[CPEO-MEF] Analysis of GAO report on past base closures

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

I've just reviewed the latest Governmental Accountability Office (GAO)
report on base closures, "Military Base Closures: Updated Status of
Prior Base Realignments and Closures" (GAO-05-138, January 13, 2005). It
contains useful information, not only for communities that experienced
closures and realignments during the last four rounds of closure
(decided in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995), but for the many communities
that will be faced with closures from the 2005 round. Many such
communities will be dealing with the challenges of base closure for the
first time.

* Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) clearly saves money. Though it's
difficult to pin down the exact numbers, GAO concluded that the Defense
Department had net savings from the four rounds of $28.9 billion through
fiscal year 2003, and that it expects to save about $7 billion annually thereafter.

* Local economies have been hurt by base closure, but they tend to
recover. Almost 72 percent of the Defense civilian jobs lost to
realignments and closure have been replaced, and other indicators
suggest that closure communities fare well in comparison to the U.S.
average. However, GAO reports, "the recovery process has not necessarily
been easy with the strength of the national, regional, and local
economies having a significant bearing on the recovery of any particular
community facing a BRAC closure."

Of course, the Defense Department and GAO did not analyze the impact on
civilian workers and their families. In many communities, Defense
industrial or maintenance jobs were the only jobs that paid a decent
(union or comparable) wage to blue-collar workers, particularly people
of color. When those jobs disappeared, it was difficult for those
employees to find comparable work, anywhere.

* Of the 504,000 acres not needed by the Defense Department from BRAC
bases, here is the disposition:

Transferred to nonfederal entities     264,000 acres   52%
Transferred to federal entities        100,000 acres   20%
Leased                                  91,000 acres   18%
Neither transferred nor leased          49,000 acres   10%

This table does not include the 343,000 acres, at Ft. Hunter-Liggett
(CA), Fort Chaffee (AR), Ft. Pickett (VA), Ft. Dix (NJ), and Ft.
McClellan (AL), that were turned over to Reserve components. Nor does it
include properties, such as Army Ammunition Plants, closed outside of BRAC.

* Two large transfers occurred since GAO's last study in 2002. 47,000
acres at the former Adak Naval Air Station (AK) were transferred to
Native Alaskans in a specially arranged land swap with the Interior
Department. 58,000 acres at Sierra Army Depot  (CA) were transferred
under the new Conservation Conveyance authority to a partnership of two
non-profit organizations and two private-sector companies. These appear
to be the largest BRAC land transfers to date.

* Though the Defense Department originally projected land sales revenues
of $4.7 billion from the first four BRAC rounds, sales have only brought
in $595 million. "The decrease in expected sales is attributable
primarily to national policy changes and legislation that emphasize
assisting communities that are losing bases." Still, the Navy's "renewed
interest" in sales has already brought in significant revenue.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

* Of the Army's 101,000 "untransferred" acres, 82% have environmental
impediments, such as unexploded ordnance and/or toxic contamination, to
transfer. 65% of the Navy's 13,000 untransferred acres have
environmental problems. 98% of the Air Force's 24,000 untransferred
acres have environmental cleanup issues. The term "untransferred"
appears to refer to those unneeded lands that have been retained OR
leased. (Note that many transferred properties as well as those retained
by the Reserves also have major environmental obligations remaining.)

* The report contains a table of 13 selected bases where environmental
contamination has held up transfer. Of those, the base with the largest
cost to complete ($772.7 million) is McClellan Air Force Base (CA). The
base (of the 13 listed) with the largest number of affected acres
(14,088) is Ft. Ord (CA).

* The Early Transfer authority has been used by all three Defense components:

Navy    9,500 acres
Army    8,300 acres
Air Force   700 acres.

* The Defense Department "expected to spend an estimated $3.6 billion in
fiscal year 2004 and beyond to complete environmental cleanup on BRAC
properties, bringing the total BRAC environmental costs to $11.9 billion..."

* The Defense components have projected their anticipated costs (2004
and beyond) for Munitions Response (including unexploded ordnance
investigation and removal) on BRAC properties:

Army  21,000 acres   $496 million
Navy  2,353 acres   $32.3 million
Air Force 180 acres   $2.3 million

These numbers are subject to change, because there are former ranges
where the Army and Navy have not agreed with environmental regulators
and/or transferees on what cleanup is necessary. Since GAO didn't
mention it, it appears that the Army still intends to spend NO money
cleaning up the 50,000-acre impact area and buffer zone at the former
Jefferson Proving Ground (IN), which contains millions of unexploded
shells as well as depleted uranium debris. The Navy's biggest range
cleanup projects, the nearly "complete" Kaho'olawe (HI) effort and the
still undetermined response on Vieques (PR), are not included in BRAC.
Ranges transferred before the mid-1980s, as well as those closed but
still on Defense property, are also not included in these figures.

* GAO found that perchlorate contamination poses an unknown liability at
BRAC facilities. Based upon investigations conducted thus far, I DOUBT
that perchlorate remediation at BRAC properties will be a significant
fraction of the overall cleanup program, even if state or federal
regulatory agencies impose a stringent standard. (This is my conclusion,
not GAO's.)

* GAO did not address the issue of contaminants within structures, such
as lead paint, PCBs, and asbestos. At many closing or closed bases, the
Defense Department and its transferees are disputing, or have disputed,
who is responsible for abating those hazards.

This report, like all other GAO reports, may be downloaded or ordered at 
http://www.gao.gov.

-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org
_______________________________________________
Military mailing list
Military@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military