# Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC): Background and Issues for Congress > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR45705 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** April 25, 2019 - **Citation:** R45705 ## Text Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC): Background and Issues for Congress Christopher T. Mann Analyst in Defense Policy and Trade April 25, 2019 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R45705 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Summary Since 1977, statutory thresholds have effectively constrained the President’s ability to close or realign major military installations in the United States. Congress has instead periodically granted temporary authorities—known as a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)—that have established independent commissions for the review and approval of basing changes submitted by the Secretary of Defense. These unique and transient authorities last expired on April 16, 2006. There have been five rounds of base closures: 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005. Though Congress has periodically adjusted the BRAC process to account for lessons learned, the modern framework has remained generally consistent with earlier rounds, and includes      establishment of an independent commission; reliance on objective and uniform criteria; Government Accountability Office (GAO) review and certification of Department of Defense (DOD) data; deliberations designed to be transparent that include open hearings, solicitation of feedback, installation visits, and data available for public review; and requirement that the final list of closure and realignment recommendations be accepted or rejected in their entirety. Congress has defined BRAC selection criteria in statute, thus requiring the Secretary to prioritize military value over cost savings. Additionally, Congress has required the Secretary to align the Department’s recommendations with a comprehensive 20-year force structure plan. The commission may modify, reject, or add recommendations during its review before forwarding a final list to the President. After receiving the Commission’s list of recommendations, the President may either accept the report in its entirety or seek to modify it by indicating disapproval and returning it to the commission for further evaluation. If the President accepts the commission’s recommendations, they are forwarded to Congress. BRAC implementation begins by default unless Congress rejects the recommendations in their entirety within 45 days by enacting a joint resolution. During the implementation phase, DOD is required to initiate closures and realignments within two years and complete all actions within six years. The BRAC process represents a legislative compromise between the executive and legislative branches wherein each shares power in managing the closure and realignment of military bases. The imposition of an independent, third-party mediator was intended to insulate base closings from political considerations by both branches that had complicated similar actions in the past. This report provides background on the development of BRAC, describes its major elements and milestones, and outlines issues frequently cited in the context of new rounds, such as potential savings. Congressional Research Service Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Contents Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Major Elements of the Modern BRAC Process............................................................................... 2 BRAC Selection Criteria ................................................................................................................. 3 Disposal of Real Property................................................................................................................ 5 BRAC Savings ................................................................................................................................ 7 Excess Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................... 9 Legacy of the 2005 BRAC Round.................................................................................................. 11 The Department of Defense Base Closure Account ...................................................................... 13 Congressional Action on BRAC .................................................................................................... 14 Prohibition on Conducting a New Round ............................................................................... 14 BRAC Legislation in the 115th Congress ................................................................................ 14 BRAC Legislation in the 116th Congress ................................................................................ 15 Figures Figure 1. BRAC Acreage Disposed of and Not Yet Disposed ......................................................... 6 Figure 2. BRAC Major and Minor Actions ................................................................................... 12 Figure 3. Historical View of BRAC Appropriations, FY2001-FY2020 ........................................ 13 Tables Table 1. Infrastructure Capacity Reports; Interim and Final ......................................................... 10 Table B-1. Status of BRAC Acreage Disposal, By State/Territory and BRAC Round ................. 19 Appendixes Appendix A. Legislative References ............................................................................................. 16 Appendix B. BRAC Acreage Disposal Status, By State ............................................................... 19 Contacts Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 41 Congressional Research Service Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Background The U.S. Constitution does not clearly specify how military bases should be managed. Article II, Section 2, appoints the President as the commander-in-chief, with the implied power to deploy, and redeploy, the armed forces as necessary for national defense. In common practice, this has included the authority to create and close military installations needed to accommodate and train personnel under the President’s command. However, Article I, Section 8, charges Congress with the responsibility to raise armies, maintain a Navy, and regulate the militia. Through annual authorization and appropriation legislation, Congress legislates policy for managing DOD real property assets and funds the construction, maintenance, operation, and disposal of military infrastructure.1 Throughout most of American history, the President has exercised broad, relatively unchallenged authority for opening, closing, or realigning military installations. Congress largely deferred to the Executive branch primarily because the President, as commander-in-chief, is empowered with the responsibility of deploying military forces.2 Prompted by large-scale closures of World War II era infrastructure during the 1960s and 1970s, Congress enacted legislation in 1977 that effectively limited the Executive branch’s ability to close or realign major military installations. The new statute, later codified as 10 U.S.C. 2687 (Section 612 of the Military Construction Authorization Act of 1978, P.L. 95-82), generally required DOD to conduct comprehensive and lengthy assessments of major basing decisions as part of a congressional report-and-wait process.3 These assessments could be challenged in court on environmental grounds or on questions related to their sufficiency, further lengthening delays.4 The new legislation effectively halted DOD’s ability to close or realign domestic bases of significant size.5 In the decade that followed the passage of 10 U.S.C. 2687, congressional pressure grew to accommodate DOD basing priorities. By 1988, ongoing negotiations between the Secretary of Defense and the House and Senate Armed Service Committees led to new legislation (P.L. 100526) that authorized a limited number of base closures based on the oversight of an independent panel.6 Though later modified, the effort marked the beginning of the first Base Realignment and 1 “Real property includes lands, buildings, structures, utility systems, improvements, and appurtenances thereto. Includes equipment attached to and made part of buildings and structures (such as heating systems) but not movable equipment (such as plant equipment).” See Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms,” April 2018. Available at http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/ dictionary.pdf#page=199. 2 Regarding overseas installations, Congress continues to defer to the President. Domestically, it has intervened more assertively to manage the process. 3 Other notifications include assessments by DOD of the economic and strategic consequences of basing actions. 4 For details, see Schlossberg, George, “How Congress Cleared the Bases,” Journal of Defense Communities, Volume 1. Available at https://www.defensecommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/FINALJournal1.pdf. 5 In general terms, 10 U.S.C. 2687 establishes reporting thresholds based on the number of DOD civilians affected by the reduction. A second statute enacted later, 10 U.S.C. 993, establishes reporting thresholds based on the number of service members. 6 The statute authorized a panel appointed by and reporting to the Secretary of Defense to recommend a limited number of base closures. Congressional Research Service 1 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Closure (BRAC) process, which was intended to insulate base closings from considerations such as favoritism or other political interference.7 Widely considered a success, the 1988 BRAC legislation was taken up again and modified in succeeding BRAC rounds; first in 1991, 1993, and 1995; and again in 2005.8 Major Elements of the Modern BRAC Process The modern BRAC process refers to a temporary authority that amends the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510), hereinafter referred to as the Base Closure Act, and features a framework of elements that entrusts an independent commission with certifying closure and realignment recommendations made by the Secretary of Defense. BRAC Authorization and Closure In general, the process has required the Rounds Secretary to submit a list of military installations recommended for closure or 1988 Round: The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, enacted October realignment to an independent, bipartisan 24, 1988 (P.L. 100-526) BRAC commission. After analyzing the Secretary’s recommendations, the commission may accept, reject, or modify the 1991, 1993, 1995 Rounds: Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510, Title XXIX of list.9 Upon completing its review, the the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year commission forwards its final findings and 1991, enacted November 5, 1990) recommendations to the President. Upon acceptance of commission’s 2005 Round: National Defense Authorization Act for recommendations, the President then submits Fiscal Year 2002, (P.L. 107-107; amended the Defense them to Congress. If the President does not Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101510) submit the recommendations to Congress within the timeframe required under the Base Closure Act, the BRAC process is terminated. Upon receipt of the report from the President, Congress has the opportunity to disapprove of the recommendations in toto through the enactment of a joint resolution. The hallmarks of this framework include  7 establishment of an independent commission whose members are appointed by the President, in consultation with congressional leadership (and the advice and consent of the Senate);10 Earlier efforts at large-scale base closures were marked by accusations of such conduct. 8 Subsequent BRAC legislation required the Secretary of Defense to report to an independent commission. In the 1988 round, a commission chartered by Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci reported to him. 9 Commissioners are required to assess whether DOD recommendations deviate substantially from the Department’s force structure plan and final selection criteria. Modifications to the list are prohibited in cases where recommendations do not deviate substantially. Installations added to the list require the commission to allow input from the Secretary and require additional conditions be met. 10 The 2005 BRAC process included nine commissioners (a tie-breaking number). Members were appointed by the President after consultation with Congress. Congressional leadership makes a total of six recommendations, with the number divided between: House speaker (2), House Minority Leader (1); Senate Majority Leader (2), and; Senate Minority Leader (1). The President transmits the final list of nominations to the Senate for its final consent. By statute, the process of congressional consultation is not mandatory. See BRAC amended legislation available at the BRAC commission (2005) official archive site at https://www.brac.gov/docs/BRAC05Legislation.pdf. Congressional Research Service 2 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC)      reliance on objective and uniform criteria for evaluating basing recommendations; GAO review and certification of DOD data; deliberations that include open hearings, solicitation of feedback, installation visits, and data available for public review; requirement that the commission’s final list of closure and realignment actions be accepted or rejected in its entirety; and presidential and congressional off-ramps that would terminate the BRAC process when certain conditions are not met. The timeline to complete an entire BRAC round has varied; however, the most recent one conducted in 2005 took approximately 10 years, from authorization to completion (end of the sixyear BRAC implementation period). Key milestones of a typical BRAC timeline include         DOD force structure plan, infrastructure inventory, and analysis of options (up to four years);11 nomination and confirmation of BRAC commissioners; DOD submission of BRAC recommendations (and associated reports) to the commission; commission deliberations (typically four months); final report sent to the President for approval; 45-day deadline for Congress to reject recommendations in their entirety (Joint Resolution of Disapproval) or allow implementation to begin; DOD implementation (two years to begin; six years to complete); and DOD disposal of real property (indeterminate). BRAC Selection Criteria BRAC is often characterized as a cost efficiency measure that enables DOD to more effectively manage its real property assets by allowing it to shed excess infrastructure, but historically, potential costs and savings have been a consideration that have ranked below military value.12 No BRAC round has established cost savings targets, floors, or ceilings. 11 DOD recommendations are based on certified data, a long-term force structure plan (20 years), and comprehensive inventory of DOD real estate. 12 Prior to the 2005 BRAC round, however, cost savings and downsizing the military was an explicit goal. Congressional Research Service 3 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Transformation Versus Cost Savings “In previous rounds of BRAC, the explicit goal was to save money and downsize the military in order to reap a ’peace dividend.’ It was clear from the Commission’s examination of the DoD 2005 BRAC list that the historical goal of achieving savings through eliminating excess capacity was not always the primary consideration for many recommendations. In fact, several DoD witnesses at Commission hearings made it clear that the purpose of many 2005 BRAC recommendations was to advance the goals of transformation, improve capabilities, and enhance military value. In some cases, accomplishing these new goals meant proposing BRAC scenarios that either never paid off (i.e., resulted in a net increased cost) or had very long payback periods....” —2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report, Chapter 1: Commission Strategic Overview During BRAC rounds in 1991, 1993, and 1995, Congress required the Secretary of Defense to develop and report a set of objective selection criteria that would be used for identifying bases for closure and realignment. For the 2005 round, Congress amended the BRAC statute to require the Secretary to regard military value (defined below) as the primary consideration.13 Other factors, such as potential costs and savings, were explicitly categorized as lower priority. Because the amended legislative language reflected longstanding DOD policy, the 2005 BRAC criteria appear almost identical when compared with previous versions, with additional language added for emphasis or included for explanatory examples. The excerpt below indicates the 2005 BRAC selection criteria.14 Emphasized text (in italics) represents new language not included as part of the 1995 criteria.15 SEC. 2913. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR 2005 ROUND. (a) FINAL SELECTION CRITERIA.—The final criteria to be used by the Secretary in making recommendations for the closure or realignment of military installations inside the United States under this part in 2005 shall be the military value and other criteria specified in subsections (b) and (c). (b) MILITARY VALUE CRITERIA.—The military value criteria are as follows: (1) The current and future mission capabilities and the impact on operational readiness of the total force of the Department of Defense, including the impact on joint warfighting, training, and readiness. (2) The availability and condition of land, facilities, and associated airspace (including training areas suitable for maneuver by ground, naval, or air forces throughout a diversity of climate and terrain areas and staging areas for the use of the Armed Forces in homeland defense missions) at both existing and potential receiving locations. (3) The ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization, surge, and future total force requirements at both existing and potential receiving locations to support operations and training. (4) The cost of operations and the manpower implications. 13 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, (P.L. 107-107). 14 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended. 15 Comparison derived from Government Accountability Office, “Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment and Closure Rounds (GAO-13-149),” March 2013. See Figure 2. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652805.pdf#page=17. Congressional Research Service 4 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) (c). OTHER CRITERIA.—The other criteria that the Secretary shall use in making recommendations for the closure or realignment of military installations inside the United States under this part in 2005 are as follows: (1) The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years, beginning with the date of completion of the closure or realignment, for the savings to exceed the costs. (2) The economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations. (3) The ability of the infrastructure of both the existing and potential receiving communities to support forces, missions, and personnel. (4) The environmental impact, including the impact of costs related to potential environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. Disposal of Real Property The transfer and disposal of DOD real property made available following the implementation of a BRAC round is a complex process that may extend for years beyond the initial six-year implementation window. Disposal may be delayed or otherwise affected by the participation of local and state communities and the degree to which environmental remediation by federal authorities is necessary.16 The graph below shows the total acreage from previous BRAC rounds yet to be disposed. 16 As amended in 1986, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly referred to as Superfund) generally requires the clean-up of contaminated federal property prior to transfer out of federal ownership. For more information on CERCLA see CRS Report R41039, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, by David M. Bearden. Congressional Research Service 5 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Figure 1. BRAC Acreage Disposed of and Not Yet Disposed Shown by Year of BRAC Round Source: FY2017 data provided to CRS by the DOD Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), May 2017. The Base Closure Act authorizes a variety of conveyance mechanisms not otherwise available for the transfer and disposal of federal property, a process typically performed by the General Services Administration (GSA).17 Under a BRAC, conveyance authority is delegated from GSA, through the Secretary of Defense to the various military departments, which receive special approval to supersede GSA regulations with BRAC specific regulations. The primary difference between the routine disposal of federal property and real property conveyed under a BRAC is the role of local communities. Under normal (non-BRAC) circumstances, the General Services Administration (GSA) is directly responsible for disposing of any surplus federal real property, which includes defense property. A military department in possession would, for example, declare property as excess to its needs and turn over the administration of a site to the GSA. The GSA would then follow a number of consecutive steps for disposal of federal property laid out in statute. It would first offer the excess property to other federal agencies. If none expressed an interest, the excess property would be declared surplus. The GSA would then offer the surplus property to state or local governments and non-profits that might use it for a public benefit (public benefit conveyance), such as a homeless shelter or medical center. Finally, if the property has neither been transferred nor conveyed in the previous steps, the surplus property would be offered for sale to the public.18 Under a BRAC, local communities can significantly affect the BRAC property transfer and disposal decisions, which are managed by the Secretary of the responsible military department.19 17 A conveyance is the transfer of a property title. 18 The transfer or disposal of federal property is primarily performed by the General Services Administration (GSA) pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (FPASA) 40 U.S.C. 521-559. 19 The Base Closure Act directs the Administrator of the GSA to delegate specified transfer and disposal authorities to the Secretary of Defense for use at BRAC installations, and the secretary has, in turn, delegated this authority to the Congressional Research Service 6 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Once approved for closure, communities around an installation typically organize a Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the purpose of creating and executing a redevelopment plan for the property. While the plan is not binding on DOD, the Department has been statutorily directed to give the plan considerable weight. DOD makes economic development grants and technical support available through its Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to assist LRAs with the process.20 In recent BRAC rounds, Congress has authorized a special transfer authority that has permitted DOD to transfer title to property at less than fair market value, or even at no cost, if the LRA agrees to certain conditions designed to create employment at the former defense facility. This has been referred to as an Economic Development Conveyance (EDC). BRAC Savings DOD has asserted that savings generated from BRAC are generally the result of avoiding the cost of retaining and operating unneeded infrastructure, with upfront costs eventually offset by annual savings. Between FY2012 and FY2018, the Department consistently argued for a new BRAC, asserting that “absent another BRAC round, the Department will continue to operate some of its installations sub-optimally as other efficiency measures, changing force structure, and technology reduce the number of missions and personnel.”21 Emphasizing the potential cost savings, DOD has suggested a new “efficiency-focused BRAC” could save the Department billions of dollars annually: “Savings from BRAC rounds are real and substantial. The last five BRAC rounds are collectively saving the Department $12B annually. A new efficiency-focused BRAC could save the Department an additional ~$2B annually (based on the ’93/’95 rounds).”22 In its ongoing series of BRAC-related reports, the GAO has noted the unreliability of DOD cost savings estimates. In 2013, GAO concluded that, though the Department had achieved annual recurring savings as the result of the 2005 round, visibility into the outcome has been limited due to missing and inconsistent recordkeeping.23 Similar studies have raised questions about the data DOD has used to predict and monitor BRAC effectiveness, long-term savings, and outcomes. For example secretaries of the various military departments. 20 See the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (as amended), Section 2905, Implementation: “Before any action may be taken with respect to the disposal of any surplus real property or facility located at any military installation to be closed or realigned under this part, the Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Governor of the State and the heads of the local governments concerned for the purpose of considering any plan for the use of such property by the local community concerned.” 21 Department of Defense, Infrastructure Capacity Report (Interim), March 2016. Provided to CRS. 22 Statement of Mr. Peter Potochney, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations, and Environment), Before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, FY2018, June 7, 2017. Available at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/060617Potochney-Testimony.pdf. 23 Government Accountability Office, “Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment and Closure Rounds (GAO-13-149)”, March 2013. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652805.pdf ; See page 33 “lack of consistent documentation;” page 32 “did not consistently document the assumptions;” page 43 “department does not have effective management controls in place to monitor leased space.” Congressional Research Service 7 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC)  “... the services did not develop baseline operating costs before implementing the BRAC recommendations, which would have enabled it to determine whether savings were achieved.”24  “... We found that DOD’s process for providing the BRAC commission with cost and savings estimates was hindered by underestimating recommendation-specific requirements and that DOD did not fully anticipate information technology requirements for many of the recommendations.”25 “The department cannot provide documentation to show to what extent it reduced plant replacement value or vacated leased space as it reported in May 2005 that it was intended to do.... In addition, DOD bundled multiple closures ... thus limiting visibility into the estimated costs and savings for individual closures and realignments.”26   “... DOD has not reported to Congress how the cleanup of emerging contaminants, especially certain perfluorinated compounds, at installations closed under BRAC will significantly increase the estimated (BRAC) cleanup costs.”27  “... We found that OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) did not have a fully developed method for accurately collecting information on costs, savings, and efficiencies achieved specifically from joint basing, and that OSD had not developed a plan to guide joint bases in achieving cost savings and efficiencies....”28 “... DOD has not committed to take action on some of our recommendations related to implementing any future BRAC rounds, such as improving DOD’s ability to estimate potential liabilities, and savings to achieve desired outcomes.”29  In its final report to the President, the 2005 BRAC commission noted DOD’s initial estimate of savings had been “vastly overestimated,” and suggested that the Department had claimed savings that were “not truly savings in the commonly understood sense of the term.”30 Reflecting on the 24 Government Accountability Office, “Military Base Realignments and Closures: More Guidance and Information Needed to Take Advantage of Opportunities to Consolidate Training (GAO-16-45), February 2016. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675295.pdf#page=2. 25 Government Accountability Office, ”Military Bases: More Guidance and Information Needed to Take Advantage of Opportunities to Consolidate Training (GAO-16-45)”, February 2016. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/ 675295.pdf#page=6. 26 Government Accountability Office, “Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment and Closure Rounds (GAO-13-149)”, March 2013. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652805.pdf#page=2. 27 Government Accountability Office, “Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Has Improved Environmental Cleanup Reporting but Should Obtain and Share More Information (GAO-17-151)”, January 2017. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682204.pdf#page=27. 28 Government Accountability Office,” DOD Joint Bases: Implementation Challenges Demonstrate Need to Reevaluate the Program (GAO-14-577), September 2014, page 2. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665964.pdf#page= 7. 29 Government Accountability Office, “High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others (GAO-17-317)”, February 15, 2017. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/ 682765.pdf#page=319. 30 See “2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report,” Volume 1, page 3. “However, as discussed elsewhere in this Report, the Commission noted in many cases that DoD claimed savings from proposals on the basis of eliminated military personnel. Yet, because total end strength was not being reduced proportionately, these so-called ‘savings’ will not actually reduce total DoD spending levels. Hence, they are not truly savings in the commonly Congressional Research Service 8 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) quality of cost estimates and savings associated with 2005 BRAC round, Anthony Principi, Chairman of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, has suggested opportunities exist for the DOD to improve its analysis by adopting more consistent accounting practices and inclusive metrics: To start, DoD has to do a better job estimating the true cost of any closure or realignment.... Second, the cost of base realignment actions (COBRA) accounting procedure, used by DoD as a basis of comparison among scenarios, should include cost estimates for environmental restoration not just “clean to current use” standards. In addition, COBRA or some other cost evaluation process should also include transportation and infrastructure costs and burden sharing with the federal government....31 In addition to refining DOD accounting metrics, some observers have suggested congressional visibility into BRAC cost and long-term effectiveness could be improved by amending the process to require the Department to disclose how closure and realignment recommendations meet expected cost saving and reduced infrastructure targets. Excess Infrastructure A BRAC process is the chief means by which DOD disposes of excess infrastructure. Each year between 2013 and 2017, the Department requested a new BRAC round as a means of realizing greater efficiency and reducing excess infrastructure. It has also attempted to allay concerns related to the 2005 BRAC experience - marked by unexpectedly high costs and complexity - by emphasizing cost savings and efficiencies rather than force transformation. In April 2016, DOD submitted to the House Armed Services Committee an Infrastructure Capacity Report (interim version) that assessed 22% of the Department’s base infrastructure excess to its needs.32 The methodology used in the report—required by Section 2815 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2016 (P.L. 114-92)—remained consistent with excess capacity reports submitted prior to the 1998 and 2005 BRAC rounds round.33 The Department stated its purpose for obtaining “a sense of excess and whether excess remains after various changes, such as (prior) BRAC or force structure reductions.”34 A final infrastructure capacity report, submitted to Congress in October 2017, modified the original excess capacity estimate to 19%.35 understood sense of the term. No new equipment or increases in operations could be purchased with these ‘reductions’ in military personnel. Because these military personnel would not be eliminated, but merely reassigned to higherpriority tasks, the commission concluded that DoD’s initial estimates of $49 billion in net savings over a 20-year period were vastly overestimated, although “military value”—the primary selection criterion—might be increased. 31 Anthony Prinicipi, former Veterans Affairs Secretary and Chairman of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, “BRAC Chair Reflects on Decisions, Offers Ideas for Future,” May 9, 2011. Available at https://federalnewsradio.com/defense/2011/05/brac-chair-reflects-on-decisions-offers-ideas-for-future/. 32 Department of Defense Infrastructure Capacity, March 2016. Available at https://defensecommunities.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/01/2016-4-Interim-Capacity-Report-for-Printing.pdf. 33 GAO, “DOD’s Excess Capacity Estimating Methods Have Limitations (GAO-13-535),” June 2013; “DOD continues to use the same methodology in 2017 that it has previously used to estimate excess capacity; thus these limitations continue…” GAO, “Defense Infrastructure: DOD needs to Improve the Accuracy of Its Excess Capacity Estimates,” May 2018. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691990.pdf#page=14. 34 Department of Defense Infrastructure Capacity, March 2016. Available at https://defensecommunities.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/01/2016-4-Interim-Capacity-Report-for-Printing.pdf. 35 Department of Defense Infrastructure Capacity, October 2017. Available at https://fas.org/man/eprint/ infrastructure.pdf. Congressional Research Service 9 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Table 1. Infrastructure Capacity Reports; Interim and Final Percentage of Infrastructure Identified as Excess FY2016 Interim Report FY2017 Final Report Army 33% 29% Navy 7% 6% Air Force 32% 28% Defense Logistics Agency 12% 13% Total DOD 22% 19% Department Source: Recreated from Table 1, Department of Defense Infrastructure Capacity Report, October 2017. Notes: The FY2016 report estimated excess infrastructure DOD would carry into FY2019, according to force structure plans. The FY2017 report measured the value according to FY2012 force structure. Both analyses used 1989 as a baseline. DLA The Department concluded its infrastructure capacity analysis by arguing it had established sufficient justification for a new BRAC round, a process that would allow it to more effectively dispose of excess infrastructure and manage remaining real property assets. The Department believes we have addressed all congressional concerns.... The time to authorize another BRAC round is now. The BRAC process requires considerable time to analyze and develop recommendations, have those recommendations reviewed by the independent BRAC Commission, and then implemented over a six-year period of time. The longer authorization is delayed, the longer the Department will be forced to expend valuable resources on unnecessary facilities instead of weapons systems, readiness, and other national security priorities.36 Critics of the Department’s methodology for estimating excess infrastructure have asserted it includes unreasonable research assumptions and metrics, undermining the basis for DOD’s conclusion. For example, observers have cited the report’s reliance on Cold War baseline values to establish excess capacity, inconsistent application of existing metrics for measuring capacity shortfalls, and overly broad categorization schemes.37 Some observers have also cited longstanding data management challenges that continue to affect the Department’s ability to measure current excess facility inventory and utilization rates.38 Others have noted the dearth of data that support DOD claims related to BRAC effectiveness and the disposal of excess property.39 36 Department of Defense, “Infrastructure Capacity Report,” October 2017. Available at https://fas.org/man/eprint/ infrastructure.pdf#page=35. 37 GAO, “Defense Infrastructure: DOD Needs to Improve the Accuracy of its Excess Capacity Estimates (GAO-18230), May 2018. For example, “DOD’s excess capacity methodology and analysis has limitations that affect the accuracy and analytical sufficiency of the estimate. Specifically, DOD’s use of a 1989 baseline for excess capacity results in inaccurate estimates of excess capacity; DOD’s methodology included assumptions that were not always reasonable; and DOD’s approach to estimating excess capacity is not always sufficient or implemented consistently across the military departments.” Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691990.pdf#page=11. 38 GAO, “DOD Needs to Improve its Efforts to Identify Unutilized and Underutilized Facilities (GAO-14-538),” September 2014. 39 See GAO, “DOD Should Address Challenges with Communication and Mission Changes to Improve Future Base Realignment and Closure Rounds (GAO-18-231), March 2018. “In reviewing DOD’s data we found that the department ultimately did not have the needed data to calculate excess infrastructure disposed of during BRAC 2005.” Congressional Research Service 10 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) During a news briefing on the FY2019 defense budget, Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) David L. Norquist noted that the Department had declined to propose a BRAC round that year, stating that it would work instead to focus on internal reforms while preparing for a financial audit. And so, I think we're looking at doing two things, going forward. One is, working with Congress to find common areas where we can make reforms and changes that don't create the same types of obstacles. The other is that we are undergoing a financial-statement audit that includes a look at property, and assets and investments and improving the accuracy of the data behind it. And as a view of being able to take advantage of the data coming out of that process, to help us make better decision-making on real property. But, yes, you are correct, there is not (a) request for another BRAC round in this budget. 40 In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, Lucian Niemeyer, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment, indicated DOD would be working in FY2019 to improve its excess infrastructure accounting processes and demolish unneeded infrastructure: In lieu of another request for legislation in FY 2019 to authorize an additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, we will review our facilities, to include facility usage optimization review to ensure we have a better accounting of excess infrastructure. We also have proposed for FY 2019 increased efforts to demolish unneeded or obsolete facilities over the course of this year. 41 Legacy of the 2005 BRAC Round The 2005 BRAC round was unique among all previous rounds due to its relative size, scope and complexity. (See Figure 2 for comparison of major and minor BRAC actions between rounds.)42 Colloquially called “the mother of all BRACs,” the objectives of the 2005 round were primarily about transforming military infrastructure; however, unanticipated expenses have played a role in shaping subsequent congressional views of the BRAC process and, according to many observers, dampened support for consideration of a new round. Savings estimates submitted during the 2005 round were overvalued by as much as Context of the 2005 BRAC Round “Prior BRAC rounds occurred at the dusk of the Cold War, when military budgets and force structure were shrinking. The 2005 BRAC round occurred in a post-9/11 environment with our armed forces deployed in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan with stable or increasing force structure and defense budgets. During the 2005 BRAC implementation period, the armed forces expect to relocate 70,000 servicemembers from overseas to installations within the United States. Prior BRAC rounds took place in the context of military doctrine and force structure shaped by the Cold War. The 2005 BRAC round occurred during the transformation of military doctrine and force structure to meet the needs of an entirely new threat and security environment....” —2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report, Chapter 1: Commission Strategic Overview 40 Department of Defense News Briefing on the President’s Fiscal Year 2019 Defense Budget, Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) David L. Norquist, February 12, 2018. Available at https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/ Transcript-View/Article/1439782/department-of-defense-news-briefing-on-the-presidents-fiscal-year-2019-defense/. 41 Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, “Statement of Honorable Lucian Niemeyer (Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment),” April 26, 2018. Available at https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/Downloads/Testimony/FY19%20EI&E%20Posture%20Statement%20%20SAC-M.pdf#page=18. 42 Quantifying BRAC complexity can be difficult. During the 2005 BRAC round, DOD defined major closures as those Congressional Research Service 11 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 67%, according to GAO analysis, with one-time implementation costs rising from $21 to $35.1 billion.43 GAO found that the $14.1 billion increase was due primarily to the rising cost of new construction associated with subsidiary projects not included in the original BRAC implementation plan.44 Figure 2. BRAC Major and Minor Actions Base Closures and Realignments Source: GAO-13-149, “Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base and Realignment and Closure Rounds,” March 2013. Notes: For the 2005 BRAC round, major and minor actions are based on DOD defined values. Actions during previous rounds represent GAO estimates. Referring to the implementation of the 2005 round, Assistant Secretary Niemeyer, noted, “BRAC legislation effectively limited the ability of Congress to oversee BRAC implementation costs and the Department made deliberate decisions to use BRAC implementation as a recapitalization tool, expanding facility requirements and associated costs.”45 To address congressional concerns about spiraling costs in new BRAC rounds, DOD has periodically proposed legislative language that would constrain the Secretary’s ability to that had a plant replacement value (PRV) of greater than $100 million. Major realignments qualified as those that had a net loss of 400 or more military or civilian personnel. In earlier rounds, DOD did not use compatible definitions for BRAC actions. See Figure 2 for results of GAO analysis. 43 GAO, Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment and Closure Rounds (GAO-13-149), March 2013, page 3. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652805.pdf#page=3. 44 GAO, “Military Base Realignments and Closures: Updated Costs and Savings Estimates from BRAC 2005 (GAO12-709R),” June 29, 2012, page 34. “DOD’s own data confirmed that the majority of the $14 billion in the BRAC 2005 cost increase was related to military construction... construction of additional facilities to enhance capabilities, address deficiencies—BRAC as a recapitalization engine—and construction industry inflation since 2005 ($11 billion)....” Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652805.pdf#page=34. 45 Advance Policy Questions for Lucian Niemeyer, Nominee for Assistant Secretary of Defense of Energy, Installations and Environment, July 18, 2017. Available at https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ Niemeyer_APQs_07-18-17.pdf. Congressional Research Service 12 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) recommend BRAC actions that would not yield savings within 20 years and to emphasize recommendations that would yield net savings within five years.46 The Department of Defense Base Closure Account Each year, Congress appropriates funding for the Department of Defense Base Closure Account, part of the Military Construction Defense-Wide appropriation. With no BRAC round authorized or underway, the primary purpose of continuing BRAC appropriations is to fund the environmental cleanup and caretaker functions at bases that were closed under prior rounds (see Figure 3). Figure 3. Historical View of BRAC Appropriations, FY2001-FY2020 Source: CRS Compilation of annual DOD Comptroller, C-1 Military Construction Appropriations. Notes: Amounts reflect budget execution in “APPN” column of annual C-1 spreadsheets and include all BRAC accounts. FY2020 represents the Administration’s current request. In FY2020, the Trump Administration has requested $278.5 million for BRAC continuing environmental and caretaker costs, with $158.3 million provided for the Navy (57%), $66.1 million for the Army (24%), and $54 million for the Air Force (19%).47 The total request represents a $63 million decrease (19%) from FY2019 enacted levels ($342 million). In FY2018, Congress urged DOD to accelerate environmental remediation at BRAC sites. In report language, appropriators stated that additional funds were provided to speed environmental remediation at installations closed under previous rounds. 46 See Office of Legislative Council (website), FY2018 DOD Legislative Proposals, “First Package of Legislative Proposals Sent to Congress for Inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018— Consolidated Section-by-Section Analysis (Sent to Congress on May 25, 2017).” Available at http://ogc.osd.mil/olc/ docs/25May2017NDAASectionalAnalysis.pdf#page=70. 47 Department of Defense, “DOD Base Realignment and Closure Executive Summary Program Year 2020: Justification Data Submitted to Congress.” March 2019. Available at http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/ defbudget/fy2019/budget_justification/pdfs/05_BRAC/BRAC_Exec_Sum_J-Book_FINAL.pdf#page=8. Congressional Research Service 13 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Accelerated cleanup.—The agreement includes additional funding to accelerate environmental remediation at installations closed during previous Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds. Priority should be given to those sites with newly identified radiological cleanup cost. There are many factors hindering the cleanup of BRAC sites. However, strategic investments can lead to quicker clean-ups and faster turnover of DOD property to the local community. Therefore, the Department is directed to submit to the congressional defense committees a spend plan for the additional BRAC funds not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act. 48 Congressional Action on BRAC Prohibition on Conducting a New Round Congressional authorizers and appropriators have regularly inserted language into annual defense legislation that would disallow the use of funds for the purpose of a new BRAC round. In FY2019, for example, though DOD did not propose a BRAC, authorizers inserted language into the annual NDAA that prohibited a new round: SEC. 2703. Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. 49 A similar provision was included in the final FY2019 defense appropriations bill:50 SEC. 8122. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to propose, plan for, or execute a new or additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. 51 BRAC Legislation in the 115th Congress In 2017, Members in both chambers proposed legislation that would have authorized a new round of base closures.52 Though no legislation for a full BRAC was enacted, a provision included the following year in the final FY2019 NDAA. 48 See Explanatory Statement to Accompany H.R. 1625 (P.L. 115-141), Committee Print Book 2 of 2, Division J. Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-115HPRT29457/pdf/CPRT-115HPRT29457.pdf#page=509; See also Hpt 115-188, House Appropriations Committee Report to accompany H.R. 2998, “Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2018.” Available at https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt188/ CRPT-115hrpt188.pdf#page=34. 49 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, H.R. 5515, Available at https://www.congress.gov/115/ bills/hr5515/BILLS-115hr5515rh.pdf#page=841. 50 Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (H.R. 6157, H.R. 245). 51 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Division C, (H.R. 1625, P.L. 115-141), Available at https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1625/BILLS-115hr1625enr.pdf#page=144. 52 On January 31, 2017, Representative Adam Smith, then Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, submitted the Military Infrastructure Consolidation and Efficiency Act of 2017 (H.R. 753), which would have reauthorized a BRAC that would have begun in FY2019 with a framework similar to previous rounds. A second proposal, drafted by Senator John McCain, then Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and submitted as an amendment to the annual NDAA for FY2018 (H.R. 2810), would have taken a different approach. By omitting the appointment of a BRAC commission charged with reviewing recommendations made by the Secretary of Defense, Senator McCain’s amendment would have altered what long-time observers had considered the basic tenets of the modern BRAC framework (third party appraisal by an independent commission, and expansive opportunity for public comment by affected communities and other stakeholders). Congressional Research Service 14 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Under the new scenario described by Section 2702 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (H.R. 5515, P.L. 115-232), BRAC-like actions are authorized within the confines of a state based on the recommendation of the governor and support of local communities affected by the proposed actions. Unlike a traditional BRAC process, the new authorities would forgo the creation of an independent review panel. The Secretary of Defense is, instead, required to deliver a report of planned BRAC actions to congressional defense committees and, following a 90-day waiting period, begin implementation. For details, please refer to “In-State BRAC” in Appendix A of this report. The BRAC related legislative proposals above illustrate the flexibility Congress has for amending or adopting the template of past BRAC processes that DOD has called “the only fair, objective, and comprehensive process to achieve these goals (eliminating excess infrastructure).”53 Congress may consider whether future legislative proposals for base closures and realignments will adopt the lessons learned from previous rounds while retaining the basic framework, or fundamentally alter the process. BRAC Legislation in the 116th Congress No BRAC legislation has so far been proposed in the 116th Congress. Additionally, the Department has asserted that it does not intend to use the new BRAC-like authorities authorized by Section 2702 of the FY2019 NDAA.54 To date, DOD has received no state requests under this authority. 53 “The Department must be able to eliminate excess infrastructure to avoid wasting resources maintaining unneeded facilities - resources that that could be much better spent on readiness. BRAC provides the only fair, objective, and comprehensive process to achieve these goals.” See Data Submitted to Congress, “DoD Base Realignment and Closure: BRAC Rounds (BRAC 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995 & 2005),” May 2017. Available at http://comptroller.defense.gov/ Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2018/budget_justification/pdfs/05_BRAC/ FINAL_FY18_BRAC_Summary_Book.pdf#page=8. 54 In official correspondence, DOD has stated, “The Department does not intend to use section 2702 because it undermines the Department’s ability to prioritize the military value of an installation as informed by the National Defense Strategy, instead substituting the judgment of a Governor based on economic value.” Department of Defense Response to Congressional Research Service Request for Information, April 11, 2019. Congressional Research Service 15 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Appendix A. Legislative References BRAC Authorizing Legislation 1988 Round The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, enacted October 24, 1988 (P.L.100-526) 1991, 1993, 1995 Rounds National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, enacted November 5, 1990 (P.L. 107-107, Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Title XXIX) 2005 Round National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, (P.L. 101-510; amended the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) 10 U.S.C. 2687, 10 U.S.C. 993 Summary In 1977, Congress enacted 10 U.S.C. 2687, the first statutory restriction on the President’s ability to close or realign military installations. Amended over the years, the statute has retained its essential elements, establishing procedures the Secretary of Defense must follow before closing a military installation where a threshold number (currently 300) of civilian personnel are authorized to be employed, or realigning an installation that involves a reduction by more than 50% (or 1,000) of civilian workers. A more recent statute, 10 U.S.C. 993, introduced additional reporting requirements that would restrict the Secretary’s ability to realign installations if the plan would affect more than 1,000 assigned members of the Armed Forces. In-State BRAC Section 2702 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (H.R. 5515, P.L. 115-232) authorizes new in-state BRAC authorities. Text of the provision is included below in its entirety. SEC. 2702. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO REALIGN OR CLOSE CERTAIN MILITARY INSTALLATIONS. (a) Authorization.—Notwithstanding sections 993 or 2687 of title 10, United States Code, and subject to subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may take such actions as may be necessary to carry out the realignment or closure of a military installation in a State during a fiscal year if— (1) the military installation is the subject of a notice which is described in subsection (b); and (2) the Secretary includes the military installation in the report submitted under paragraph (2) of subsection (c) with respect to the fiscal year. (b) Notice From Governor of State.—A notice described in this subsection is a notice received by the Secretary of Defense from the Governor of a State (or, in the case of the District of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia) in which the Governor recommends that the Secretary carry out the realignment or closure of a military installation located in the State, and which includes each of the following elements: Congressional Research Service 16 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) (1) A specific description of the military installation, or a specific description of the relevant real and personal property. (2) Statements of support for the realignment or closure from units of local government in which the installation is located. (3) A detailed plan for the reuse or redevelopment of the real and personal property of the installation, together with a description of the local redevelopment authority which will be responsible for the implementation of the plan. (c) Response to Notice.— (1) Mandatory response to governor and congress.—Not later than 1 year after receiving a notice from the Governor of a State (or, in the case of the District of Columbia, from the Mayor of the District of Columbia), the Secretary of Defense shall submit a response to the notice to the Governor and the congressional defense committees indicating whether or not the Secretary accepts the recommendation for the realignment or closure of a military installation which is the subject of the notice. (2) Acceptance of recommendation.—If the Secretary of Defense determines that it is in the interests of the United States to accept the recommendation for the realignment or closure of a military installation which is the subject of a notice received under subsection (b) and intends to carry out the realignment or closure of the installation pursuant to the authority of this section during a fiscal year, at the time the budget is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for the fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees which includes the following: (A) The identification of each military installation for which the Secretary intends to carry out a realignment or closure pursuant to the authority of this section during the fiscal year, together with the reasons the Secretary of Defense believes that it is in the interest of the United States to accept the recommendation of the Governor of the State involved for the realignment or closure of the installation. (B) For each military installation identified under subparagraph (A), a master plan describing the required scope of work, cost, and timing for all facility actions needed to carry out the realignment or closure, including the construction of new facilities and the repair or renovation of existing facilities. (C) For each military installation identified under subparagraph (A), a certification that, not later than the end of the fifth fiscal year after the completion of the realignment or closure, the savings resulting from the realignment or closure will exceed the costs of carrying out the realignment or closure, together with an estimate of the annual recurring savings that would be achieved by the realignment or closure of the installation and the timeframe required for the financial savings to exceed the costs of carrying out the realignment or closure. (d) Limitations.— (1) Timing.—The Secretary may not initiate the realignment or closure of a military installation pursuant to the authority of this section until the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date the Secretary submits the report under paragraph (2) of subsection (c). (2) Total costs.—Subject to appropriations, the aggregate cost to the government in carrying out the realignment or closure of military installations pursuant to the authority of this section for all fiscal years may not exceed $2,000,000,000. In determining the cost to the government for purposes of this section, there shall be included the costs of planning and design, military construction, operations and maintenance, environmental restoration, information technology, termination of Congressional Research Service 17 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) public-private contracts, guarantees, and other factors contributing to the cost of carrying out the realignment or closure, as determined by the Secretary. (e) Process for Implementation.—The implementation of the realignment or closure of a military installation pursuant to the authority of this section shall be carried out in accordance with section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (title XXIX of P.L. 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) in the same manner as the implementation of a realignment or closure of a military installation pursuant to the authority of such Act. (f) State Defined.—In this section, the term ``State’’ means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. (g) Termination of Authority.—The authority of the Secretary to carry out a realignment or closure pursuant to this section shall terminate at the end of fiscal year 2029. Congressional Research Service 18 Appendix B. BRAC Acreage Disposal Status, By State Table B-1. Status of BRAC Acreage Disposal, By State/Territory and BRAC Round State BRAC Year Alabama 1988 1993 1995 2005 Closure or Realignment Installation Name CRS-19 1995 Acres Remaining to be Disposed Sum of Excessed Major Closure COOSA RIVER STORAGE ANNEX(ANNISTON) 2,834 0 2,834 Minor Closure ALABAMA AAP 2,235 0 2,235 Major Closure MOBILE - NS 0 0 0 Minor Closure GADSDEN - NRC/AFRC 0 0 0 MONTGOMERY - NRC 0 0 0 18,431 12 18,443 Major Closure FORT MCCLELLAN Minor Closure HUNTSVILLE AL - NAVRESCEN 3 0 3 Minor Closure BG WILLIAMS P. SCREWS USARC 5 0 5 CLEVELAND LEIGHT ABBOT USARC 6 0 6 FAITH WING USARC 2 0 2 Finnell AFRC & AMSA#154 5 0 5 HARRY L. GARY, JR. USARC 0 0 0 MOBILE - NMCRC 0 0 0 NRC TUSCALOOSA 0 0 0 PFC GRADY C. ANDERSON USARC 0 0 0 WRIGHT USARC 0 0 0 23,521 12 23,533 Alabama Total Alaska Acres Disposed Major Closure ADAK - NAF 0 0 0 Major Realignment FORT GREELY 0 0 0 State BRAC Year 2005 Closure or Realignment Minor Closure Installation Name Arkansas Total CRS-20 Sum of Excessed 0 0 0 KULIS AGS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1988 Minor Closure CAMP NAVAJO 0 0 0 1991 Major Closure WILLIAMS AFB 3,878 144 4,021 2005 Minor Closure AFRL MESA 7 0 7 ALLEN HALL USARC 4 0 4 DEER VALLEY USARC #2 0 0 0 3,888 144 4,032 3,401 0 3,401 Arizona Total Arkansas Acres Remaining to be Disposed GALENA AIRPORT Alaska Total Arizona Acres Disposed 1991 Major Closure EAKER 1993 Minor Closure FAYETTEVILLE - NRC 0 0 0 FORT SMITH - NRC 0 0 0 7,050 0 7,050 1995 Major Closure FORT CHAFFEE 2005 Minor Closure ARKADELPHIA USARC 0 0 0 ECS-15/ERA/ARLOG 39 0 39 HOT SPRINGS USARC 1 0 1 LEROY R. POND USARC 4 0 4 MALVERN USARC OMS 0 0 0 RUFUS GARRETT JR. USARC 3 0 3 SAMUEL STONE JR USARC 0 0 0 USARC CAMDEN 2 0 2 USARC JONESBORO 3 0 3 10,503 0 10,503 State BRAC Year California 1988 Closure or Realignment Major Closure Installation Name GEORGE CRS-21 Sum of Excessed 866 5,062 659 0 659 MATHER 5,661 0 5,661 NORTON 2,221 0 2,221 PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO 1,480 0 1,480 Minor Closure SALTON SEA TEST RANGE 5,877 0 5,877 Major Closure CASTLE 2,777 0 2,777 FT ORD 19,301 7,778 27,080 LONG BEACH - NH 31 0 31 LONG BEACH - NS 413 56 469 LONG BEACH - NSY 351 0 351 MOFFETT FIELD - NAS 2,951 0 2,951 Tustin MCAS 1,341 233 1,574 SACRAMENTO AD 406 0 406 TREASURE ISLAND NS HUNTERS PT ANNEX 89 846 935 ALAMEDA - NAS 2,392 256 2,649 El Toro MCAS 4,402 292 4,694 MARE ISLAND NSY 1,201 415 1,617 NOVATO DOD HOUSING FACILITY 551 0 551 OAKLAND - NH 182 0 182 PORT HUENEME CA ENGSRVCEN 33 0 33 SAN DIEGO - NTC 380 51 431 TREASURE ISLAND - NS 917 161 1,077 Minor Closure 1993 Acres Remaining to be Disposed 4,196 HAMILTON ARMY AIR FIELD 1991 Acres Disposed Major Closure State BRAC Year 1995 Closure or Realignment Installation Name Major Realignment MARCH Minor Closure PACIFIC GROVE - NRC Major Closure MCCLELLAN Sum of Excessed 0 4,441 4 0 4 2,995 457 3,452 OAKLAND - FISC 697 0 697 OAKLAND ARMY BASE 377 18 395 0 0 0 SIERRA ARMY DEPOT 4,999 4,488 9,487 EAST FORT BAKER 91 0 91 2,457 0 2,457 ONTARIO 8 0 8 POMONA - NRC 0 0 0 RIO VISTA RES TRNG AREA 28 0 28 STOCKTON - NRC 0 0 0 Minor Realignment ONIZUKA 0 0 0 Major Closure ONIZUKA AFS 20 0 20 RIVERBANK AAP 0 172 172 Major Realignment CONCORD NWS 59 4,972 5,031 Minor Closure ARNG RC BELL 0 0 0 DESIDERIO HALL USARC 5 0 5 HAZARD PARK 0 0 0 MOFFETT FIELD USARC 0 0 0 PVT GEORGE L. RICHEY USARC 9 0 9 SCHROEDER HALL USARC 5 0 5 Minor Closure FORT HUNTER LIGGETT BRAC LOMPOC BRANCH DISCIPLINARY BARRACKS CRS-22 Acres Remaining to be Disposed 4,441 Major Realignment 2005 Acres Disposed State BRAC Year Closure or Realignment Installation Name USARC MOUNTAIN VIEW California Total Colorado 1988 0 7 74,016 21,062 95,078 0 15,953 15,953 242 0 242 1,786 0 1,786 BENNETT ARNG TRNG SITE 1991 Major Realignment LOWRY 1995 Major Closure U.S. ARMY OPERATIONS FITZSIMONS 558 0 558 2005 Major Closure BUCKLEY ANNEX 70 0 70 2,656 15,953 18,609 NEW LONDON - NUSC/NUWC DET 32 0 32 STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT 1 77 78 AMSA 69 3 0 3 AMSA 72 USARC 0 0 0 MIDDLETOWN USARC/OMS 24 0 24 SGT LIBBY USARC/OMS 6 0 6 65 77 142 10 0 10 10 0 10 110 0 110 8 0 8 1995 Minor Closure Minor Closure 2005 Minor Closure MAJ ROBERT KIRKWOOD MEMORIAL USARC Delaware Total CRS-23 7 Minor Closure Connecticut Total District of Columbia Sum of Excessed PUEBLO AD 2005 Delaware Acres Remaining to be Disposed Major Realignment Colorado Total Connecticut Acres Disposed 2005 Major Closure WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER Minor Closure POTOMAC ANNEX State BRAC Year Closure or Realignment Installation Name District of Columbia Total Florida 1988 1993 1995 2005 2005 118 CAPE ST. GEORGE 6 0 6 COCONUT GROVE - NRC 3 0 3 CECIL FIELD - NAS 17,061 0 17,061 ORLANDO - NTC 2,070 0 2,070 ORLANDO FL NAVAL HOSPITAL 44 0 44 Major Realignment HOMESTEAD 976 0 976 Major Realignment KEY WEST - NAS 176 0 176 Minor Closure Big Coppit Key 0 0 0 ORLANDO - NRL (USR DET) 18 0 18 ST. PETERSBURG - NRC 4 0 4 20,359 0 20,359 ATLANTA - NAS 0 0 0 FORT GILLEM 772 399 1,171 FORT MCPHERSON 474 14 487 ATHENS NAVSCSCOL 56 0 56 COLUMBUS USARC #1 2 0 2 ROME - MCRC 0 0 0 1,304 412 1,717 1,819 0 1,819 0 0 0 979 0 979 1,805 0 1,805 Minor Closure Major Closure Minor Closure Major Closure Georgia Total CRS-24 Sum of Excessed 0 Minor Closure Guam Acres Remaining to be Disposed 118 Florida Total Georgia Acres Disposed 1993 Major Closure AGANA - NAS 1995 Major Closure GUAM - SHIP REPAIR FACILITY Minor Closure GUAM - PWC Minor Realignment GUAM - NAVACTS State BRAC Year Closure or Realignment Installation Name Guam Total Hawaii 0 4,604 21 0 21 1993 Major Closure BARBERS POINT - NAS 2,290 217 2,507 2005 Minor Closure HILO KUNIEDA USARC 0 0 0 2,311 217 2,528 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,799 401 2,200 FORT SHERIDAN 386 0 386 GLENVIEW - NAS 1,196 0 1,196 274 0 274 4,994 7,890 12,884 2005 Minor Closure NRC POCATELLO 1988 Major Closure Major Closure CHANUTE O'HARE 1995 Major Closure SAVANNA DEPOT ACTIVITY 2005 Minor Closure COPPLE USARC 4 0 4 FOREST PARK - NRC 0 0 0 PFC R. G. WILSON USARC 3 0 3 SSG R. E. WALTON USARC 5 0 5 WAUKEGAN AFRC 4 0 4 8,665 8,291 16,956 859 0 859 JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND 3,113 1,122 4,235 Major Closure FT BEN HARRISON 2,331 60 2,391 Major Realignment GRISSOM 1,345 0 1,345 Minor Closure FORT WAYNE IN NMRC 4 0 4 TERRE HAUTE - NRC 0 0 0 Illinois Total 1988 1991 1993 CRS-25 4,604 KAPALAMA MIL RESERVATION 1993 Indiana Sum of Excessed Minor Closure Idaho Total Illinois Acres Remaining to be Disposed 1988 Hawaii Total Idaho Acres Disposed Major Closure INDIANA AAP State BRAC Year Closure or Realignment Installation Name Acres Disposed Major Closure INDIANAPOLIS - NAWC-AD 163 0 163 2005 Major Closure NEWPORT CHEMICAL DEPOT 7,241 0 7,241 Minor Closure EVANSVILLE NRC 0 0 0 HALLIDAY USARC 0 0 0 NMCRC GRISSOM ARB 0 0 0 15,055 1,183 16,238 1988 Minor Closure FORT DES MOINES 51 0 51 2005 Minor Closure BURLINGTON MEMORIAL USARC/AMSA 11 0 11 CEDAR RAPIDS AFRC 6 0 6 DUBUQUE - NRC 0 0 0 SIOUX CITY NRC 0 0 0 USARC MUSCATINE 0 0 0 68 0 68 Iowa Total Kansas 1993 Minor Closure HUTCHINSON - NRC/AFRC 0 0 0 1995 Minor Closure OLATHE - NARC 0 0 0 2005 Major Closure KANSAS AAP 13,951 0 13,951 13,951 0 13,951 Kansas Total Kentucky CRS-26 Sum of Excessed 1995 Indiana Total Iowa Acres Remaining to be Disposed 1988 Major Closure LEXINGTON (BLUE GRASS) ARMY DEPOT 777 0 777 1995 Major Closure LOUISVILLE - NOS 142 0 142 2005 Minor Closure LOUISVILLE - NOS 0 0 0 MG BENJAMIN J. BUTLER USARC 7 0 7 NRC LEXINGTON 0 0 0 PADUCAH MEMORIAL USARC 4 0 4 State BRAC Year Closure or Realignment Installation Name 0 3 USARC MAYSVILLE 0 0 0 USARC RICHMOND 0 0 0 933 0 933 18 0 18 2,351 0 2,351 1988 Minor Closure MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL,NEW ORLEANS 1991 Major Closure ENGLAND 1993 Minor Closure LAKE CHARLES - NS 0 0 0 MONROE LA NAVRESCEN 3 0 3 0 0 0 149 0 149 1995 Minor Closure NEW ORLEANS - NAVBIOLAB 2005 Major Closure NEW ORLEANS - NSA Minor Closure BATON ROUGE - NMCRC 0 0 0 ROBERTS USARC 0 0 0 SHREVEPORT USARC 0 0 0 USARC BOSSIER CITY 0 0 0 2,521 0 2,521 1991 Major Closure LORING 9,276 0 9,276 2005 Major Closure BRUNSWICK - NAS 2,777 578 3,355 12,053 578 12,631 8,452 13 8,465 Maine Total Maryland 1988 Major Realignment FORT GEORGE G. MEADE Minor Closure ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 0 0 0 GAITHERSBURG RES FACILITY 23 0 23 FORT HOLABIRD (88) 7 0 7 Minor Realignment CRS-27 Sum of Excessed 3 Louisiana Total Maine Acres Remaining to be Disposed PADUCAH USARC #2 Kentucky Total Louisiana Acres Disposed State BRAC Year 1995 Closure or Realignment Major Closure Minor Closure 2005 Minor Closure Installation Name 590 0 590 WHITE OAK - NSWC DAHLGREN DIV DET 662 0 662 ANNAPOLIS - NSWC CARDEROCK DIV DET 68 0 68 FORT HOLABIRD 13 0 13 ADELPHI - NRC 0 0 0 NGA DALECARLIA SITE, BETHESDA, MD 0 0 0 SUMNER SITE (NGA) 39 0 39 9,854 13 9,867 47 0 47 3,982 138 4,120 Major Closure ARL - WATERTOWN 1991 Major Closure FORT DEVENS 1993 Minor Closure LAWRENCE - NMCRC/AFRC 0 0 0 NEW BEDFORD - NRC 2 0 2 PITTSFIELD - NRC 11 0 11 1,983 113 2,097 125 0 125 SUDBURY TRAINING ANNEX 2,277 0 2,277 ARTHUR MACARTHUR USARC 5 0 5 WESTOVER USARC 0 0 0 8,432 252 8,684 29 0 29 2005 Major Closure SOUTH WEYMOUTH - NAS Minor Closure HINGHAM ANNEX Minor Closure Massachusetts Total CRS-28 Sum of Excessed 1988 1995 Michigan Acres Remaining to be Disposed FT RITCHIE Maryland Total Massachusetts Acres Disposed 1988 Minor Closure PONTIAC STORAGE ACTIVITY 1991 Major Closure Wurtsmith AFB 1,696 274 1,969 1993 Major Closure K.I. SAWYER 2,857 0 2,857 State BRAC Year 1995 2005 Closure or Realignment Installation Name Major Realignment DETROIT ARSENAL & DETROIT TANK PLT Minor Closure 2005 152 CADILLAC MI NAVRESCEN 0 0 0 Major Closure USAG SELFRIDGE 0 103 103 Minor Closure MARQUETTE NRF 0 0 0 STANFORD C. PARISIAN USARC 0 0 0 4,735 376 5,111 CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL USARC 4 0 4 DULUTH - NRC 2 0 2 GEN BEEBE USARC/AMSA 111 6 0 6 FORT SNELLING USARC/AMSA 22 0 0 0 11 0 11 Minor Closure Minnesota Total 2005 Major Closure NS PASCAGOULA 0 0 0 Minor Closure MISSISSIPPI AAP 0 0 0 VICKSBURG USARC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mississippi Total Missouri 1988 Minor Closure NIKE KANSAS CITY 30 24 0 24 1991 Major Closure RICHARDS-GEBAUR 196 0 196 1993 Minor Closure JOPLIN - NRC 0 0 0 ST JOSEPH - NRC 0 0 0 CAPE GIRARDEAU - NRC 0 0 0 GREENTOP USARC 0 0 0 2005 CRS-29 Sum of Excessed 0 Minor Realignment Mississippi Acres Remaining to be Disposed 152 Michigan Total Minnesota Acres Disposed Minor Closure State BRAC Year Closure or Realignment Installation Name KANSAS CITY - MCSA Missouri Total Montana CRS-30 27 0 27 247 0 247 GREAT FALLS MT NAVRESCEN 0 0 0 2005 Minor Closure FORT MISSOULA 21 0 21 GALT HALL USARC 0 0 0 USARC HELENA 0 0 0 VEUVE HALL USARC/AMSA #75 (G) 12 0 12 33 0 33 COLUMBUS USARC 0 0 0 HASTINGS USARC 0 0 0 LINCOLN NRC 0 0 0 MCCOOK USARC 0 0 0 USARC KEARNEY 0 0 0 USARC WYMORE 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,037 0 4,037 4,037 0 4,037 0 0 0 2005 Minor Closure 1988 Major Closure PEASE New Hampshire Total New Jersey Sum of Excessed Minor Closure Nebraska Total New Hampshire Acres Remaining to be Disposed 1993 Montana Total Nebraska Acres Disposed 1991 Major Realignment FORT DIX 1993 Major Closure TRENTON NAWC 529 0 529 Major Realignment FT MONMOUTH 220 0 220 Minor Closure ATLANTIC CITY - NRC 0 0 0 State BRAC Year Closure or Realignment Installation Name PERTH AMBOY - NRC 1995 2005 3 0 3 679 0 679 Major Realignment FORT DIX BRAC 235 0 235 Minor Closure Camp Kilmer 48 0 48 Camp Pedricktown 47 0 47 Major Closure FORT MONMOUTH 998 128 1,126 Minor Closure INSPECTOR-INSTRUCTOR WEST TRENTON 8 0 8 KILMER/AMSA 21 22 2 24 SFC NELSON V. BRITTIN USARC/S-S 8 0 8 2,797 130 2,927 1988 Major Closure FT WINGATE 8,350 6,318 14,669 2005 Minor Closure JENKINS AFRC 0 0 0 MCGREGOR RANGE USARC/ECS 87 0 0 0 8,350 6,318 14,669 34 0 34 3,463 0 3,463 246 0 246 3,314 0 3,314 1988 Minor Closure BROOKLYN, NY - NAVSTA 1993 Major Closure PLATTSBURGH STATEN ISLAND - NS CRS-31 Sum of Excessed MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL, BAYONNE New Mexico Total New York Acres Remaining to be Disposed Major Closure New Jersey Total New Mexico Acres Disposed Major Realignment GRIFFISS Minor Closure JAMESTOWN - NRC/AFRC 2 0 2 NIAGARA FALLS - DOD FAMILY HOUSING 44 0 44 POUGHKEEPSIE - NRC 0 0 0 State BRAC Year 1995 Closure or Realignment Major Closure Installation Name ROSLYN 2005 Minor Closure CRS-32 Sum of Excessed 0 52 10,035 652 10,687 FORT TOTTEN 95 0 95 NEW YORK NS FORT WADSWORTH 0 0 0 STATEN ISLAND - NRC 0 0 0 USA BELLMORE MAINT. FACILITY 17 0 17 2LT GLEN CARPENTER USARC 3 0 3 AMITYVILLE USARC 16 0 16 BUFFALO - NRD 0 0 0 FORT TILDEN USARC 0 10 10 HORSEHEAD NRC 0 0 0 MCDONALD USARC 0 0 0 MULLER USARC 1 0 1 NIAGRA FALLS USARC/AMSA 76 0 22 22 NRC GLENS FALLS 0 0 0 ROOSEVELT USARC 4 0 4 STEWART NEWBURGH USARC 17 0 17 WATERTOWN NRC 0 0 0 17,344 683 18,027 4 0 4 New York Total North Carolina Acres Remaining to be Disposed 52 SENECA AD Minor Closure Acres Disposed 1995 Minor Closure Recreation Center #2 Ft Bragg (91) 2005 Minor Closure ADRIAN B. RHODES AFRC 4 0 4 ASHEVILLE - NRC 0 0 0 State BRAC Year Closure or Realignment Installation Name JESSE F. NIVEN JR., USARC North Carolina Total North Dakota 2005 Minor Closure JOHNSON USARC North Dakota Total Not Applicable 1988 Minor Closure 53 Stand Alone Family Housing Areas 1993 Major Closure MIDWAY NAF Not Applicable Total Ohio Sum of Excessed 4 0 4 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 399 0 399 1,535 0 1,535 1,934 0 1,934 1,764 0 1,764 Major Realignment RICKENBACKER 1993 Major Closure NEWARK 70 0 70 Minor Closure GENTILE 164 0 164 Minor Closure ARNG RC OXFORD 0 0 0 FT HAYES MEMORIAL USARC 11 0 11 LT JACOB PARROTT USARC 4 0 4 NMCRC AKRON 3 0 3 NMCRC CLEVELAND 0 0 0 SFC M. L. DOWNS USARC/AMSA 58 3 0 3 SSG ROY CLIFTON SCOUTEN USARC 4 0 4 WHITEHALL MEMORIAL USARC 5 0 5 2,027 0 2,027 ASHWORTH USARC 0 0 0 BURRIS USARC 0 0 0 DONALD A. ROUSH USARC 5 0 5 FARR USARC 0 0 0 Ohio Total CRS-33 Acres Remaining to be Disposed 1991 2005 Oklahoma Acres Disposed 2005 Minor Closure State BRAC Year Closure or Realignment Installation Name 0 4 KEATHLEY USARC 0 0 0 KROWSE USARC 0 0 0 NMCRC TULSA 11 0 11 PARKER USARC 0 0 0 PEREZ USARC 0 0 0 ROBBINS USAR 0 0 0 TWADDLE USARC 0 0 0 USARC BROKEN ARROW 0 0 0 20 0 20 1988 Major Closure UMATILLA AD 0 0 0 2005 Major Closure UMATILLA CD 0 12,229 12,229 Minor Closure 2LT ALFRED SHARFF USARC 5 0 5 NRC CENTRAL POINT 0 0 0 SGT JEROME SEARS USARC 4 0 4 9 12,229 12,238 1988 1991 1993 1995 CRS-34 Sum of Excessed 4 Oregon Total Pennsylvania Acres Remaining to be Disposed JOE A. SMALLEY USARC Oklahoma Total Oregon Acres Disposed Major Closure PHILADELPHIA - NH 49 0 49 Minor Closure TACONY WAREHOUSE 14 0 14 Major Closure PHILADELPHIA - NS 910 0 910 WARMINSTER - NAWC 757 0 757 Major Closure DSC PHILADELPHIA 86 0 86 Minor Closure ALTOONA - NRC 6 0 6 - Select One - CHARLES KELLY SUPPORT FACILITY 31 0 31 State BRAC Year 2005 Closure or Realignment Installation Name Major Realignment LETTERKENNY AD Minor Closure Sum of Excessed 212 1,129 FORT INDIANTOWN GAP 0 0 0 ORELAND - NAWC-AD (OWTC) 14 0 14 Minor Realignment PHILADELPHIA - NSY 270 0 270 Major Closure WILLOW GROVE - NASJRB 32 1,067 1,099 Minor Closure 1LT RAY S. MUSSELMAN MEMORIAL USARC 3 0 3 BLOOMSBURG USARC 2 0 2 145 0 145 CORAOPOLIS USARC 0 0 0 GERMANTOWN MEMORIAL USARC 5 0 5 HORSHAM MEMORIAL USARC 7 0 7 JAMES W. REESE USARC 5 0 5 LEWISBURG USARC 10 0 10 LYCOMING MEMORIAL USARC/OMS 7 0 7 NORTH PENN USARC 0 19 19 PHILADELPHIA MEMORIAL AFRC 10 0 10 READING - NMCRC 7 0 7 SERRENTI USARC / OMS 2 0 2 USARC WILKES-BARRE (AMSA 32G) 4 0 4 WILSON-KRAMER USARC / OMS 4 0 4 3,298 1,298 4,596 7,891 814 8,705 7 0 7 Pennsylvania Total CRS-35 Acres Remaining to be Disposed 917 CHARLES KELLY SUPPORT FACILITY Puerto Rico Acres Disposed 1995 Major Closure ROOSEVELT ROADS - NS 2005 Minor Closure 1LT PAUL LAVERGNE USARC State BRAC Year Closure or Realignment Installation Name Puerto Rico Total Rhode Island CRS-36 7,898 814 8,712 DAVISVILLE - NCBC 753 163 916 1993 Minor Closure NEWPORT NETC 0 0 0 2005 Minor Closure PT LLOYD S. COOPER III USARC 5 0 5 USARC BRISTOL, RI 5 0 5 USARC, CPT JONATHAN HARWOOD 3 0 3 NEWPORT NS 0 222 222 767 385 1,152 3,933 0 3,933 1991 Major Closure MYRTLE BEACH 1993 Major Closure CHARLESTON - NS 0 0 0 CHARLESTON - NSY 1,373 0 1,373 CHARLESTON - REDCOM 7 0 0 0 1995 Minor Closure CHARLESTON - FISC 0 0 0 2005 Minor Closure ROCK HILL MEMORIAL USARC 0 0 0 5,306 0 5,306 South Carolina Total Tennessee Total Sum of Excessed Major Closure Rhode Island Total Tennessee Acres Remaining to be Disposed 1991 Minor Realignment South Carolina Acres Disposed 1993 Major Realignment MEMPHIS - NAS 1,865 0 1,865 Minor Closure MEMPHIS - NRC 0 0 0 1995 Major Closure DDMT MEMPHIS 608 34 642 2005 Minor Closure CLARKSVILLE USARC 0 0 0 GUERRY USARC 0 0 0 USARC CHATTANOOGA 0 0 0 2,472 34 2,507 Closure or Realignment State BRAC Year Installation Name Texas 1988 Minor Closure GALVESTON - NS 1991 Major Closure 1995 2005 CRS-37 Acres Remaining to be Disposed Sum of Excessed 9 0 9 BERGSTROM 333 0 333 CARSWELL 492 0 492 3,388 0 3,388 CHASE FIELD - NAS 1993 Acres Disposed Major Closure DALLAS - NAS 65 0 65 Minor Closure ABILENE - NMRC 0 0 0 Major Closure REESE 2,987 0 2,987 Major Realignment KELLY 1,907 0 1,907 RED RIVER ARMY DEPOT 737 60 797 BROOKS AIR FORCE BASE 0 0 0 INGLESIDE NS 155 0 155 LONE STAR AAP 14,292 1,297 15,589 Major Realignment RED RIVER AD 3,189 646 3,835 Minor Closure ALICE USARC 4 0 4 BENAVIDEZ USARC 0 0 0 GRIMES MEMORIAL USARC 9 0 9 HANBY-HAYDEN USARC 0 0 0 HOUSTON USARC #2 6 0 6 HOUSTON USARC #3 6 0 6 JULES E. MUCHERT USARC 5 0 5 LUBBOCK NMCRC 0 0 0 LUFKIN USARC 0 0 0 MARSHALL USARC 4 0 4 MILLER USARC 0 0 0 Major Closure State BRAC Year Closure or Realignment Installation Name CRS-38 Sum of Excessed 14 0 14 RATHJEN USARC 0 0 0 Round Rock USARC 0 0 0 SAN MARCOS USARC 0 0 0 SEGURA USARC 0 0 0 THARP MEM USARC 4 0 4 USARC PASADENA TEXAS 0 0 0 USARC SAN ANTONIO (BOSWELL) 9 0 9 USARC SAN ANTONIO (CALLAGHAN) 5 0 5 USARC TYLER 0 0 0 USARC, WILLIAM HERZOG MEMORIAL 6 0 6 WATTS-GUILLOT USARC 7 0 7 WICHITA FALLS USARC 3 0 3 27,634 2,002 29,636 51 0 51 1,662 0 1,662 1988 Minor Closure FORT DOUGLAS 1993 Major Realignment TOOELE ARMY DEPOT Minor Closure OGDEN UT NAVRESCEN 0 0 0 1995 Major Closure USARC OGDEN DEPOT 1,086 0 1,086 2005 Major Closure DESERET CD 0 0 0 2,799 0 2,799 AMSA 160 RUTLAND 0 0 0 Berlin USARC 0 0 0 CHESTER USARC 3 0 3 Utah Total Vermont Acres Remaining to be Disposed NRC Orange Texas Total Utah Acres Disposed 2005 Minor Closure State BRAC Year Closure or Realignment Installation Name COURCELLE BROTHERS USARC 1988 Minor Closure 5 8 0 8 Cameron Station 163 0 163 DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY HERNDON 12 0 12 1991 Minor Closure ARL-WOODBRIDGE 579 0 579 1993 Major Closure VINT HILL FARMS STATION 696 0 696 Minor Closure DRIVER - NRTF 600 0 600 1 0 1 1995 Major Closure FORT PICKETT 2,873 0 2,873 2005 Major Closure FORT MONROE 74 183 257 Minor Realignment ALEXANDRIA NRC 0 0 0 4,998 183 5,181 Virginia Total CRS-39 Sum of Excessed 0 STAUNTON - NRC Washington Acres Remaining to be Disposed 5 Vermont Total Virginia Acres Disposed 1991 Major Closure PUGET SOUND NS 156 0 156 1995 Minor Closure CAMP BONNEVILLE 3,013 0 3,013 2005 Minor Closure 1LT RICHARD H. WALKER USARC 10 0 10 FOUR LAKES CS 63 0 63 FT LAWTON USAR COMPLEX 8 34 42 OSWALD USARC 3 0 3 PFC DANIEL L. WAGENAAR USARC 7 0 7 PFC JOE E. MANN USARC.AMSA 80 7 0 7 TACOMA - NMCRC 9 0 9 State BRAC Year Closure or Realignment Installation Name VANCOUVER BARRACKS AFRC/AMSA 82 2005 Minor Closure 0 3,276 34 3,310 1LT HARRY B. COLBORN USARC 4 0 4 MOUNDSVILLE - NMCRC 0 0 0 USARC ELKINS 4 0 4 USARC RIPLEY 5 0 5 USARC, MAJ LESLIE BIAS 5 0 5 18 0 18 1 0 1 102 0 102 LA CROSSE - NRC 0 0 0 MADISON - NMCRC 0 0 0 O'CONNELL USARC 0 0 0 OLSON USARC 4 0 4 107 0 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 315,025 72,683 387,708 1995 Minor Closure SHEBOYGAN - NRC 2005 Minor Closure GENERAL MITCHELL AIR FORCE BASE Wisconsin Total Wyoming 2005 Minor Closure AVIATION SPT FAC, CHEYENNE Wyoming Total Grand Total Source: FY2017 data provided to CRS by the DOD Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), May 2017. CRS-40 Sum of Excessed 0 West Virginia Total Wisconsin Acres Remaining to be Disposed 0 Washington Total West Virginia Acres Disposed BRAC Author Contact Information Christopher T. Mann Analyst in Defense Policy and Trade #redacted#@crs.loc.gov , 7-.... Acknowledgments This report would not have been possible without the generous contributions and continuing support of Dan Else, who retired from CRS in 2018. Congressional Research Service R45705 · VERSION 2 · NEW 41 EveryCRSReport.com The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on issues that may come before Congress. EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to the public. Prior to our republication, we redacted phone numbers and email addresses of analysts who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com. CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in connection with CRS' institutional role. EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim copyright on any CRS report we have republished. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR45705. Public record. Not legal advice.