however, that it will be less than 1
year. But I would take your question and I will ask Governor
Whitman what is their best estimate.
Now, EPA will not complete nor disseminate a final risk
assessment until that NAS scientific review is concluded and
all the comments are addressed. Again, I want to--and I take
for the record your concerns about the Colorado River,
Henderson, Nevada, naval site. I want to learn more about the
technology the Kerr McGee Corporation has built, the ion
exchange facility. I will learn more about that. The top
priority sites that you mentioned, I will work with the three
Assistant Service Secretaries to determine where they are.
But I must say that, again, absent a standard, a regulatory
standard, it does not imply nor should it be characterized that
the Defense Department is standing in the way of cleaning up a
potential contaminant. And I underline again the word
``potential.''
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
I would like to make this point. EPA has a current
reference dose--it is not a standard, but it is a guideline for
cleanup--of 4 to 18 parts per billion.
Mr. DuBois. That is correct.
Senator Feinstein. And the problem is we have over 200
wells in 80 different water jurisdictions that are being closed
because they do not meet these standards. Now, I think it would
be very interesting--my staff has been--I have not had a chance
to go to visit the Henderson, Nevada, site. Kerr McGee has been
very forthcoming. They know there is a problem. They have spent
a lot of money trying to clean it up. Goodrich I think put $2
million into an ion exchange program to try to help a small
community of Rialto.
But where this is hitting it can sometimes hit all of the
water supply. Therefore, all these children are drinking this
water. In the mean time, you have all these agencies meeting
and you have the EPA working, and I am told--and we have asked
many times--it is 3 to 5 years. So it seems to me that you have
a priority situation and that it might be a good idea to take a
look at Henderson and talk with the people, because I think
there are solutions out there and what I am trying to do is get
the Department of Defense, whom I view as the responsible major
party, participating along with the private sector and the
State public sector and try to see if we cannot come up with
some reasonable, some cost-effective activities that might
reduce this threat.
Mr. DuBois. I would embrace whatever technologies might be
available to clean up perchlorate, irrespective of what the
final standard might be. With respect to that, the 4 to 18
parts per billion reference dose was not meant to be used by
the State regulators as a standard. Rather, as I said, the
science is in question. The EPA--and I defer to them--has
developed clarifications to the memorandum signed by Mary Ann
Horenco to the EPA regions and in turn to the State regulators
that caused certain State regulators--and I have seen some of
the letters, one in particular addressed to me on a military
reservation perchlorate issue--caused certain State regulators
to say, ``Oh, well, this is the standard and therefore you have
got to clean up to it.''
That was not the intent of Mary Ann Horenco's memorandum.
EPA is issuing a clarification to that effect.
Senator Feinstein. You are saying then it is okay to keep
drinking the water?
Mr. DuBois. Well, I am not saying that at all, Senator. I
am saying that I do not believe that until the NAS rules on
what the appropriate reference dose is--it may end up being far
higher than 18 parts per billion. But I nor my colleagues in
NASA nor the Department of Energy or the private sector, or EPA
for that matter, have any conclusion until such time as the NAS
study is over.
Again as I indicated, we were told, I was told--and I defer
again to EPA--that this particular focused assessment will not
take more than a year.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I am happy to hear that then. That
is the first I have heard that. So that is good news.
Well, let me move on. It is my understanding--and correct
this if it is wrong--that the 2005 BRAC round will be closely
managed by the Office of Secretary of Defense, unlike the
previous rounds, which were more Service-driven. How will this
round differ from prior rounds in terms of scope, focus, and
management?
Mr. DuBois. I have stated in conversations with you and
with other Members of the Senate and the House that there are
some specific differences, and it is true that the Secretary of
Defense, in response to criticisms by Members of Congress,
quite frankly, that his predecessors did not take enough of an
active role early enough in the process of the prior four BRAC
rounds to engender true cross-Service analysis, to engender
joint use of military installations, he took that to heart, and
in so doing he established an Infrastructure Executive Council
chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Also in response to observations, comments, and criticisms
by Members of Congress, he knew that in order to have an
appropriate and comprehensive BRAC round the senior leadership
of the Department, both uniformed and civilian, had to be
involved. And on this Infrastructure Executive Council are the
Joint Chiefs, the Service Secretaries, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Deputy Secretary of Defense in
the chair, along with Pete Aldridge, the Under Secretary for
Acquisition Technology and Logistics.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) report after the 1995
BRAC round made it quite clear that the opportunity had been
lost in terms of the way that round and the prior rounds were
conducted from the point of view of achieving cross-Service
analysis and joint use, joint base utilization. That, as well
as, as I have indicated, comments from you all, said to the
Secretary, I have got to do it differently.
Therefore, while it is true that he, as the ultimate
arbiter, delegated the responsibility to the Deputy Secretary,
he has included all of the senior leadership. But it should be
noted that there are military-unique activities, unique to the
individual military Service, mostly operational in nature,
which shall be analyzed by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps independently.
But it is also true, as I indicated in my opening
statement, that there are business operational functions and
facilities which more than one Service is involved with and/or
the private sector performs in this regard to some extent and
therefore needs to be reviewed from the get-go in a joint
cross-Service way.
Of the six groups that I mentioned, three of them are
chaired by senior civilians in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense: the industrial activities group, the education and
training group, and the technical and laboratory group, right.
There are three of them that are being chaired by members of
either the joint staff, the supply and storage group, or in the
case of the administrative group the Deputy Under Secretary of
the Army is chairing it; and the medical group is being chaired
by the Surgeon General of the Air Force.
We in point of fact looked at--this is like an NFL draft.
We went out for the best athletes, the folks who we thought
could best lead this cross-Service exercise, and we did not
necessarily say it all had to be driven by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, although there is a very clear charter:
You will look at this cross-Service. If you are the Deputy
Under Secretary of the Army and you are chairing the
administrative group, you have got to take off your Army hat
and you have got to put on a cross-Service hat.
The differences are pretty much as I have explained this
morning. There are some minor changes that were in the BRAC
authorizing legislation. It however makes it very clear that
military value is the preeminent selection criterion.
In December of this year, again under the law, the statute,
the Secretary will report to you on what he believes the
appropriate selection criteria ought to be, plural, and there
will be time for public comment, time for Congress to comment,
so that as we go into, let us face it, the really tough
decision analytic stage, which is the calendar year 2004, we
will have had this dialogue and deliberation with you and with
the public and with organizations such as were represented in
the prior panel.
Senator Feinstein. This is very helpful.
In your prepared statement, Mr. DuBois, you mention that
the Defense Department has disposed of 53 percent of the
property available from prior BRAC rounds. You also note that
approximately 82 percent of the remaining acreage lies in six
installations where environmental remediation must be
completed. Could you please name those six installations and
tell the committee the estimated cost and cleanup time for each
of them? And if you cannot do it today, would you please do it
in writing.
Mr. DuBois. Yes, ma'am. I think that the three Assistant
Service Secretaries who follow me will be able to address that
in particular. I will say this----
Senator Feinstein. If you could just name the six
installations.
Mr. DuBois. I do not have them on the tip of my tongue. I
will submit it for the record.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Mr. DuBois. But we have in this fiscal year under way,
while, as you indicated, 53 percent of all prior BRAC acreage
has been disposed of, i.e., 47 has not, with the disposal
actions in the pipeline today, the largest of which is in
Alaska--that is in and of itself in excess of 70 or 80,000
acres. Were that to come to pass, we would be left with
probably less than 10 percent of the original BRAC acreage
closed.
Again, I defer to my colleagues in the Services. They know
the details of the individual----
Senator Feinstein. You mean less than 10 percent unclosed?
Mr. DuBois. Which have been closed but not disposed.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, not disposed.
Mr. DuBois. They have all been closed. It has not been
removed from our property books.
Senator Feinstein. Got it.
Mr. DuBois. The six major ones--and as I said, the
individual Services--and I believe the Army has the majority of
them--will be addressed by the Assistant Service Secretaries.
Notwithstanding that, I will insert for the record list of
acreage and with the environmental remediation planned for
those sites.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
I am going to forgo my last round because we have a 12:00
o'clock vote and I do want to get the third panel. So, Senator
Burns, I yield to you.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I appreciate
this. With that, I would ask that I can submit my statement for
the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
First of all, I want to thank Chairwoman Hutchison for convening
the hearing today on this issue of Base Realignment and Closure [BRAC].
As we approach the forecasted date of another possible BRAC round in
2005, many concerns and issues must be addressed. I have a number of
questions myself and look forward to addressing some of them today.
My home State of Montana--the small community of Great Falls,
Montana in particular--knows all too well how painful this process can
be. Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB) lost nearly 700 jobs when its C-135
aerial refueling tankers were moved to Florida as part of the 1995
round of base closures and realignments. I know that my part of the
world has already suffered enough job cuts and economic damage because
of the loss of this flying mission. This process really can wreak havoc
on small communities, further damaging already fragile local economies.
One time closure costs and environmental cleanups, coupled with the
long lead times necessary to close a base, can make promised savings
hard to identify. I also question whether this is the right time to
downsize facilities when we are facing an increased threat, both at
home and abroad. If the government returns or sells its bases, it will
never get the land back.
Tens of millions of dollars have been spent at Malmstrom AFB during
my time in the Senate, with more on the way, to improve the operational
facilities, living conditions and quality of life for our military men
and women. In addition, our land-based missile systems, in particular,
remain an important leg of the Nuclear Triad and play an essential role
in ensuring national security. While I have no doubt that with 200
Minuteman III missiles, premier facilities, significant air space and
little or no encroachment issues, Malmstrom AFB has and will continue
to play a critical role in our national security, I do have a number of
questions which I want addressed today.
I look forward to hearing testimony from the panelists who are here
today and listening to the discussion on this subject.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Burns. I have only one question, Mr. DuBois, and
that is how do you define ``jointness'' as it is used in the
context of these proceedings?
Mr. DuBois. I think ``jointness'' can be defined in any
number of ways, but certainly at the top of the list----
Senator Burns. When we get into problems up here, it is
because the chairman defines it one way, I define it another
way, and Senator Feinstein defines it another way, and then we
argue for the next 6 months and never get nothing done because
we do not define the thing.
Mr. DuBois. I understand, Senator. In prior BRACs when it
was more Service-centric, when the Navy decided that they were
going to close or realign an installation and said, now where
do we take these missions and facilities, to what installation
ought they to go, they only considered other naval
installations. This BRAC, we will insist and ensure that when
any of the Services considers a unique function and facility
and mission to that Service ought to be realigned resource
closed on Base A and moved to Base B, the Base B will be not
just that Service's infrastructure, but all the Services'
infrastructures can be considered and will be considered.
That is my essential definition of what joint utilization
in this BRAC round will be.
Senator Burns. That is the only question I have, just the
way he defines it. I do not agree with it.
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you very much, Mr. DuBois.
Mr. DuBois. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. I appreciate your making the effort to
be here, and would like to now call our second panel, which is
now our third panel: the Assistant Secretaries of the Army, Dr.
Fiori; Air Force, Mr. Gibbs; and Navy, Mr. Arny. We will start
with you, Dr. Fiori.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIO P. FIORI, Ph.D., ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
Dr. Fiori. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear before you to discuss
The Army's accomplishments in executing four rounds of the base
closure under the base realignment and closure authority
provided by Congress and to briefly discuss how we organize for
an additional BRAC round in 2005----
Senator Hutchison. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary. Let me just
interrupt you and say that we have a 4-minute green light and
if you could just summarize after that.
Dr. Fiori. This is quite quick, thank you. A detailed
written statement has been provided for the record.
Before commenting briefly on the execution of our BRAC
program, I would like to say what I am sure we would all
appreciate is the challenge confronting the military services
today. As we meet to discuss the drawdown of our
infrastructure, large numbers of servicemen and women are
deployed. We take immense pride in the current skill and
professionalism of these men and women. But as we continue to
streamline our infrastructure using our BRAC authority, we are
motivated by the reality that these brave people deserve the
best living and training facilities when they return home.
The Army has completed 112 closures and 27 realignments
resulting from the 4 BRACs. As a result of these actions, we
are saving approximately $945 million per year. Our BRAC cost
through fiscal year 2003 is $5.37 billion.
The Army is now completing the remaining environmental
restoration activities, transferring surplus property and
performing caretaker operations. Our budget request for this
year is $66 million for fiscal year 2004, which will allow us
to complete environmental cleanup and ordnance removal efforts
to continue to render these properties safe for disposal. To
date, The Army has disposed 46.8 percent, with 142,000 acres
remaining. We have established a goal of disposing 100,000
acres this fiscal year.
Environmental restoration continues to be the challenge in
expeditious disposal of property. To overcome this impediment
and accomplish our objectives, we are taking advantage of
several innovative approaches toward environmental restoration.
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Department is authorized to
convey property prior to completion of required environmental
remediation. This early transfer authority, in conjunction with
environmental services cooperative agreements, allows the
Department to convey property years ahead of schedule and
transfer funding to local communities for the completion of the
environmental remediation activities.
To date, the Army has executed four Environmental Services
Cooperative Agreements. Two additional actions are planned for
fiscal year 2003.
Another approach that we are using is Guaranteed Fixed
Price Remediation contracts, where The Army obligates funds
necessary for regulatory closure of the specified restoration
activities. This process is very cost-effective and accelerates
the regulatory closures. To date, we have executed seven of
these guaranteed fixed price contracts.
We are continuing our assessment of our overseas
infrastructure and are continuing to reduce the number of
installations overseas. Since 1990, 685 overseas sites have
been announced for closure or realignment.
prepared statement
As we begin the BRAC 2005 process, which is essential for
successfully transforming The Army, our goal is an
infrastructure that supports our security requirements in a
changing world. To accomplish this important task, I have
established a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure
Analysis, who will assess all installations within the BRAC
law. Lessons learned from our previous four rounds are embedded
in our efforts to execute 2005.
Madam Chairman, that will conclude my statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mario P. Fiori
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
appear before you to discuss The Army's accomplishments in executing
four rounds of base closures under the Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) authority provided by the Congress and our preparation for an
additional BRAC round in fiscal year 2005. I appreciate the opportunity
to report on our progress.
Congress has authorized The Army to restructure by closing or
realigning installations four times since 1988 in order to meet
changing requirements in a changing world. The Army's goal is to
balance its base infrastructure with its force structure and its
mission requirements. BRAC enables The Army to restructure The Army
organization and reshape its infrastructure to support a transformed
Army. BRAC also saves dollars, not only by eliminating base operations
(BASOPS), overhead, and sustainment, restoration, and modernization
(SRM) costs at closed installations, but also by consolidating
functions and creating efficiencies at realigned installations.
However, simple reductions of infrastructure or personnel do not garner
substantial savings.
In accordance with the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act of
1988, Public Law 100-526, and Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act
of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended, statutory requirements to
close and realign facilities were met. The Army completed all closures
(112) and realignments (27) for all 4 rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) as of July 13, 2001. Upon completion of the first 4
rounds of BRAC, The Army is realizing an annual recurring savings of
$945 million each year. However, these savings do not come without a
short-term cost/investment. Since 1988 BRAC has cost The Army a total
of $5.36 billion through fiscal year 2002. The Army invested $1.7
billion (33 percent) of the $5.36 billion on facility and
infrastructure construction or renovation at gaining installations. The
consolidation of activities in new and renovated facilities has greatly
improved efficiency and the quality of the workplace for Army
employees. Approximately $2.3 billion (42 percent) funds environmental
restoration at closing sites, a cost The Army would have to bear
eventually. The cleanup of BRAC sites benefits The Army by avoiding
future and potentially more expensive cleanups at these sites. The
remainder, $1.3 billion (25 percent), funds equipment and personnel
relocation costs. Although these savings are substantial, we need to
achieve even more in order to fund transformation and bring our
infrastructure assets in line with projected needs. The Army supports
the need to close and realign additional facilities and we appreciate
the Congress' support and authority for an additional BRAC round in
fiscal year 2005.
The Army's facilities strategy strives to meet the needs of today's
soldiers while also focusing on the changes required to support The
Army of the 21st Century. For executing BRAC requirements in fiscal
year 2004, our budget request is $66.4 million. This budget request
represents The Army's commitment to complete required unexploded
ordnance (UXO) removal, environmental restoration, and minimal
caretaking or maintenance of those surplus properties and facilities
not yet transferred from the first four rounds of BRAC.
The Army is committed to quickly transferring surplus BRAC
properties for redevelopment that is consistent with local community,
State, and Federal purposes that are determined to be most appropriate
for the property. To date, from a total acreage disposal requirement of
266,847 acres, The Army has disposed of 124,934 acres (46.8 percent)
with 141,913 acres (53.2 percent) remaining. Of the remaining acreage,
60,000 acres is a lake in California, for which the State has not
exercised their reverter and approximately 41,000 acres is property
that the Department of Interior has requested. We expect to
substantially reduce the remaining acreage in fiscal year 2003. This is
an undertaking that involves many regulatory agencies, and is focused
on environmental, historic, and cultural requirements that must be met
in order to transfer real property. The Army is using the authority
that Congress has provided in a 1996 amendment to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to
accomplish early transfers of the property to the future recipients.
This CERCLA early transfer authority allows The Army to enter into
arrangements whereby the future owners will undertake the final
environmental restoration and regulatory clearances that are necessary
for a final deed transfer of the property. It is generally more cost
effective to allow the community that will redevelop the property to
also undertake the cleanup, in conjunction with their redevelopment. We
have found that those communities that have the capacity to undertake
such tasks appreciate and prefer the early transfer authority provided
by Congress, in conjunction with a cooperative agreement that provides
the necessary funding for environmental restoration activities.
Environmental considerations are the largest and most costly
challenges to transferring and redeveloping surplus property. Federal
and State environmental regulators concerned with risk and liabilities
want the property cleaned to pristine conditions that often exceeds
industry standards. These environmental challenges include cleanup
activities involving hazardous, toxic, and radiological wastes, oil or
solvent spills, and unexploded ordnance common on many of the surplus
installations that were used to train our soldiers for war.
Having completed all closure requirements, The Army is now in the
second year of completing the remaining environmental restoration
activities, transferring surplus property, and performing minimal
caretaker operations. Our budget request of $66.4 million in fiscal
year 2004 allows The Army to caretake these properties and to continue
our environmental and ordnance removal efforts that will render these
properties safe for reuse, facilitate disposal, and provide for
economic revitalization. This budget request includes the resources
required to support projected reuse in the near term and to continue
with current projects to protect human health and the environment.
The Army implemented innovative approaches to environmental
restoration at BRAC sites in fiscal year 2002, approaches that
facilitated the early transfer of several properties. The Army will
continue to support early property transfers in fiscal year 2003 and
beyond.
The significant challenges posed by the removal of unexploded
ordnance, the remediation of groundwater, and the interface of a
variety of regulatory authorities continue to hinder the transfer of
surplus property. A number of innovative approaches for environmental
restoration were recently developed by The Army to expedite the
transfer of property, while ensuring the protection of human health and
the environment. Two innovative mechanisms are being utilized to
complete environmental restoration efforts: Guaranteed/Fixed Price
Remediation (G/FPR) Contracts and Environmental Services Cooperative
Agreements (ESCA). These innovations are being employed in partnership
with the property recipients to expedite property transfers. A G/FPR
Contract allows The Army to obligate the BRAC funds necessary for
regulatory closure of specified restoration activities. The Army
retains responsibility for completion of the environmental restoration,
overseeing the contractor and ensuring that regulatory closure of the
property is obtained. An ESCA is a different mechanism that obligates
Army BRAC funds under the environmental restoration program. The Army
retains its underlying responsibility for the cleanup while engaging
the governmental entity representing the community reuse interests to
perform specific environmental restoration services outlined in the
ESCA in conjunction with its redevelopment plans. This arrangement
allows the reuse authority to leverage and harmonize its cleanup
objectives with its redevelopment plans.
The Army used a G/FPR to accelerate regulatory closure at Fort
Pickett, Virginia, by more than 1 year at a cost that will not escalate
over the course of the work. We estimate that this $2.9 million
contract saved us $0.8 million based on our initial estimates. An ESCA
allows The Army to transfer property and the associated cleanup
responsibilities to a local reuse authority or developer. This allows
the recipient to integrate cleanup with their redevelopment plans. An
ESCA completed in 2001 was used in conjunction with early transfer
authority at Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, New Jersey, saving The
Army an estimated $5 million in environmental remediation costs. An
ESCA will facilitate the early transfer in fiscal year 2003 of property
at Oakland Army Base, California. The G/FPR and ESCA initiatives limit
Army environmental remediation cost growth and facilitate property
disposal and revitalization, in accordance with the community
redevelopment timeframe.
The Army is intent on transferring surplus property expeditiously,
and we remain committed to promoting economic redevelopment at our BRAC
installations. We support early transfer and reuse of properties
through economic development conveyances and use cooperative agreements
to accelerate the completion of remaining environmental remediation.
The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure authorization greatly expands the
Department's ability to negotiate economic development conveyances of
BRAC property. The Department is required to receive full fair market
value consideration, and allows the conveyance of property to any
entity that agrees to perform environmental restoration at the site.
This will permit us to sell excess property and help generate
additional funds for cleanup, resulting in the property being returned
to reuse more quickly than under the current process. The Army's use of
leasing and award of G/FPR and ESCA contracts to complete environmental
cleanup make surplus properties available for reuse earlier. The early
transfer of real property assets to interested parties in the private
sector will provide strong economic development to local communities.
This will develop business opportunities that result in jobs and tax
revenues. The successful conversion of former Army installations to
productive use in the private sector benefits The Army and the local
community.
The Army continues to effectively execute and implement the BRAC
program utilizing innovative tools made available by Congress. Many
local communities do benefit from acquisition of valuable properties
with significant reuse potential. Most recently, The Army transferred
property at the former Oakland Army Base, California, to the City of
Oakland using the early transfer authority and signing a cooperative
agreement to have the City complete the remaining cleanup actions at
the facility. This will allow the City to manage and integrate the
redevelopment and environmental restoration of the site to maximize
reuse potential. This approach is beneficial to both parties and allows
The Army to benefit from the reduced costs associated with integrating
cleanup with reuse. The community benefits from receiving the property
earlier and starting the redevelopment process. This early transfer/
environmental cooperative agreement approach to property conveyance was
used earlier at Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal and Fitzsimons Army
Medical Center.
The following summary of some of our BRAC reuses reflects the broad
range and complexity of successful reuse of BRAC installations. These
examples also demonstrate The Army's commitment to reuse and illustrate
how the impact of base closures can be minimized at the local community
level:
Leasing of Property at Red River Army Depot (RRAD), Texas.--The
Army leased Building 150 to the Red River Local Redevelopment Authority
(RRLRA). The RRLRA and its first tenant, a heavy metal fabrication
contractor that does work for the paper mills in the area, signed a
sublease. Local media reflected favorably on The Army's support to
communities in transforming closing and realigning bases into assets
for economic development.
Transfer of the Woodbridge Research Facility (WRF), Virginia, to
the Department of the Interior (DOI).--The Army conveyed 580 acres of
WRF (formerly Harry Diamond Laboratories) to DOI. The WRF closed
September 16, 1994, as a result of the recommendation of the BRAC
Commission. Pursuant to Public Law 103-307, the entire installation was
transferred to DOI for incorporation into the National Wildlife Refuge
System. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) manages the
property to provide a wildlife preserve open to the public, and for
research, testing, and environmental education purposes.
Sale of Former Army Materials Technology Laboratory (AMTL),
Massachusetts Property.--The Army transferred approximately 30 acres of
the AMTL facility located in Watertown, Massachusetts, to the Watertown
Arsenal Development Corporation (WADC) for a purchase price of $7.5
million. The Army also transferred via Public Benefit Conveyance the
Commander's Quarters, a seven-acre parcel, to the Town of Watertown as
a historical site. The range of long-term direct and indirect job
creation was projected at 3,800 to 5,000 jobs and today Harvard
University has acquired and uses much of the site for its publications
operations.
Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) of Vint Hill Farms Station.--
The Army approved an EDC application for conveyance of Vint Hills Farm
Station to the Vint Hill Farms Economic Development Authority (VHFEDA).
The conveyance involved approximately 686 acres of the 701-acre
installation, and associated buildings and structures. The final
purchase price was $925,000. The remaining 15 acres was transferred to
Fauquier County as a Public Benefit Conveyance for recreational use.
Conveyance of Tipton Airfield, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, to
the Local Community.--The BRAC Commission recommended partial closure
and realignment of Fort Meade. Range and training areas to include
Tipton Army Airfield were recommended for closure. Tipton Airfield
closed September 30, 1995. Anne Arundel County, Maryland, acquired the
property as an airport Public Benefit Conveyance through the Federal
Aviation Administration. The deed for transfer of approximately 348
acres was issued to Anne Arundel County Airport Authority on July 2,
2001.
Conveyance of Fort Holabird, Maryland, to the City of Baltimore.--
The major portion of Fort Holabird was conveyed to the City of
Baltimore in 1983 and was developed as the Holabird Business Park. The
Army retained two parcels for ongoing Army missions. The 1995 BRAC
Commission recommended closure of the remainder of Fort Holabird. The
City of Baltimore was designated as the local redevelopment authority
(LRA). The Department of Housing and Urban Development approved the
LRA's reuse plan, which involves incorporation of the two parcels into
the Holabird Business Park. The LRA submitted a no-cost Economic
Development Conveyance application on March 13, 2000, which The Army
approved, and a deed transfer of approximately 13.3 acres was signed on
February 12, 2002, thereby completing disposal of the property.
Completion of Rio Vista, California, Guaranteed Fixed Price
Remediation (GFPR) Contract.--On February 5, 2002, the former Rio Vista
Reserve Center became The Army's first completed GFPR contract. The
State of California regulators concurred with and signed a No Further
Action decision document for the entire 28-acre property. The
regulatory closure of the clean up marked the first military post in
California to be closed clean. The GFPR process saves time, conserves
resources and ensures regulatory concurrence. GFPR reduces Army
liability, completes remediation faster, supports rapid redevelopment,
and provides cost savings to The Army.
Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois, Crooked Slough Backwaters
Area to Public Access.--On May 6, 2002, The Army opened the Depot
Crooked Slough Mississippi River backwaters area for recreational
boating and fishing. Public access had been denied, pending assessment
of safety concerns. Reopening the area was a direct result of
recommendations of the Savanna Strategic Management, Analysis,
Requirements and Technology (SMART) team, formed in August 2000 by The
Army at the request of Congressman Manzullo. Technical evaluations and
negotiations among Army officials, U.S. EPA, Illinois EPA, USF&WS, as
well as interested local members of the SMART team resulted in the
placement of a physical barrier system and/or hazard warning signs
around specific potential ordnance impact areas, thereby allowing the
safe opening of a majority of the Crooked Slough area to water access
for fishing and boating. The Army is continuing its environmental
remediation investigations within the restricted areas to determine the
required restoration actions. This was a good news story in that The
Army BRAC/interagency effort met Congressional and public desire for
access and regulatory, environmental and safety concerns, while
protecting Army interests. Congressman Manzullo hailed this decision as
a significant step toward citizen use of the area. He also endorsed the
establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge, an idea now under
consideration by the USF&WS.
Decision Document and Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement
(ESCA) for Military Ocean Terminal-Bayonne, Bayonne, New Jersey.--The
Final Decision Document for Nine Areas of Concern/Operable Units at
Former Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne (MOTBY) was approved on October
26, 2002. The Decision Document formally identified the environmental
remediation activities agreed to between The Army and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection for the 192 acres. This document
became the basis for work performed by the Bayonne Local Reuse
Authority (BLRA) under an ESCA, which allowed the BLRA to perform
environmental remediation activities in conjunction with their
redevelopment process. A deed to transfer 192 acres was signed on
December 11, 2002, using The Army's early transfer authority.
Although the extensive overseas closures do not receive the same
level of public attention as those in the United States, they represent
the fundamental shift from a forward-deployed force to one relying upon
overseas presence and power projection. The Army is continuing its
assessment of overseas infrastructure needs in an effort to reduce the
number of installations overseas. The total number of Army overseas
sites announced for closure or partial closure since January 1990 is
685. Additional announcements and efficient basing initiatives will
occur until the base infrastructure matches the force structure
identified to meet U.S. commitments.
The BRAC 2005 process is essential for successfully transforming
The Army structure and the Department of Defense in response to a
changing world and changing requirements. The Army looks forward to
working closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
other Services through Joint Cross-Service Groups and the DOD
Infrastructure Steering Group and Infrastructure Executive Council to
optimize our ability to project power globally while reducing
unnecessary overhead wherever possible. Joint organizational and basing
solutions is one concept that will free resources to modernize
equipment and infrastructure, and enhance our capabilities to meet 21st
Century threats.
The Army will execute the requirements of the BRAC 2005 legislation
through the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Infrastructure Analysis, a new organization, which will lead The Army
Basing Study (TABS) to assess all installations in accordance with the
BRAC law. All bases will be considered and treated equally. We will
work with OSD and our sister services to take a hard look at the
resources necessary to support the transformed Army now and into the
future.
The TABS Group will conduct a comprehensive, detailed military
value assessment of Army installations; evaluate base realignment and
closure alternatives; and develop, document, and publish base
realignment and closure recommendations that are consistent with DOD
and Army force structure plans, BRAC selection criteria, and the
requirements of Public Law 101-510, as amended. The TABS Group will
serve as the single point of contact in the Department of the Army for
BRAC 2005 and will meet all legislatively-directed and OSD-directed
BRAC 2005 milestones.
summary
There are many examples of The Army's success in implementing BRAC
per Congress' direction. There are also examples of the complex and
difficult challenges associated with this unique task. We have learned
lessons from our successes and from working through difficult and
challenging tasks. We will build on these lessons and successes as we
execute BRAC 2005. Our changing world requires changes to how we defend
and secure this great country. We owe it to the young men and women to
transform this Army to provide them the greatest opportunities for
success as we send them into harms way. With your support and authority
to execute BRAC 2005, The Army structure will be better configured to
face the new challenges and our nation will be safer and more secure.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much, right on the
button.
Mr. Arny.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE ARNY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND FACILITIES
Mr. Arny. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure
to appear before you to discuss some of the lessons we have
learned in the Department of the Navy over the last 15 years of
base closure.
As you know, my boss H.T. Johnson is now the Acting
Secretary and sends his regrets. It is under his leadership
that we are breaking new ground in BRAC implementation by
adapting some old established closure methods. Having
previously served as a base commander in the Air Force, a
commissioner on the BRAC 1993 Commission, and later as the head
of a local redevelopment authority (LRA) in Texas, Secretary
Johnson brings a unique blend of experience and perspective to
our most persistent base closure problem, the fact that BRAC
cleanup and proper disposal costs too much and takes way too
long.
My written statement has a number of suggestions for
process improvement, but let me just highlight a couple of
them. Lesson number one: Public sale of BRAC property can be
better than an economic development conveyance (EDC) for the
Federal Government, the community, and the developers. That
would seem counterintuitive to many people in the affected
community since an EDC conveys the property for free as long as
it can be shown to create jobs and provide economic benefit.
Our experience has shown that in some situations the
opportunity to get free Federal land becomes mired in
protracted and often acrimonious local debates. There is an
opportunity cost with each type of property disposal. An EDC
can become an opportunity lost or at least delayed for years
longer than a comparable private sector venture.
By contrast, we are beginning to see that a public sale
provides a win-win-win situation for the military, the
community, and the developer because it puts all the parties
involved back into their most familiar core roles. The
community goes back to planning and managing development
through its normal local land use and zoning authority instead
of trying to directly manage redevelopment, a task for which
they are often ill-suited. Once we sell the property, it gets
on the tax rolls immediately, unlike a typical EDC where the
community gets tax revenue only after the LRA-sponsored
development is well under way.
The developer, who was chosen competitively by the General
Services Administration (GSA), provides the vision for economic
redevelopment along with the critical financial and project
management expertise, all within the community zoning rules.
The developer has a financial incentive. He has to pay property
taxes and interest on borrowed money. Thus he tends to get the
job done more quickly and more efficiently.
Let me point out a couple of other points that are often
lost in the current debate. Local communities rarely own a lot
of land. Most of the land is held privately. Local communities
rarely develop property. It is developed by the private sector
and the communities oversee the general plans and zoning that
permits that development. These are the basics to which we are
trying to return.
The Federal Government, on the other hand, returns to its
role as the property owner, disposing of the land to the
highest bidder in a manner consistent with the local
community's existing land rules. Thus we more quickly and
completely dispose of excess property and gain in some
measure--gain some measure of fair market value for the
taxpayers' previous investment, which we can then apply to help
defray the costs of environmental cleanup and other closing
costs. The General Services Administration serves as our real
estate broker, managing the property for us and with us on an
equal basis to all parties.
Most recently, we completed a property sale of 235 acres at
the former Marine Corps Air Station in Tustin, California, in
well under 1 year from start to final settlement. We received
$208.5 million, which will be used to accelerate BRAC cleanup.
We are very pleased with those results and, as you know, we are
doing some other public sales.
I will summarize my other lessons. We do not want to get
bogged down in fed-to-fed transfers, which we have in the past.
Some agencies have taken years to decide or they quickly decide
to take a large parcel and then they back out later on.
prepared statement
We need to examine how to do National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) analysis for property disposal. We want to look at
the ability to contract for firefighting and security guard
services and ensure that our remedies are consistent with the
previous land uses.
Thank you very much for your attention.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wayne Arny
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, I am Wayne Arny,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Facilities).
It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the Department
of the Navy's efforts to implement the decisions of the four rounds of
base realignment and closure (BRAC). The first round, known as BRAC 88,
was done under Public Law 100-526. The next three rounds, known as BRAC
91, BRAC 93 and BRAC 95, were done under Public Law 101-510. I will
collectively refer to these past four rounds of BRAC as Prior BRAC to
avoid any confusion with the next scheduled round of BRAC in 2005.
My statement will cover the Department of the Navy's Prior BRAC
implementation process, the status of cleanup and property disposal,
and some thoughts on improving implementation of BRAC 2005 decisions.
prior brac implementation process
Prior BRAC Scope
Prior BRAC rounds resulted in 178 Navy and Marine Corps bases and
activities designated for closure or realignment. Of those bases, 46
were major closures, 89 were minor closures, and 43 were realignments.
All 178 closure and realignment actions have been completed. What
remains is environmental cleanup and property disposal.
Significant savings begin to accrue after operational closure,
i.e., when the mission functions of the bases cease, personnel billets
are reassigned or eliminated, and real property maintenance
requirements are reduced to a caretaker level. Savings fully accrue
when we no longer must operate and maintain the property for its
previous mission capability. At the end of fiscal year 2001, the
Department of Navy had achieved a net savings of $6.8 billion, with an
additional annual savings of $2.7 billion. These net savings estimates
have been validated by several independent sources.
Navy's caretaker Responsibilities
After operational closure, environmental cleanup and property
disposal become the focus. To allow other commands to focus on their
primary mission responsibilities, the Navy transferred all
operationally closed bases to the Naval Facilities Engineering Command
to conduct the cleanup and disposal. The Marine Corps retained
management and funding responsibility for its two bases that were
closed, relying on the Naval Facilities Engineering Command for program
execution. Of these 178 Prior BRAC actions, 90 installations were
designated for disposal.
The Naval Facilities Engineering Command established Caretaker Site
Offices at most closure sites. They are responsible for day-to-day
property management and essential services, compliance of reuse
activities with lease and regulatory requirements, and work with the
local communities. Legislative jurisdiction is often a concern since it
determines who is responsible for providing police, fire, and other
regulatory services. Early retrocession of jurisdiction has proved to
be helpful in establishing successful interim reuse activities. At
sites where exclusive legislative jurisdiction has not changed, the
Department of the Navy is often required to keep Federal employees on
the payroll to provide these services.
Property disposal
The final goal of BRAC is conveyance of the property to some other
entity. In many respects, this has been a far more complex process than
originally conceived. Property disposal is often closely linked to
environmental cleanup. Although environmental cleanup actions had been
initiated at nearly all Prior BRAC locations, most of the work had been
to assess the location, type and severity of contamination. A few
locations had progressed to planning cleanup remedies, however, little
actual cleanup had been done.
Between operational closure and conveyance, the Department of the
Navy can facilitate reuse of the property by way of interim leases to
the Local Redevelopment Authorities (LRAs), which then subleases
property to private businesses. If desired by the LRA, the property can
be conveyed incrementally when particular parcels satisfy environmental
standards and the prospective owners accept the property.
The Federal Screening Process
Following approval of each round of Prior BRAC, the Department of
the Navy identifies excess property at closing activities to other
Department of Defense components and Federal agencies through a Federal
screening process. Other Defense components and Federal agencies can
request \1\ all or part of the excess base closure property for their
use. If a Federal agency expresses a timely interest in base closure
property, the Secretary of the Navy would seek to align the Federal
agency's request with that of the community. The Secretary of the Navy
makes the final disposal decision. Conveyance and reuse decisions can
experience lengthy delays when a Federal agency requests property and
then delays or later opts not to accept it because of budgetary or
other reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per 41 CFR 101-47.203-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Development Conveyances
When the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 was
enacted, Congress intended for the proceeds of property sales to help
offset the costs of implementing base closure. The Act directed DOD to
dispose of property in accordance with existing standard procedures,
i.e., the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 \2\
and implementing regulations.\3\ The legislative history for the
Property Act indicates that Congress intended most property to be
disposed by public sale to the highest bidder. Public benefit
conveyances for less than fair market value were to be made
``sparingly.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 40 U.S.C. 472.
\3\ 41 CFR 101 Part 47.
\4\ H.R. 1763, 85th Cong., 2d Session, reprinted in 1958 U.S.Code,
Cong. & Adm. News, 2861, 1866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1993 the President announced a plan to help communities speed
reuse and economic redevelopment of base closure property, and minimize
the impact of the closure. The plan consisted of the following five
initiatives:
--Job-centered property disposal to put local economic redevelopment
first.
--Fast-track environmental cleanup to remove needless delays while
protecting human health and the environment.
--Transition coordinators located at major bases slated for closure.
--Easy access to transition and redevelopment help for workers and
communities.
--Larger economic development planning grants provided to base
closure communities.
The plan gave rise to Economic Development Conveyances (EDC), which
were authorized by Congress. The creation of EDCs represented a major
legislative change because it gave preference to disposal of the
property to local governments at less than fair market value instead of
public sale to the highest bidder. Since that time, a total of 15,930
acres of base closure property have been disposed of at no cost to
communities through EDCs.
local redevelopment authorities and reuse plans
The Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) plays a significant role in
the base closure planning process. Members of the LRA are appointed by
State or local governments and recognized by the Department of Defense
as representing the voice of the community at a base closure location.
LRAs hold public hearings and prepare a reuse plan that must balance
the needs of the homeless people in the community, as required by law
\5\, with efforts to stimulate economic redevelopment. They may also
request surplus property to assist them in implementing their plan.
Navy works with the LRA throughout this process to ensure timely
submission of a comprehensive, feasible reuse plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Sec. 2905(b)(7) of Public Law 101-510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Environmental Policy Act Compliance
BRAC requires the Military Services to evaluate all reasonable
disposal alternatives, including non-disposal, and their associated
environmental consequences under the terms of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) before the property could be
disposed. In 1996, the Congress amended \6\ BRAC to require the
Military Departments to use the LRA's reuse plan as the preferred
alternative in conducting our NEPA analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Public Law 104-106, the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense
Authorization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under NEPA, we must also consider:
--Environmental impact of the proposed disposal and the impacts of
all reasonably anticipated uses of the property;
--Alternatives to the proposed disposal and reuse plan, including the
``no-action'' alternative;
--Adverse impacts on the environment under the Federal Endangered
Species Act and the Clean Water Act, and protected resources
such as historic buildings and archeological sites under the
National Historic Preservation Act;
--Mitigation actions that would minimize adverse impacts on the
environment and protected resources such as historic
structures, wetlands, and habitats for threatened or endangered
species;
If Navy cannot certify in an Environmental Analysis that there will
be no significant impact, it must prepare an EIS. That involves a very
detailed environmental analysis and formal public participation. At the
end of the EIS process, the Department of the Navy issues a Record Of
Decision concerning disposal of the base closure property. The Record
of Decision represents a necessary element of the property conveyance
process, since disposal and redevelopment cannot begin until it has
been issued. This Record of Decision is separate from, and in addition
to the Record of Decision required for environmental cleanup.
Environmental Cleanup
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) requires the Federal Government to
warrant that all remedial action required to protect human health and
the environment has been taken prior to the disposal of surplus Federal
property. It also requires that any additional remedial or corrective
action discovered after disposal will be done by the United States.
This statute is the legal basis for Navy's obligation to cleanup
environmental contamination on base closure property. A Record of
Decision, approved by environmental regulators, documents the remedy
that will be used to perform the environmental cleanup. Reuses proposed
by Local Redevelopment Authorities sometimes require clean ups in
excess of what would have been conducted by Navy based on the
historical use of the property or if the property had been sold.
Early Transfer
In the past, CERCLA precluded Navy from conveying property to non-
Federal entities until all environmental remediation was complete or
until an acceptable remedy approved by State and Federal environmental
regulators was in place and operating satisfactorily. Section 334 of
the DOD Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997 allowed the Department
of Defense to convey base closure property before remediation is in
place if approval was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency
when the property was on the National Priorities List, or from the
State governor if the property was not on the National Priorities List.
The Department of the Navy has used this early transfer authority
eight times to convey to property developers approximately 9,500 acres
about 5 years before otherwise possible. These early transfers have
often combined the environmental cleanup with actual redevelopment,
resulting in time and money savings to both the developer and the
Department of the Navy.
Methods for Conveying Base Closure Property
Two statutes govern the disposal of base closure property: the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, and the BRAC
statute which added the option of an Economic Development Conveyance
under the Pryor Amendments of 1993. These statutes provide a way to
transfer excess Federal property to another Department of Defense
component or other Federal agency, and four primary ways to dispose of
surplus Federal property to a non-Federal recipient:
--Public sale to the highest bidder for fair market value. I will
note here that the highest bid must come close to the appraised
fair market value. If not, the disposal agency must give the
high bidder a chance to raise the bid to that level, or choose
not to complete the sale. Public sales can provide financing
terms for up to 10 years;
--Negotiated sale to a State or local government when the property
will be used for an acceptable public purpose and the grantee
will pay fair market value. Such a sale is subject to review by
Congress. Negotiated sales can provide for financing terms for
up to 10 years;
--Public benefit conveyance for less than fair market value when the
property will be put to a public purpose specifically
authorized by Congress (e.g., an airport, port, educational
facility, park) \7\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See for example, 40 U.S.C. 484(k) for park, education and
public health purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Economic development conveyance (EDC),\8\ for less than fair market
value when the LRA's reuse plan demonstrates new jobs will be
created by the proposed redevelopment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Sec. 2905(b)(2) of Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another method of disposal is through special legislation
authorized by Congress for a particular property. These conveyances are
often for nominal consideration. Hunters Point Naval Shipyard and Fleet
and Industrial Supply Center Oakland have been the subject of such
special legislation.
BRAC also provides two other unique disposal opportunities that so
far have not been used by the Department of the Navy. The first is the
ability to convey property to private parties who will undertake
environmental cleanup.\9\ The receiving party agrees to assume
responsibility for the cleanup. If cleanup costs less than the fair
market value of the property, the recipient pays Navy the difference.
The second conveyance tool is the authority to exchange BRAC property
for the development of military family housing at another site where
there is a need for housing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Sec. 2905(b)(8)(e) of Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act.
\10\ Sec. 2905(b)(8)(f) of Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Disposal
We work closely with the LRAs as they prepare their proposed reuse
plans for submission to us and review by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, who weighs the economic development aspects of the
reuse plan with provisions for homeless people. We begin the
environmental review required by NEPA when the LRA submits its proposed
reuse plan. As part of the environmental impact analysis, Navy is
required to identify and analyze measures to mitigate adverse impacts.
Because the Navy does not control property after conveyance and the
Navy's ability to impose land use controls is limited, most actions
needed to mitigate adverse impacts will be the responsibility of the
LRA. In order to ensure that mitigation measures in the Environmental
Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) can be
implemented, Navy must ensure that the LRA agrees to and has the
authority to implement the necessary actions to protect resources such
as wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and historic and
archeological buildings and sites.
After the NEPA Record of Decision is issued, the Secretary of the
Navy, after consultation with the LRA, proceeds with disposal of the
property in accordance with the various statutory authorities. In the
case of an EDC, the Office of the Secretary of Defense must also
approve the conveyance. In the case of a negotiated sale, the
conveyance must be reviewed by Congress and, as a practical matter,
also receive the concurrence of the General Services Administration.
In the event that a LRA requests property by a negotiated sale, we
have an agreement with the General Services Administration that they
manage the appraisal process. That speeds Congressional review since
Congress routinely asks that they concur with the appraisal before
approving the negotiated sale.
Competing Demands
I have so far outlined the challenges in trying to dispose of base
closure property in a manner that furthers the public interest, and as
expeditiously as possible, within the statutory and regulatory
framework of Federal property disposal and environmental laws. Central
to the disposal process is the availability of adequate funding for
environmental remediation at closed bases. We recognize that some LRAs
and other grantees will not accept title to contaminated properties
until the property is cleaned up. Consequently, we continue to incur
costs associated with ownership (e.g., maintenance, protection costs)
until cleanups are complete and approved by Federal and State
environmental regulators.
prior brac cleanup and disposal status
My boss, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and
Environment) testified before this Committee on 4 March 2003, and he
provided a summary of the status of our environmental cleanup and
property disposal efforts. I will repeat some of that information here
as a matter of convenience along with some additional details.
The Department of the Navy has spent a total of $2.8 billion on
environmental efforts at Prior BRAC bases through fiscal year 2002. The
Congress has approved an additional $258 million for fiscal year 2003.
I would note that the State of California has 21 percent of the
Department of the Navy's Prior BRAC bases, and has received about 42
percent of all cleanup funds through fiscal year 2002. We estimate that
an additional $785 million is required to complete the remaining
cleanup, including long-term operation and monitoring of cleanup
remedies. Current projections are to complete all cleanup actions by
fiscal year 2016. The availability of Prior BRAC land sale revenue
could dramatically accelerate cleanup. About 66 percent of our
remaining cost of cleanup is at Prior BRAC bases in California. We
expect that about 40 percent of the total Prior BRAC environmental
funding will be spent in the San Francisco Bay area.
As of the end of January 2003, Navy had transferred 64 of the 90
former bases planned for disposal. A total of 425 parcels of land have
been conveyed at these 64 bases and other bases at which only a portion
of the base has been transferred. We will need to transfer another 196
parcels and complete all actions on the remaining 26 bases. Our plans
call for the transfer of 58 additional parcels, including the final
parcels at eight more bases in fiscal year 2003, and 51 parcels,
including the final parcels at five bases in fiscal year 2004.
improving brac implementation
Public Sale Is A Win-Win
Although the EDC remains the preferred method of disposal, under
some circumstances EDCs can be very time consuming and difficult to
complete. When that happens, public sales have proven to be successful
alternatives. Public sale provides a win-win situation for everyone
because it puts all parties in their most familiar role:
--The community plans and manages growth through local land use and
zoning ordinances instead of trying to manage redevelopment.
The property gets on the tax roles quickly. The community never
holds title to the land;
--The Federal Government quickly disposes of excess property, gains
fair market value for the tax payers past investment in the
property, and can apply that revenue to defray the costs of
closure, realignment, and environmental cleanup. The Federal
Government is removed from the ill-advised role of analyzing
redevelopment efforts;
--The General Services Administration becomes the real estate broker,
marketing the property and ensuring equal opportunity to all
developers;
--The developer provides the visionary growth opportunities and fits
that within the community's local zoning requirements and
economic factors. The developer secures financing and provides
the project management expertise.
The Department of the Navy public sale of 3 parcels of property
totaling 235 acres at the former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, CA
brought quick resolution to long standing acrimony on reuse direction,
generated significant revenue to pay for environmental cleanup costs,
and will provide new jobs and economic opportunities for the community,
while quickly bringing the property onto the community tax roles.
Another good example is the former Army Cameron Station in
Alexandria, VA, which was closed as part of BRAC 1988. The Army held a
public sale of the property in 1995, and most would agree that it has
been developed and returned to the tax rolls more rapidly than other
property that has been conveyed to the community at no cost,
The Department of the Navy is pursuing public sales of other Prior
BRAC properties.
Simultaneous Redevelopment and Environmental Cleanup
We have learned that successful cleanup and property disposal of
large tracts of Federal property requires skillful negotiation of a
complex mix of Federal, State and local statutes and regulations;
Federal, State and local government skills, motivation, and
capabilities; flexibility and innovative thought; and available funding
to conduct the environmental cleanup. We have also found that tying
redevelopment with actual cleanup saves time and money for both the
developer and the Federal Government. The critical ingredient to
simultaneous redevelopment and environmental cleanup is the
availability of detailed studies on the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, and the support of environmental
regulators.
Federal Agencies Sometimes Delay or Disrupt BRAC Property Disposal
BRAC property disposal process requires property to be screened for
other Federal use. If another Federal Agency identifies a need for the
property and the Navy agrees to transfer it to them, the receiving
Federal Agency has a responsibility to accept the property within a
reasonable time period. In several instances, receiving agencies have
delayed acceptance of property pending completion of environmental
remediation, even though completion of cleanup is not required for
property transfer. In other instances, some Agencies have withdrawn
their request for the property after a prolonged delay, thus requiring
the disposing service to declare the property surplus years after the
LRA has completed its outreach and reuse planning. In addition, some
Federal Agencies have resisted taking property unless and until a
CERCLA covenant for environmental cleanup was provided, even though
there is no statutory requirement to do so.
NEPA Requirements for BRAC Property Disposal
In applying NEPA to BRAC property disposal the Navy has found
itself in the middle of disputes and legal challenges between adjoining
government jurisdictions and different interest groups on how the
community should proceed with reuse of the surplus Federal property,
even though the Federal Government's ability to control future land use
is limited. The NEPA process for BRAC property disposal can sometimes
be time-consuming and expensive; we will continue efforts to make the
process more efficient and enhance its value.
Contract for Fire and Security Services At BRAC Locations
10 U.S.C. 2465 prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the
purchase of firefighting or security-guard functions at military
installations within the United States that were not under contract on
September 24, 1983. At BRAC closure sites with areas of exclusive
legislative jurisdiction, Federal employees or military members
performed firefighting or security guard functions and the local
government were not required to provide such services. Local
governments have the legal obligation to provide these services in
areas of proprietary and concurrent jurisdiction although they are
sometimes reluctant to do so. Navy is later required to conduct
Reduction in Force (RIF) actions to terminate employment when the
property is disposed of or the State has agreed to a retrocession of
exclusive jurisdiction. The ability to contract for firefighting and
security guard functions would significantly reduce caretaker expenses.
Cleanup Standards for BRAC Property Are Sometimes Inconsistent With
Past Use
Several Navy BRAC property disposals have resulted in cleanup
actions that exceed levels that would have been implemented if DOD had
done the clean up to a level consistent with the past and current uses
of the property. Local communities frequently pressure the Navy to
clean up property to a level that is inconsistent with the property's
previous use. For example, an industrial site could be planned for
redevelopment as a residential use or a landfill could be proposed for
conversion to parking or storage areas.
We Can Learn From Each Other
Each Military Department has extensive and varied experience with
BRAC reuse and disposal. In order to share those experiences and
expertise, and to ensure that the Department of Defense is conducting
reuse and disposal in the most efficient and effective way possible for
all concerned, the Office of the Secretary of Defense is forming a
working group to examine potential improvements to the BRAC reuse and
disposal process. The Department of the Navy supports this effort and
looks forward to working with the other Departments and OSD.
conclusion
I want to thank the Chairman and members of this committee for
holding this hearing. I hope that I have shed some light on the
complexities involved in environmental cleanup and property disposal of
BRAC property. I want to ensure you that the Navy and Marine Corps
team, from the installation level to headquarters, has been working
very hard with regulators and communities to do a responsible
environmental cleanup that is protective of human health and the
environment, and to help bring BRAC property back to productive use
through economic redevelopment. We will continue to give priority
management attention and funding to support promising opportunities for
early transfer of BRAC property. We will pursue other public sales of
BRAC property when appropriate and other disposal options have not
progressed. We will use the funds generated by the sale to accelerate
cleanup at BRAC locations.
That concludes my statement. I appreciate the support of each
member of this committee, and will try to respond to any comments or
concerns you may have.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Arny. I wish we had had
the other panel here to talk back and forth because you are so
diametrically opposed that it is hard for us to determine which
really works better. I mean, you make a good case, but they do
as well.
Mr. Arny. Well, it is fairly new, and I think you also need
to talk to the city of Irvine some time, because they have been
a partner with us on what will be the largest public sale any
of us have ever done. We have 3700 acres in Orange County to
sell and it will be done through public sale.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. Of course Orange County is in
a somewhat different category from some of our bases.
Mr. Gibbs.
STATEMENT OF HON. NELSON F. GIBBS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE AIR FORCE FOR INSTALLATIONS,
ENVIRONMENT, AND LOGISTICS
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein.
The Air Force is quite proud of the record that it has had
in working with the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) through
the first four rounds. There have been 22 closures and 19
realignments. Over 87,000 acres will eventually be transferred
back to the local communities. Over 60 percent of those acres
have already been transferred and another 30 percent of them
are currently in long-term lease so that the development can go
forward.
From the perspective of environmental aspects of it, we
expect to have our last remedy in place by 2005 with the
exception of one base, and the operating and monitoring,
however, of that cleanup will go on for 40 years in many cases,
with one substantive exception where the monitoring will go on
in excess of 200 years.
prepared statement
We believe it has been a success and we believe that we are
prepared to move forward with the 2005 round for the disposal
of properties in a very expeditious manner also.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nelson F. Gibbs
introduction
Madam Chairman and members of the committee, good morning. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the
Department of the Air Force Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
program. Today, I will share with the committee our progress in
transitioning the installations identified for closure or realignment
in previous rounds of BRAC and how we are preparing to execute an
additional round of base closures in 2005.
One of the most effective tools we have to transform the military
is through the BRAC process. The previous four rounds of BRAC approved
22 Air Force installations for closure and 17 realignment actions, and
the Air Force completed each action within its statutory deadline. We
rationalized much of our infrastructure through the previous BRAC
rounds--but much more needs to be accomplished. Transformation requires
rationalizing our base structure to better match the force structure
for the new ways of doing business.
Congress authorized a Base Realignment and Closure in 2005 to
accomplish this ``base transformation''. BRAC 2005 is the means for the
Air Force to align our infrastructure to maximize warfighting
capability efficiency, and meet the Nation's new defense strategy.
Through BRAC 2005, we will eliminate excess capacity that drains our
scarce resources from defense capability.
2005 base realignment and closure
The Air Force views the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure process
as a unique opportunity to reshape our infrastructure to optimize
military readiness and to ensure we are most efficiently postured to
meet new security challenges. In January of this year, we established a
Basing and Infrastructure Analysis group within Headquarters Air Force.
This office will serve as the Air Force focal point for the BRAC 2005
process. Our major commands are following suit with creating their own
analysis structures to support the BRAC process. As in previous rounds
of base closures, we are establishing a Base Closure Executive Group
(BCEG) composed of general officers and senior civilians representing a
variety of functional areas, including those with ranges and airspace
operational expertise. The Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Basing and Infrastructure Analysis participates in meetings with his
counterparts in OSD and the other services on BRAC 2005 planning issues
and also on the composition of the joint cross service teams. The Air
Force is also working on a building up it's BRAC 2005 staff in order to
ensure the appropriate degree of corporate attention and expertise is
given to this effort The Air Force leadership is committed to meeting
the BRAC 2005 statutory deadlines and ensuring our analytical processes
are comprehensive and auditable.
base conversion
The Air Force continues to work with the local reuse authority at
each closed and realigned bases from rounds of BRAC to minimize the
impact on local communities from the closures. The Air Force is
disposing of over 87,000 acres at 32 locations. Base conversion efforts
have led to the creation of over 48,000 jobs in a variety of reuses,
including industrial, aviation, commercial, residential and educational
activities. Thirteen airports have been created, significantly
contributing to the United States civil aviation system. Colleges
expanded their operations, hospitals and senior citizen housing
complexes developed, industrial uses ranging from biotechnology to a
state-of-the art sawmill were created, child care centers, aircraft
maintenance operations, hotels, restaurants--the list just goes on and
on. The important thing is these former installations are not sitting
idle; they are being transferred and used by communities, contributing
to their economic redevelopment and providing valuable jobs for their
people.
Successful redevelopment relies on the transfer of property to the
local communities. The Air Force has deeded almost 60 percent of our
BRAC property. We continue to increase the amount of deeded acres for
all rounds projecting over 70 percent of our total acreage will be
transferred by the end of fiscal year 2003. Over 90 percent of the
property has transitioned to reuse, either by deed or utilizing long-
term leases in furtherance of conveyance. The lease arrangement allows
the community to use the property for economic development while we
finish our environmental cleanup responsibilities. Once cleanup
remedies are in place, the contract we have with the community calls
for us to convert the lease to a deed. This has proven to be an
extremely successful tool for transitioning property for early reuse.
brac environmental
While these facilities are being returned to their respective
communities, the Air Force has a continuing responsibility for
environmental cleanup from past operations and industrial activities.
The Air Force approaches this responsibility at our BRAC installations
with the same prudent environmental stewardship as at our active
installations.
Since 1991, we have spent approximately $2.2 billion in
environmental cleanup activities at our closure installations, and for
fiscal year 2004, the Air Force is requesting $176 million to continue
cleanup efforts. This request allocates about 70 percent for actual
installation of cleanup systems, cleanup systems operations, and long-
term management. The Air Force projects that over $2 billion is needed
in future years to complete our ongoing BRAC cleanup requirements. We
look forward to working with the Congress as we meet these goals in our
future budget submissions.
As the Air Force moves forward with our BRAC environmental cleanup
program, we are seeing the results of investments made over the last
several years. Since 1999, 12 of the 30 locations that have
environmental restoration programs have achieved last remedy in place
(LRIP) with 9 more locations scheduled to reach LRIP this fiscal year.
This is a significant milestone as it means all cleanup remedies are in
place and operating successfully. While some of those systems may be in
place for many years to come, the Air Force ensures there is no harm to
human health or the environment during the operations process. The $176
million requested for fiscal year 2004 will lead to six bases attaining
LRIP in fiscal year 2004. The Air Force plans for all our bases to
achieve LRIP status in fiscal year 2005, except McClellan Air Force
Base, CA, which was one of our major maintenance, repair and overhaul
centers that closed in 2001.
Investment in more efficient contracting approaches at our closure
installations has successfully produced faster cleanup initiatives at
significant cost savings. For example, a privatization contract at the
former Lowry Air Force Base, CO, will reduce our cleanup period from 28
years to 11 years at a cost savings of $13 million. More importantly,
it enables us to transfer the property to the local reuse authority
prior to cleanup using an early transfer authority. The reuse authority
actually contracts for the cleanup and works with the environmental
regulators. We agreed up-front to a level of cleanup and negotiated a
price based on their ability to meet our cleanup goals. This is a win-
win for both the community and the Air Force, as it gives the community
more control over the process and it allows the Air Force to transfer
the property. The Air Force is also pursuing the use of performance-
based contracting for its cleanup actions. Similar to privatization, we
will identify performance goals and rather than dictating the cleanup
remedy, we will award the contract based on a cleanup goal. The Air
Force plans to position 20 percent of our environmental program on
performance-based contracts this fiscal year. As a result of these
initiatives, the Air Force BRAC environmental program has successfully
closed 1,100 of our 1,671 environmental cleanup sites
challenges
In light of our successful execution of the BRAC program, the Air
Force continues to address important real estate and environmental
challenges. As we prepare for BRAC 2005, the Air Force is addressing a
key real estate issue--how to more efficiently transfer property. We
are already looking at lessons learned from the previous rounds of BRAC
to identify ways to improve the process so that we can improve our
processes for transferring property and accomplishing cleanup. We think
some of our initiatives accomplished this already, but we recognize
there is room for improvement. Our goal is to maximize BRAC savings to
the Department of Defense and expedite reuse.
conclusion
In conclusion, we thank the committee for its support of an
additional round of base closure in 2005 and of the Air Force's current
Base Realignment and Closure Program. The closures and realignments of
the previous rounds of BRAC allow us to use the savings on other Air
Force requirements every year. With your help, we are meeting the need
for community reuse while providing quality environmental cleanup
efforts to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.
We will approach BRAC 2005 with the same commitment. I will be happy to
address any questions.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
SALE VERSUS NON-REVENUE TRANSFER
I would like to ask the Army and the Air Force Secretaries,
what your view of public sale versus the non-revenue transfer
merits are?
Mr. Gibbs. I will pick it up first if you want.
Senator Hutchison. Okay.
Mr. Gibbs. The Air Force has sold in the last round
properties which will ultimately result in approximately $70
million of proceeds. Just under $50 million has been received.
I think, as in many things, under a specific set of
circumstances any one of the methods can be used most
appropriately.
In the case of the transfer--I would comment also, based on
Mr. Arny's previous comment, that one of the largest delays
that we have experienced over the years has been in dealing
with other Federal agencies. As you know, in the waterfall
process that we go through it basically starts there. It says
first of all, are there other military departments that would
want to use the land? Then it goes to other Federal agencies.
This has been the longest delay in many instances.
Then, moving on to the local agencies, the things that have
caused us the greatest difficulty are where the local community
has been unable to come to a conclusion relatively quickly as
to what they want done with the properties. In this business,
the longer it takes, the more difficult it becomes as positions
become entrenched. So the speed with which we can go through
the process will, in my opinion, enhance it, and if that would
be through a public sale, then I personally, and I believe the
Air Force, also, would favor that route.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Dr. Fiori.
CAMERON STATION PROPERTY SALE
Dr. Fiori. Yes, ma'am. One of our great early success
stories in selling property was Cameron Station. Our local
community just could not afford to assume it, even though it is
a fairly wealthy area. We had a developer come and take it away
and we sold it for $30 million at the time. They then met all
the local ordinances.
In our total sales, we have over $150 million, but none of
these are large properties--many of our properties are
obviously environmentally contaminated and we have had a
difficult time with them.
TRANSFER TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
Also, when we transfer our property to other Federal
agencies, particularly the Department of the Interior, it has
taken quite a few years. One of our recommended legislative
corrections could easily be, let us limit the time that they
tie up the property before we try selling it, and that would
help us a little bit.
The fact is I think all the BRACs from the beginning to now
have taken a bit too long to do. By allowing us to be more
aggressive on selling it, some of the programs which I have
described to you which are expediting the sale of these
properties will help. In my case, this year, I do have about
100,000 acres out of the 140,000 remaining that I will be able
to finally, hopefully, dispose of, and most of it is going to
go to other agencies. It is a difficult subject.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Senator Hutchison. Let me ask, Mr. Arny, and if either of
you have opinions on this I would welcome those as well. That
is, the concept that you said you do not use but is an option,
of conveying to private parties who will undertake the
environmental cleanup. It seems like a win-win so we would not
keep incurring these environmental costs and that seems to be
more expensive than the sale of the property in many instances.
Mr. Arny. I do not know the total history on it and I will
have to get back to you for the record. But I do not believe
many people have approached us on that. Again, since almost
every closure we had was through an LRA rather than directly to
the private sector, it is my guess--and I will document it for
the record--it is my guess that the private parties were not
approaching the LRAs because they assumed we would do the
cleanup in place.
I think one of the great advances over the past few years
has been the early transfer. We did that up at Mare Island and
it has been very successful, because we have all our bases to
clean up and the developer who is finally chosen by the
community at Mare Island--Mare Island may not be number one on
our list, but for that developer, guess what, it is number one
for him. And using the Governor of a particular State, in this
case the Governor of California, to adjudicate between what we
think is the right amount of money and bringing insurance
vehicles into place, now the community wins, because we are
still paying for the development but we are not doing it, and
it is now number one priority for that community. The developer
cannot develop unless he gets it cleaned up.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. We also have begun to use that mechanism. We
entered into an agreement in Colorado where effectively, the
cleanup is being undertaken by a private contractor. We pay for
it, of course, but it is also backed up by insurance. This is a
methodology that has turned out to be very effective there and
I think we will find it being used more and more.
We are also attempting to transfer more into performance-
based cleanups and that is in dealing principally with the
State regulators in getting to agree on what the performance
should be, and then it makes it much easier to do the private.
Senator Hutchison. But you have not had experience of
conveying with the requirement that the person who purchases or
takes the property would do the environmental cleanup?
Mr. Gibbs. Well, you mean take over the economic
responsibility?
Senator Hutchison. Yes.
Mr. Gibbs. No, we have not, and I really would not expect
that would be very difficult for any local to take up. One of
the understandings is we have the responsibility to do the
cleanup and for somebody to take that over, is a tremendous
economic burden in many cases.
One of the difficulties----
Senator Hutchison. You just do not think there would be a
market for it, is what both of you are saying.
Mr. Arny. So far we have not seen one where they have come
up to us.
Mr. Gibbs. And said that they would like to actually do the
cleanup, no. We stay behind it economically. We believe it is
advantageous to turn it over to private companies to do and to
manage because in many cases, as Secretary Arny says, they are
much more focused on what needs to be done.
Mr. Arny. I am only again guessing here, but I think that
since, up until just recently, almost all the transfers have
been no-cost EDCs, the more recent ones, in which case there is
no incentive for a private sector person to come in there
because it is going ``free'' to the local community instead of
if it is up for public sale and the developer could make money
off it over and above the cost of cleanup. Then perhaps there
would be an incentive. But I will get back to you for the
record on the history of it.
[The information follows:]
Section 2908 of Public Law 103-160 amended the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510) and provided authority
to transfer surplus property at closed bases to private parties who
agree to perform all required environmental remediation. II This
authority lapsed November 30, 1998. Navy did not identify any
opportunity to use it.
The 2002 National Defense Authorization Act restored this authority
for closures or realignments occurring after 2001.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP AT BASES
I have three base-specific questions. The first one is on
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Let me ask them together if I
might. What is the Navy's estimated cost to complete the
cleanup of Hunters Point and what is the budget for the current
fiscal year and each of the next 2 fiscal years? That is the
first.
The second is the recent discovery of more than 100 boxes
of previously unknown shipyard radiological documents. What do
you expect that impact to be and will it cost more? And does
the Navy see any remaining hurdles to moving forward with the
conveyance agreement in the next 1 to 2 months?
Mr. Arny. That is me. I was in a similar job in the Navy in
the mideighties when we were wrestling with Hunters Point back
then, so----
Senator Feinstein. It goes on and on.
Mr. Arny. And then I represented the Port of San Francisco
for a while and worked for Veronica Sanchez. So I have been out
there a lot.
Senator Feinstein. In the mideighties?
Mr. Arny. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. While I was Mayor?
Mr. Arny. Yes, ma'am, I met her back then.
As to our cost to complete, as of this year it is $103.9
million.
Senator Feinstein. 129, did you say?
Mr. Arny. $103.9 million cost to complete. The 2003 budget
is $38 million, the 2004 budget is $24 million. I can get you
later numbers.
If we are successful in land sales--well, we anticipated
$68 million of land sales for this year's budget, for 2004, and
we have taken in more than that. We will use that money to
accelerate cleanup.
Senator Feinstein. How much have you taken in?
Mr. Arny. Taken in--well, I have to take away GSA's pound
of flesh. But we took in $208.5 million.
Senator Feinstein. Really?
Mr. Arny. Plus we took in--that was just on Tustin. We took
in $15 million roughly in Key West in a negotiated sale, and
once we are settled with a lawsuit at Oak Knoll we expect to
take in another $10 million or so.
Our priority on those is the money goes to the base that
was closed or to a base--if it is a Marine base----
Senator Feinstein. In the State?
Mr. Arny. In the State. We have it prioritized and I can
get you that for the record.
Senator Feinstein. Would you?
Mr. Arny. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. I would very much appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
We need to retain some flexibility, but any additional Prior BRAC
land sale revenue received by the Department of the Navy beyond the $68
million included in the fiscal year 2004 budget bill will be applied to
accelerate cleanup and property disposal at Prior BRAC locations in the
following general priority order.
--The BRAC base that generated the revenue.
--The Navy or Marine Corps military service that generated the
revenue.
--DoN bases to implement an early transfer opportunity.
--DoN bases that, with a modest infusion of additional funds, could
quickly complete cleanup and property disposal, thereby
completing actions on that base.
--All remaining DoN bases.
Mr. Arny. And we tend to--it is the base that was sold gets
first priority. The service that that base was gets next
priority, and the State--I forget where the State falls in
there. I can get that for you, and I can get you the later
numbers.
Senator Feinstein. Great.
Mr. Arny. But Hunters Point is clearly one that we would
like to accelerate the cleanup on. Hunters Point--you talked
about the six bases to Mr. DuBois. I would suspect that three
of them are ours and three of them are in the San Francisco
Bay. I would suspect they are Mare Island, Alameda, and Hunters
Point. That is just a guess.
Senator Feinstein. And then Alaska would be another, right?
That would be----
Mr. Arny. That is just huge area.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Mr. Arny. It is area, not cost.
Senator Feinstein. And the other two would be?
Mr. Arny. McClellan maybe and--I do not know.
Senator Feinstein. Pearl, did you say?
Mr. Arny. No, McClellan perhaps. I am not sure.
Mr. Gibbs. I do not know the six.
Senator Feinstein. Well, you gentlemen will get us the six.
Mr. Gibbs. You will get the list.
Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that.
Mr. Arny. As far as the boxes of material, I just got
briefed yesterday on the HRA, Historical Radiological
Assessment. We are working very closely with the city, as you
know. There is a RAB meeting in 2 weeks. We will lay out ahead
of time before the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) with the
city officials. The number of boxes is not quite as large as we
thought it was, but it is still very large.
We believe we will be ready by 1 October, I think is our
deadline, and we have----
Senator Feinstein. Is that for conveyance?
Mr. Arny. No, the conveyance should be ready to go before
then. We have separated the conveyance from--we were going to
require the transfer of parcel A prior to conveyance. But
because the HRA has delayed that, we are separating parcel A
from the conveyance.
We would, however, like the city in return for early
conveyance, which we are ready to do, we would like them to
take over fire and security guard service. We are paying $1
million a year for fire and police security services. If you
recall, the police, the San Francisco Police, are actually
stationed at Hunters Point, but they are not to respond to
stuff at Hunters Point.
It is very difficult for us to hire firemen. We hire them,
they become Federal, we train them up, and guess what, they get
hired away by the City of San Francisco. And oh, by the way, so
we are undermanned, our firemen respond to a fire, and the city
also responds to the same fire.
Senator Feinstein. I would be very happy to help with that.
Mr. Arny. Thank you, I would appreciate that.
Senator Feinstein. I really appreciate the work that has
been done. So do you see any hurdles? 1 to 2 months for
conveyance, is that about correct?
Mr. Arny. I will have to check on the time frame. I was not
thinking that quickly, but that could very well be the time
frame.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Mr. Arny. Firefighting is the only hurdle.
Senator Feinstein. All right.
MC CLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE
Secretary Gibbs, I understand that the required McClellan
funding for 2004 is nearly $43 million and the Air Force has
communicated to the community a commitment of $30 to $40
million per year to be spent on remediation at McClellan over
the next 5 years. Is that in fact correct?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. What is your current working estimate of
the cost to complete the environmental cleanup at McClellan?
Mr. Gibbs. I will give you a number----
Senator Feinstein. And the time line.
Mr. Gibbs. We expect that it will be about three-quarters
of a billion dollars to complete all of the work at McClellan.
Now, I notice that Mr. Leonard had used a number substantially
greater than that in his estimate, so I will get back to you
for the record specifically. I will provide you all of the
details of the money spent to date and the amount to go.
[The information follows:]
McClellan AFB
Historical expenditures (including pre-BRAC DERA costs) for the
environmental cleanup at McClellan Air Force Base total $402,800,000
(includes fiscal year 2003). Our current estimated cost to complete the
cleanup is $752,000,000 for the period fiscal year 2004 through 2034.
Senator Feinstein. Is most of the $750 million or above
related to the nuclear----
Mr. Gibbs. Much of it is.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Residue?
Mr. Gibbs. Much of it is, yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. And that does not include the sewer?
Mr. Gibbs. No, the sewer is included.
Senator Feinstein. The sewer is included, okay. And the
time line?
Mr. Gibbs. The time line on the sewer is--well, there are
discussions currently going on now with the redevelopment
agency to see if we can rearrange the time line on that. It was
scheduled out about 2 or 3 years from now. I do not know
precisely when. But the agency has decided that it would prefer
to move that up as opposed to something else. So it is a change
in the process.
FORT ORD CLEANUP
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Dr. Fiori, the cleanup bill for Fort Ord is estimated I
believe at $306 million. I realize that unexploded ordnance
(UXD) is under a different account, but, given the
concentration of UXO on Fort Ord, can you estimate the
remaining time it will take to clean up that base and whether
you foresee additional costs?
Dr. Fiori. The costs are about $300 million from now until
the end. The cleanup will not happen under the process we are
going under today for at least another 15 to 17 years, and
those are regulatory issues that we have to solve.
Senator Feinstein. Let me just--you are saying the
cleanup----
Dr. Fiori. Of our 7,000 acres that have UXO it is going to
take 14 years. The reason for it is, at the moment at least, at
the present plan with the regulators of California, we are
allowed to only burn 500 acres per year. We need to burn the
vegetation off so we can survey the land to find the UXO. Five
hundred into 7,000 is 14 years, ma'am.
I am going out there and I am going to discuss this with
Congressman Farr. Perhaps we have alternative ways to do this.
But right now we are stuck in that regulatory climate.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask a couple questions. This is
because of air pollution?
Dr. Fiori. Yes, ma'am, the controlled burns are due to air
pollution. They limit us to 500 acres a year. We missed this
year as a matter of fact because the weather changed at the
time we were going to do it, so we did not even do it this last
calendar year.
Senator Feinstein. Does the county want a speedier cleanup?
Dr. Fiori. As far as I could tell at the moment, everyone
seems to be satisfied with this except me. I would like to
speed it up dramatically. This is my long pole in the tent of
my remaining 40,000 acres once I get rid of my 100,000 acres
that I plan to get rid of this year.
But it is a regulatory issue and we are going to work on
it. I have a task force just working Fort Ord to see what we
could do to really expedite it and look at alternative
technologies. But right now we literally cannot find the UXO.
Senator Feinstein. Well, please let me know if I can be of
help and I would be happy to.
Dr. Fiori. I would be delighted to let you know about it,
because it is high on our priorities, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
OTHER CALIFORNIA PROPERTIES
Dr. Fiori. I do have an answer, though, about the other
properties. A lot of them are in California.
Senator Feinstein. Good.
Dr. Fiori. The largest one is Honey Lake, Sierra Army
Deport, California, 64,000 acres. I think we will be able to
transfer that to the Department of Interior this year. So that
is a large chunk of my 100,000. The other one, of course, is
Fort Ord, but only 1,300 acres of my remaining 15,000 acres
will be transferred this year. Those are the two California
large chunks of property that we are going to try to dispose of
this year.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Madam Chairman.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Raymond DuBois
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
base realignment and closure (brac)
Question. Please explain the deliberation process the BRAC working
group is undergoing as it develops the initial selection criterion set
for submission to the defense committees and the deadline for this
submission.
Answer. The Department will ensure that the proposed selection
criteria meet all of the requirements of the enabling legislation and
incorporate changes that might be needed to accommodate changing
military missions. We intend to meet all legislatively mandated
deadlines regarding selection criteria, beginning with publication of
the proposed selection criteria in the Federal Register not later than
31 December 2003.
Question. We hear that much emphasis will be placed on
``jointness'' as it applies to military infrastructure in the 2005
closure round. What are you initial thoughts on what areas the
Department will be focusing on in this area?
Answer. In the operational and readiness mission areas, the
Department will focus on multi-service and multi-mission basing,
leading to enhanced inter-service training and planning opportunities
by collocating units of various military services where it makes
military sense to do so. The Department will also place emphasis on
jointness in common support areas by streamlining the support
management infrastructure. We are looking for efficiencies through
inter-service cooperation and rationalization of support requirements.
Question. How do you anticipate assets classified as BRAC excess
property in 1995 being considered for realignment opportunities in the
2005 round by the Department?
Answer. Prior BRAC rounds identified considerable excess property
for disposal. Unless the Department identifies a need for this
currently excess property, we will continue with the property disposal
process.
Question. We understand that community economic impact may play a
lesser role with respect to decisions made for closure or major
realignment of a base. Can you tell us what community factors may play
a more important role in the initial selection criteria?
Answer. Community factors have been considered in the past and will
be considered in the future. The specific factors that will be taken
into account will not be identified until the proposed selection
criteria are developed and published.
Question. Encroachment is an issue that has been continually
emphasized as a major concern for the Department--how do you anticipate
this being measured by the Department as it applies to the selection
criteria?
Answer. In the past, encroachment has been a factor the Military
Departments considered as a component of military value. I anticipate
that both current and potential future encroachment issues will be
identified and considered as a part of the installation military value
assessments during the BRAC 2005 process.
reduced presence in overseas base infrastructure
Question. Do you see the possibility of a reduced presence in our
overseas base infrastructure and, if so, does the Department anticipate
increased basing of forces at CONUS bases? Will such a change in basing
factor into the 2005 round?
Answer. Since the Department is currently engaged in a review of
our overseas presence and basing structure, it would be premature to
speculate on any potential changes.
However, to the extent that overseas forces are relocated to other
overseas areas, there would be no impact on United States basing. If
any overseas forces return to the United States, they would be
stationed at a domestic installation. Regardless, it is important to
note that decisions regarding overseas basing will be made in advance
of the completion of the BRAC 2005 process. As such, BRAC 2005, which
is on a later timeline, will factor overseas presence decisions into
its analyses.
base realignment and closure (brac)
Question. Tell us how the Nuclear Posture Review will affect the
initial selection criteria sent to the Congress.
Answer. The December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Report to
Congress outlined a new portfolio of strategic capabilities for the
United States. United States plans include development of new, non-
nuclear capabilities, concurrent with a reduction in the number of
operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2012. The NPR
report listed the planned strategic nuclear force structure for 2012
and noted that periodic reviews of United States strategic capabilities
would occur during the decade ahead. The BRAC force structure plan will
reflect the most recent decisions by the Department on the strategic
nuclear force posture, and the selection criteria will connect these
decisions to the BRAC analysis to support the Secretary's closure and
realignment recommendations.
Question. What role do you see the individual services playing in
the development of the initial selection criteria and can you give me a
couple of examples of the kinds of themes they have discussed with OSD
as you have moved forward in the deliberation process?
Answer. The Department, with all of its components, will work as a
team to develop the BRAC 2005 selection criteria. The Infrastructure
Steering Group (ISG), chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), and the Infrastructure
Executive Council (IEC), chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense,
will develop the selection criteria for the Secretary's approval.
Senior leaders from each component of the Department are represented on
these two groups. Military value will be the primary consideration, as
required by statute.
Question. What different considerations will be given in the 2005
as contrasted with the 1995 round given the new Unified Command Plan?
Answer. The Unified Command Plan sets forth basic guidance to all
unified combatant commanders, establishing their missions,
responsibilities and force structure, and delineating the general
geographic area of responsibility for geographic combatant commanders.
One of the major differences between the 2005 BRAC round and the 1995
round is the consideration of force structure. The BRAC Act of 1990, as
amended, requires the 2005 round to develop a force structure plan
based on probable threats to our national security over a 20-year
period. The 1995 round required a force structure plan of only a 6-year
period. To the extent the new Unified Command Plan impacts our force
structure requirements over this extended period, those impacts will be
considered during the 2005 BRAC analysis process.
impact of brac on the milcon request
Question. How have military construction requests been affected by
the eventuality of the upcoming base closure round?
Answer. The 2004 request funds our highest priorities for improving
quality of life and resolving critical readiness shortfalls,
irrespective of BRAC. For quality of life, the military construction
request sustains funding for family and bachelor housing and increases
the number of housing units privatized. We increased funding for
facilities sustainment, raising the corporate sustainment rate from 93
to 94 percent, which will help to preserve our facilities and reduce
the need for future, more costly revitalizations. We also preserved
funding for recapitalization.
base realignment and closure (brac)
Question. What role do you see Guard and Reserve forces playing in
any base closure or realignment recommendations?
Answer. As in past BRAC rounds, the Guard and Reserves will be
fully integrated in BRAC 2005. The Department views all components as
important participants in BRAC 2005.
Question. How will BRAC officials ensure each base is treated
equally in this process? Will they visit each and every installation
they are looking to realign or close?
Answer. The BRAC 2005 process now beginning will be a comprehensive
analysis of all military installations with the primary goal being
enhanced war fighting capability and efficiency. The Department will do
everything possible to ensure the BRAC process is as fair and objective
as possible, within a very disciplined analytical framework. All
military installations will be reviewed and all recommendations will be
based on approved, published selection criteria and a force structure
plan. As required by Public Law 107-107, military value is the primary
consideration in analyzing and making closure or realignment
recommendations.
The independent BRAC Commission will review the SecDef's closure
and realignment recommendations (due to the Commission by May 16,
2005). Commissioners will be nominated by the President in consultation
with the Congressional leadership. In previous BRAC rounds, at least
one Commissioner visited each site recommended for closure or
realignment. The BRAC statute, as amended to authorize the 2005 round,
provides that the Commission may not recommend the closure of a
military installation not recommended for closure by the Secretary of
Defense unless at least two Commissioners visit the installation. Upon
completion of public hearings and deliberations, the Commission must
forward its closure and realignment recommendations to the President
for approval not later than September 8, 2005.
The President must approve the recommendations (on an all-or-none
basis) and forward them to the Congress. Upon receipt, the Congress has
45 legislative days to vote down the Commission's recommendations on an
all-or-none basis; otherwise they take on the force and effect of law.
Question. Some of the BRAC goals are to eliminate excess
infrastructure and optimize military readiness. How do the BRAC
personnel feel this will affect our homeland security mission?
Answer. The events of September 11, 2001, have confirmed in my mind
that the Department must act now to review our basing requirements. We
are looking at and experiencing different threats than we were a decade
ago, and our forces must be stationed appropriately to respond to
contingencies and support the Global War on Terrorism.
excess infrastructure
Question. Could excess infrastructure be used for homeland security
or to house or maintain other Federal, State, local government agencies
that need added security since 9/11?
Answer. Whenever the Department of Defense determines that it has
property that is excess to its needs, that property is made available
to other Federal agencies during the Federal screening process. If no
Federal agency identifies a need for the property, it becomes surplus
property and is made available for disposal outside the Federal
Government. State and local governmental agencies may be able to
acquire surplus property for a variety of purposes if the purpose meets
the criteria for various public benefit conveyances under the 1949
Federal Property Act, as amended. Additionally, State and local
governments can negotiate to purchase surplus property if the intended
use is for a ``public purpose'' as defined in the 1949 Act.
base realignment and closure (brac)
Question. Will BRAC look closely at realigning bases and locating
missions (from the same and other services) at bases where the primary
missions cannot be moved? There are several States that have multiple
military installations; will BRAC officials take into consideration the
economic impact a closure would have on a State where there's only one
base to those that have several bases?
Answer. As in prior BRAC rounds, all bases will be treated equally
and considered in BRAC 2005. BRAC 2005 selection criteria will be used
to evaluate potential BRAC actions with Military Value selection
criteria having primary consideration. For example, BRAC 2005 will be
looking for opportunities to achieve economies by further developing
multi-service and multi-mission installations.
Regarding economic impacts on States with one base, as required by
the BRAC enabling legislation, the selection criteria for military
installations will also address the economic impact on existing
communities in the vicinity of military installations. Regardless of
the number of military installations in any given state, economic
impact criteria will be uniformly applied.
installations required to support missile defense
Question. Do you see any new installations' under current or future
plans for a missile defense?
Answer. The Department does not have plans to add any new
installations in support of missile defense. However, we plan to expand
facilities at existing installations as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year (proj #) Project title Project amt Loc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR MILCON
2003 (464) THAAD......................... Test Facilities............ $23,400 PMRF, HI
MINOR MILCON
2002 (463)............................... Launch Facilities.......... 1,450 PMRF, HI
FISCAL YEAR 1996-2005 RDT&E PROJECT
SUMMARY
2002 (514)............................... Site Activation Facilities. 1,900 Eareckson AB, AK
2002 (501)............................... Missile Defense System..... 273,121 Ft Greely & Eareckson AS,
Test Bed Facilities, AK
Ph I Preparation
2002 (502)............................... Missile Defense System, 8,200 Kodiak Island, AK
Test Bed--Kodiak
Facilities, Ph I.
2003 (503)............................... Missile Defense System, 121,778 Ft Greely & Eareckson AS,
Test Bed Facilities, Ph II. AK & Beale AFB, CA
2003 (505)............................... Missile Defense System, 14,880 Kodiak Island, AK
Test Bed--Kodiak
Facilities, Ph II.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusions of the nuclear posture review
Question. Another Nuclear Posture Review will occur in 2004, is
there any present indication that this NPR changes the conclusions of
the last NPR regarding the continued need for the long-standing triad?
If so, how, what, when, where, and why?
Answer. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) lays out the
direction for United States strategic forces over the next five to 10
years. The Review concluded that the United States needs to transform
its strategic forces, from the triad of the last 45 years into a New
Triad. The three ``legs'' of the old triad have consisted of nuclear-
armed strike forces: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs),
Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), and nuclear-armed
bombers. The New Triad will comprise three legs: (1) nuclear and non-
nuclear strike forces, (2) active defenses against missiles, and (3) a
revitalized defense infrastructure. The three legs will be supported by
robust planning, command and control, and intelligence.
Nuclear forces, including ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers, will
constitute one portion of the Strike leg of the transformed New Triad--
one that is vitally important. The NPR determined that the United
States will deploy, at least until 2012, a force of 500 ICBMs, 14
ballistic-missile submarines (12 operational at any time), and a bomber
force of 21 B-2s and 76 B-52s. The number of operationally deployed
strategic nuclear warheads on these forces will decline to 3,800 in
2007 and to 1,700-2,200 in 2012.
There is no requirement for another Nuclear Posture Review in 2004,
but periodic assessments are required under the Implementation Plan for
the 2001 NPR.
The periodic assessments will review the progress achieved in
establishing the New Triad. The conclusions of the assessments cannot
be predicted in advance, but the Department of Defense currently plans
to maintain the NPR-recommended force of 500 ICBMs, 14 ballistic
missile submarines (12 operational at any time), 21 B-2 and 76 B-52
bombers until at least 2012.
icbm launchers
Question. Will the concept of 500 ICBM launchers be maintained? If
so, how, what, when, where, and why?
Answer. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) lays out the
direction for United States strategic forces over the next 5 to 10
years. The President and the Secretary of Defense approved the NPR
recommendation that the United States will deploy, at least until 2012,
a force of 500 ICBMs.
The force of 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs is being retired in accordance
with the recommendations of the NPR. Accordingly, the force of 500
ICBMs envisioned by the NPR will comprise entirely the existing force
of Minuteman III missiles.
There are no plans to move the Minuteman III ICBMs from their
current locations.
base realignment and closure (brac)
Question. Presuming some missions will be realigned during the next
BRAC, what factors will be considered in the decision-making process
regarding placement at other bases?
Answer. Decisions will be based on the force structure plan and the
final selection criteria, with primary consideration on military value.
Some of the factors that could be considered are operational and
training effectiveness and efficiencies through joint operations.
Question. Malmstrom AFB has experienced hundreds of millions of
dollars in construction since 1987, with additional millions to be
spent over the next couple of years. The funds have been spent
improving infrastructure, operational facilities (particularly along
the flight line), housing and other facilities designed to upgrade the
living conditions of personnel. The estimated cost to reopen the flight
line to a new mission is estimated at $10,000,000 to $15,000,000. With
little or no operational encroachments, great weather and significant
available air space, what flying missions might be considered for
placement at MAFB?
Answer. In accordance with the requirements of the base closure
statute, the Department will consider all military installations
equally, without regard to whether the installation has been previously
considered or proposed for closure or realignment by the Department.
The attributes of Malmstrom AFB will be considered along with those of
all other installations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
base realignment and closure (brac)
Question. You and other Defense Department officials have suggested
that the target of the 2005 BRAC round is to reduce DOD's real estate
inventory by 20 to 25 percent. That is a very significant reduction,
particularly at a time when the Nation is mobilizing for war. Has the
Defense Department taken another look at its estimate of excess
property in light of the current world crises and the build up to war?
Answer. BRAC 2005 does not have a target in terms of either
reducing installation capacity or in savings dollars. However, the 1998
Report of the Department of Defense on Base Realignment and Closure
estimated the Department has substantial excess infrastructure capacity
(20-25 percent). Notwithstanding the indications of the 1998 report,
specific excess capacity will be determined only after extensive
analyses are accomplished within the BRAC 2005 process. Once these
excesses are identified, critical considerations, like technology
changes and transformational advances, will be factored against them to
determine the unneeded capacities that can actually be eliminated.
The force structure on which BRAC 2005 installation requirements
will be based will project 20 years into the future. As in past BRAC
rounds, BRAC 2005 will consider not only peacetime garrison
requirements, but also requirements associated with the mobilization of
the reserve components. While the BRAC process focuses on CONUS
installations, the requirements of the global force will necessarily
take into account anticipated overseas basing that is largely driven by
international security considerations. As in prior base realignment and
closure rounds, BRAC 2005 will retain sufficient base structure
flexibility and capacity to accommodate unanticipated changes in
overseas basing requirements. In sum, the Department envisions
continuing to look at the future force and mobilization requirements,
as well as potential CONUS beddowns of forward deployed forces.
long term stationing of u.s. forces in central command
Question. In your testimony, you note that the Defense Department
is undertaking a comprehensive review of military property overseas. At
the same time that the Department is looking at reducing the United
States military footprint in Europe and Korea, the war on terror and
the build up for war against Iraq have resulted in an expansion of the
United States footprint in the Persian Gulf region.
What does this mean in terms of the long term stationing of United
States forces in the Central Command area of responsibility?
Answer. The global positioning of all United States forces and
their supporting infrastructure outside the United States is currently
being examined by the Department of Defense. Secretary Rumsfeld has
directed that a comprehensive and integrated presence and basing
strategy looking out 10 years be developed and presented to him by July
1, 2003. The strategy will provide an essential foundation for
decisions concerning the appropriate locations and infrastructure
necessary to execute the United States defense strategy today and in
the future.
base realignment and closure (brac)
Question. You have been quoted as saying that, for the 2005 BRAC
round, all installations are on the table. Will there be any difference
in the way active installations are weighted or graded versus Guard and
reserve bases?
Answer. All active and reserve component installations will be
considered during BRAC 2005. They will be assessed based on enabling
legislative guidelines, the force structure plan and approved selection
criteria, with military value having primary consideration. In doing
so, we will take into account the missions of reserve component
installations. Additionally, reserve component installations often
support units that rely upon geographic recruiting areas, a
consideration not usually relevant to active installations.
economic impact of base closure
Question. What will you do differently in the 2005 round to better
help local communities deal with the economic impact of a base closure?
Answer. We would like to build upon the effectiveness of the
Defense Economic Adjustment Program (DEAP) as it assists in the
alleviation of serious community effects that result from BRAC actions.
As an agency whose primary responsibility is national security, the
Department relies heavily on the domestic Federal agencies to assist
local adjustment efforts through technical and financial support.
Therefore, we will work through the Office of Economic Adjustment, as
it manages the DEAP, coordinates Federal adjustment assistance, and
assists communities to organize and respond to these impacts. Among
activities currently being undertaken to assist communities that may be
impacted by an 2005 round:
--Reinvigorate the President's Economic Adjustment Committee (EAC) to
expand its purview to address certain regulatory issues and
update its membership to include all Federal agencies with
programs that can assist local economic recovery.
--Review activities that may be undertaken today to assist a
community where a substantial portion of the economic activity
or population of a community is dependent on defense
expenditures. On the basis of this effort we anticipate the
publication of a Notice of Funding Availability for communities
that would like to proactively engage in economic
diversification planning.
When Secretary Rumsfeld makes his recommendations for base
realignment and closure public in May 2005, the Defense Office of
Economic Adjustment (OEA), will be prepared to provide responsive
assistance for those communities that want to begin the base reuse
planning process.
property transfer process
Question. In your opinion, what property transfer process best
allows for communities to succeed in transforming a military
installation?
Answer. There is tremendous variability in the type of facility,
geographic location, private investment rates, unemployment levels, and
other economic strengths and weaknesses at each BRAC location that
directly affect opportunities for civilian reuse. In addressing this
variability, and recognizing the uneven capacities of the private and
public sectors at each of these locations, the Department needs
flexibility in determining a responsive mix of disposal authorities to
support a community's particular resources. Existing Federal property
disposal laws provide for an array of methods to dispose of surplus
property ranging from the transfer of property to another Federal
entity, through opportunities for discounted conveyance for public
purposes, to competitive bid sales.
lessons learned
Question. Does the DOD plan to work with communities before and
after lists are published to provide ``Lessons Learned'' from past
rounds?
Answer. The DOD Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) is available to
discuss civilian reuse experiences from prior base realignment and
closures. This information is available on a web site (http://
www.acq.osd.mil/oea) with links to several current base reuse
locations, through many publications offering guidance and lessons
learned information, and direct staff contact. There are also links
from the web site to other Federal agencies and NGO organizations, such
as the International City Managers Association, and the National
Association of Installation Developers, that also have documents with
lessons learned. This information will continue to be kept current with
the best practices as we approach and implement BRAC 2005.
brac cleanup
Question. In the 2005 BRAC round, DOD needs a better environmental
assessment of property and a better estimate of environmental
remediation costs upfront so we know from the outset what the problems
are and what the cleanup costs are likely to be. How do you plan to
achieve these standards--and to accomplish cleanup in a reasonable time
period?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) is currently addressing
sites on its active, closing, and realigning installations with
potential contamination under the Defense Environmental Response
Program (DERP). Sites subject to a future BRAC round already have the
majority of required environmental restoration underway and are
currently subject to DERP program management goals. These sites are
included in DOD's current site inventory along with cleanup phase,
costs incurred to date, and cost-to-complete information. Detailed site
and installation-specific information regarding the status of cleanup
is maintained at the installation and documented in the installation's
Management Action Plan. Once the closure process begins, the Services
and regulators may identify additional requirements as investigations
progress potentially increasing costs.
Additionally, DOD has undertaken an extensive, Department-wide
effort to ensure accurate, reliable, and timely financial information,
is available on a routine basis to support informed decision-making at
all levels throughout the Department. Established in July 2002, the
Financial Management Modernization Program (FMMP) is intended to
develop a DOD-wide enterprise architecture and transition plan designed
to transform the Defense business operations and technical
infrastructure. The scope of this initiative encompasses those defense
policies, processes, people, and systems, which guide, perform, or
support all aspects of financial management within the Department, from
the formulation of budget estimates to the preparation of management
reports and financial statements. Specific to the DERP, the Office of
the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environment
(OADUSD(E)) is working to align its Restoration Management Information
System (RMIS), as well as the DOD Component's data systems that feed
the RMIS, with the DOD-wide Financial Management Enterprise
Architecture. Additionally, the OADUSD(E) has directed the Components
to eliminate serious deficiencies with the preparation and
documentation cost-to-complete estimates and material weaknesses in the
annual financial statements. Component cost-to-complete estimates and
the values in the annual financial statements for environmental
restoration must be consistent with each other and able to withstand an
audit. In summary, these DOD-wide and DERP-specific initiatives to
improve financial management and reporting will facilitate DOD's
development of accurate, supportable environmental remediation cost
estimates.
To ensure cleanup is accomplished in a reasonable time frame,
OADUSD(E) will be working with the Components to develop goals and
metrics for the 2005 BRAC round. ODUSD(E) will closely oversee
Component progress using such tools as regular In-Progress Reviews.
brac budget
Question. Given the magnitude of the outstanding cleanup costs from
the prior BRAC rounds--an estimated $3.5 billion will needed to
complete cleanup assuming there are no more surprises out there--why
did the Defense Department reduce the fiscal year 2004 BRAC budget
request by 34 percent?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the total fiscal
year 2004 BRAC program (including environmental and caretaker costs)
represents a 34 percent reduction from fiscal year 2003. When
considering BRAC environmental costs only, the planned value of the
fiscal year 2004 program ($412.0 million) represents a 24 percent
reduction from fiscal year 2003 ($540.2 million). A significant portion
of the difference is attributed to revenues anticipated from land sales
of base closure properties, thus reducing the fiscal year 2004 budget
request.
Question. What are your projections for the out years--are you
planning increases or further decreases in the BRAC environmental
remediation budget requests?
Answer. The President's budget will support the goal of remedies in
place by fiscal year 2005. As the requirements decrease, the budget
will decrease. A substantial level of total BRAC environmental
requirements will remain beyond the current FYDP because many of the
BRAC sites are still in the study phase and that a greater range of
contaminants may be considered in the cleanup process leading to
transfer of properties to communities. The Department recognizes the
inherent advantages of transferring properties as soon as possible and
fully funds cleanup of all properties with identified schedules for
transfer.
status of excess acreage at six installations
Question. Could you identify those 6 installations and tell the
Committee the estimated cost and cleanup time line for each of them?
Answer. The six installations are: Adak Naval Air Station, Alaska;
Fort McClellan, Alabama; Fort Ord, California; Fort Wingate, New
Mexico; Savanna Depot Activity, Illinois; and Sierra Army Depot,
California. These six installations have some sites where remediation
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) remains to be completed. Though there are
exceptions, generally remediation under CERCLA has to be completed
before property can be transferred to a non-Federal entity. Through
fiscal year 2002, the Department spent approximately $697 million on
remediation at these six installations; we estimate the remaining
environmental cost-to-complete, including environmental remediation, at
these six installations to be approximately $635 million. Additional
information on acreage, funding, and environmental remediation
associated with each installation is shown in the table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Environmental
Acreage Acreage Acreage with Projected Remediation fiscal year
Installations Excess Acres Suitable for Transferred to CERCLA Final Cleanup Expenditures 2003 to Comments
Transfer Under Date \2\ Activities \3\ Remedy \4\ through fiscal Completion
CERCLA \1\ year 2002 \5\ Funding \6\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAK NAS, ALASKA.............................. 72,600 57,600.00 0.00 15,000.00 2008 $209,282 $50,680 Remedy selection for petroleum
sites has been delayed due to
negotiations with regulatory
agencies to consider risk based
approach to cleanup decisions
for these sites. Major
remaining obstacle to airfield
conveyance is future funding
for the airfield after transfer
from Navy.
FORT MCCLELLAN, ALABAMA....................... 18,232 17,789.26 4,953.00 442.74 2011 92,873 126,352 Primary issues relate to complex
unexploded ordnance activities.
Army is planning on early
transfers in fiscal year 2003
and fiscal year 2004, with the
LRA assuming cleanup
responsibilities, including
UXO. With this early transfer
approach, not only will the LRA
be able be able to control and
integrate both re-development
and cleanup, but the cleanup
may be completed sooner.
FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA.......................... 27,015 3,062.00 11,466.00 23,953.00 2011 261,168 305,755 Primary issues relate to complex
unexploded ordnance activities,
especially with limitations
placed by chaparral habitat
management plan.
FORT WINGATE, NEW MEXICO...................... 21,881 21,829.00 5,429.00 52.00 2010 33,647 16,047 Army is working with the State
of New Mexico on environmental
issues related to OB/OD closure
on the latter transfer parcel.
Army currently in negotiations
for fiscal year 2003 transfer
of about 8,300 acres to DOI.
Remaining acreage (about 8,100)
planned for transfer after
fiscal year 2007.
SAVANNA DEPOT ACTIVITY, ILLINOIS.............. 12,606 11,821.00 0.00 785.00 2015 93,846 135,074 Complex cleanup issues related
to unexploded ordnance,
potential chemical warfare
material, and groundwater. The
Strategic Management Analysis
and Requirements Team [SMART]
team is working actively to
expedite cleanup. Most of the
property can transfer at any
time by mutual agreement with
DOI. Army and DOI are
negotiating planned transfers.
SIERRA ARMY DEPOT, CALIFORNIA................. 64,996 64,996.00 663.00 0.00 2000 6,467 1,523 Army anticipates getting
remaining MMRP work completed
in fiscal year 2003. Army is
intending on having property
ready to revert to California
in fiscal year 2003. Listing of
Carson Wandering Skipper
(butterfly) under ESA may
impede property transfer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cleanup actions either completed or not required to satisfy CERCLA requirements for transfer to a non-Federal entity. Some of the acreage may have Military Munitions Response Program
activities (e.g., unexploded ordnance clean up). Information as of September 30, 2002.
\2\ Includes property transfers to Federal and non-Federal entities, as well as long-term leases such as Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance. Information as of December 31, 2002.
\3\ Cleanup actions or further information needed to satisfy CERCLA requirements for transfer to a non-Federal entity. Note cleanup actions are taken on discrete cleanup sites within the
listed acreage. Some of the acreage may also have Military Munitions Response Program activities (e.g., unexploded ordnance clean up). The property can be transferred to other Federal
Agencies or can be transferred to a non-Federal entity through use of CERCLA's Early Transfer Authority. This property can also be put into reuse by non-Federal entities through a lease.
Information as of September 30, 2002.
\4\ Projected date of having a final BRAC cleanup site at the installation having a remedy-in-place or response complete with respect to hazardous substances. This means that cleanup actions
have been taken to satisfy CERCLA requirements for property transfer to a non-Federal entity. Information as of September 30, 2002.
\5\ Environmental remediation (traditional CERCLA-type Installation Restoration Program cleanup and Military Munitions Response Program cleanup) project costs through end of fiscal year 2002.
Information as of September 30, 2002.
\6\ Includes environmental remediation (traditional CERCLA-type cleanup and Military Munitions Response Program cleanup) and environmental compliance costs. Information as of September 31,
2002.
ESA=Endangered Species Act.
IRP=Installation Restoration Program; e.g., hazardous substances.
LRA=Local Redevelopment Authority.
MMRP=Military Munitions Response Program; e.g., unexploded ordnance.
UXO=Unexploded Ordnance
remaining closed bases to transfer
Question. How many closed military bases remain to be transferred
to the local community?
Answer. Overall, there were 387 major and minor base closures and
realignment actions in the four rounds of BRAC. Of this total, 82
installations have property remaining to be transferred to other
Federal agencies and eligible recipients, including local communities.
The parcels range in size from 4 acres to 72,600 acres. As reported
separately, 82 percent of this property (in acres) is at 6
installations. However, in many instances these properties are already
being used to develop new community jobs through interim leases,
pending final transfer.
base realignment and closure (brac)
Question. What is the cost to the government for maintaining closed
military properties that haven't been transferred?
Answer. The Department continues to dispose of surplus property
associated with former BRAC locations as quickly as possible. Costs for
maintaining closed military properties that have not been transferred
fall into the operations and maintenance category, such as providing a
level of maintenance to keep facilities from being damaged by weather,
cutting the grass and maintaining security. In fiscal year 2002, those
costs approximated $70 million, and have decreased to $60 million in
2003 and $48 million in the 2004 budget request. These costs will
continue to decrease as more BRAC property is transferred out of the
Department's inventory.
department's potential liability for perchlorate contamination
Question. How would you respond to Mr. Lowry and Mr. Salazar's
concerns? Can you assure me that your proposed amendments will have
absolutely no effect on the Department's potential liability for
perchlorate contamination?
Answer. The Department revised the legislative language of our
proposed Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative (RRPI) before
submitting it to Congress this year to address some of the concerns
expressed by State officials last year with respect to closed ranges.
In addition, the Department has worked with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) subsequent to submission of our legislation
specifically to address further concerns expressed by these and other
State officials about closed ranges and contractor activities and
facilities. We have submitted these revisions through DOD testimony
offered before the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services
Committee on April 1, 2003, and the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee on April 2, 2003.
These revisions make even clearer that our legislation will not
alter the Department's legal obligations or responsibilities with
respect to our closed ranges or ranges that close in the future, or
with respect to our contractors. Moreover, our legislation also does
not alter the Department's obligations under the Safe Drinking Water
Act even with respect to operational ranges. Our legislation provides
that the Department will be liable for cleanup under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of munitions fragments or
constituents that migrate off an operational range if they create an
imminent and substantial endangerment and are not being addressed under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA). Finally, the Department's legislation does not seek to
change the liability or cost recovery provisions of CERCLA.
Thus, enactment of our range proposals would have no effect on the
Department's potential liability for perchlorate contamination. The
RCRA and CERCLA provisions would affect the timing of cleanup
activities on operational ranges, deferring cleanup on them until they
closed, in the absence of off-range migration.
Question. Can you assure me that your proposed amendments will have
absolutely no effect on the Department's potential liability for
perchlorate contamination, and if this is correct, explain why?
Answer. Our legislation will not alter the Department's legal
obligations or responsibilities with respect to our closed ranges or
ranges that close in the future, or with respect to our contractors.
Moreover, our legislation also does not alter the Department's
obligations under the Safe Drinking Water Act even with respect to
operational ranges. Our legislation provides that the Department will
be liable for cleanup under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) of munitions fragments or constituents that migrate off an
operational range if they may create an imminent and substantial
endangerment and are not being addressed under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Finally, the Department's legislation does not seek to change the
liability or cost recovery provisions of CERCLA.
Thus, enactment of our range proposals would have no effect on the
Department's potential liability for perchlorate contamination. The
RCRA and CERCLA provisions would affect the timing of cleanup
activities on operational ranges, deferring cleanup on them until they
closed, in the absence of off-range migration.
national academy of sciences perchlorate study
Question. Can you assure me that the NAS study will rigorously
examine potential health effects on children, which many believe occur
at low levels of perchlorate exposure?
Answer. EPA has decided, with the full support and in partnership
with the Department and other Federal agencies, to submit perchlorate
health science issues to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
resolve several underlying scientific questions about perchlorate
toxicity and risk. We, along with EPA and others, expect the NAS study
will be a complete, thorough, and vigorous independent review that will
answer these substantial scientific uncertainties including the effect
of perchlorate on sensitive subpopulations, which may include children.
Question. How would you address the concerns some have expressed
that an NAS panel on perchlorate might be biased in favor of industry's
perspective?
Answer. As this will be a review conducted by the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS), the NAS--not the Department, EPA, or industry--will
be selecting panel members for the study. The Department's expectation
is that the review will be an open and transparent independent
scientific review that will answer the underlying scientific questions
about perchlorate toxicity and risk.
early transfer process
Question. Could the BRAC early transfer process be streamlined?
Answer. The Department is establishing a Property Reuse and
Disposal working group that will be considering ways to improve the
entire BRAC property disposal and reuse process, including early
transfer.
integrating cleanup with redevelopment
Question. Is it more cost effective to accomplish environmental
cleanup in conjunction with the redevelopment of the property?
Answer. Integrating cleanup with redevelopment can increase
efficiency, saving time and money for both the community and DOD. These
savings can be even more dramatic if the redevelopment is consistent
with DOD's prior land uses. This is especially true for base-reuse
parcels where financially feasible redevelopment is ready to happen
with redevelopers and end-users anxious to proceed. For example, under
a traditional property transfer approach, DOD may remove soil
contamination by physically digging a ditch, treating the soil, and
then replacing the treated soil. Later, a developer may excavate the
site to build the foundation for a building, install utilities, or
change elevations to support redevelopment, again removing the soil. If
these activities were integrated the soil could be removed and shipped
off-site for treatment or disposal while the redevelopment is ongoing,
eliminating the unnecessary step of replacing and again removing the
soil. By integrating cleanup and redevelopment, four important outcomes
can be realized:
--Cleanup is only done once and it is done to the appropriate levels
for reuse
--Property will be reused much faster, benefiting the local community
by creating new jobs, generating revenue, and putting Federal
property back on the local tax rolls much earlier.
--DOD is removed from the business of managing property. By divesting
the property sooner, DOD reduces expenses associated with
maintaining the property. Earlier deed transfer also reduces
DOD's landlord responsibilities and liability as a Federal
property owner. Earlier transfer may also eliminate some
restrictions on the use of the property.
--Significant cost savings can be realized for both DOD and the
redeveloper. Integrating land use planning and site remediation
decisions early in the remedial process and matching the remedy
with reuse can save money and time for all parties involved.
reuse plan & control zoning
Question. Local communities generally have difficulty assuming the
financial burden of BRAC properties. If local communities create a
reuse plan and control zoning, could the Department advertise and sell
the property to the private sector in accordance with their plan and
zoning?
Answer. Yes. There are several factors that contribute to the
Department's ability to dispose of property through a competitive sale
and the speed at which this could be accomplished. An adopted reuse
plan which then is incorporated into local general plans and zoning is
certainly critical to establishing a property's highest and best use
for potential buyers. This also helps to minimize uncertainty in the
marketplace where buyers may otherwise hesitate or discount their
willingness to pay until the final use for available property is
negotiated. Another complicating factor may be the manner in which
communities confer development rights. Many communities confer
development rights to the private sector in exchange for the
construction of other ``public improvements,'' such as schools, roads,
parkland/open space, etc. In such instances, it is incumbent for the
community to identify as early as possible the activities or costs that
would be the responsibility of the developer to assist the effort.
Lastly, care must be taken to ensure there is a realistic way to
redevelop property where a viable market may not presently exist. In
these situations the community or another ``public'' body is often
tasked to redevelop property that is unable to attract sufficient
private investment. Thus, the parceling of the property becomes a
significant issue, particularly if the community is likely to be left
with the least marketable property.
property reuse and disposal
Question. Should Federal agencies that claim BRAC property be given
a finite time period to assume control of the property?
Answer. The Department is establishing a Property Reuse and
Disposal working group that will be considering ways to improve the
entire BRAC property disposal and reuse process. This issue will be
examined in that context.
______
Questions Submitted to Dr. Mario P. Fiori
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
brac environmental cleanup
Question. The Army's fiscal year 2004 BRAC budget request is $66.4
million, a 56 percent reduction from fiscal year 2003. How much money
above the budget request could the Army execute in fiscal year 2004 to
expedite its BRAC cleanup program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request of $66.4 million
includes $57.3 million for environmental cleanup and allows us to
achieve our restoration and disposal goals, within Army priorities, and
in support of community reuse of the remaining BRAC installations. The
funds requested are appropriate for BRAC cleanup within Army priorities
for fiscal year 2004.
Question. Did you request a higher level of funding from the
Defense Department? (If so, what happened; If not, why not?)
Answer. No. The Department of Defense supported the Army's request
for BRAC funding in fiscal year 2004. The Army's BRAC budget request of
$66.4 million was the correct amount for this program within Army and
Defense priorities.
Question. Could the BRAC early transfer process be streamlined? Is
it more cost effective to accomplish the environmental cleanup in
conjunction with the redevelopment of the property?
Answer. The best way to streamline the early transfer process is to
establish timelines for property conveyance in the public sector
resulting from the screening process and Public Benefit and Economic
Development Conveyances. The Department could then make properties
available for public sale. When appropriate, an option would be early
transfer with the price discounted by the value of the remaining
cleanup. The Army has conveyed several properties early in conjunction
with a cooperative agreement for the community to complete the
remaining cleanup. Integrating cleanup with redevelopment resulted in
efficiencies and cost savings. Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal, NJ,
Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, CO and Oakland Army Base, CA are
examples in the Army's experience to date.
local reuse
Question. Local communities generally have difficulty assuming the
financial burden of BRAC properties. If local communities create a
reuse plan and control zoning, could the Department advertise and sell
the property to the private sector in accordance with their plan and
zoning?
Answer. This scenario is more in line with the traditional roles of
local governments. The Department could work with local communities to
define reuse through reuse planning and zoning, and then market the
properties within those established parameters.
Question. Should Federal agencies that claim BRAC property be given
a finite time period to assume control of the property?
Answer. Yes. Our experience from the first four BRAC rounds
indicates that when other Federal agencies claim BRAC properties, in
some cases they take years to take control of the property. The
responsibility for cleanup of any Defense generated contamination
should remain with the Defense Department, but transfer to another
Federal agency should occur shortly after they claim the property.
______
Questions Submitted to Nelson F. Gibbs
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
brac selection criteria
Question. Encroachment is an issue that has been continually
emphasized as a major concern for the Department--how do you anticipate
this being measured by the Department as it applies to the selection
criteria?
Answer. Until the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) promulgates the
selection criteria DOD and the services must use in making
recommendations for the closure and realignment of military
installations in 2005 it would be premature to speculate how DOD will
measure encroachment as it applies to the selection criteria. The law
requires the SECDEF to propose these criteria not later than December
31, 2003, and finalize them by February 16, 2004 (Section 2913(a) and
(b) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act). The law does
specify that the selection criteria must address, at a minimum, several
factors, to include ``The ability of both existing and potential
receiving communities' infrastructure to support forces, missions, and
personnel'' and the cost impact of environmental compliance activities.
Once these criteria are finalized by the SECDEF, the role of
encroachment related factors in the recommendation process should be
clarified.
new installations
Question. Do you see any new installation's under current or future
plans for a missile defense?
Answer. The Air Force has no current plans to build new
installations to support deployment of the Ballistic Missile Defense
System (BMDS) that is under research and development with the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA).
The Missile Defense Agency should be able to provide more insight
into required installations/MILCON to meet BMDS requirements.
base realignment
Question. Will BRAC look closely at realigning bases and locating
missions (from the same and other services) at bases where the primary
missions cannot be moved?
Answer. The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act, as revised by
the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act to provide for
the 2005 round of closure and realignment recommendations, specifically
requires the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), in making his
determinations of levels of necessary versus excess infrastructure, to
consider efficiencies to be gained from joint service tenancy at
military installations (Section 2912(a)(3)(B)). The selection criteria
that SECDEF is directed by law to develop to make recommendations for
closure and realignment of military installations must ensure that
military value is the primary consideration, and that military value
must include at a minimum several specified factors, to include ``The
impact on joint warfighting, training, and readiness.'' (Section
2913(b)(4)). It will not be until the SECDEF proposes these selection
criteria by December 31,2003 and finalizes them by February 16, 2004,
that we will be able to describe the exact role joint service tenancy
will play in the closure and realignment recommendation process.
Certainly to the extent an installation is not closed, it may be
considered as a gaining installation for both same and other service
missions closed and/or realigned from other installations, in
accordance with the promulgated recommendation selection criteria.
base closure
Question. How have military construction requests been affected by
the eventuality of the upcoming base closure round?
Answer. The Air Force's military construction request is in no way
affected by the eventuality of the upcoming base closure round. We did
not consider the upcoming base closure round when developing our fiscal
year 2004 military construction request, nor did we receive any
guidance suggesting we do so.
Furthermore, our out-year military construction programs are
comprised entirely of validated requirements at existing Air Force
installations. No parts of those programs are ``reserved'' for any
requirements related to yet-to-be-determined base closure or
realignment activities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
brac environmental clean up
Question. The Air Force fiscal year 2004 request for BRAC
environmental remediation and caretaker costs is $198.7 million. It is
my understanding that the Air Force could execute significantly more
funding in fiscal year 2004. According to my information, the Air Force
could execute nearly $65 million in environmental clean up on top of
the budget request. Is this also your understanding?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 Air Force request for BRAC
environmental remediation and caretaker costs is $200.7 million. The
Air Force could execute $65 million in environmental clean up on top of
the budget request.
Question. Did you seek a higher level of funding for BRAC
environmental remediation in your budget submission to the Office of
Secretary of Defense? If so, what happened? If not, why not?
Answer. No. The Office of Secretary of Defense supported full
funding of our fiscal year 2004 budget submission for BRAC
environmental remediation.
Question. Would additional funding help to expedite the Air Force
BRAC environmental clean up program?
Answer. While the fiscal year 2004 request reflects our
requirements additional funding would allow us the opportunity to
expedite cleanup requirements currently planned for future years.
Question. What impact would additional funding have on
installations in California, such as McClellan?
Answer. While the Air Force is fully funded in fiscal year 2004 at
McClellan and the other five California BRAC installations, we have
requirements which currently would be addressed in fiscal year 2005/
2006. Additional funding would allow us to execute these requirements
in fiscal year 2004 without negatively impacting the reuse or cleanup
schedule.
Additionally, we are pursuing process improvements that will have
significant and positive impacts to the cleanup costs and schedules for
our bases. These improvements include cleanup system optimization to
reduce long term operating costs. We are also working cooperatively
with the California regulatory agencies to streamline the document
requirements and review processes.
Question. It appears that the Navy has some assurance from the
Department that it will be able to return proceeds from property sales
into its BRAC environmental cleanup account. The Air Force has realized
total proceeds of $58.4 million to date as a result of property sales
and expects an additional $27.5 million. Does the Air Force have the
same assurances that any proceeds realized from property sales will be
returned to the BRAC cleanup account?
Answer. Section 2906(d) of Public Law 101-510, as amended (10
U.S.C. 2687, note) provides for the recovery of the depreciated value
of Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) or Non Appropriated Fund (NAF)
investment in real property impacted by Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) actions. Therefore, any proceeds realized from the sale or lease
of BRAC property will be first paid to this account. After the
unrecovered depreciated value has been recovered for the BRAC
installation, all proceeds received will then be paid the BRAC account,
at which time we would request the proceeds be available for
environmental cleanup.
Question. Could the BRAC early transfer process be streamlined?
Answer. Yes. The early transfer authority has worked well for us in
cases where the local reuse authority requests the early transfer. An
improvement to the process would be to allow the Department to initiate
and request the early transfer authority by making early transfer a
condition of the transaction.
Question. Is it more cost effective to accomplish environmental
cleanup in conjunction with the redevelopment of the property?
Answer. Yes. The Air Force's experience is that closely integrated
redevelopment and environmental cleanup is more cost effective. The Air
Force has worked with its BRAC communities to understand and align our
joint priorities to achieve these efficiencies. A notable example was
the conversion of Bergstrom Air Force Base, Texas to the Bergstrom
International Airport, where we identified synergies between the Air
Force cleanup program and the Airport construction plan so that the
conversion occurred within budget and on schedule. Additionally, the
Air Force maximizes its flexibility to customize the redevelopment and
cleanup integration. We successfully integrated the cleanup and
redevelopment at the former Lowry Air Force Base and believe that the
long-term costs will be reduced through the privatization of the
cleanup.
Question. Local communities generally have difficulty assuming the
financial burden of BRAC properties. If local communities create a
reuse plan and control zoning, could the Department advertise and sell
the property to the private sector in accordance with their plan and
zoning?
Answer. Yes. This is our preferred approach. Local communities,
through planning and zoning, definitely affect the kind of development
that can occur. This approach you describe worked very successfully at
those locations that used it. It not only minimizes the financial
burden on the community but it gets property very quickly on the local
tax rolls.
Question. Should Federal agencies that claim BRAC property be given
a finite time period to assume control of the property?
Answer. Yes. Property transfers to other Federal agencies should
occur as soon as the property is vacated. Transfer of property from one
Federal agency to another does not require Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) or State Regulators concurrence because ownership is not
leaving the Federal Government.
______
Questions Submitted to Wayne Arny
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
property sales staying in navy brac account
Question. The fiscal year 2004 Navy request for BRAC cleanup is
$101.9 million, a 62 percent decrease from the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level. However, the Navy intends to spend $180 million this year in
BRAC cleanup--the $79 million difference being made up in anticipated
property sales from previously BRAC'd properties.
What assurances to you have from the Department of Defense that the
revenue from property sales will remain in the Navy BRAC accounts?
Answer. We have received verbal assurances from the senior
leadership in the Office of the Secretary of Defense that land sale
revenue from Department of Navy BRAC actions would remain available for
us to use to expedite our BRAC cleanup actions.
brac executions capability
Question. How much money above the budget request, and the
additional $79 million in anticipated revenue, could the Navy execute
in fiscal year 2004 to expedite its BRAC cleanup program?
Answer. The Navy's fiscal year 2004 budget consists of an
appropriation request for $101.9 million plus a conservative estimate
of $68 million from land sales and a $10.7 million adjustment providing
a total of $180.6 million in spending authority. The Navy has
substantial contract execution capacity in place and could readily
obligate as much as about $500 million in fiscal year 2004 for BRAC
cleanup under normal BRAC outlay rates. Other factors that impact
expediting BRAC cleanup programs include regulator support for
additional workload, timing when funds become available, and making
sure that we get real cleanup and property disposal progress for the
investment.
streamlining early transfer
Question. Could the BRAC early transfer process be streamlined?
Answer. The actual time required to implement an early transfer of
BRAC property can be relatively short. However, our experience to date
with early transfer is that they only occur when the community is
sufficiently motivated in taking the property, particularly when it is
needed to implement a well financed, economically sound redevelopment
plan. We have also found that the number of issues needing resolution
grows proportionally with the number of approving entities involved
(e.g., various State agencies as a precondition to gubernatorial
approval). We continue to work with State and local officials to ensure
that they understand the commitment of the Federal Government to clean
up the property even if it is conveyed under the early transfer
authority.
parallel cleanup and redevelopment
Question. Is it more cost effective to accomplish environmental
cleanup in conjunction with the redevelopment of the property?
Answer. Yes. Integrating environmental cleanup can be cost
effective in terms of time and money for both the Navy and the
community. Performing cleanup and redevelopment simultaneously allows
the Department to dispose of the property sooner via an early transfer.
Furthermore, costly cleanup expenses can be avoided with the same
environmental remedy achieved through the normal redevelopment planning
and construction process. In addition, parallel cleanup and
redevelopment by the new owner supports the early transfer process by
allowing the developer a much quicker timeline to project completion
which fosters motivation to take the property as soon as possible.
Cleanup performed in conjunction with redevelopment is more
effective in terms of accelerating cleanup and property disposal
timelines, as it is usually associated with an early transfer of
property. A Navy Environmental Services Contract Agreement typically
provides funding to the receiving entity that will perform the
redevelopment, and in most cases will also do the cleanup. The
following table lists recent examples of early transfers that included
parallel cleanup and substantially accelerated property disposal and
redevelopment compared to previous plans:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Acres Date Disposal Acceleration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISC Oakland............................ 529 Jun 1999.................. Disposal 36 months early
<plus-minus>st
NAS Agana............................... 1,799 Sep 2000.................. Disposal 12 months early
NTC San Diego........................... 51 Feb 2001.................. Disposal 4 months early
NSY Mare Island (EETP).................. 668 Mar 2002.................. Disposal 48 months early
NSY Mare Island (WETP).................. 2,900 Sep 2002.................. Disposal 7 to 10 years
early
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost avoidance can be achieved by integrating the cleanup actions
with the construction effort. Cost avoidance can result from
synchronizing the two actions, e.g., coordinating the excavation and
removal of contaminated soil with the construction of a foundation, or
installing a parking lot in an area for which the environmental remedy
would be a landfill cap. In addition, the remedial action for a
contaminated site can be tailored to the actual reuse, rather than
setting more restrictive and expensive cleanup standards to meet
potential reuse needs.
Combining cleanup and redevelopment as part of an early transfer of
property accelerates cleanup schedules and property disposal timelines,
which speeds redevelopment and economic reuse of BRAC property. Early
transfer also ends Navy: oversight and management of the property;
investments for caretaker functions; participation in local
redevelopment disputes; and escalating cleanup costs due to concerns
over the need to conduct additional studies, or to expand the scope of
the cleanup. It brings finality to the BRAC decision to close the base
and dispose of the excess property.
brac sale and local zoning
Question. Local communities generally have difficulty assuming the
financial burden of BRAC properties. If local communities create a
reuse plan and control zoning, could the Department advertise and sell
the property to the private sector in accordance with their plan and
zoning?
Answer. Yes, the Department supports a public sale with these terms
and conditions. First, it signifies the support of the Department for
the local community's reuse plan. Second, the reuse plan and zoning
simplifies the property appraisal process, reduces risk for potential
buyers, and maximizes the value of the property. Third, local zoning
requirements could be made part of the terms of the sale, even if these
were overlays that would not become effective until property
conveyance. This is especially true for base reuse parcels where
financially feasible redevelopment is ready to happen with redevelopers
and end users anxious to proceed.
federal agency brac needs
Question. Should Federal agencies that claim BRAC property be given
a finite time period to assume control of the property?
Answer. Generally, yes. The BRAC property disposal process requires
that property be screened for other Federal use. If another Federal
agency identifies a need for the property, the property is normally
reserved and the receiving Federal agency has a responsibility to
accept the property within a reasonable time. In several instances,
receiving agencies have delayed acceptance of property pending
completion of environmental remediation even though completion of
cleanup is not required for property being transferred between Federal
agencies. In other instances, after prolonged delays, some requesting
agencies have withdrawn their requests for the properties thus
requiring the disposing service to initiate disposal actions years
after these actions would have otherwise been taken. Because these
issues have surfaced in the past, the Department of the Navy is eager
to work with the Department of Defense and the Military Departments on
the Property Reuse and Disposal Working Group, where this issue and
others will be examined in detail.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
I want to thank all of you. I think we had a very good
hearing and learned a lot that we can apply to the next round.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., Tuesday, March 18, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]