Community Listening Session

Emulating the Spirit of the Fort Bragg Soldier171300RNOV142 of 18

Army Force Structure

and Stationing

Listening Session

Fort Bragg

LTG Joseph Anderson

Emulating the Spirit of the Fort Bragg Soldier

Agenda

171300RNOV143 of 18

Introductions & Purpose – Mr. Thomas McCollum

Welcome – LTG Anderson

Fort Bragg Overview – COL Sanborn

Army Force Structure and Stationing – COL Sanborn

Community Listening Session – Panel

Closing Remarks


Purpose

171300RNOV144 of 18

To conduct a Listening Session with the Fort Bragg

Community with regards to the Army End Strength

Reductions from the Budget Control Act of 2011

and the possible impacts to the community.


Overview

Fort Bragg Overview

Camp Mackall

40 miles

15

miles

Fayetteville, NC

Land

Acres Total 162,816

Acres Training 146,802

Live Fire Ranges 82

Training Areas 85

Supported Population

Total Military 54,669

Active Duty 48,674

Reserve Comp 3,262

Students 2,733

DOD Civilians 14,470

Contract Empl 5,888

Mil Family Mem 73,984

Retiree & Families 101,413

Other Surr Pop 8,985

Total 259,409

Local Economic Impact

Annual Impact $9.8 B

Daily Impact $26.9 M

Infrastructure

Paved Road Lanes 1,462 Miles

Railroads 21 Miles

Electric & Water 2,071 Miles

Total Buildings 5,904

Building Space 52.2 M ft2

Housing

Privatized Units 6,767

Barracks 184 bldgs

Barracks Capacity 18,803

FY15 1st QTR Training

(As of Jan 15)

Tng Man-Hours 7.7 M

Army AVN Sorties 6,428

USAF Sorties 2,546

Contract Sorties 128

Pax Jumps 278

Eqpt Drops 77

Soldier Tng Events .9M


Other Variables

Army Stationing and Installation Plan FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

Army Military 42,339 44,436 45,437 45,290 45,051 44,954 44,702 42,532 41,616 41,610 41,610 41,610

PCS Students Military 2,391 2,208 2,638 2,966 1,917 2,701 2,306 3,140 2,142 2,284 2,282 1,564

Other Military 1,381 785 818 751 2,936 2,862 2,998 3,002 3,002 3,006 3,006 3,006

Total Full-Time Military 46,111 47,429 48,893 49,007 49,904 50,517 50,006 48,674 46,760 46,900 46,898 46,180

FY 13- 18 Army MILCON Projects Dollars in Millions

FY13 Garrison, FORSCOM, and SOF $237

FY14 Garrison, FORSCOM, and SOF $206

FY15 SOF, AAFES $121

FY16 SOF, AAFES, DDES $171

FY17 SOF $111

FY18 SOF $48

FY19 SOF $133

FY20 SOF $78

1. Currently Projected Growth

2. Sustained MILCON


Army Force Structure

and Stationing

171300RNOV148 of 18


The purpose of today’s session is:

Explain what the Army is doing and the process that will be

used to reach stationing decisions.

Listen to your input and carry that input back to the Senior

Leadership of the Army – before any final decisions are made.

The Army’s Leadership recognizes the significant contributions our

communities have made on behalf of our Soldiers and Families.

These will be very difficult decisions.

Purpose

171300RNOV149 of 18


What the Army has done so far.

What the Army is doing, and why.

The Army’s process.

What the Army is considering for decisions.

What do you want the Army’s Senior Leadership to

understand about your community and installation?

Agenda

171300RNOV1410 of 18


What The Army Announced in 2013

Driven by the 2011 Budget Control Act and 2012 Defense Guidance, the

Army announced it would reduce Active Component (AC) end- strength from

570K to 490K and reduce AC Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) from 45 to 32.

Impacts of these reductions were substantially lowered at U.S. installations

through the elimination of unstructured end-strength, reduction of Europe-

based structure, and BCT reorganization.

Over 50K – well more than half – of the prior 80K AC Soldier reductions were

achieved through the elimination of the Temporary End Strength Increase

(22K) and Wartime Allowance (10K), and reductions to Europe (11.3K) and

the number of trainees, transients, holdees and students (7.3K).

BCT reorganization allowed realignment of most of an inactivating BCT’s

structure into the remaining BCTs on an installation.

Factors that reduced socio-economic impacts of the reductions announced

in June 2013 are no longer present as the Army reduces below 490K.

11171300RNOV1411 of 18


What The Army Is Doing And Why

The Army faces an extremely difficult fiscal environment, with its portion

of Budget Control Act/sequester cuts estimated at ~$95B over 10 years.

Failing to maintain the proper balance between end-strength, readiness

and modernization will result in a “hollow” Army.

As outlined in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Army will:

– Continue to reduce its AC end-strength from a war-time peak of 570,000 to 440,000-450,000

by the end of FY2017. This is a cumulative reduction of 120,000 Soldiers (21%).

– If sequestration level cuts are imposed in FY2016 and beyond, end-strength would be

further reduced to 420,000 Soldiers by FY2019. This is a cumulative loss of 150,000

Soldiers (26%).

Timely end-strength reductions and structure adjustments in all Army

components are necessary to shape a force that can best meet defense

strategic requirements within constrained funding.

12171300RNOV1412 of 18


Supplemental Programmatic

Environmental Assessment (SPEA)

Reductions of the magnitude described in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense

Review exceed those assessed in the 2013 Programmatic Environmental

Assessment.

The 2013 Programmatic Environmental Assessment did not assess

reductions that would result from full Budget Control Act/sequester-level

funding cuts.

The further reduction from 490K to 420K results in a cumulative reduction

that is approximately twice the size of the overall reduction assessed in

the 2013 Programmatic Environmental Assessment, and the installation

reductions in the Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment

are generally double those assessed in 2013.

171300RNOV1413 of 18


Supplemental Programmatic

Environmental Assessment (SPEA) Cont.

The Army evaluated the largest possible losses at each installation to

provide flexibility and to prepare for potential decisions under a full

Budget Control Act/sequester scenario.

The anticipated end-strength reductions and associated socio-economic

impacts are expected to be greater than those experienced in the

reduction to 490K and will impact most Army installations due to the

absence of available mitigating measures.

171300RNOV1414 of 18

Quantitative Analysis Budget Control Act

Current Defense Strategy

2014 Quadrennial Defense Review

OSD Resource Management Decision

Force Design Updates/Concept Plans

Total Army Analysis

Military Value Analysis (MVA)- Operational Considerations- Quality of Life

Costs and Efficiencies

Programmatic Environmental Analysis (PEA) - Environmental analysis- Socio-economic analysis

Statutory Requirementsand Other Considerations

Force Structure Guidance

Stationing Recommendation

Qualitative Analysis

Army Senior Leader Guidance

Strategic Considerations Readiness Impact

Mission Command Statutory Requirements Feasibility Environmental & Socioeconomic Impacts Community Input

Formal StationingAnnouncement

Congressional Notification

Public Release

Approval

Army Regulation (AR 5-10) Stationing Package

Army Structure (ARSTRUC) Memorandum

PEA Public Input PEA Public Input Public Listening Sessions

Validate MVA Data

Army Senior Leader Guidance

TODAY

The Army’s Process

171300RNOV1415 of 18


What the Army Considers

Military Value Analysis (MVA) Model:

- Training

- Power Projection

- Well Being

- Mission Expansion

Strategic Considerations

Cost and Efficiencies

Readiness Impact

Mission Command

Statutory Requirements

Feasibility

Environmental & Socioeconomic Impacts

Community Input

What the Army ConsidersQuantitative and Qualitative Factors

171300RNOV1416 of 18


Community Input

171300RNOV1417 of 18

Community Listening Session

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of Community Listening Session