BRAC 2005

DoD Recommendation: DoD recommended to close Fort Monroe. Its recommendation would relocate the US Army Training & Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Headquarters, the Installation Management Agency (IMA) Northeast Region Headquarters, the US Army Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM) Northeast Region Headquarters and the Army Contracting Agency Northern Region Office to Fort Eustis, VA. It would also relocate the US Army Accessions Command and US Army Cadet Command to Fort Knox, KY.

DoD Justification: This recommendation would close Fort Monroe, an administrative installation, and would move the tenant Headquarters organizations to Fort Eustis and Fort Knox. It would enhance the Army's military value, would be consistent with the Army’s Force Structure Plan, and would maintain adequate surge capabilities to address future unforeseen requirements. The closure would allow the Army to move administrative headquarters to multi-purpose installations that provide the Army more flexibility to accept new missions. Both Fort Eustis and Fort Knox had operational and training capabilities that Fort Monroe lacks and both have excess capacity that coult be used to accept the organizations relocating from Fort Monroe.

The recommended relocations also would retain or enhance vital linkages between them relocating organizations and other headquarters activities. TRADOC HQs would be moved to Fort Eustis in order to remain within commuting distance of the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) HQs in Norfolk, VA. JFCOM oversees all joint training across the military. IMA and NETCOM HQs would be moved to Fort Eustis because of recommendations to consolidate the Northeastern and Southeastern regions of these two commands into one Eastern Region at Fort Eustis. The ACA Northern Region would be relocated to Fort Eustis because its two largest customers are TRADOC and IMA. The Accessions and Cadet Commands would be relocated to Fort Knox because of recommendations to locate the Army’s Human Resources Command at Fort Knox. The HRC recommendation included the collocation of the Accessions and Cadet Commands with the Recruiting Command, already at Fort Knox and would create a Center of Excellence for military personnel and recruiting functions by improving personnel life-cycle management.

DoD Estimated Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this recommendation would be $72.4M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department of Defense during the implementation period would be a saving of $146.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after implementation would be $56.9M with a payback expected in 1 year. The net present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years would be a savings of $686.6M.

This recommendation would affect the U.S. Post Office, a non-DoD Federal agency. In the absence of access to credible cost and savings information for that agency or knowledge regarding whether that agency would remain on the installation, the Department assumed that the non-DoD Federal agency will be required to assume new base operating responsibilities on the affected installation. The Department further assumed that because of these new base operating responsibilities, the effect of the recommendation on the non-DoD agency would be an increase in its costs. As required by Section 2913(d) of the BRAC statute, the Department had taken the effect on the costs of this agency into account when making this recommendation.

DoD Economic Impact on Communities Estimate: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 2,275 jobs (1,013 direct and 1,262 indirect jobs) over the 2006 – 2011 period in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC metropolitan statistical area, which would be 0.2 percent of economic area employment. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I of DoD's 2005 BRAC Recommendations.

DoD Community Infrastructure Assessment: DoD's review of community attributes revealed no significant issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and personnel. When moving from Fort Monroe to Fort Eustis, DoD estimated that the following local area capabilities would improve: Child Care, Population and Transportation. When moving from Fort Monroe to Fort Knox, DoD estimated that the following local area capabilities would improve: Child Care, Cost of Living, Education and Safety. The following capabilities would not be as robust: Employment and Medical. There were no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommendation, according to DoD.

DoD Environmental Impact Estimate: Closure of Fort Monroe would necessitate consultations with the State Historic Preservation Office to ensure that historic properties would continue to be protected. Increased operational delays and costs would be likely at Fort Knox in order to preserve cultural resources and tribal consultations might be necessary. An Air Conformity determination and New Source Review and permitting effort would be required at Fort Eustis. Significant mitigation measures to limit releases might be required at Fort Eustis to reduce impacts to water quality and achieve US EPA water quality standards. This recommendation would require spending approximately $2.0M for environmental compliance activities. These costs were included in the payback calculation. Although no restoration costs were reported, Fort Monroe would have a probable Military Munitions Response Program site that might require some combination of UXO sweeps, clearance, munition constituent cleanup, remediation, and land use controls. Because the Department would have a legal obligation to perform environmental restoration regardless of whether an installation were closed, realigned, or remained open no cost for environmental remediate was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation would not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation was reviewed. There were no known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation, according to DoD.

Community Concerns: The community offered a partnership with the Army through the Hampton Industrial Development Agency to construct an office complex and lease-back arrangement with the Army. It was concerned that the BRAC process precluded the Army from talking to the Community about viable alternatives to closure of Fort Monroe. The Community believed that the history and unique nature of the installation necessitates its continued use. This argument was further supported by what the Community believes will be ordnance cleanup costs greatly exceeding any of the Army's estimates. The Community reminded the Army that the main portion of Fort Monroe’s property contains a reversion provision and must be returned to the State of Virginia in an environmentally clean condition. It contended that property boundaries are now encumbered with historic facilities that will complicate the reversion and will likely lead to litigation. The Community concluded that because of the large number of historic facilities, historic events, cost of cleanup and title issues, Fort Monroe is most suited for continued military use. If these issues could be resolved, the community concedes that Fort Monroe has a very high reuse potential.

Commission Findings: The Commission found no reason to disagree with DoD’s overall recommendation but noted that the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) move to Fort Eustis in Newport News, VA, is based on a construction cost estimate that anticipates utilizing facilities to be vacated by the Transportation School. Accordingly, construction of Headquarters, TRADOC at any other location such as Fort Story is not in keeping with the intent of the recommendation. The Commission found that Fort Monroe is a National Historical Landmark and that some or all of the real property of the landmark contains a reversion to the State of Virginia. The State advised the Commission that property boundaries are now encumbered with facilities in the historic district, complicating the reversion. The Commission urges the Army to begin early consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and other State officials to ensure preservation of these historic assets. The Commission found that the Secretary of Defense reported to the Commission that a Military Munitions Response Program would likely be required at Fort Monroe but reported no estimate of cost. However, the Commission notes that DoD's Defense Environmental Programs annual report to Congress for fiscal year 2004 showed an estimated cost of $201 million for cleanup at Fort Monroe. The Commission found that the Joint Task Force-Civil Support, a new major tenant on Fort Monroe, was not identified in the Secretary of Defense's recommendations and will require relocation during the implementation period.

Commission Recommendation: The Commission found the Secretary's recommendation consistent with the final selection criteria and force structure plan. Therefore, the Commission approved the recommendation of the Secretary.