This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-165
entitled 'Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Federal Interagency
Coordination Is Warranted to Address Transportation Needs beyond the
Scope of the Defense Access Roads Program' which was released on
February 25, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives:
January 2011:
Defense Infrastructure:
High-Level Federal Interagency Coordination Is Warranted to Address
Transportation Needs beyond the Scope of the Defense Access Roads
Program:
GAO-11-165:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-165, a report to the Subcommittee on Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs, Committee on Appropriations, House
of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The unprecedented growth at 26 military installations across the
country due to the implementation of several concurrent Department of
Defense (DOD) initiatives is expected to stress transportation needs
for surrounding communities. The Defense Access Roads program, while
small when compared to other transportation funding sources, provides
a means for DOD to pay a share of the cost of highway improvements due
to unusual and sudden DOD-generated activities.
In response to a congressional request to review the program, GAO (1)
assessed the use of the program to mitigate transportation needs and
(2) identified additional steps that may be necessary to address unmet
transportation needs. GAO conducted extensive interviews with 26
growth installations and visited installations and state authorities
in Maryland, Texas, and Virginia to discuss transportation issues.
What GAO Found:
The Defense Access Roads program is providing some assistance in
mitigating transportation needs in communities surrounding growth
installations, but program usage has been limited, in part, by a lack
of knowledge of the program, outdated regulations, and unclear
guidance on how to navigate the program’s complex process. DOD has
certified 20 transportation projects at 11 of the 26 military
installation locations since 2004. Of the 20 certified projects, 11
have been funded at about $125 million. Considering funding delays and
construction time frames, most of the approved projects to date are
unlikely to provide relief in the near term. The procedures of the
Defense Access Roads program are complex, involving multiple federal,
state, and local stakeholders. The guidance describing the program’s
procedures and, specifically, the application of the criteria, is
difficult to follow and some regulations and guidance are outdated.
Despite program outreach efforts and positive experiences with program
administrators, military officials from 11 installations said that
more information would be helpful to clarify the program’s procedures.
Without program guidance that clearly details the program’s procedures
and is effectively communicated to all stakeholders, the program may
not be used to its fullest extent.
GAO identified an additional step that may be necessary to meet the
large pool of the transportation needs that are not being met by the
Defense Access program—greater high-level federal interagency
coordination. Aside from the Defense Access Roads program, other
sources of funding exist that can be used to help mitigate unmet needs
in the defense-affected communities. Local and state agencies
generally have the responsibility for constructing and maintaining
highways and are the recipients of billions of dollars from federal
sources, such as grants from the Department of Transportation or
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. GAO found that
some of the transportation projects at several of the military growth
locations have been funded by the states in which they are located and
others are recipients of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds.
Because this assistance is coming from diverse sources and is largely
uncoordinated among the stakeholders involved, it is unclear to what
extent priority consideration is being given to the defense-affected
communities as prescribed by Executive Order 12788. This presidential
order provided for a federal committee—the Economic Adjustment
Committee—bringing together 22 agencies, under the leadership of the
Secretary of Defense or his designee to, among other things, support
various programs designed to assist communities most affected by
defense activities. As chair of the committee, DOD has the opportunity
to convene full committee meetings and exercise high-level leadership
needed to ensure that federal agencies are affording priority
consideration to defense-affected communities. However, the committee
has only rarely convened and has at no time discussed transportation
needs affecting all 26 growth locations. Without this leadership, it
is unlikely that the federal agencies can provide the effective
interagency and intergovernmental coordination and potential funds
needed to help address the unmet transportation needs of defense-
affected communities.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DOD in coordination with the Department of
Transportation (1) update, clarify, and communicate the program’s
guidelines to all stakeholders to promote more effective program
utilization, and (2) ensure regular meetings of appropriate high-level
leaders to identify existing federal transportation funding resources
and develop a strategy for giving priority consideration to defense-
affected communities. DOD partially concurred with our recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-165] or key
components. For more information, contact Brian J. Lepore at (202) 512-
4523 or leporeb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
The DAR Program Has Begun to Address Some Transportation Needs in
Growth Communities but Its Use Has Been Limited:
DOD and the Department of Transportation Have Not Taken Additional
Steps Necessary to Effectively Identify and Coordinate Other Funding
Options to Address Unmet Transportation Needs:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Selected Provisions Regarding the Defense Access Roads
Program:
Appendix III: Defense Access Roads Program Process:
Appendix IV: Executive Order 12788 as Amended through May 2005:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: List of 26 Domestic Military Growth Installations:
Table 2: Use of DAR Program at DOD Growth Installations (as of
December 2010):
Table 3: Number of Growth Communities by State:
Figures:
Figure 1: Location of 26 Domestic Military Installations Expecting
Substantial DOD-Related Growth:
Figure 2: Location of Future DAR Pedestrian Project in Bethesda,
Maryland:
Figure 3: Location of Future DAR Interchange Ramps and Expanded
Underpass at State Loop 375 at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas:
Figure 4: Construction of a New DAR Road at Fort Belvoir (Main Post)
in Fairfax County, Virginia:
Figure 5: Typical Morning Traffic Passing the Unfinished Mark Center
in Alexandria, Virginia along Interstate 395 Going North to
Washington, D.C. in September 2010:
Abbreviations:
BRAC: Base Realignment and Closure:
DAR: Defense Access Roads:
DOD: Department of Defense:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 26, 2011:
The Honorable John Culberson, Chairman:
The Honorable Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The recent concurrent implementation of numerous Department of Defense
(DOD) initiatives--including the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) round, force structure increases for the Army and the Marine
Corps under the Grow the Force initiative, a major Army reorganization
known as force modularity and the redeployment of U.S. forces in
overseas locations back to the United States under the Global Defense
Posture Realignment--has resulted in anticipated and actual growth at
many domestic military installations and has produced a concomitant
increase in unmet transportation needs in many surrounding
communities. According to several transportation experts, while many
of these needs may have existed prior to the growth, DOD growth has
exacerbated those needs with, for example, increased traffic
congestion. Military and civilian quality of life as well as military
mission, in certain cases, can be adversely affected if off-
installation transportation infrastructure becomes significantly
overburdened due to growth in installation populations.
State and local highway agencies are primarily responsible for
developing and maintaining public highways that meet normal defense
and other transportation needs. These agencies rely on federal dollars
primarily from the Highway Trust Fund to help accomplish this mission.
In fiscal year 2009, approximately $42.4 billion was provided to
states and the District of Columbia through this fund for highway-
related projects.[Footnote 1] In addition, in February 2009, the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided another
approximately $25.6 billion for state and local highway infrastructure
investment projects. Nonetheless, a large backlog of unmet
transportation needs remains, in part because state and local
governments have experienced fiscal pressures that have strained their
ability to help fund their share of transportation projects.[Footnote
2] While it is difficult to determine the magnitude of the unmet
needs, we reported in 2009 that communities surrounding 18 military
installations expecting BRAC-related growth had estimated over $2
billion in defense-related transportation needs.[Footnote 3] This has
resulted in an increased interest in the Defense Access Roads (DAR)
program to help mitigate adverse transportation impacts.
The DAR program, established in 1956, authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to use funds appropriated for Defense Access Roads to
fully or partially fund public road improvements that are certified as
important to national defense.[Footnote 4] The program is co-
administered by DOD and the Department of Transportation and provides
a means for DOD to pay its "fair share" of public road improvements
needed in response to sudden and unusual defense-generated traffic
impacts to help ensure adequate transportation capacity is in place
when needed.[Footnote 5] Although the program is much smaller than
other federal transportation funding sources, averaging about $22.5
million a year in funding for transportation projects since calendar
year 2001, it is unique in that it establishes a method for DOD to
play a role in funding projects that typically fall under the
Department of Transportation's scope of responsibility. Under DAR
program regulations, military installation commanders can initiate a
request for assistance from DAR if the defense-related transportation
need affecting the surrounding community is sudden, unusual, or unique
in nature, and state and local transportation authorities are either
unable or unwilling to address the need within an acceptable time
frame.
In our prior work on the impact of military growth installations on
surrounding communities,[Footnote 6] we found that 80 percent of those
communities cited transportation as one of their top three
infrastructure challenges stemming from the growth. We have also
reported previously on federal, state, and local actions to mitigate
growth impacts and found that federal monetary support for those
defense-affected communities has been limited.[Footnote 7] Moreover,
we reported that while it is DOD's policy to take a leadership role to
assist defense-affected communities as detailed in DOD Directive
5410.12, DOD had not provided the high-level leadership critical to
achieving effective interagency collaboration, by neglecting to
convene the 22-agency Economic Adjustment Committee--which includes
the Secretary of Transportation or his designated principal deputy and
is to be chaired by the Secretary of Defense or his designee. Under
Executive Order 12788, the Economic Adjustment Committee is expected
to provide coordinated federal economic adjustment assistance to
defense-affected communities.[Footnote 8] (See appendix IV for a
reprint of Executive Order 12788.) As of November 2010, DOD officials
said that DOD had yet to convene the entire Economic Adjustment
Committee regarding domestic military growth impacts.[Footnote 9] We
further reported that, in the absence of high-level leadership in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, DOD's Office of Economic
Adjustment had been proactive in assisting affected communities by
providing technical assistance and grants to plan for growth, but
could not guide interagency operations at a high enough level to
promote effective interagency coordination to better identify
available federal assistance.
While recognizing the importance of the current DOD growth
initiatives, the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs expressed concerns about
the potential impact on the quality of life and military mission if
off-installation transportation infrastructure becomes significantly
overburdened due to population increases at growth installations.
Consequently, the subcommittee asked us to review DOD's use of the DAR
program to mitigate defense-generated traffic impacts. For this
report, our objectives were (1) to assess the extent to which the DAR
program has been used to mitigate defense-related transportation
impacts on surrounding communities, and (2) to identify additional
steps that may be necessary to address unmet transportation needs in
those impacted communities.
To address our objectives, we focused our review on the transportation
needs and use of the DAR program at the 26 domestic military
installation locations eligible for assistance from DOD's Office of
Economic Adjustment as growth installations.[Footnote 10] These 26
installations are listed in table 1. (See figure 1 in the Background
section of this report for a map of these locations.)
Table 1: List of 26 Domestic Military Growth Installations:
Installation name and state:
1. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.
2. Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico.
3. Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.
4. Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
5. Fort Benning, Georgia.
6. Fort Bliss, Texas.
7. Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
8. Fort Carson, Colorado.
9. Fort Drum, New York.
10. Fort Hood, Texas.
11. Fort Knox, Kentucky.
12. Fort Lee, Virginia.
13. Fort Meade, Maryland.
14. Fort Polk, Louisiana.
15. Fort Riley, Kansas.
16. Fort Sill, Oklahoma.
17. Fort Stewart, Georgia.
18. Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility Washington, Maryland.
19. Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington.
20. Joint Base San Antonio, Texas.
21. Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina.
22. Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina.
23. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
24. Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia.
25. Naval Support Activity Bethesda, Maryland.
26. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.
Source: DOD.
[End of table]
To assess the extent to which the DAR program has been used to
mitigate defense-related transportation needs, we used a data
collection instrument consisting of structured interview questions
related to transportation needs and use of the DAR program that we
asked of installation officials responsible for transportation issues
at the 26 growth locations. We used the structured interview approach
to provide consistency and help assure comparability of the responses
we received. We subsequently analyzed the responses to identify any
significant trends and to gain further insight into the nature of the
transportation needs and issues with use of the DAR program to
mitigate transportation issues. We also analyzed appropriate DOD and
Department of Transportation laws and regulations and conducted
extensive follow-on interviews with DOD officials responsible for
implementing the DAR program at DOD's Military Surface Deployment and
Distribution Command and with Federal Highway Administration officials
within the Department of Transportation. To better understand how
military installation officials interact with the wide array of state
and local transportation officials and community stakeholders, we
conducted more in-depth field work in the three states with the
largest number of military growth communities--Maryland, Texas, and
Virginia. In those states, we discussed transportation issues with
state government officials and conducted field work at three growth
bases--the Naval Support Activity Bethesda in Maryland; Fort Bliss in
El Paso, Texas; and several Fort Belvoir locations in Northern
Virginia--where we reviewed relevant documentation and discussed
specific DAR projects and transportation needs that remain unmet.
To identify additional steps that may be necessary to address unmet
transportation needs surrounding military growth installations, we
used our data collection instrument to ask military officials at the
26 growth installations what they thought was working well within the
DAR program and what actions, if any, could be taken to improve the
program. We also interviewed DOD and Department of Transportation
officials regarding what other funding resources were available to
address unmet transportation needs and the extent of high-level
interaction to address transportation needs. We further reviewed our
prior work related to challenges facing military growth communities
and the status of actions taken by DOD in response to the findings
resulting from that work. (See appendix I for more information on our
scope and methodology.)
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 through
December 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
Background:
DOD is currently implementing several major force structure and basing
initiatives that are expected to result in a large number of personnel
movements and changes in the size and shape of its domestic
installation infrastructure, most of which are expected to be
completed by the end of 2011. First, under the 2005 BRAC round, DOD is
implementing 182 recommendations, as set forth by the BRAC Commission,
which must be completed by the statutory deadline of September 15,
2011. Through the 2005 BRAC process, DOD intended to transform its
departmentwide domestic installation infrastructure and, as such, the
recommendations have an unusually large number of realignment actions
that are expected to result in significant personnel movements across
DOD's installations. Second, under the Global Defense Posture
Realignment, DOD is realigning its overseas basing structure to more
effectively support current allies and strategies in addition to
addressing emerging threats and is returning thousands of service
members, along with family members and civilian employees, to the
United States. Third, the Army is also undergoing major force
restructuring in implementing its force modularity effort, which has
been referred to as the largest Army reorganization in 50 years.
Finally, DOD is implementing a Grow the Force initiative intended to
permanently increase the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps by
74,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, respectively, to enhance overall
U.S. forces. When considered collectively, the simultaneous
implementation of these initiatives is generating large personnel
increases at many military installations within the United States,
which, in turn, is impacting the communities that are in close
proximity to those installations.
As specified in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006, it is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should
seek to ensure that the permanent facilities and infrastructure
necessary to support the mission of the armed forces and the quality-
of-life needs of members of the armed forces and their families are
ready for use at receiving locations before units are transferred to
such locations.[Footnote 11] Because communities surrounding these
locations also play a vital role in providing support to the military,
it is executive branch and DOD policy that DOD shall take the
leadership role within the federal government in helping substantially
and seriously affected communities plan for and identify resources to
help adapt to the effects of various defense program activities.
[Footnote 12] The Secretary of Defense, or his designee, chairs the
President's Economic Adjustment Committee, which consists of 22
federal agencies and is charged with, among other things, ensuring
that communities that are substantially and seriously impacted by DOD
actions are aware of available federal programs. The Economic
Adjustment Committee is also responsible for supporting the Defense
Economic Adjustment Programs, which includes assuring interagency and
intergovernmental coordination and adjustment assistance and serving
as a clearinghouse to exchange information among federal, state,
regional, and community officials in the resolution of certain DOD-
related community economic problems. Within DOD, the Office of
Economic Adjustment--a field activity under the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense (Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics)--
provides administrative support for the Economic Adjustment Committee
in addition to its duties to provide technical and planning assistance
to affected communities.
As of December 2010, DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment had
identified the affected communities surrounding 26 domestic growth
installations in need of assistance based on direct DOD growth
activities and in light of community-specific needs and resources.
Figure 1 shows the location of the 26 growth installations.
Figure 1: Location of 26 Domestic Military Installations Expecting
Substantial DOD-Related Growth:
[Refer to PDF for image: U.S. map]
Locations depicted on the map are for:
1. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland;
2. Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico;
3. Eglin Air Force Base, Florida;
4. Fort Belvoir, Virginia;
5. Fort Benning, Georgia;
6. Fort Bliss, Texas;
7. Fort Bragg, North Carolina;
8. Fort Carson, Colorado;
9. Fort Drum, New York;
10. Fort Hood, Texas;
11. Fort Knox, Kentucky;
12. Fort Lee, Virginia;
13. Fort Meade, Maryland;
14. Fort Polk, Louisiana;
15. Fort Riley, Kansas;
16. Fort Sill, Oklahoma;
17. Fort Stewart, Georgia;
18. Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility Washington, Maryland;
19. Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington;
20. Joint Base San Antonio, Texas;
21. Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina;
22. Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina;
23. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina;
24. Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia;
25. Naval Support Activity Bethesda, Maryland;
26. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.
Source: DOD; Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
In our previous work reviewing DOD's impact on communities surrounding
growth installations, we found that inadequate transportation
infrastructure was the number one issue cited by communities.[Footnote
13] Many of these needs had been long-standing and existed prior to
recent DOD-related growth activities according to several
transportation experts, and the communities, states, and the federal
Department of Transportation are normally responsible for addressing
transportation needs outside of the installation. In addition, to
receive federal transportation funding, projects must emerge from the
relevant community and state department of transportation planning
process. The Federal Highway Administration's regulations state that
state and local highway agencies are expected to assume the same
responsibility for developing and maintaining adequate highways to
permanent defense installations as they do for highways serving
private industrial establishments or any other permanent traffic
generators, and that the federal government expects that highway
improvements in the vicinity of defense installations will receive due
priority consideration and treatment as state and local agencies
develop their programs of improvement.[Footnote 14]
Nonetheless, the DAR program, which is co-administered by DOD and the
Department of Transportation, provides a means for the Secretary of
Transportation to use funds appropriated for defense access roads to
fully or partially fund public road improvements that are certified by
the Secretary of Defense as important to the national defense.
[Footnote 15] The DOD service regulation states that the program
provides a means for DOD to pay a fair share of improvements required
as a result of sudden and unusual defense-generated traffic impacts or
unique defense requirements.[Footnote 16] (See appendix II for
selected provisions regarding the Defense Access Roads program.)
Although the program is a small fraction of other federal
transportation resources--averaging about $22.5 million a year
compared to the $42.4 billion provided to states and the District of
Columbia through the Department of Transportation's Highway Trust Fund
[Footnote 17] in fiscal year 2009--it establishes a method for DOD,
under very specific circumstances, to transfer appropriated funds to
the Department of Transportation to make road improvements. Under the
DOD service regulation governing DAR, military installation commanders
are responsible for identifying public highway deficiencies that
require corrective action, and contacting state and local
transportation authorities for relief. State and local transportation
authorities are expected to consider the defense-related needs in the
context of all road improvement needs,[Footnote 18] including needs to
expand and maintain existing roads and bridges when deciding which
transportation projects to fund. If state and local transportation
authorities are either unable or unwilling to address the need within
an acceptable time frame, the installation commander may initiate a
request for assistance under the DAR program, which may ultimately
result in a determination by DOD regarding whether the request meets
DAR eligibility criteria.
The DAR Program Has Begun to Address Some Transportation Needs in
Growth Communities but Its Use Has Been Limited:
Although the DAR program has addressed some transportation needs in
communities surrounding many military growth installations, we found
that a lack of knowledge of the program in general and, specifically,
a lack of clear guidance on how to navigate the program's complex
certification and funding processes, has limited its use.[Footnote 19]
The DAR Program Has Begun to Address Some Transportation Needs:
From calendar year 2001 to 2010, Congress has appropriated about $225
million for DAR projects--ranging from no funds in several years to
$89.9 million in 2008--for an average of about $22.5 million per year.
Our analysis of DOD data shows that about $125 million of that amount
was designated for projects at military growth installation locations.
[Footnote 20] As shown in table 2, as of December 2010, DOD had
certified 20 transportation projects as DAR-eligible for DOD funding
at 11 of the 26 growth installation locations since calendar year
2004. Of the 20 projects certified eligible for DAR, over half of
those projects (11 of 20) had been funded. A senior DOD official
stated that funding for the remaining projects was pending, and that
any funds provided would occur in fiscal year 2011 and beyond.
[Footnote 21] Moreover, none of the funded projects were completed at
the time of our review and the earliest expected completions were for
3 projects in 2011 at the former Engineering Proving Ground location
at Fort Belvoir. Because most of the population growth at the 26
installations will likely occur by September 15, 2011--the mandated
completion of the 2005 BRAC round--and considering the 10-year time
frame necessary to proceed from design to construction for some major
transportation projects, as estimated by the Maryland Department of
Transportation's State Highway Administration, most of the certified
DAR projects to date will not immediately mitigate the transportation
needs in the near term but should provide some relief in later years
if and when the projects are funded and completed.
Table 2: Use of DAR Program at DOD Growth Installations (as of
December 2010):
Installation[A]: 1. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): Intersection improvements (Doubling of
traffic); Intersection improvements (Doubling of traffic);
Year certified: 2010;
Year funded: Pending;
DAR funded[C]: Pending;
Estimated cost: $69.7 million;
Project status: Planning--ECD[D] pending.
Installation[A]: 2. Eglin AFB, Florida;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): New interchange (New access);
Year certified: 2009;
Year funded: 2010;
DAR funded[C]: $15.0 million;
Estimated cost: 15.0 million;
Project status: Planning--ECD 2013.
Installation[A]: 3. Fort Belvoir, Virginia;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): New road[E] (Replacement road);
Year certified: 2004;
Year funded: 2007;
DAR funded[C]: $34.0 million;
Estimated cost: $52.4 million;
Project status: Construction--ECD 2012.
Installation[A]: 3. Fort Belvoir, Virginia;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): New access road (New access);
Year certified: 2008;
Year funded: 2008;
DAR funded[C]: $36.0 million;
Estimated cost: $36.2 million;
Project status: Construction--ECD 2011.
Installation[A]: 3. Fort Belvoir, Virginia;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): New access road (New access);
Year certified: [Empty];
Year funded: [Empty];
DAR funded[C]: [Empty];
Estimated cost: [Empty];
Project status: [Empty].
Installation[A]: 3. Fort Belvoir, Virginia;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): New interchange ramps (New access);
Year certified: [Empty];
Year funded: [Empty];
DAR funded[C]: [Empty];
Estimated cost: [Empty];
Project status: [Empty].
Installation[A]: 4. Fort Bliss, Texas;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): New interchange (New access);
Year certified: 2010;
Year funded: Pending;
DAR funded[C]: Pending;
Estimated cost: $18.0 million;
Project status: Pending.
Installation[A]: 5. Fort Bragg, North Carolina;
Projects (Criteria used[B] ): Road improvements (Replacement road);
Year certified: 2004;
Year funded: 2008;
DAR funded[C]: $21.8 million;
Estimated cost: $84.0 million;
Project status: Construction--ECD 2014.
Installation[A]: 5. Fort Bragg, North Carolina;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): Road improvements (Replacement road);
Year certified: [Empty];
Year funded: [Empty];
DAR funded[C]: [Empty];
Estimated cost: [Empty];
Project status: [Empty].
Installation[A]: 6. Fort Carson, Colorado;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): New road alignment (New access);
Year certified: 2004;
Year funded: 2008;
DAR funded[C]: $8.3 million;
Estimated cost: $9.0 million;
Project status: Design--ECD 2012.
Installation[A]: 6. Fort Carson, Colorado;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): New road alignment (New access);
Year certified: [Empty];
Year funded: [Empty];
DAR funded[C]: [Empty];
Estimated cost: [Empty];
Project status: [Empty].
Installation[A]: 6. Fort Carson, Colorado;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): Road improvement (New access (gate));
Year certified: 2009;
Year funded: Pending;
DAR funded[C]: Pending;
Estimated cost: $5.0 million;
Project status: Pending.
Installation[A]: 7. Fort Lee, Virginia;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): Intersection improvements (Doubling of
traffic);
Year certified: 2008;
Year funded: 2010;
DAR funded[C]: $5.0 million[F];
Estimated cost: $4.8 million;
Project status: Design--ECD 2012.
Installation[A]: 8. Fort Meade, Maryland;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): Intersection improvements (Doubling of
traffic);
Year certified: 2010;
Year funded: Pending;
DAR funded[C]: Pending;
Estimated cost: $60.5 million;
Project status: Pending.
Installation[A]: 8. Fort Meade, Maryland;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): Intersection improvements (Doubling of
traffic);
Year certified: 2010;
Year funded: [Empty];
DAR funded[C]: [Empty];
Estimated cost: [Empty];
Project status: [Empty].
Installation[A]: 9. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): New interchange (New access);
Year certified: 2009;
Year funded: 2010;
DAR funded[C]: $4.4 million;
Estimated cost: $27.0 million;
Project status: Planning--ECD 2014.
Installation[A]: 10. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): Intersection improvements (Doubling of
traffic);
Year certified: 2010;
Year funded: Pending;
DAR funded[C]: Pending;
Estimated cost: $11.0 million;
Project status: Pending.
Installation[A]: 10. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): Intersection improvements (Doubling of
traffic);
Year certified: [Empty];
Year funded: [Empty];
DAR funded[C]: [Empty];
Estimated cost: [Empty];
Project status: [Empty].
Installation[A]: 11. Naval Support Activity Bethesda, Maryland;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): Intersection improvements (Doubling of
traffic);
Year certified: 2009;
Year funded: Pending;
DAR funded[C]: Pending;
Estimated cost: $15.0 to $60.0 million;
Project status: Planning--ECD pending.
Total: 11 installations;
Projects (Criteria used[B]): 20 projects certified;
Year certified: [Empty];
Year funded: 11 projects funded;
DAR funded[C]: $124.5 million;
Estimated cost: $407.6 million to $452.6 million.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Notes:
[A] This table does not include approximately $48.6 million for DAR
projects on Guam.
[B] The DAR program has specific established criteria to determine a
project's eligibility. These criteria are discussed in greater detail
later in this section of the report. According to a senior DAR program
official, the only known project that has been deemed eligible outside
of these criteria was along Fort Irwin Road in California. About 90
percent of the traffic on this road was destined for Fort Irwin,
Calif. and slow moving DOD convoys created a safety problem (high rate
of fatalities). The project widened small sections of Fort Irwin Road
to create passing lanes on climbing sections. According to the same
official, the road had been certified important to national defense in
1981.
[C] Represents the portion of the total project cost appropriated
through the relevant military services' base realignment and closure
funds or military construction funds as of December 2010.
[D] Estimated completion date (ECD).
[E] This project is located at Main Post, Fort Belvoir. The other
three projects are located at Fort Belvoir North Area, formerly
referred to as the Engineering Proving Ground.
[F] The $0.2 million difference between the estimated cost and the DAR
funded amount provides for increases in material costs or other
unexpected cost. The Department of Transportation returns all unused
funds to DOD.
[End of table]
As shown in table 2, the most common type of DAR project at the growth
installations involves intersection improvements (8 of the 20), which
can accommodate an increase in traffic volume using a variety of
approaches. For example, the two DAR projects at Redstone Arsenal in
Alabama will increase the capacity of the intersections by adding
turning lanes. The DAR project at Fort Lee, Virginia will increase
traffic volume capacity by transforming intersections into a
roundabout. The DAR project at the Naval Support Activity Bethesda in
Maryland will address a "pedestrian-vehicular conflict" at the
intersection of Rockville Pike and South Wood Road to allow
installation employees and hospital visitors to safely cross the busy
intersection from the public transit metro stop. (Figure 2 shows the
intersection as it exists today.)
Figure 2: Location of Future DAR Pedestrian Project in Bethesda,
Maryland:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Four installations have DAR projects that will add new interchanges,
such as entry and exit ramps, to existing highways. For example, Fort
Bliss will add interchange ramps accessing Texas State Loop 375 and
additional underpass lanes in preparation for the Army's new Brigade
Combat Teams and associated traffic expected as a result of the 2005
BRAC round decisions. (See figure 3 for a photo of the underpass,
which will be widened.)
Figure 3: Location of Future DAR Interchange Ramps and Expanded
Underpass at State Loop 375 at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Another eight DAR projects involve new roads, road improvements, or
road realignments. Fort Belvoir, the installation with the largest
number of DAR projects, is using appropriated military construction
funds to build Mulligan Road, as shown in figure 4 below, which will
be the new public access connection through the installation between
Richmond Highway and Telegraph Road. This road replaces the Beulah
Street/Woodlawn Road corridor, which was closed following September
11, 2001, for security reasons since it crossed through the northern
portion of the Main Post of Fort Belvoir.
Figure 4: Construction of a New DAR Road at Fort Belvoir (Main Post)
in Fairfax County, Virginia:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
The Process for Certifying and Funding DAR Projects Is Complex:
The process for certifying and funding a DAR project is complex due to
the need to coordinate with numerous DOD, Department of
Transportation, state, and local stakeholders. The process begins with
the installation commander. According to the DOD service regulation
governing the DAR program, when the commander of a DOD installation
determines that improvements to a public road are needed, it is the
responsibility of that commander to bring deficiencies to the
attention of the appropriate state or local authority. In cases where
the state or local transportation authority cannot or will not correct
the deficiency, the installation commander has the option to initiate
the process of requesting assistance for improvements under the DAR
program by preparing a needs report. After reviews through military
service command channels, DOD's Military Surface Deployment and
Distribution Command then determines potential project eligibility and
requests that the Federal Highway Administration conduct an evaluation
of the transportation need and potential solutions in coordination
with the relevant state department of transportation and other
officials. Using the results of that study, the Military Surface
Deployment and Distribution Command determines whether the
transportation project meets one of the DAR program eligibility
criteria:[Footnote 22]
* A new access road to an installation is needed to accommodate a
defense action.
* A defense action causes traffic to double.
* Urgent improvements are needed to accommodate a temporary surge in
traffic to or from an installation because of a defense action.
* A new or improved access road is needed to accommodate special
military vehicles, such as heavy equipment transport vehicles.
* A replacement road or connector is required for one closed because
of military necessity.
The share of the total project cost that DOD will contribute is
negotiated between DOD, the Department of Transportation, and
appropriate state and local authorities. Based on the eligibility
criteria determination and funding negotiations, the Commander of the
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command may then certify
the project as important to the national defense, as required by the
DAR statute.[Footnote 23] The DAR program does not have a separate
source of funds; instead, for DOD's share of the funding, DAR projects
must compete against other construction projects--such as child care
centers, maintenance buildings, and mission facilities such as piers,
hangars, and barracks--across installations and commands.[Footnote 24]
In addition, securing funds for a DAR project may take years as many
planned projects are already awaiting funds, due in part to DOD's
numerous ongoing growth initiatives. For example, a senior Army
official emphasized the competing needs for military construction
funds, by noting that as of April 2010, there were 2,500 projects
worth $62 billion in the service's database, of which only about $2
billion could be expected to be funded each year.
After Congress appropriates funds designated for a DAR project, DOD
transfers those funds to the Department of Transportation, which, in
turn, disburses those funds to the appropriate state or federal entity
to accomplish the necessary work to complete the project. Following
the transfer of funds, the Department of Transportation's Federal
Lands Highway Office and the appropriate state division office of the
Federal Highway Administration oversee project execution. According to
a senior program official, DOD is also involved in project oversight
through the review of project documents and the authorization of the
expenditure of DAR funds by the Department of Transportation for
appropriate phases of the work, thus ensuring DAR projects meet the
agreed-upon defense requirements. (Appendix III provides additional
detail in an overall schematic of the DAR process.)
Some Military Officials Were Unfamiliar with the Program and How It
Works:
We found that some military officials were unfamiliar with the DAR
program and how it works, despite DOD's outreach efforts to inform
growth installations about the program. Representatives of the
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command contacted
officials at installations gaining over 1,000 personnel in population
as a result of BRAC 2005 to discuss the DAR program. In addition,
representatives of the command presented information on the DAR
program at three conferences led by DOD in Atlanta, Georgia in May
2006; St. Louis, Missouri in December 2007; and Orlando, Florida in
November 2009. Nonetheless, officials from 4 of the 26 growth
installations stated that they had no knowledge of the program or who
administers it. Of the remaining 22 installations, officials from 11
installations commented positively on the efforts of DAR program
administrators, stating that they were helpful or transparent.
[Footnote 25] When officials from these 22 installations were asked
what could be improved with the program, 11 of the 22 said that more
information on how to certify and fund DAR projects would be helpful.
[Footnote 26] One official characterized the process as a complicated
puzzle because so many steps and players had to come together in just
the right way to be successful. Navy officials at the Naval Support
Activity Bethesda in Maryland noted that they relied extensively on
the installation's full-time transportation planner, who was able to
work with the many stakeholders involved in the DAR process and stated
that this was a potential "lesson learned" for other growth
installations. Officials from 5 of the 26 installations we interviewed
expressed confusion about the DOD chain of command in the DAR process,
particularly inside the Army. For example, Army officials from four
installations misunderstood DOD data requests funneled through the
Army Installation Management Command as DAR project data calls and
therefore did not take appropriate action to begin the DAR
certification process at the installation level. We also found the
roles of various state and federal agencies can differ and can be a
source of confusion for DAR stakeholders. For example, senior
transportation officials stated that a Federal Lands Highway division
office is directing the construction of DAR projects at three
installations whereas the states' departments of transportation are
directing the construction of the other DAR projects. In addition,
officials from one of the Federal Highway Administration's Federal-aid
Division Offices were unclear as to when their own office becomes
involved with the DAR program.
DAR Regulations and Guidance Are Outdated and Do Not Clarify Process:
We also found that the DAR process is not readily explained in
available DAR regulations and guidance, which are outdated in certain
ways. DAR program regulations and guidance are promulgated by both DOD
and the Department of Transportation. A senior Department of
Transportation official told us that some of the DAR regulations and
guidance have not been updated in nearly 20 years even though the
program has changed. For example, under current Department of
Transportation eligibility criteria, the doubling of traffic criterion
is limited to secondary roads, rather than highways, which would limit
DAR projects to smaller, more rural roads. Although the DOD
organization--the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution
Command--that currently administers the program no longer makes such a
distinction when considering projects for certification, the expanded
eligibility of urban highway projects is not apparent in the program
regulations and guidance. In addition, the command responsible for
administering the DAR program changed its name in 2004, but this
change is not reflected in DOD or Department of Transportation
regulations and guidance.[Footnote 27] Furthermore, the DOD service
regulation refers to the Federal Highway Administration's Federal-Aid
Policy Guide, which has been replaced.[Footnote 28] Moreover, in
addition to certain outdated aspects of current regulations and
guidance, there is a lack of working-level guidance[Footnote 29]
available to help clarify the application of the eligibility criteria
for potential DAR program users in complex situations. For instance,
users often conclude that meeting the doubling of traffic criterion is
potentially impossible on an already congested urban highway, without
recognizing that, if the transportation need was limited in scope, it
could potentially meet the criteria. For example, if the scope is
limited to an exit ramp at a particularly busy time of day, the
doubling of traffic criterion could possibly be met to make a case for
DAR eligibility for the ramp itself but not necessarily the highway.
One installation official stated that his office had determined that a
potential DAR project did not meet the doubling of traffic criterion
and consequently did not apply.
Good Internal Controls Require That the Program Regulations and
Guidance Be Clear and Current:
Having clear and current regulations and guidance helps to foster
improved understanding of a program and reduces confusion among key
stakeholders. According to the Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government,[Footnote 30] a good internal control environment
requires that the agency's organizational structure clearly defines
key areas of authority and responsibility and that lines of
communication exist both within the agency to ensure compliance with
laws and regulations and externally with stakeholders to obtain
information that may have significant impact on the agency's ability
to achieve its goals. As a result of outdated regulations and a lack
of working-level guidance clearly communicated to better inform
potential DAR program users, those users may be overly dependent on
DOD and Department of Transportation program officials for advice and
instruction throughout the process for each DAR project. Although
current DOD and Department of Transportation program administrators
have been able to implement the DAR program despite these challenges,
any change in key personnel at either agency could significantly
impact the program's implementation because DAR users are currently
dependent on their assistance to navigate the DAR process. In
addition, without up-to-date regulations and working-level guidance
clearly communicated to better inform potential users about the DAR
program process, the likelihood exists that the program as designed is
not being used to its fullest extent.
DOD and the Department of Transportation Have Not Taken Additional
Steps Necessary to Effectively Identify and Coordinate Other Funding
Options to Address Unmet Transportation Needs:
A number of federal transportation programs, other than DAR, provide
funding for state and local governments to use to help address defense-
related transportation needs. However, communities most affected by
DOD growth continue to face unmet transportation needs and federal
agencies lack a coordinated strategy to address those needs.
Installation officials identified many unmet transportation needs and
two issues limiting their ability to use the DAR program to address
these needs.
Defense-Related Transportation Needs Are Funded through Various Means:
Transportation projects in defense-affected communities can be funded
through several federal or state resources. A number of existing
federal transportation programs provide funding that state and local
governments can use to help address defense-related transportation
needs. These programs provided approximately $42.4 billion for highway
improvements in states and the District of Columbia in fiscal year
2009.[Footnote 31] In addition, since February 2009, the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) has provided
additional funding for highway infrastructure projects--approximately
$25.6 billion to state and local governments for over 12,300 highway
projects--selected by the state and local governments. Recovery Act
funds may be used for defense-related projects, but the projects need
to have been ready to begin construction in 2009 or 2010. The Recovery
Act required that the Department of Transportation obligate 100
percent of these funds to the states, by March 1, 2010.[Footnote 32]
Defense-related projects in some communities may not have been
eligible for Recovery Act funds if the projects were in the design or
planning phase and were not ready to begin construction. Furthermore,
in order to receive any federal transportation funding, all projects
must go through the relevant state and local transportation planning
processes, which, according to a Department of Transportation
official, require a comprehensive approach to highway planning,
including consideration of alternatives and environmental and safety
planning. The time requirements to complete federally required state
planning processes may prevent some transportation products from being
completed by the September 15, 2011, BRAC implementation deadline, as
these processes can require significant time to complete.
Nevertheless, some states were able to use Recovery Act funds to begin
construction on projects in certain defense-affected communities.
During our interviews with installation officials, 11 of the 26
installations we spoke with identified Recovery Act funds as a source
of funding for some of transportation needs. For example, the state of
Florida is using $46 million in Recovery Act funds for an intersection
grade separation project near Eglin Air Force Base, and Virginia is
using about $60 million in Recovery Act funds to complete the Fairfax
County Parkway project, which is expected to alleviate traffic
congestion near Fort Belvoir.
Some states have assisted installations by prioritizing projects to
accommodate defense-related growth. For example, in Maryland, state
transportation officials expedited a project at Aberdeen Proving
Ground that was under consideration for DAR certification by providing
full funding from state sources. This project was considered to be the
most critical improvement in the community surrounding the
installation to accommodate the anticipated growth. Additionally, the
state of Alabama offered $15 million to Redstone Arsenal to support
road improvements on the installation. These funds will improve
transportation infrastructure inside the installation to support its
traffic growth. Also, the state of Texas used a public-private
partnership to fund a new road to accommodate the anticipated growth
at Fort Bliss. Under this partnership, a private company helped to
fund the road and upon completion the Texas Department of
Transportation will pay an annual fee based on the volume of traffic
using the road. Through this partnership, the state of Texas was able
to ensure that this needed infrastructure improvement would be in
place prior to the arrival of Fort Bliss's expected growth.
Installation Officials Identified Many Unmet Transportation Needs and
Two Factors That Limit DAR Use to Address Them:
The unmet needs across the communities most affected by DOD growth
exceed the capabilities of the DAR program alone to meet them. One
example is at Fort Belvoir's Mark Center location--the Army's recently
acquired location in Alexandria, Virginia located about 13 miles north
of Fort Belvoir's main post and about 6 miles south of the Pentagon.
As a result of the 2005 BRAC process, construction of a high rise
facility is currently under way and is expected to accommodate about
6,400 defense agencies' employees and other tenants that are expected
to arrive by September 2011. Local residents, commuters, and elected
officials have expressed concerns about the traffic impact along an
already congested segment of Interstate 395. Figure 5 shows a typical
morning rush hour near the site.
Figure 5: Typical Morning Traffic Passing the Unfinished Mark Center
in Alexandria, Virginia along Interstate 395 Going North to
Washington, D.C. in September 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: Alexandria Times.
[End of figure]
In July 2010, DOD finalized a transportation management plan to
minimize traffic impacts by encouraging carpooling, walking, and
bicycling to work--the effectiveness of which is yet to be determined.
In addition, the Virginia Department of Transportation, DOD, and the
City of Alexandria have funded various studies on the future traffic
impact of the Mark Center and have identified potential traffic
mitigation alternatives. However, none of the improvements are planned
to be in place prior to the occupancy of the Mark Center in 2011.
According to one senior DOD official, it is unclear whether any future
plans for improving roads, ramps, and public transportation would
qualify for DAR funding.
Of the 26 military installations we interviewed, 15 identified at
least one of two main factors related to the current design of the DAR
program that limit their ability to use the program as a tool to
provide greater transportation assistance to affected communities--
eligibility criteria and funding process.[Footnote 33] First,
installation officials noted that the program's eligibility criteria
limit the number of transportation projects that qualify for DOD
funding. For example, those officials said that the criterion
requiring installations to demonstrate a doubling of traffic is
difficult to meet in urban areas, such as the metropolitan Washington,
D.C. area, because many of these roadways are already beyond capacity
due to the high volume of traffic and doubling of that traffic is
nearly impossible.
The National Academy of Sciences is currently examining, among other
defense-related transportation impacts, the possible impact of
expanding the DAR criteria.[Footnote 34] Additionally, DOD is
currently studying expanding the DAR eligibility criteria but is
awaiting the results of the National Academy of Sciences study, which
is to be issued in January 2011, before determining whether to expand
the criteria to allow more transportation projects to become eligible
for the DAR program. The potential reasons for not expanding the
criteria could include the fact that the resulting increase in the
number of transportation projects deemed eligible for DAR funds would
not necessarily result in those projects being funded.
The second area of the current DAR program design identified by
installation officials limiting the usefulness of DAR is the program's
funding process, which calls for potential DAR projects to compete for
military construction funding with on-installation infrastructure
projects, such as barracks and administrative buildings. The
installation officials who cited funding as an issue told us that
installation commanders are reluctant to prioritize off-installation
roads over on-installation needs for military construction funding and
that roads were unlikely to receive military construction funding
given the other demands on this funding source. According to a senior
Army official, there are currently at least $62 billion in unfunded
military construction projects awaiting funding in the Army
alone.[Footnote 35] In addition, as we reported in September 2009,
communities surrounding installations affected by growth resulting
from the BRAC process alone have identified an estimated $2 billion in
unmet transportation needs.[Footnote 36]
DOD and Department of Transportation Lack a Coordinated Approach for
Identifying Transportation Project Funding for DOD-Growth Communities:
As we have noted in our prior work on DOD-growth communities, high-
level leadership is essential to leverage scarce federal resources to
help address vital infrastructure issues.[Footnote 37] DOD Directive
5410.12 states that it is the Department of Defense policy to take the
leadership role in assisting communities substantially and seriously
affected by DOD relocation activities.[Footnote 38] Executive Order
12788 directs federal agencies to give priority consideration to
requests from defense-affected communities for federal assistance.
[Footnote 39] In 2008, we recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics)--who oversees assistance to defense-affected communities
and serves as the Chair of the 22-agency Economic Adjustment
Committee--to implement Executive Order 12788 by holding regular
meetings of the full executive-level Economic Adjustment Committee and
by serving as a clearinghouse for identifying expected community
impacts and problems as well as identifying existing resources for
providing economic assistance to communities affected by DOD
activities. Despite concurring with our recommendation, DOD has yet to
convene the full committee except to address concerns stemming from
the military buildup in Guam and, to a limited extent, at Fort Bragg.
We continue to believe that it is necessary and appropriate for DOD to
implement our prior recommendation to use the committee as a
coordinated body for marshaling resources at the federal level that
can help address potential infrastructure gaps at the affected
communities. Specifically concerning unmet transportation needs, until
DOD takes a larger leadership role and better coordinates with the
Department of Transportation, at a minimum, to address unmet
transportation needs surrounding DOD growth installations, it is
likely that a large number of transportation needs will not be met and
quality of life for both military and civilian residents could be
degraded.
Conclusions:
Despite its traditionally limited utility, more attention has been
focused on the DAR program as a potential solution to traffic
congestion and other unmet transportation needs. The long list of
unaddressed transportation needs has recently been intensified by the
combination of a nationwide economic downturn coupled with
unprecedented military growth activities. While the DAR program has
begun to help mitigate some of these needs, the potential exists that
it could provide more assistance under the current program design if
it was better understood by all installation commanders. Without a
concerted effort by DOD and the Department of Transportation to update
DAR regulations and guidance, provide additional working-level
guidance to potential DAR program users, and effectively communicate
that guidance to stakeholders, opportunities may be missed to make
effective use of the existing DAR program under the current
procedures. Further, given the project-specific process of determining
eligibility under current criteria and the challenge of obtaining
funding for those projects certified as eligible, recent successes may
be driven more by the dedicated work of the individuals involved
rather than the program's design. While we acknowledge that simply
updating and clarifying the regulations and providing and
communicating better working level guidance concerning the DAR program
would not put it in a position to address all the transportation needs
surrounding growing military installations, such actions could
increase the accessibility and usefulness of the program to its
stakeholders.
High-level interagency coordination regarding policy and funding
decisions by DOD and the Department of Transportation could affect the
potential of the DAR program to meet the needs of communities most
severely affected by DOD growth. Furthermore, unless high-level
interagency leadership takes additional steps to improve the
utilization of DAR--in conjunction with other federal programs that
provide funding for transportation projects nationwide--both
installations and communities affected by DOD growth will continue to
struggle to address their transportation needs. Moreover, without a
strategy for providing priority assistance and leveraging funding for
transportation projects surrounding its DOD-growth installations,
infrastructure needs both on and off the installation will continue to
be subject to funding uncertainties, and both military readiness and
the communities' ability to plan to meet the needs of their citizens
could suffer. Specifically, Executive Order 12788 provides DOD a tool--
the 22-agency Economic Adjustment Committee--to help ensure that the
federal government effectively and efficiently leverages scarce
resources to assist impacted communities. By convening the committee
specifically to address transportation issues surrounding military
growth installations, DOD may be able to reach agreement with other
federal agencies to meet more of those unmet needs by more fully
leveraging federal resources to their best advantage.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
In order to better utilize the DAR program as it is currently
designed, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense work with the
Secretary of Transportation to (1) update regulations and clarify
guidance for the DAR certification and funding processes, (2) develop
working-level guidance for potential program users, and (3)
effectively communicate the regulations and working-level guidance to
all federal, state and local stakeholders.
As DOD implements our June 2008 recommendation to regularly hold
meetings with high-level federal officials of the full Economic
Adjustment Committee,[Footnote 40] as DOD agreed to do in concurring
with our recommendation, we further recommend that the Secretary of
Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics) to routinely coordinate with the Secretary
of Transportation to (1) meet regularly, (2) identify all existing
federal transportation funding resources, and (3) develop a strategy
for affording priority consideration for the use of those funds and
other resources for the benefit of communities most severely affected
by DOD.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred
with our recommendations. The Department of Transportation agreed to
consider, but did not provide detailed comments on our
recommendations. Both agencies provided technical comments, which we
incorporated where appropriate. DOD's written comments are reprinted
in their entirety in appendix V.
Regarding our first recommendation that the Secretary of Defense work
with the Secretary of Transportation to update regulations and clarify
guidance communicated to all stakeholders, DOD partially concurred.
DOD stated that although it will work with the Department of
Transportation to update DAR regulations and clarify guidance, they
believe sufficient guidance for and awareness of the program exists.
However, we continue to believe that in order to provide an
opportunity for better utilization of the DAR program, DOD needs to
work with the Department of Transportation to develop working-level
guidance and effectively communicate the regulations and working-level
guidance to all federal, state, and local stakeholders. The primary
basis for this recommendation was our finding that some military
officials from the 26 installations interviewed were unfamiliar with
the DAR program and how it works despite DOD's outreach efforts.
Furthermore, officials from 11 installations stated that more
information on how to certify and fund DAR projects would be helpful.
Thus, we continue to believe that, without taking steps to improve and
communicate DAR guidance, the opportunity to provide for better
utilization of the program by its stakeholders remains limited.
Regarding our second recommendation that the Secretary of Defense
routinely coordinate with the Secretary of Transportation to meet
regularly, identify existing federal transportation funding resources,
and develop a strategy for affording priority consideration for the
use of those funds, DOD partially concurred. DOD stated that the
department would continue to work closely with the Department of
Transportation to assist communities affected by DOD actions, but that
the Department of Transportation does not have discretionary funds
that it can use to target defense-impacted communities, and instead,
state and local communities must advance defense-related
transportation projects. We recognize that highway grant funding
formulas place limits on the ability of the Department of
Transportation to direct federal transportation funds to defense
affected communities and that state and local communities have a role
in prioritizing transportation funding, as clearly stated in our
report. Nonetheless, Executive Order 12788 specifies that the Economic
Adjustment Committee shall develop procedures for, among other things,
ensuring that states and localities are notified of available federal
economic adjustment programs that would presumably include
transportation-related assistance. DOD also stated in its letter that
it continues to assist communities most severely affected by DOD
actions to adequately scope needed transportation projects. Our
recommendation is intended to enhance DOD's and the Department of
Transportation's efforts in working within the existing federal-state
partnership of transportation agencies to scope needed transportation
projects and help ensure that federal agencies through the Economic
Adjustment Committee continue to afford priority consideration to
requests for assistance from defense affected communities. If DOD and
the Department of Transportation prefer to jointly assist defense
affected communities and, by extension, the relevant state agencies,
to ensure adequate transportation improvements at the growth bases
outside of the Economic Adjustment Committee process, as DOD suggested
in its written comments, that would meet the intent of our
recommendation.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. We will then send copies of this report to
interested congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of Transportation, Secretaries of Army, Air Force, and Navy
and the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of
Management and Budget. The report is also available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VI.
Signed by:
Brian J. Lepore, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To address our objectives, we focused our review on the 26 military
installations that have created "growth communities" identified by the
Department of Defense's (DOD) Office of Economic Adjustment as those
communities substantially and seriously affected by defense actions
arising from the implementation of the 2005 Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) recommendations, the Global Defense Posture
Realignment, Army force modularity, and Grow the Force initiatives, as
of December 2010.[Footnote 41] The Office of Economic Adjustment also
identified Guam as a growth community. However, we have and are
continuing to perform a body of work focused exclusively on Guam, and
therefore Guam was not included in this review. For the purposes of
this report, we describe the growth by installation name rather than
by the community name. According to DOD, three installations are
located in the growth community of North Carolina Eastern Region--Camp
Lejeune Marine Corps Base, Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station, and
New River Marine Corps Air Station--and therefore, this review
addresses the transportation needs and the use of the Defense Access
Roads (DAR) program at a total of 26 growth "installations," as listed
in table 1 of this report, rather than 24 growth "communities." In
addition, to address our objectives, we developed a data collection
instrument consisting of 12 structured interview questions addressing:
(1) the installation's transportation needs; (2) the possible sources
of funding to address the needs; (3) the installation officials'
experience in interacting with state, local, and federal
transportation authorities; (4) the impact, if any, of unmet
transportation needs; (5) the installation officials' awareness of the
DAR program; its purpose, and its process; (6) the use of DAR program
at the installation since 2000; and (7) the installation officials'
experiences with what works well and what improvements could be made
to the DAR program. We administered the data collection instrument by
conducting telephone interviews with officials from 23 of the 26
installations and in-person interviews with officials from the
remaining three installations--the Naval Support Activity Bethesda in
Maryland; Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas; and Fort Belvoir's three
locations in Northern Virginia--between May 2010 and July 2010. We
worked with the military services' audit liaisons and the
installations' internal review staff to identify and schedule
interviews with appropriate officials at each installation who were
knowledgeable about the installation's transportation needs. By using
structured interviews, we were able to compare and analyze responses
across the growth installations. Prior to conducting our structured
interviews of the 26 installations, we pre-tested our data collection
instrument with officials at Fort Belvoir to ensure that it accurately
captured the information we were seeking. We analyzed the collected
data for trends in transportation needs, the impact of unmet needs,
funding options, DAR program usage, and experience with the DAR
process in particular and the program in general. Due to installation
officials' varying level of familiarity and experience with the DAR
program, not all officials provided responses to the questions related
to the DAR program. Where applicable, we reported the responses out of
the total number of installations that responded.
To assess the extent to which the DAR program has been used to
mitigate defense-related transportation needs in communities
surrounding the 26 military growth installations, we collected and
analyzed DOD data regarding use of the Defense Access Roads program at
these installation locations between January 2001 and December 2010.
To verify that appropriate documentation existed for the process of
certifying a project as eligible under the program, we reviewed
program files for the 11 growth installations that had secured program
eligibility for at least one project. In order to determine the
program's purpose and processes, we (1) reviewed appropriate DOD and
Department of Transportation regulations and guidance, (2) interviewed
a DOD official in the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and Environment) and Department of Transportation
officials at the headquarters of the Federal Highway Administration in
Washington, D.C., and (3) conducted extensive interviews with DOD
officials responsible for implementing the DAR program at the Military
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command--DOD's program
administrator--at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, and with Department
of Transportation officials from the Federal Highway Administration's
Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division in Sterling, Virginia, whose
jurisdiction's includes 18 of the 26 growth installations considered
in this review. Furthermore, we reviewed recent DOD reports directed
by Congress and congressional committees pertaining to the Defense
Access Roads program and the transportation impacts at installations
resulting from DOD initiatives.[Footnote 42] In addition, to identify
the policy issues surrounding the DAR program and any differences in
DAR-related processes between the military services and to obtain
points of contact for the installations in the scope of our review, we
interviewed representatives from the military services that were
cognizant of transportation and other growth-related issues, including
officials from:
* Office of the Air Force Civil Engineer, Program Division, U.S. Air
Force, Arlington, Virginia:
* Army Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management, Arlington, Virginia:
* Army Installation Management Command, Headquarters, San Antonio,
Texas:
* Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Arlington, Virginia:
* Navy Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office,
Arlington, Virginia:
* Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Military Construction,
Arlington, Virginia:
* Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Arlington, Virginia:
To better determine how states' varying approaches to responding to
DOD-initiated growth and how interactions between officials from
military installations and transportation authorities impacted the use
of the DAR program, we conducted more in-depth field work in Maryland,
Texas, and Virginia, the three states with the largest number of
military growth communities, as shown in table 3 below.
Table 3: Number of Growth Communities by State:
State: Maryland;
Growth Communities: 4.
State: Texas;
Growth Communities: 3.
State: Virginia;
Growth Communities: 3.
State: Georgia;
Growth Communities: 2.
State: North Carolina;
Growth Communities: 2.
State: Alabama;
Growth Communities: 1.
State: Colorado;
Growth Communities: 1.
State: Florida;
Growth Communities: 1.
State: Kansas;
Growth Communities: 1.
State: Kentucky;
Growth Communities: 1.
State: Louisiana;
Growth Communities: 1.
State: New Mexico;
Growth Communities: 1.
State: New York;
Growth Communities: 1.
State: Oklahoma;
Growth Communities: 1.
State: Washington;
Growth Communities: 1.
State: Total;
Growth Communities: 24.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of table]
In each of the three states we visited, we interviewed officials from
one growth installation, as well as transportation authorities from
the Federal Highway and the three states' transportation departments.
In Maryland, we interviewed officials at Naval Support Activity
Bethesda, the Federal Highway Administration Federal-aid Division
Office in Baltimore, and the Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration in Baltimore. In Virginia, we interviewed
officials at Fort Belvoir in Springfield, Fairfax County, the Federal
Highway Administration Federal-aid Division Office in Richmond, and
the Virginia Department of Transportation in Chantilly. In Texas, we
interviewed officials at Fort Bliss in El Paso, the Federal Highway
Administration Federal-aid Division Office in Austin, and the Texas
Department of Transportation in Austin. We also met with local
transportation officials from El Paso, Texas.
We chose to conduct field work and interview officials at the Naval
Support Facility Bethesda in Maryland, because of the unique nature of
the installation's DAR project. While the details are still
undetermined, the DAR project will assist in funding a pedestrian
access--a non-road-related project--to address a road-related
transportation need at a congested intersection. We chose Fort Bliss,
Texas because it was the only installation in the state with a DAR
project and because the installation applied for DAR funds in 2009,
years after the installation's planned growth was made known. We chose
Fort Belvoir, Virginia because the installation had the most DAR
projects of all growth installations. During field work at Fort
Belvoir, we observed the three geographically separate locations of
the installation--the Main Post in Fairfax County; the North Post,
formerly referred to as the Engineering Proving Ground, also in
Fairfax County; and the Mark Center in the City of Alexandria (located
about 13 miles north of the Main Post). To obtain community
perspectives about transportation challenges and the DAR program, we
reviewed the literature of and interviewed officials from the
Association of Defense Communities, the National Governors
Association, and DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment. We also attended
two local community meetings in Alexandria, Virginia pertaining to
transportation issues related to the Fort Belvoir location at the Mark
Center.
To identify any additional steps that may be necessary to address a
large pool of unmet transportation needs in impacted communities, we
identified potential transportation funding resources related to
assisting defense-affected communities. To identify other federal
resources available to fund transportation projects, we reviewed the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users[Footnote 43] and our prior work on the Highway Trust
Fund and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.[Footnote 44] To
determine the leadership structure and roles and responsibilities
related to the DAR program, we interviewed officials from the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics) the U.S. Transportation Command, and the Federal Highway
Administration. To determine federal policy regarding assistance for
defense-impacted communities, we reviewed Executive Order 12788, which
designates the Secretary of Defense, or his designee, as chair of the
Economic Adjustment Committee and directs federal agencies to give
priority consideration to requests for federal assistance from defense-
affected communities as part of a comprehensive plan used by the
committee, and DOD Directive 5410.12, which states that it is DOD
policy to take a leadership role in assisting defense-affected
communities. To determine the status of the Economic Adjustment
Committee, we spoke with officials at DOD's Office of Economic
Assistance. We further reviewed our prior work related to challenges
facing military growth communities and the findings resulting from
that work,[Footnote 45] and confirmed the status of Economic
Adjustment Committee meetings with DOD. We also attended a meeting at
the National Academy of Sciences on Federal Funding of Transportation
Improvements in BRAC Cases and met with the Director of Studies and
Special Programs at the National Academy of Sciences' Transportation
Research Board to determine the scope and projected time frames for
the Academy's ongoing study on funding sources for defense-related
transportation impacts.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 through
December 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Selected Provisions Regarding the Defense Access Roads
Program:
Law:
Statutory Criteria:
* Replacing existing highways and highway connections that are shut
off from the general public use by necessary closures or restrictions
or:
* Certified by the Secretary of Defense or other designated official
as important to the national defense.
Source: 23 U.S.C. § 210.
Regulations:
Policy--Department of Defense (DOD):
* State and local Government authorities are expected to develop and
maintain adequate highways to serve permanent defense installations
and activities the same as for other non-defense traffic generators;
* The DAR program provides a means for DOD to pay a fair share for
public highway improvements required as the result of a sudden or
unusual defense-generated traffic impact or a unique defense public
highway requirement;
Source: AR 55-80/; OPNAVINST 11210.2/; AFMAN 32-1017/; MCO 11210.2D/;
DLAR 4500.19; DOD Transportation Engineering Program.
Policy--Department of Transportation:
* State and local highway agencies are expected to assume the same
responsibility for developing and maintaining adequate highways to
permanent defense installations as they do for highways serving
private industrial establishments or any other permanent traffic
generators;
* The Federal Government expects that highway improvements in the
vicinity of defense installations will receive due priority
consideration and treatment as State and local agencies develop their
programs of improvement;
* The Federal Highway Administration will provide assistance, as
requested by DOD's Military Surface Deployment and Distribution
Command, to ascertain state program plans for improvements to roads
serving as access to defense installations;
* It is recognized that problems may arise in connection with the
establishment, expansion, or operation of defense installations which
create an unanticipated impact upon the long-range requirements for
the development of highways in the vicinity. These problems can be
resolved equitably only by federal assistance from other than normal
federal-aid highway programs for part or all of the cost of highway
improvements necessary for the functioning of the installation;
Source; Federal Highway Administration; 23 C.F.R. § 660.509.
Guidance:
Criteria:
* Highways constructed to replace those closed by establishment of new
military installations or the expansion of old ones;
* Access roads providing new connections between either old or new
military installations and main highways;
* Urgently needed improvements of existing highways upon which traffic
is suddenly doubled by reason of the establishment or expansion of a
permanent military installation;
* Urgent improvements needed to avoid intolerable congestion or
critical structural failure of any highway serving a temporary surge
of defense-generated traffic;
* Alteration of a public road in the immediate vicinity of a military
installation to accommodate regular and frequent movements of special
military vehicles;
Source; Federal Highway Administration; Non-Regulatory Supplement to
23 C.F.R. § 660E; Attachment 2; Eligibility Criteria.
Source: GAO analysis of selected provisions regarding the DAR program.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Defense Access Roads Program Process:
[Refer to PDF for image: process map]
1. Installation identifies transportation need(s) in local community.
(Military Installation)
2. Installation collaborates with Local Highway Authorities to
incorporate need(s) into civil programs. (Military Installation)
3. Can civil programs fully fund the transportation need(s)? (State
DOT; Local Government)
If yes, go to step 18;
If no, go to step 4.
4. Installation develops an Access Road Needs Report. (Military
Installation)
5. Service/MACOM Reviews. (Service Headquarters)
6. Preliminary eligibility? (SDDC)
7. FHWA Evaluation. (FHWA)
8. Final eligibility? (SDDC)
If yes, go to step 10;
If no, go to step 9.
9. Issue memorandum/letter to stakeholders that project is ineligible.
(SDDC); go to step 18.
10. Cost/Scope Negotiation. (SDDC; FHWA; State DOT; Local Government)
11. Issue DAR Certification/Notification of certification to
installation. (SDDC)
12. Include in MILCON budget submittal. (Military Installation)
13. Approved into MILCON Budget? (Department of Defense)
If yes, go to step 14;
If no, go to step 15.
14. Approved by Congress?
If yes, go to step 16;
If no, go to step 15.
15. Try to get project into the MILCON Budget again? (State DOT; Local
Government)
16. Transfer of Funds to FHWA. (SDDC)
17. Project Oversight. (FHWA)
18. Develop project – includes adding project to STIP and NEPA
documentation. (State DOT; Local Government)
Source: Department of Transportation, with input from DOD.
SDDC: Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command.
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration.
DOT: Department of Transportation.
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act.
MACOM: Major Command.
MILCON: Military construction funds.
STIP: Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Executive Order 12788 as Amended through May 2005:
The President:
Executive Order 12788:
As Amended:
Defense Economic Adjustment Program:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including 10 U.S.C. 2391 and the
Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification, Conversion, and
Stabilization Act of 1990, enacted as Division D, section 4001 et
seq., of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991,
Public Law 101-510, and to provide coordinated Federal economic
adjustment assistance necessitated by changes in Department of Defense
activities, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Function of the Secretor), of Defense. The Secretary of
Defense shall, through the Economic Adjustment Committee, design and
establish a Defense Economic Adjustment Program.
Sec. 2. The Defense Economic Adjustment Program shall (1) assist
substantially and seriously affected communities, businesses, and
workers from the effects of major Defense base closures, realignments,
and Defense contract-related adjustments, and (2) assist State and
local governments in preventing the encroachment of civilian
communities from impairing the operational utility of military
installations.
Sec. 3 Functions of the Defense Economic Adjustment Program. The
Defense Adjustment Program shall:
(a) Identify problems of States, regions, metropolitan areas, or
communities that result from major Defense base closures,
realignments, and Defense contract-related adjustments, and the
encroachment of the civilian community on the mission of military
installations and that require Federal assistance;
(b) Use and maintain a uniform socioeconomic impact analysis to
justify the use of Federal economic adjustment resources prior to
particular realignments;
(c) Apply consistent policies, practices, and procedures in the
administration of Federal programs that are used to assist Defense-
affected States, regions, metropolitan areas, communities, and
businesses;
(d) Identify and strengthen existing agency mechanisms to coordinate
employment opportunities for displaced agency personnel;
(e) Identify and strengthen existing agency mechanisms to improve
reemployment opportunities for dislocated Defense industry personnel;
(f) Assure timely consultation and cooperation with Federal, State,
regional, metropolitan, and community officials concerning Defense-
related impacts on Defense-affected communities' problems;
(g) Assure coordinated interagency and intergovernmental adjustment
assistance concerning Defense impact problems;
(h) Prepare, facilitate, and implement cost-effective strategies and
action plans to coordinate interagency and intergovernmental economic
adjustment efforts;
(i) Encourage effective Federal, State, regional, metropolitan, and
community cooperation and concerted involvement of public interest
groups and private sector organizations in Defense economic adjustment
activities;
(j) Serve as a clearinghouse to exchange information among Federal,
State, regional, metropolitan, and community officials involved in the
resolution of community economic adjustment problems. Such
information may include, for example, previous studies, technical
information, and sources of public and private financing;
(k) Assist in the diversification of local economies to lessen
dependence on Defense activities;
(1) Encourage and facilitate private sector interim use of lands and
buildings to generate jobs as military activities diminish;
(m) Develop ways to streamline property disposal procedures to enable
Defense-impacted communities to acquire base property to generate jobs
as military activities diminish; and;
(n) Encourage resolution of regulatory issues that impede encroachment
prevention and local economic adjustment efforts.
Sec. 4. Economic Adjustment Committee.
(a) Membership. The Economic Adjustment Committee ("Committee") shall
be composed of the following individuals or a designated principal
deputy of these individuals, and such other individuals from the
executive branch as the President may designate. Such individuals
shall include the:
(1) Secretary of Agriculture;
(2) Attorney General;
(3) Secretary of Commerce;
(4) Secretary of Defense;
(5) Secretary of Education;
(6) Secretary of Energy;
(7) Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(8) Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;
(9) Secretary of Interior;
(10) Secretary of Labor;
(11) Secretary of State;
(12) Secretary of Transportation;
(13) Secretary of Treasury;
(14) Secretary of Veterans Affairs;
(15) Secretary of Homeland Security;
(16) Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers;
(17) Director of the Office of Management and Budget;
(18) Director of the Office of Personnel Management;
(19) Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
(20) Administrator of General Services;
(21) Administrator of the Small Business Administration; and;
(22) Postmaster General.
(b) The Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary's designee, shall chair
the Committee.
(c) The Secretaries of Labor and Commerce shall serve as Vice Chairmen
of the Committee. The Vice Chairmen shall co-chair the Committee in
the absence of both the Chairman and the Chairman's designee and may
also preside over meetings of designated representatives of the
concerned executive agencies.
(d) Executive Director. The head of the Department of Defense's Office
of Economic Adjustment shall provide all necessary policy and
administrative support for the Committee and shall be responsible for
coordinating the application of the Defense Economic Adjustment
Program to Department of Defense activities.
(e) Duties. The Committee shall:
(1) Advise, assist, and support the Defense Economic Adjustment
Programs;
(2) Develop procedures for ensuring that State, regional, and
community officials, and representatives of organized labor in those
States, municipalities, localities, or labor organizations that are
substantially and seriously affected by changes in Defense
expenditures, realignments or closures, or cancellation or curtailment
of major Defense contracts, are notified of available Federal economic
adjustment programs; and;
(3) Report annually to the President and then to the Congress on the
work of the Economic Adjustment Committee during the preceding fiscal
year.
Sec. 5. Responsibilities of Executive Agencies.
(a) The head of each agency represented on the Committee shall
designate an agency representative to:
(1) Serve as a liaison with the Secretary of Defense's economic
adjustment staff;
(2) Coordinate agency support and participation in economic adjustment
assistance projects; and;
(3) Assist in resolving Defense-related impacts on Defense-affected
communities.
(b) All executive agencies shall:
(1) Support, to the extent permitted by law, the economic adjustment
assistance activities of the Secretary of Defense. Such support may
include the use and application of personnel, technical expertise,
legal authorities, and available financial resources. This support may
be used, to the extent permitted by law, to provide a coordinated
Federal response to the needs of individual States, regions,
municipalities, and communities adversely affected by necessary
Defense changes; and;
(2) Afford priority consideration to requests from Defense-affected
communities for Federal technical assistance, financial resources,
excess or surplus property, or other requirements, that are part of a
comprehensive plan used by the Committee.
Sec. 6. Judicial Review. This order shall not be interpreted to create
any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by
a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, its
agents, or any person.
Sec. 7. Construction.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed as subjecting any
function vested by law in, or assigned pursuant to law to, any agency
or head thereof to the authority of any other agency or officer or as
abrogating or restricting any such function in any manner.
(b) This order shall be effective immediately and shall supersede
Executive Order No 12049.
George Bush:
The White House:
January 15, 1992:
[Amended 2/28/03 by President George W. Bush, E.O. 13286]
[Amended 5/12/05 by President George W. Bush, E.O. 13378]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Acquisition, Technology And Logistics:
3000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-3000:
January 20, 2011:
Mr. Brian Lepore:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Lepore:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft
Report, GAO-11-165, "Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Federal
Interagency Coordination is Warranted to Address Transportation Needs
Beyond the Scope of the Defense Access Roads Program," dated November
23, 2010, (GAO Code 351439). Detailed comments on the report
recommendations are enclosed.
The Department partially concurs with the GAO recommendations. DoD
will work with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to update
regulations and will determine whether working level guidance and
better communication with stakeholders is necessary. DoD will continue
to work with DOT to provide technical and financial assistance to
communities affected by DoD actions. However, given the non-
discretionary nature of highway funding formulas, we believe it is
best for communities to work with their respective state
transportation departments to advance their defense-related
transportation projects for priority consideration and funding.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Dorothy Robyn:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment):
Enclosure: As stated:
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report Dated November 23, 2010:
GAO-11-165 (GAO Code 351439):
"Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Federal Interagency Coordination
Is Warranted To Address Transportation Needs Beyond The Scope Of The
Defense Access Roads Program"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
work with the Secretary of Transportation to:
1. update regulations and clarify guidance for the DAR certification
and funding processes;
2. develop working-level guidance for potential program users; and;
3. effectively communicate the regulations and working-level guidance
to all federal, state and local stakeholders (See page 28/GAO Draft
Report).
DoD Response: Partially concur. As part of its effort to revise the
eligibility criteria, DoD will work with the Department of
Transportation (DOT) to update DAR regulations and clarify guidance.
However, we agree with the DAR program manager that sufficient
guidance and awareness exists. As stated in the Department's December
2008 DAR report to Congress, numerous DoD regulations provide guidance
on the program and the DAR staff routinely works with stakeholders and
installation personnel directly at various conferences and through its
website. Nonetheless, the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command
will evaluate whether working level guidance and other forms of
communication are warranted to increase awareness.
Recommendation 2: As DoD implements our June 2008 recommendation to
regularly hold meetings with high-level federal officials of the full
Economic Adjustment Committee, as agreed to by DoD in concurring with
our recommendation, the GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics) to routinely coordinate with the Secretary of
Transportation to:
1. meet regularly;
2. identify all existing federal transportation funding resources; and;
3. develop a strategy for affording priority consideration for the use
of those funds and other resources for the benefit of communities most
severely affected by DoD (See page 28/GAO Draft Report).
DoD Response: Partially concur. The Department continues to work
closely with DOT to assist communities affected by DoD. However, DOT
does not have discretionary funds that it can use to target Defense-
impacted communities. Formula-based federal transportation funds are
distributed to state departments of transportation. States, in turn,
have the discretion to prioritize and expend the funds according to
their respective state transportation improvement plans.
In accordance with 49 CFR 1.48(b) Section 660.509, General Principles,
"State and local highway agencies are expected to assume the same
responsibility for developing and maintaining adequate highways to
permanent defense installations as they do for highways serving
industrial establishments or any other permanent traffic generators.
The Federal government expects that highway improvements in the
vicinity of defense installations will receive due priority
consideration and treatment as State and local agencies develop their
programs of improvement." The Department continues to assist
communities most severely affected by DoD to adequately scope needed
transportation projects. It is incumbent upon these communities to
advance their defense-related transportation projects to their
respective state departments of transportation for priority
consideration and funding.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Brian J. Lepore (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, James R. Reifsnyder (Assistant
Director), Karen L. Kemper (Analyst-in-Charge), Lindsay C. Taylor,
Sara K. Olds, José A. Cárdenas, Susan C. Ditto, Gregory A. Marchand,
and Elizabeth W. Wood made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Is Taking Steps to
Mitigate Challenges but Is Not Fully Reporting Some Additional Costs.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-725R]. Washington,
D.C.: July 21, 2010.
Defense Infrastructure: Army Needs to Improve Its Facility Planning
Systems to Better Support Installations Experiencing Significant
Growth. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-602].
Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2010.
Interagency Collaboration: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight of
National Security Strategies, Organizations, Workforce, and
Information Sharing. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-904SP]. Washington, D.C.: September
25, 2009.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Transportation Impact of
Personnel Increases Will Be Significant, but Long-Term Costs Are
Uncertain and Direct Federal Support Is Limited. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-750]. Washington, D.C.: September
9, 2009.
High Level Leadership Needed to Help Guam Address Challenges Caused by
DOD-Related Growth. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-500R]. Washington, D.C.: April 9,
2009.
Highway Trust Fund: Improved Solvency Mechanisms and Communication
Needed to Help Avoid Shortfalls in the Highway Account. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-316]. Washington, D.C.: February 6,
2009.
Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help
Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-665]. Washington, D.C.:
June 17, 2008.
Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and Road
Improvements Surrounding Growth Installations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-602R]. Washington, D.C.: April 1,
2008.
Defense Infrastructure: Army and Marine Corps Grow the Force
Construction Projects Generally Support the Initiative. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-375]. Washington, D.C.: March 6,
2008.
Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed for More
Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400]. Washington, D.C.: March 6,
2008.
Highway Public-Private Partnerships: More Rigorous Up-front Analysis
Could Better Secure Potential Benefits and Protect the Public
Interest. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-44].
Washington, D.C.: February 8, 2008.
State and Local Governments: Growing Fiscal Challenges Will Emerge
during the Next 10 Years. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-317]. Washington, D.C.: January 22,
2008.
Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and
Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. Washington, D.C.: October 21,
2005.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] This amount does not include approximately $454,000 in funding
provided to U.S. territories in 2009.
[2] GAO, State and Local Governments: Fiscal Pressures Could Have
Implications for Future Delivery of Intergovernmental Programs,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-899] (Washington, D.C.:
July 30, 2010).
[3] GAO, Military Base Realignments and Closures: Transportation
Impact of Personnel Increases Will Be Significant, but Long-Term Costs
are Uncertain and Direct Federal Support is Limited, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-750] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9,
2009).
[4] Pub. L. No. 85-767 (1958) (codified as amended at 23 U.S.C. §
210). Funds are typically provided within DOD appropriations and
transferred to the Federal Highway Administration.
[5] The term "fair share" is used in DOD and Federal Highway
Administration regulations to describe potential DOD contributions
under the DAR program, but is not defined. Army Regulation 55-80/
OPNAVINST 11210.2/AFMAN 32-1017/MCO 11210.2D/DLAR 4500.19, DOD
Transportation Engineering Program, (Nov. 17, 2003); 23 C.F.R. §
660.503. DOD does not have a systematic formula for determining its
"fair share" of the cost of transportation improvement projects.
According to a senior DOD official, the amount is negotiated on a case-
by-case basis considering relevant facts such as: (1) the availability
of state and local funds, (2) the defense-related magnitude of the
impact, and (3) whether improvements are planned beyond those required
to address the defense-generated impact.
[6] GAO, Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help
Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-665] (Washington, D.C.:
June 17, 2008).
[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-750].
[8] Exec. Order No. 12788, 57 Fed. Reg. 2213 (Jan. 21, 1992) (as
amended).
[9] Although the Economic Adjustment Committee was convened in
February 2010 to address issues pertaining to Guam and DOD officials
said some of the Economic Adjustment Committee members met in
September 2010 to address issues at Fort Bragg, the Economic
Adjustment Committee has never been convened with the purpose of
addressing transportation issues facing the domestic communities
surrounding the 26 growth installations.
[10] Based on DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment, 24 communities
surrounding 26 military installations, as shown in table 1, have been
designated as "growth communities." One community in North Carolina
was in close proximity to 3 Marine Corps installations. For the
purposes of this report, we describe the growth by installation name
rather than by the community name.
[11] Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 2836(b) (2006).
[12] DOD Directive 5410.12, Economic Adjustment Assistance to Defense-
Impacted Communities (July 5, 2006).
[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-665]. When asked
to identify their top infrastructure challenges, 16 of the 20
communities cited transportation, 11 named school capacity, and 6 said
affordable housing.
[14] 23 U.S.C. 210, 315; 49 CFR 1.48(b). § 660.509.
[15] Pub. L. No. 85-767 (1958) (codified as amended at 23 U.S.C. §
210).
[16] We use the term "DOD service regulation" to refer to the
regulation published jointly by the services and Defense Logistics
Agency to govern the DAR program. Army Regulation 55-80/OPNAVINST
11210.2/AFMAN 32-1017/MCO 11210.2D/DLAR 4500.19, DOD Transportation
Engineering Program (Nov. 17, 2003).
[17] Funds held in the Highway Trust Fund are primarily collected from
excise taxes collected on motor fuels and truck-related items and are
distributed to the states based on statutory formulas.
[18] 23 U.S.C. 210, 315; 49 CFR 1.48(b). § 660.509.
[19] Many of the installation officials we contacted also stated that
narrow criteria for determining which projects are eligible for DAR
funding and stiff competition for available DOD military construction
funds also hindered their ability to make more use the DAR program.
[20] The remaining $100 million was used for projects outside of the
scope of this review, including road projects on Guam and at
installations that were not impacted by recent DOD growth activities.
[21] For the purposes of this report, pending refers to funding that
has not been made available because it has not been either requested,
programmed, or appropriated.
[22] The eligibility criteria are described in detail in the Federal
Highway Administration nonregulatory supplement to title 23 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as adopted by DOD and applied to the DAR
program in the DOD service regulation. The last criterion, regarding
replacement roads or connectors, is the only criterion derived
directly from the statute authorizing the DAR program, 23 U.S.C. §
210. The Secretary of Defense is the final certifying authority for
eligibility determinations under the authorizing statute, although
according to a senior DAR program official, no known cases exist where
the Secretary of Defense has personally approved or denied a DAR
project. Also, while Fort Lee and Fort Belvoir had partial projects in
their packages rejected, only one project, which was at Buckley Air
Force Base in Colorado (not a DOD growth installation), was fully and
formally rejected because the road was not experiencing a doubling of
traffic.
[23] Responsibility for the certification required under 23 U.S.C. §
210 is delegated to the U.S. Transportation Command. DOD Directive
4510.11, DOD Transportation Engineering (Apr. 12, 2004). It is then
further delegated in the DOD service regulation.
[24] In a few instances, DOD has utilized BRAC funds for projects
necessary to complete a BRAC-designated action, such as constructing
access roads to a main highway at Fort Belvoir.
[25] Officials from the remaining 11 installations did not provide
comments on the program administrators.
[26] Officials from 9 of the remaining 11 installations did not
provide comments on the availability of program information and
officials from the last 2 installations commented positively on the
availability of program information.
[27] The DOD and Department of Transportation DAR program regulations
refer to the Military Traffic Management Command, which became the
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (a component
command of the U.S. Transportation Command) in 2004.
[28] The Federal-Aid Policy Guide, while still available at the
Federal Highway Administration Web site, was recently replaced by the
Federal-Aid Highway Program Policy and Guidance Center. Federal
Highway Administration Order 1340.3, Establishment of the Federal-Aid
Highway Program Policy and Guidance Center (Jan. 6, 2010). The
underlying regulations and guidance of the Federal-Aid Policy Guide
pertaining to the DAR program were not affected, but according to a
senior Department of Transportation official, the regulations and
guidance are not yet in the new Policy and Guidance Center.
[29] For the purposes of this report, working-level guidance could
consist of a variety of user-friendly aids such as a handbook,
pamphlets, frequently asked questions, or case studies.
[30] The Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 requires
GAO to issue standards for internal control in government. GAO updated
these standards in November 1999. GAO, Standards for Internal Control
in the Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.:
November 1, 1999).
[31] In recent years, revenues to support the Highway Trust Fund have
not kept pace with spending levels and the Highway Trust Fund was
nearly depleted in the summer of 2008. Declining revenues in the trust
fund may adversely affect the Department of Transportation's ability
to continue to fund surface transportation programs in the future.
[32] The term obligation of funds, in this context, means the federal
government's commitment to pay for the federal share of a project. For
highways, this commitment occurs at the time the federal government
signs a project agreement. States make payments to contractors for
completed work, and the Federal Highway Administration then reimburses
the states. All reimbursements for public transportation programs
funded through the Recovery Act must be completed by September 30,
2015, except for those for administration, management, and oversight
purposes.
[33] As noted above, 4 of the 26 installations chose not to comment on
questions concerning what worked well with the DAR program and what
could be improved, due to their lack of knowledge of or experience
with the DAR program. Of these 15 installations, 8 identified criteria
as limiting their ability to use the program, while 13 installations
stated that the program funding structure limited their use.
[34] The National Academy of Sciences was directed to conduct the
study in a congressional conference report, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 111-
366, at 1344-1345 (2009).
[35] Of the 26 growth installations, responsibility for 17 are with
the Army, 4 are with the Air Force, 1 is with the Navy, and 4 are with
the Marine Corps.
[36] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-750]. In addition
to BRAC, the installations included in this review are experiencing
growth due to the Army's force modularity, Grow the Force, and DOD's
overseas rebasing initiatives.
[37] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-665].
[38] DOD Directive 5410.12, Economic Adjustment Assistance to Defense-
Impacted Communities (July 5, 2006).
[39] Exec. Order No. 12788, 57 Fed. Reg. 2213 (Jan. 21, 1992) as
amended. (See appendix IV for the full text of Executive Order 12788.)
This priority consideration is to be afforded as part of a
comprehensive plan to be used by the Economic Adjustment Committee as
established under this order.
[40] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-665].
[41] The Secretary of Defense may provide economic adjustment
assistance to any community located near a military installation being
closed or realigned as part of the 2005 BRAC round. Pub. L. No. 101-
510, Title XXIX, § 2905, as amended by Pub. L. No. 107-107, Title XXX
(2001). The Secretary of Defense may also provide adjustment
assistance to growth communities meeting specific criteria for being
affected by certain DOD activities. 10 U.S.C. § 2391. To be eligible
under the section 2391 authority, an affected community must meet two
standards: (1) community impact assistance or special impact
assistance is not otherwise available, and (2) the establishment or
expansion involves the assignment of more than 2,000 direct military,
civilian, and contractor DOD personnel or more military, civilian, and
contractor personnel than the number equal to 10 percent of the number
of persons employed in counties or independent municipalities within
15 miles of the installation, whichever is lesser. Additionally, the
Office of Economic Adjustment makes a finding that the affected
community will experience a "direct and significantly adverse
consequence" based on the direct DOD impacts in light of community-
specific needs and resources.
[42] The reports include:
(1) Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chief's of Staff,
Defense Access Roads Program and Military Installations Affected by
Defense Base Closure or Integrated Global Presence and Basing
Strategy, March 2007, provided to the Chairman and Ranking Members on
the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations in
both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, as directed by
section 2837 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006, Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 2837 (2006).
(2) Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chief's of Staff,
Defense Access Roads Criteria, October 2008, provided to the Chairman
and Ranking Members on the Committee on Armed Services and the
Committee on Appropriations in both the U.S. Senate and the House of
Representatives, as directed by Senate Report 110-335, accompanying
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. S. Rpt.
No. 110-335 at 477-478 (2008).
(3) Secretary of Defense, Transportation Impacts near Department of
Defense Facilities, September 2009, provided to the congressional
defense committees and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, as directed by section
2814 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009. Pub. L. No. 110-417, § 2814 (2008) stated in Title
XXVIII, Subtitle B, of S. 3001 dated September 27, 2008.
[43] Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).
[44] Highway Trust Fund: Improved Solvency Mechanisms and
Communication Needed to Help Avoid Shortfalls in the Highway Account,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-316] (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 6, 2009); and Recovery Act: Opportunities to Improve Management
and Strengthen Accountability over States' and Localities' Use of
Funds, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-999]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2010).
[45] GAO, Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help
Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-665] (Washington, D.C.:
June 17, 2008); and Military Base Realignments and Closures:
Transportation Impact of Personnel Increases Will Be Significant, but
Long-Term Costs are Uncertain and Direct Federal Support is Limited,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-750] (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 9, 2009).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: