July 2004 · Volume 86 · Number 6

DoD Responds to Public Comments on BRAC Criteria
by Bryan Barnhouse
Local government managers need to be aware that DoD plans to issue further guidance on the timing of calculations of environmental restoration costs. Local knowledge of the rules and process by which defense personnel determine these costs can help managers jumpstart a reuse planning effort and share the plans with military officials.
The Department of Defense (DoD) issued its final selection criteria for the 2005 base realignment and closure (BRAC) round on Thursday, February 12, 2004. The proposed criteria underwent a 30-day public comment period, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense grouped the comments into three categories that would represent the types of the numerous submissions. The office responded to each set.
At ICMA, the Military Programs staff organized and labeled the comments according to issues of concern to local communities and to ICMA’s Base Reuse Consortium (BRC) in general (see below). All except one of DoD’s responses to these comments—a response that required further guidance—emerged from the notion that the draft criteria already addressed the public’s concerns or questions.
Local government managers need to be aware that DoD plans to issue further guidance on the timing of calculations of environmental restoration costs. Local knowledge of the rules and process by which defense personnel determine these costs can help managers jumpstart a reuse planning effort and share the plans with military officials.
Information on this guidance will be made available through the BRC resources of ICMA’s quarterly Baseline newsletter, which is mailed to members of ICMA’s Military Base Reuse Consortium, and through the online military discussion list found on the Web site at www.icma.org/military.
DoD legally complied by receiving and replying to these public comments. (However, it didn’t have to incorporate any new language into the final version.) This question-and-answer exercise served the purpose of underlining that DoD needs to rely on hard, quantifiable data and force structure requirements as much as possible in making closure and realignment decisions.
While as comprehensive as possible in terms of referring to individual criteria or combinations thereof, DoD’s replies categorically counter much speculation and rumor. The defense department is cognizant of the effects BRAC has on local communities and is trying to account for these effects systematically by compiling statistical evidence and issuing reuse planning grants.
Local Government Perspective
The local view often characterizes the selection criteria as “unfair” and inconsiderate of “unique” community circumstances and attributes or base missions. The way in which DoD applies these criteria, however, will have implications for local governments that think their bases, missions, and communities are unique. The outcomes determined by the application of the criteria will introduce new factors, present new opportunities, and raise challenges that will need to be addressed by local government managers in the near future, if they are not already being addressed.
In light of DoD’s responses to the public comments, many of which came from local governments, most BRAC-proofing activities that are currently under way but incomplete or that have yet to begin will very possibly not be considered as adding military value—the primary DoD criterion. The reasoning holds that DoD needs to rely, for example, on finished infrastructure upgrades and improvements.
Good government practices undertaken by a local government could help make the case for a community’s mission-receiving ability. But there is no guarantee. Such good government practices must also extend to the period after the community learns that its base has made the BRAC list. 
Sound Local Government, with Open or Closed Bases
Whether a base stays open or is slated for closure, the following local government activities will serve these multiple purposes: 1) meet the political necessity of showing support for the base to remain open and retain missions; 2) lay the groundwork for a smoother and quicker transition into productive reuse; and/or 3) help generate superior long-term government planning and programs. Examples of such local government activities are:
•	Partnering with the installation on service delivery, force protection, or utilities, for example, to create efficiencies that could act as starting points after base closure to strengthen the interconnectedness of community planning. 
•	Addressing encroachment through projects that expand infrastructure, build buffers, or maintain open space and that can account for future population and economic growth. 
•	Conducting fact-finding tours of the base to help community officials understand the base better for future reuse planning and to build a relationship with the base staff who will potentially oversee the closure. 
Local government efforts such as these make sense whether a base remains open, loses part of its mission, or closes entirely after 2005. Previous BRAC rounds have shown that local communities can suffer economic downturns as a result of closure. Recovery from these effects depends in part on the advance preparation and planning undertaken by the local government. In most cases, local governments are in the singular position of planning for and implementing a base’s redevelopment.
Once a base has been recommended for closure, local government officials and leading community members need to be aware of the remaining base selection process. More important, however, they need to be prepared for likely closure.
Some of the tasks for which a local government must take a leadership role to facilitate the base transition and to protect community interests include:
•	Possibly forming a local redevelopment authority. 
•	Identifying funding. 
•	Collaborating with the military. 
•	Complying with regulatory requirements. 
•	Conducting stakeholder outreach and collecting community input. 
•	Developing reuse plans and alternatives. 
•	Understanding the links between environmental cleanup and reuse plans. 
•	Developing, implementing, monitoring, and enforcing land use controls (LUCs). 
The role of ICMA’s Base Reuse Consortium is to help local governments realize the opportunities that can result from redeveloping a base into an economic engine and source of community pride. ICMA has been active in compiling information and best practices about these and other important functions. Reports, handbooks, newsletters, and a discussion group document the leading practices, lessons learned, and case studies of communities that have seen either a base realignment or a closure.
Information about such resources as ICMA’s quarterly Baseline newsletter and the online military discussion list are available by visiting the Web site at icma.org/military, calling 202/962-3613, or e-mailing bbarnhouse@icma.org. The path blazed by these communities in previous BRAC rounds can assist a local government new to military base cleanup and redevelopment. 
Local Planning Before the Closure Decision
Some elected officials believe that current local government planning activities that incorporate a potentially closed military installation send the wrong signal to DoD. Such has been the case in southern California. The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority published a list of sites, including many military bases, that it was examining for the development of a future airport.
Good government practices undertaken by a local government could help make the case for a community’s mission-receiving ability.
Concerned that such a list might be viewed by the Secretary of Defense and the BRAC Commission as community preference for base closure, top-ranking elected officials pressured the airport authority to take a different tack on evaluating potential sites. For this reason, the authority announced that it would change its strategic planning process to look at long-term environmental issues until after the BRAC list was made public. An article describing this case in greater detail can be found on the Web site at http://sandiegometro.com/ 2004/mar/coverstory2.php.
Local governments should not hold back or delay planning efforts that include area military bases. There is a simple reason. Although a local government can give notice outside the normal BRAC process that it would approve of its base’s closing, giving consideration to all contingencies that involve military bases is not notification; it is simply good government practice.
Planning documents and activities—especially from or by authorities other than local governments, like the San Diego County Airport Authority cited earlier—qualify neither as “notice” nor as “approval.” A local government does not consent to close down its military base by engaging in regular and necessary planning.
Understandably, elected leaders are sensitive about appearing in favor of any base closure in their jurisdictions. Local planning efforts that include area military bases, however, cannot be put on hold.
Final Selection Criteria For more information on the final selection criteria for the 2005 base realignment and closure (BRAC) round, see the Federal Register (Vol. 69, No. 29, Thursday, February 12, 2004), “Notices,” for a complete listing of DoD’s final selection criteria. Responses to public comments can be found on the Web site at http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/docs/criteria_final_fedreg.pdf. 
 
Bryan Barnhouse is assistant project manager, ICMA Military Programs, International City/County Management Association, Washington, D.C. (bbarnhouse@icma.org). Military Programs are supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office.
Notes
[1] Section 2914(b)(2) of Public Law 101–510 holds that, in addition to the actual criteria, the Secretary of Defense “shall consider any notice received from a local government in the vicinity of a military installation that the local government would approve of the closure or realignment of the installation.” In its response to public comments, DoD indicated that “a few private citizens, however, asked that a particular installation be closed or that operations be restricted to limit noise or other community impacts.”

 
ICMA Military Programs’ Organization of DoD Responses to Public Comments on BRAC Criteria
Local Community Impacts
•	Future community infrastructure investments NOT considered: “The infrastructure provided by the communities surrounding our [DoD] installations is a key component in their efficient and effective operation. As the BRAC legislation has established a stringent timetable for the Secretary to arrive at recommendations, the Department must focus on the existing, demonstrated ability of a community to support its installation, especially as potential investment actions may not translate into reality.” 
•	Geographically proximate relocations: “The Department recognizes that the economic impact of BRAC reductions can be lessened by moving functions to geographically proximate locations. As specified in the BRAC legislation, however, military value must be the primary consideration when making these decisions. Specifically, those factors that are set out in criteria one through four are the most important considerations when selecting receiving locations.” 
•	Workforce availability: “To the extent that the availability of highly skilled civilian or contractor workforces and relationships with local institutions and other installations influence our ability to accomplish the mission, they are captured in criteria one, three, and seven.” 
•	Measuring community employment effects: “The DoD Components will calculate economic impact on existing communities by measuring the effects on direct and indirect employment for each recommended closure or realignment. These effects will be determined by using statistical information obtained from the Departments of Labor and Commerce. This is consistent with the methodology used in prior BRAC rounds to measure economic impact.” 
•	Social: “Additionally, because social impact is an intangible factor that would be difficult for the Department to quantify and measure fairly, issues of social impact are best addressed to the BRAC Commission during its process of receiving public input.” 
Environmental Considerations
•	Relocating environmental permits: “ . . . the impact of environmental compliance activities (i.e., permits and licenses) is . . . specifically captured in criterion eight.” 
•	Environmental restoration costs: “The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) . . . suggested that DoD clarify . . . the extent to which the impact of costs related to potential environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities will be included in cost and savings analyses of individual BRAC recommendations.”  “DoD policy guidance has historically stipulated that environmental restoration costs were not to be factored into analyses of costs and savings when examining potential installations for realignment and closure, since DoD was obligated to restore contaminated sites on military installations regardless of whether or not they were closed. DoD concurs with GAO that determining such costs could be problematic in advance of a closure decision, since reuse plans for BRAC properties would not yet be determined, and studies to identify restoration requirements would not yet be completed. As suggested, DoD will issue guidance to clarify consideration of environmental costs.” 
Encroachment
•	“A few private citizens, however, asked that a particular installation be closed or that operations be restricted to limit noise or other community impacts.” 
•	“The issue of encroachment is captured by criterion two, which requires the Department to consider the availability and condition of land, facilities, and associated airspace.” 
Procedural Clarifications and Amplifications
•	Every installation treated equally: “DoD understands and greatly appreciates the high value that communities place on the installations in their areas and the relationships that have emerged between the Department and local communities. Both the BRAC legislation and DoD’s implementation of it ensure that all installations will be treated equally (Public Law 101-510) in the base realignment and closure process.” 
•	Previous BRAC consideration irrelevant in selection: “DoD recognizes the impact that BRAC can have on local communities and makes every effort in the implementation phase of BRAC to soften the effect of closures and realignments on local communities. The BRAC statute, however, specifically requires the Secretary to consider all military installations in the United States equally, without regard to whether that installation has previously been considered for closure or realignment.” 
•	Criteria numbering/order does not reflect preference/precedence: “Other than the requirement to give the military value criteria priority consideration, the numbering reflected in the listing of the criteria is not intended to assign an order of precedence to an individual criterion.” 
•	Scope of reviewable bases: “The BRAC statute applies to military installations inside the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.” “As a parallel action, the Secretary of Defense has already undertaken a comprehensive study of global basing and presence—the Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS).” “DoD will incorporate our global basing strategy into a comprehensive BRAC analysis, thereby ensuring that any overseas redeployment decisions inform our recommendations to the BRAC Commission.” 
Communities with Small Bases
•	“In order for the Department to reconfigure its current infrastructure into one in which operational capacity maximizes both warfighting capability and efficiency, it must undertake an analysis of the totality of its infrastructure, not just those with 300 or more authorized civilian positions.” 
Mothballing
•	“A few commentors cautioned the Department against using the authority provided by section 2914(c) to close and retain installations in inactive status because of the negative effect such action might have on the relevant local community. The Department recognizes that job creation gained through the economic reuse of facilities is critically important to mitigate the negative impact of BRAC recommendations.” “ . . . the Department’s actions in the four previous base closure rounds demonstrate that it will be exercised judiciously.”