Devolvement, BRAC, Presidio, and Other Issues

[marshajr@acq.osd.mil]

From: "MARSHALL, Col JAMES R (Russ) 703-697-5372" <marshajr@acq.osd.mil>
Subject: Devolvement, BRAC, Presidio, and Other Issues

Aimee-
Please consider posting the response below since a lot of your folks have
seen recent e-mail traffic and responded to it. Thanks.

Sep6,1996
Ms Parks--
 Ms Goodman asked that I respond to the e-mail below. In short,
devolvement does not affect BRAC.
 The BRAC accounts belong to the Services. We are attempting to
make DERA like the BRAC account and most other DoD accounts by devolving
DERA from OSD to the Services.
 Concerning the need for institutional controls, the DoD Planning,
Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) is very much an "institutional
control" that has been in place for many years. The FFERDC report was
published in April 1996, much too late to influence the FY97 budget
submission or even the FY98 program build. Ms Goodman indorsed the FFERDC
report, as did representatives from each of the Military Services. We are
seeking ways to implement the recommendations in the FFERDC report,
especially the recommendations in Chapter 5 on Funding and Priority
Setting.
 Implementing relative risk was a major step for the Department, and
to get as far as we have in the short time since it was implemented is a
compliment to the hard work of our installation personnel. We are
conducting peer reviews of the data and seeking to insure that the relative
risk data base stays pure, while also incorporating "risk plus other
factors" into decision making. I'm sure there's some pressure at the
project manager level to increase the relative risk ranking of particular
sites; our revised Relative Risk Primer addresses site rank inflation; we
want to keep relative risk site evaluation ranking simple, while allowing
for funding decisions to be based on relative risk plus other factors. In
short, relative risk ranking is not funding ranking.
 Concerning the recent events in Iraq, as you know DERA funds are
fenced after appropriation and can only be used for environmental
restoration purposes. Without a Congressional rescission, appropriated
DERA funds will continue to be used for cleanup activities.
 Your e-mail below was in response to an allegation that future
cleanup work at the Presidio of San Francisco would be funded from the
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) program (e-mail further below). The
Army is checking where that information originated, but it is wrong. The
cleanup work at the Presidio will continue to be funded from the BRAC
account.

Col Russ Marshall
>From: Polly Parks <pparks@igc.org>
>
>Dear friends:
>
>I think you are beginning to see the fruits of devolvement;
>particularly in the budget build.
>
>The concept of devolvement has been integrated into the BRAC.
>
>Clearly institutional controls on the budget build process both at
>the service branch and OSD (enviro and economic security) need to
>be instituted.
>
>In the spirit of FFERDC and DERTF I think it makes sense the
>institutional control not be internal to DoD. This year is
>probably a little late, but next year pushing Congress to set up
>an independent oversight body both for the budget build and
>relative risk are needed. I have been getting complaints from the
>program managager level about the latter.
>
>Since Sherry has her staff monitor the cpro conference, it would
>be nice to get some response about this. Its all well and good to
>highlight success stories but not at the expense of the integrity
>of the program.
>
> It would nice to get some response from the service
>branch program level about what all this means as well. Also if
>we can expect the DERA and BRAC having to pay part of the cut for
>the IRAQ excursion the past couple of days.
>
>Polly
>
From: Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@igc.org>

I recently received disturbing information about funding for 
environmental cleanup projects at the Presidio of San Francisco, a 
former Army base in San Francisco now part of the Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area. Not only is there not enough base closure cleanup 
money in fiscal year (FY) 1997 to carry out planned projects, but 
starting FY1998 the Presidio will have to compete for funds as a 
formerly used defense site (FUDS), not a base realignment and closure 
(BRAC) facility.
The Army recently held budget meetings concerning its environmental 
cleanup program at the Presidio. In attendance were representatives 
from Fort Lewis (Army), the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Army 
Environmental Center; the National Park Service (NPS), current owner of 
the facility; US EPA; the California Department of Toxic Substances 
Control; the City of San Francisco, and usually a Presidio Restoration 
Advisory Board member.
The objectives of the meeting were 1) to identify the funding resources 
for FY1997 and prioritize the cleanup efforts according to the NPS' 
July, 1994 General Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and 2) to look at 
the overall Presidio cleanup budget (from FY1989 to FY2003) to get a 
sense of what has been spent to date and to estimate the cost to
completion.
Army staff stated that $3.76 million (out of a $10 million request) 
would be allocated for the Presidio's FY1997 cleanup budget. Of this 
amount, $1.4 million would cover Army overhead costs, with the 
remaining dollars going toward the Park Service's two main priorities, 
removal of the Fuel Distribution System (FDS) and cleanup in the Crissy 
Field area. Both projects would be partially funded.
In addition, Army personnel stated that they did not anticipate any 
more funding for cleanup from the BRAC I account in FY1998 and FY1999. 
Instead, they said, the Presidio would receive all subsequent cleanup 
money from the FUDS program. The underfunded FUDS program cover 
thousands of separate facilities, so this creates a great deal of 
uncertainty. Remaining cleanup activities may be delayed indefinitely.
This dual (FY1997 and long-term) hit will seriously impact the 
Presidio's future as a national park. The Crissy Field reuse plan might 
not be implemented. Without completion of the FDS removal, installation 
of a new electrical system for park tenants will be delayed. Other 
projects, such as asbestos abatement, lead-paint abatement, and lead 
soil cleanup will be delayed. These are necessary activities in areas 
and near buildings that are supposed to be open to the public.
This bad fiscal news is not just a concern in the San Francisco Bay 
Area, where the Presidio is valued both as unique urban resource and as 
a symbol of conversion from warmaking to peace. It should concern all 
people living near closed or closing military bases. If a high priority 
reuse site such as the Presidio loses its priority BRAC funding before 
important cleanup actions are done, what will happen elsewhere? Even 
when cutting funds for cleanup at active bases, Congress and the 
Defense Department have confirmed the importance of base closure 
cleanup to facilitate transfer and reuse. But apparently the funding is 
still way too low, and the deadlines for cutting BRAC funding don't 
match the real needs of cleanup.
Lenny Siegel