14 May 2005
Source:
http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/vol_I_parts_1_and_2.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/pdf/Vol_I_Part_2_DOD_BRAC.pdf
[Pages 321-325.]
Introduction
The Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group was chaired by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Counterintelligence & Security). The Group’s principals included senior members from the Defense Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, each Military Department, the Joint Staff/J2, and representation from the Director of Central Intelligence Community Management Staff. Counterintelligence Field Activity and the Under Secretary of Defense, Intelligence elements were represented by the Chair, Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group. The Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group was chartered to conduct a review of the intelligence function.
Responsibilities and Strategy
The Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group was responsible for a comprehensive review of the intelligence function, less those intelligence activities that were evaluated by the Military Departments and other Joint Cross-Service Groups. In addition, the Group evaluated alternatives, and developed and documented realignment and closure recommendations for submission to the Secretary of Defense. In developing its analytical process, the Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group established internal policies and procedures consistent with Department of Defense policy memoranda, 20-year Force Structure Plan, BRAC selection criteria, and the requirements of Public Law 101-510, as amended. To facilitate the Group’s efforts, the four analytical frameworks below provided the construct to evaluate the intelligence function.
• Locate and upgrade facilities on protected installations as appropriate• Reduce vulnerable commercial leased space
• Realign selected intelligence functions/activities and establish facilities to support Continuity of Operations and Mission Assurance requirements
• Provide infrastructure to facilitate robust information flow between analysts, collectors and operators at all echelons and achieve mission synergy
Analytical Process
In developing its analytical process, the Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group established procedures to facilitate its review of the intelligence function. The Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group identified facilities performing the intelligence function and developed attributes, metrics and questions for analysis. Data calls were issued to the defense intelligence agencies and military departments to gather certified data on intelligence facilities. The approach to capacity analysis led to identification of excess capacity/shortage. The approach to military value led to the development of a scoring plan for the intelligence function consistent with final BRAC Selection Criteria 1-4. Military value scores were computed for each facility. The Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group then identified strategy-based, data supported, realignment or closure scenarios consistent with the analytical frameworks and with the 20-year Force Structure Plan. Once scenarios were registered, the remaining selection criteria (5-8) were assessed using Department of Defense’s standard procedures and models.
The Intelligence Joint Cross-Service Group developed a total of 21 ideas which led to 18 proposals. From these proposals, 13 scenarios were declared. After further analysis, using selection criteria one through eight and military judgment, six candidate recommendations were presented to the Infrastructure Steering Group. The Infrastructure Steering Group and Infrastructure Executive Council approved three candidate recommendations. During the integration process, one of these recommendations was incorporated into a recommendation authored by the Headquarters and Support Activities Joint Cross-Service Group.
The recommendations approved by the Secretary of Defense follow:
Recommendations and Justifications
Defense Intelligence Agency
(A classified version of this recommendation identifies specific functions to be moved.)
Recommendation: Realign Defense Intelligence Analysis Center, Bolling Air Force Base, DC, by relocating select Defense Intelligence Agency intelligence analysis functions to a new facility at Rivanna Station, VA. Realign Crystal Park 5, a leased facility in Arlington, VA, by relocating the Defense Intelligence Agency analysis function to the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center, Bolling Air Force Base, DC.
[2001 and 2002 references to the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), Rivanna Station,VA.][Google satellite photo of Bolling AFB, DC. Bolling is a candidate location for the new National Intelligence Directorate.]
Justification: This recommendation is a realignment of select personnel, equipment and intelligence analysis functions of the Defense Intelligence Agency. It co-locates select intelligence analysis functions and personnel with the National Ground Intelligence Center into a new facility at Rivanna Station. This recommendation improves information flow/mission synergy; addresses capacity shortage at the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center; meets the spirit of the Secretary of Defense’s guidelines for relocation outside the National Capital Region, and improves Continuity of Operations (COOP)/Mission Assurance by locating functions on a secure Department of Defense-owned location. The realignment of personnel from Crystal Park 5 to the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center, Bolling Air Force Base, DC, reduces vulnerable leased space while addressing Antiterrorism/Force Protection deficiencies by locating functions onto a secure Department of Defense-owned location. This recommendation accommodates current and surge requirements and is consistent with the 20-year Force Structure Plan.
Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this recommendation is $96.7M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the implementation period is a cost of $48.8M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after implementation are $10.1M with a payback expected in eight years. The net present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $52.8M.
Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 1,337 jobs (777 direct jobs and 560 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division economic area, which is less than 0.1 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.
Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates no issues regarding the ability of the communities’ infrastructure to support missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all recommendations affecting the installation in this recommendation.
Environmental Impact: No specific environmental data at the gaining site is available, because the land is pending acquisition. However, no impacts are expected to air quality; cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints, or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands based on the administrative nature of added mission and the requirement that the government purchase land free of environmental liabilities. This recommendation will require spending approximately $0.4M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does 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 bases in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation.
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Activities
Recommendation: Close National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) Dalecarlia and Sumner sites, Bethesda, MD; Reston 1, 2 and 3, leased installations in Reston, VA; Newington buildings 8510, 8520, and 8530, Newington, VA; and Building 213 a leased installation at the South East Federal Center, Washington, DC. Relocate all functions to a new facility at Fort Belvoir, VA. Realign the National Reconnaissance Office facility, Westfields, VA, by relocating all NGA functions to a new facility at the Fort Belvoir, VA. Consolidate all NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence College functions on Fort Belvoir into the new facility at Fort Belvoir, VA.
[Google satellite photo of Fort Belvoir.]
Justification: This recommendation is a strategic consolidation of the personnel, equipment and functions of NGA’s 22 legacy organizations into a new geospatial intelligence consolidated campus. It consolidates multiple NGA National Capital Region-based intelligence community activities now occupying small, government facilities and privately-owned leased space, to a secure Department of Defense-owned location, reducing excess capacity and increasing overall military value. It optimizes mission efficiencies, improves readiness, and enhances mission partner coordination, while addressing Antiterrorism/Force Protection deficiencies. This recommendation accommodates current and surge requirements and is consistent with the 20-year Force Structure Plan.
Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement the recommendation is $1,117.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the implementation period is a cost of $796.7M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after implementation are $127.7M with a payback expected in 8 years. The net present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $535.1M.
Economic Impact on Communities: Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 5,260 jobs (2,833 direct and 2,427 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Bethesda-Frederick-Gaithersburg MD Metropolitan Division, which is approximately 0.7 percent of economic area employment. The economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I.
Community Infrastructure Assessment: A review of community attributes indicates there are no issues regarding the ability of the infrastructure of the communities to support missions, forces, and personnel. There are no known community infrastructure impediments to implementation of all recommendations affecting the installation in this recommendation.
Environmental Impact: This recommendation has a moderate impact on air quality at Fort Belvoir. This recommendation has the potential to impact historic properties at Fort Belvoir. A minimal impact on cultural/historic resources is expected at the Sumner and Dalecarlia sites. Surveys and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office may be required. Additional operations at Fort Belvoir may further impact threatened and endangered species, leading to additional restrictions on training or operations. This recommendation has no impact on dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. This recommendation will require spending approximately $1.7M for environmental compliance activities. This cost was included in the payback calculation. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all recommended BRAC actions affecting the base in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environmental impediments to implementation of this recommendation.