Community Listening Session

Emulating the Spirit of the Fort Bragg Soldier
171300RNOV142 of 18
Army Force Structure
and Stationing
Listening Session
Fort Bragg
LTG Joseph Anderson

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.

171300RNOV145 of 18
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

171300RNOV147 of 18
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.
11
171300RNOV1411 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.
12
171300RNOV1412 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 Requirements
and 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 Stationing
Announcement
 Congressional
Notification
 Public Release
Approval
 Army Regulation (AR 5-10)
Stationing Package
 Army Structure (ARSTRUC)
Memorandum
PEA Public InputPEA 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 Considers
Quantitative and Qualitative Factors
171300RNOV1416 of 18

Community Input
171300RNOV1417 of 18

Community Listening Session

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Community Listening Session

Ähnlich wie Community Listening Session (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Community Listening Session