| | Transferring Army BRAC Lands Containing Unexploded Ordnance |
| | 0,47 | | MB |
| | 187 | | stron |
| | 3601 | | ID | RAND Corporation |
| | 2004 | | rok |
| | Contents |
| | Preface .iii |
| | Figures . ix |
| | Tables xi |
| | Summary xiii |
| | Acknowledgments xxi |
| | Abbreviations .xxiii |
| | CHAPTER ONE |
| | Introduction . 1 |
| | BRAC Selection Process . 3 |
| | Current Army Process for Transferring Land . 5 |
| | Liability Issues Associated with UXO 8 |
| | How This Report Is Organized 9 |
| | CHAPTER TWO |
| | Fate of Army UXO Land from Previous BRAC Rounds . 11 |
| | Transfer Status of Army BRAC Land . 12 |
| | Amount of Army BRAC Acreage Affected by UXO 15 |
| | Efficiency of Non-UXO Transfers 16 |
| | Stalled UXO Transfers . 18 |
| | Case Studies: UXO Transfers Have Occurred in Special Circumstances 19 |
| | Conclusions . 25 |
| | Transferring Army BRAC Lands Containing Unexploded Ordnance |
| | CHAPTER THREE |
| | Factors Affecting UXO Land Transfer in Previous BRAC Rounds. 27 |
| | Installations Included in Analysis . 28 |
| | Possible Contributing Factors in UXO Land Transfer Delays 29 |
| | Funding 29 |
| | UXO Information. 30 |
| | Remediation Standards 30 |
| | DoD Procedures 31 |
| | Liability Concerns. 32 |
| | Risk Concerns 32 |
| | Regulators’ Opinions About Risk 33 |
| | Performance of UXO Detection Technology . 33 |
| | Multiple but Common Causes of Delays 34 |
| | Conclusions . 37 |
| | CHAPTER FOUR |
| | Options for Improving Efficiency of Future UXO Land Transfers 41 |
| | Previous Actions Taken to Expedite Transfers . 41 |
| | Privatization of Cleanup Using Early Transfer 42 |
| | Uses of Early Transfer Authority for Conveying UXO Contaminated Property . 44 |
| | Privatization of Cleanup Using Conservation Conveyance. 45 |
| | Three Options for Expediting UXO Land Transfers . 47 |
| | Option 1: Incremental Improvements in the Current Army BRAC |
| | Process . 49 |
| | Option 2: Consolidate Transactional Expertise in Army Headquarters 51 |
| | Option 3: Creation of a Federal Government Corporation (FGC) to Manage Disposition of All DoD |
| | Lands 53 |
| | Potential Disadvantages of an FGC Solution 58 |
| | How the FGC Option Would Resolve Land Transfer Barriers . 59 |
| | Summary 61 |
| | CHAPTER FIVE |
| | Summary of Findings and Recommendations . 63 |
| | Findings . 63 |
| | Recommendations . 66 |
| | APPENDIX |
| | A. Land Transfer Data for Selected Army BRAC Installations. 69 |
| | B. Exploring the Potential of the FGC Concept for BRAC Lands . 75 |
| | C. Installation Survey . 85 |
| | D. Fort Devens, Massachusetts: Low UXO Density, Single Redevelopment Agency, and Financial |
| | Incentives Facilitate Transfer . 93 |
| | E. Fort McClellan, Alabama: Shifting Land-Use Decisions and Decisionmaker Involvement Delay |
| | Transfer. 99 |
| | F. Fort Meade, Maryland: Congressional Mandates Lead to Rapid Intragovernmental Transfer . 105 |
| | |
| | G. Fort Ord, California: Surprise UXO Discoveries and Lack of Standards Delay Transfer 109 |
| | H. Fort Ritchie, Maryland: Strong Partnership with Community Facilitates Land Lease, But Transfer |
| | Is Slow 117 |
| | I. Fort Sheridan, Illinois: Limited UXO Problem, High-Value Real Estate Facilitate Transfer 129 |
| | J. Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana: Army Retains Ownership Due to UXO . 133 |
| | K. The Presidio of San Francisco, California: Discovery of UXO After Transfer Illustrates Need for |
| | Improved UXO Data 143 |
| | L. Savanna Army Depot, Illinois: Lack of Standards Delays Transfer . 149 |
| | References 157 |