Navy Backed on Long Beach Yard Closing : Military: GAO report says recommended shutdown is justified. It narrows chances that the facility will survive when final decision is made.

The government’s General Accounting Office announced Friday that the Navy is justified in recommending closure of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, a finding that damages the chances that the huge facility will survive when a federal commission makes its decision on base closures later this year.

The Long Beach yard is the largest facility recommended for closure this year.

The GAO concluded that the Navy used “generally sound” reasoning in determining that the World War II-era installation has become excess dock space for a naval fleet that has dropped from 450 to 340 ships in the last two years.

In a separate finding, the GAO refuted the Navy’s decision to exclude other smaller California bases from the closure list and sharply questioned the Navy’s belief that the state has been hit exceptionally hard by base closings in the past.

The four are the Naval Warfare Assessment Division in Corona; the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center in Oakland, and the Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command and the Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Construction and Repair Office, both in San Francisco.

The GAO found that other states actually have suffered worse economic fallout from base closings, and it suggested that the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, which makes the final decision on base closures, “may wish to more closely examine the Navy’s decisions regarding the consideration of job losses in California.”

The commission is scheduled to hear from GAO investigators Monday in a formal presentation in Washington of its 150-page report. It will then hold a series of public hearings in the Western states before ruling on which bases should be abandoned.

The panel takes up Long Beach and other California installations recommended for closure on April 28 in San Francisco--a scene that could provide the last chance for supporters of the base to press their arguments for saving the 52-year-old installation.

Bill Gurzi, chairman of the nine-year-old Southern California Save Our Shipyard Committee, said he had not yet reviewed the GAO’s findings. He said his group will bring a contingent of technical officials and national experts on military force structure to the San Francisco hearing to knock down the contention that the shipyard has outlived its usefulness.

The Long Beach installation employs 3,100 civilian and 20 military personnel on an annual operating budget of $282 million. Its supporters estimate that the base’s demise could cost the regional economy $757 million a year.

“We will conclusively show that the Navy not only erred in putting it on the list, but that it would be a blatant violation of United States law to shut it down,” he said.

While declining to reveal too much of its argument for saving the base, he said his committee will challenge the law setting up the base-closing panel and will point out that locking the gates at Long Beach will leave the Navy with no non-nuclear, conventional shipyard space on the West Coast.

“Our efforts are continuing,” he said.

The Navy has said that the conventional ship repair work done now at Long Beach can be handled at naval yards in San Diego. Wade Nelson, chief spokesman for the base-closing panel, said the GAO report could be a tough obstacle for local supporters to overcome.

GAO investigators “don’t seem to quarrel with the Navy’s decision on this,” he said. “The GAO didn’t find any problems with the decision-making process that went into this.”

In evaluating the Navy’s decision to shut Long Beach, the GAO noted that the service recommended the closure or realignment of 62 naval bases or functions. “The process employed by the Navy to arrive at these decisions appeared generally sound and well-documented,” the report said.

They also noted the Navy’s assertion that much of the work scheduled for Long Beach could simply be moved to private shipyards, which would help support private industry and boost the local economy.

Although this is billed as the fourth and final series of military base closings, the GAO, in agreement with both the Pentagon and the commission, also recommended that the government seriously consider yet another round of closings in the future if the Pentagon wants to lower costs further.

Noting that the Department of Defense has substantially reduced the size of the military in recent years, the individual services still have too much facility space at their local bases that could be reduced.

“Commensurate infrastructure reductions have not been achieved,” the GAO said. “Despite some progress in reducing excess infrastructure this year, it is generally recognized that much excess capacity will likely remain.”