BRAC Analysis - Notes and Research Page: 1 of 4
This text is part of the collection entitled: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
DCN: 11829
INDUSTRIAL JOINT CROSS SERVICE GROUP
July 28, 2005
MEMORANDUM FOR R. GARY DINSICK, ARMY
TEAM LEADER
Subject: WATERVLIET ARSENAL , OSD BRAC Clearinghouse
Tasker C0688
The following is in response to your e-mail inquiry of July 25, 2005, where you asked
the following:
1. Confirm that no personnel are impacted by this recommendation.
Response: There are no personnel impacted by this recommendation.
2. How was the determination made that the DoD no longer requires the
capability for Other Field Artillery Components ?
Response: Other Field Artillery Components was workload that the Army
agreed could be performed at the depots.
3. What specific capabilities does this recommendation disestablish?
Response: Capabilities for HMV Armor Survivability Kits, miscellaneous
metal work, motor vehicle tow bars, Tomahawk Missile Containers, Bomb
racks, and mobile tool carts.
4. What percentage of the footprint at Watervliet does this recommendation
impact? What specific buildings will no longer be required? For what
are these buildings currently utilized? Who is using them?
Response: The recommendation results in a 43 percent footprint
reduction. This percent of reduction resulted from certified data provided
to the IJCSG by the Army. The numbers were generated by their footprint
reduction plan.
5. The justification mentions the potential for partnering. If the intent is to
divest the Army of excess property, why does this need to be accomplished
through BRAC?
Response: The IJCSG did consider partnering with the local development
authority (LDA). Consideration was given to complete transfer of
Watervliet to the LDA, not just the excess portion, with Army leasing
back what they need. However, during the deliberative review process, it
was decided that this specific option could not be included since we could
not compel the local authority to lease back. T'he IJCSG has no objection
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
United States. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. BRAC Analysis - Notes and Research, text, December 7, 2005; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc24973/m1/1/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.