Login
Skip Navigation Links.

PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION

In January 2007, the President of the United States, on the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense, announced that the Marine Corps would increase its end strength from approximately 180,000 to 202,000 by 2011. This increase is needed to provide adequate time to recover between deployments, train to meet combat readiness, and prepare for redeployment. The purpose of the proposed action is to ensure that Marines are properly prepared and trained for existing combat and homeland protection missions and future conflicts.

The Marine Corps uses the Total Force Structure Process (TFSP) to transform strategic guidance, policy constraints, and commander-generated recommendations into the integrated capabilities required to execute Marine Corps missions. The TFSP relies on a detailed, integrated examination of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel, and facilities, ensuring that no aspect of the enterprise is ignored when new requirements for the Corps are identified. In order to meet the purpose and need, the proposed action of increasing the Marine Corps must be expedited while not compromising the current Marine Corps missions. Existing force structure and organization would be maintained in order to not further complicate, retard, or jeopardize the Marine Corps mission. The proposed action accomplishes this by augmenting existing units with Marines possessing the appropriate skill sets. These existing units are already established at current Marine Corps bases. Consequently, alternative bed-down locations to the proposed action are not feasible because they would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action.

The proposed action in North Carolina includes permanent personnel (military and civilian) increases at MCB Camp Lejeune, MCAS New River, and MCAS Cherry Point. By FY11, MCB Camp Lejeune would permanently increase personnel by about 7,700, MCAS New River would increase by about 1,400, and at MCAS Cherry Point permanent personnel would grow by approximately 800. To support this growth, all three installations would need (at least to some extent) to:

  • Construct administrative, educational, training, maintenance, and operations facilities; lodging accommodations (housing and mess halls); Morale, Welfare, and Recreation facilities (fitness centers, medical/dental clinics, child development centers);
  • Demolish existing buildings and infrastructure;
  • Construct and/or upgrade infrastructure (e.g., roads, power, and communications) within the existing Mainside and cantonment areas at MCB Camp Lejeune and Air Stations; and
  • Support on-going and potentially expanded training mission.

The four Proposed Action alternatives consist of various development scenarios. The alternatives range from using and renovating existing facilities; constructing new facilities; and a combination of constructing new and using/renovating existing facilities. The No Action alternative, of not permanently basing these Marines and associated personnel, is also examined.


Please contact the webmaster if there are any server problems or questions.                                              Copyright © 2007 TECinc
Last update: December 2009