DEFENSE 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Communities Need 

Additional Guidance 

and Information to 

Improve Their Ability 

to Adjust to DOD 

Installation Closure or 

Growth

Report to Congressional Committees

May 2013

GAO-13-436

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-436, a report to 

congressional committees

May 2013

DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE:

Communities Need Additional Guidance and 

Information to Improve Their Ability to Adjust to 

DOD Installation Closure or Growth

Why GAO Did This Study

Through BRAC and other growth 

initiatives, DOD has made significant 

changes to its force structure, 

affecting communities around DOD 

installations. To help transition 

toward a smaller, more agile force, 

DOD has requested new BRAC 

authority. House Report 112-479, 

accompanying the fiscal year 2013 

National Defense Authorization Act, 

directed GAO to study the practices 

and strategies that communities 

have used to cope with installation 

closure or growth. This report (1) 

describes the practices and 

strategies communities have used in 

dealing with base closures and 

growth since 2005 and economic 

and population data in those 

communities and (2) presents 

information on communities’ needs in 

adjusting to installation closure and 

growth. GAO interviewed DOD, 

service, and installation officials; 

interviewed and surveyed community 

representatives; reviewed relevant 

guidance; and visited select 

installations. 

What GAO Recommends

DOD concurred with GAO’s 

recommendation that the Army issue 

guidance on maintenance levels to 

be provided during the base closure 

process. DOD partially concurred 

that it should establish procedures 

for sharing additional information 

with growth communities and 

designate a civilian point of contact 

at growth installations. GAO believes 

action by DOD prior to future 

installation growth will help forestall 

future challenges.

What GAO Found

The 21 communities surrounding the 23 Department of Defense (DOD) 

installations closed in the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round

have used strategies such as forming a local redevelopment authority and 

seeking federal grants to deal with the closures. Some economic data for these 

communities are comparable to national averages, with some variation. For 

instance, GAO found that 52 percent (11 of 21) of communities had 

unemployment rates lower than the national average of 8.9 percent, although the 

rates ranged from a low of 6.1 percent to a high of 16.8 percent. Sixty-two

percent (13 of 21) of the closure communities had real per capita income growth 

rates higher than the national average of 0.14 percent for the period from 2006 

through 2011. Since 2005, 23 other installations have experienced population 

increases that have resulted in net growth of about 191,000 military and civilian 

personnel (a 36 percent increase), and their corresponding communities have 

used several strategies to accommodate this growth, including forming a regional 

working group composed of representatives from affected jurisdictions. 

Community representatives stated that DOD’s Office of Economic Adjustment 

(OEA) provides good support to communities facing base closure, but some 

representatives from communities surrounding closed Army installations stated 

that facilities were not maintained at a high enough level for reuse. An Army 

official told GAO that the Army makes an effort to maintain closed facilities in 

accordance with their planned usage and that local redevelopment authorities 

have unrealistic expectations of maintenance levels. DOD guidance states that 

the services have developed specific maintenance levels for facilities during the 

transition process. The Air Force and the Navy have published this specific 

guidance, but the Army has not and instead relies upon DOD’s guidance, which 

does not describe specific levels of maintenance. Without clear guidance on the 

expected levels of maintenance for closed facilities, the communities may not 

have a clear understanding of what maintenance the Army will provide. 

Community representatives indicated that OEA provides good support to 

communities facing base growth, but that additional data and a civilian point of 

contact at the installation could improve their ability to respond to future growth. 

DOD has issued guidance that states communities should be provided maximum 

advance information to plan, and service guidance states that services will give 

communities information including military and personnel changes. However, 

community representatives told GAO that they would like additional aggregate 

information on where servicemembers live while stationed at the installation to 

facilitate planning for the impact of installation growth. Installations currently do 

not provide communities with this information because they do not have a system 

to track it, but officials noted that existing systems could potentially be modified to 

provide it. Installation officials and community representatives also stated that 

establishing a long-term civilian point of contact at the installation would help the 

community effectively plan for growth. Accurate and timely information on 

personnel residence areas and a civilian point of contact at the installation could 

better facilitate communities’ efforts to accommodate installation growth. 

View GAO-13-436. For more information, 

contact James R. McTigue, Jr. at (202) 512-

7968 or mctiguej@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Letter 1 

Background 4

Communities Have Used a Variety of Strategies to Deal with BRAC 

2005 Closures and Select Local Economic Data Are Comparable 

to National Averages 8

Growth Has Occurred at 23 Major Installations and Communities 

Have Used a Variety of Strategies to Accommodate this Growth 18

DOD Provides Support to Communities Facing Installation Growth, 

but More Data and Long-Term Coordination Is Needed 31

Conclusions 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 35

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 39

Appendix II Major Installations Closed During 1988, 1991, 1993 BRAC Rounds

46

Appendix III Locations of Major Installations Closed in BRAC 2005 and Their 

Corresponding Economic Areas 49

Appendix IV Locations of Major DOD Growth Installations in BRAC 2005 and 

Their Corresponding Economic Areas 51

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Defense 53

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 55

Related GAO Products 56

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Tables

Table 1: OEA Grants Provided to Communities Surrounding Major 

DOD Installations Closed in BRAC 2005 (Calendar Years 

2005 through 2012) 12

Table 2: Growth in DOD Personnel (Military and Civilian, Not 

Including Dependents and Nonmission-Related 

Contractors) at 23 Growth Installations from Fiscal Years 

2006 through 2012 18

Table 3: Population Change in Communities Surrounding Growth 

Installations from Calendar Years 2006 to 2011 20

Table 4: OEA Grants to Growth-Impacted Communities and 

Selected States (2005 - 2012) 24

Figures

Figure 1: Timeline of BRAC 2005 Round 5

Figure 2: DOD’s Usual Procedures for Transferring Property 6

Figure 3: Major DOD Installations Closed in BRAC 2005 by Service 9

Figure 4: Locations of Major DOD Installations Closed in BRAC 

2005 10

Figure 5: Comparison of 2011 Unemployment Rates of Major 2005 

BRAC Installation Closure Locations to the U.S. Rate 16

Figure 6: Comparison of 2006-2011 Average Annual Real Per Capita 

Income Growth Rates of Major 2005 BRAC Installation 

Closure Locations to the U.S. Rate 17

Figure 7: Damaged Roof at Kansas Army Ammunition Plant 30
Page iii GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Abbreviations

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure

DOD Department of Defense

OEA Office of Economic Adjustment

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 14, 2013

Congressional Committees

Over the past several years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has made 

significant changes to its force structure, through the movement of forces 

needed to implement the recommendations from the 2005 Base 

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, the redeployment of U.S. forces 

in overseas locations back to the United States under the Global Defense 

Posture Realignment, changes in the composition of forces and 

realignment of those forces to accomplish a major Army reorganization 

known as force modularity,1 and overall force structure increases due to 

Army and Marine Corps Grow the Force initiatives. These types of 

activities have had a significant impact on the local communities 

surrounding major U.S. DOD installations experiencing either closure or 

growth.2 We have previously reported that these DOD actions have led to 

challenges for the local communities affected. For example, communities 

surrounding closed installations have faced long-term challenges in the 

economic recovery process arising out of base closures3

 

1 The Army’s modular force restructuring—sometimes referred to as Army Modularity—is 

a multiyear undertaking that involves the total redesign of the operational Army. Under 

Army Modularity, the Brigade Combat Team, rather than a division, will be the centerpiece 

of the Army’s combat forces and the lowest unit of organization capable of self-sustained 

operations. The Army’s modular restructuring initiative includes its entire operational force 

of active, National Guard, and reserve units.

while 

communities surrounding a growth installation face other challenges, 

including a greater need for transportation, schools, and housing. We 

have previously recommended that DOD provide communities 

surrounding growth installations with better information early in the 

process to allow them to more adequately plan for these changes, and in 

response the services issued guidance for the timely, complete, and 

2 DOD defines major closure installations as those having a plant replacement value 

exceeding $100 million, and DOD’s Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) identifies 

installations and surrounding communities as having significant growth if the communities 

are deemed to be substantially and seriously impacted by the installation growth.

3 GAO, Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Realignments and Closures, 

GAO-05-138 (Washington, D.C., Jan. 13, 2005).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

consistent dissemination of planning information on changes in military 

and civilian personnel and school-age children.4

The Secretary of Defense stated in August 2012 that, after a decade of 

war, DOD will again be drawing down its forces over the next five years, 

moving toward a smaller, leaner, and more agile force. As part of its fiscal 

year 2013 budget request, DOD asked Congress to authorize two more 

rounds of BRAC in 2013 and 2015. Congress did not authorize additional 

BRAC rounds in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013, but if 

Congress should decide to authorize a future round of BRAC, some 

communities may face either significant increases or decreases in base 

populations and the potential impacts of these changes.

House Report 112-479, accompanying a bill for the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R. 4310) directed GAO to study 

the practices and strategies that communities used to cope with base 

closure or growth in previous BRAC rounds.5

To describe the practices and strategies that communities used to deal 

with installation closures and compare their current economic indicators 

to national averages, we identified communities that had major DOD 

installation closures in the BRAC 2005 round using DOD’s information 

provided for our previously issued report on BRAC.

This report: (1) describes 

the practices and strategies used by communities in dealing with the 

installation closures from the 2005 BRAC round and how current 

economic indicators for those communities compare to national averages; 

(2) identifies the installations that have experienced significant population 

increases since 2005 and describes the practices and strategies, if any, 

that the surrounding communities have employed to accommodate this 

growth; (3) presents information on communities’ needs in adjusting to 

installation closure; and (4) presents information on communities’ needs 

in adjusting to installation growth.

6

 

4 GAO, Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Communities 

Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth, 

We also collected 

2006 through 2011 economic indicator data—the most recent available—

GAO-08-665 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 17, 2008). 

5 H.R. Rep. No. 112-479, at 313-314 (2012).

6 GAO, Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment and 

Closure Rounds, GAO-13-149 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7, 2013).
 

Page 3 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

on these communities from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau 

of Economic Analysis in order to compare them with national averages. 

We found these data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. In 

addition, we held discussion groups with and interviewed selected 

community representatives, and surveyed representatives of closure 

communities. We received responses to 16 out of 22 questionnaires we 

sent,7 for a response rate of 73 percent. To identify the installations that 

have experienced significant population increases since 2005 and 

describe the practices and strategies, if any, that the surrounding 

communities have employed to accommodate this growth, we started with 

the list of 20 installations that DOD’s Office of Economic Adjustment

(OEA) had identified and we discussed in our 2008 report.8 We reviewed 

this list with OEA and the military services, and, based on information 

provided by OEA, added 3 additional installations that OEA had identified 

since 2008 as being significantly affected by growth. To identify the 

strategies and practices that communities used to deal with installation 

growth, we held discussion groups with and interviewed selected 

community representatives. We also interviewed installation officials and 

selected four installations to visit. These results cannot be generalized to 

all closure or growth communities, but common responses across groups 

and similar findings through the survey provide converging validation. Our 

site selection included one installation per service, a joint base, and 

installations in geographically diverse locations.9

To determine the extent to which DOD has provided support to 

communities to deal with base closure, we held discussion groups with 

and interviewed community representatives from locations that had 

installations close as a result of BRAC 2005 and we interviewed DOD and 

service officials. We surveyed closure community representatives on their 

experiences and any areas where they felt they needed additional 

Further, we surveyed 

community representatives from all 23 growth installations and received 

21 responses, for a response rate of 91 percent.

 

7 Although we identified 23 major installation closures, we did not send our survey to the 

Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant because the property was transferred from the U.S. 

Army to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and did not have a local 

redevelopment authority. 

8 GAO-08-665. 

9 We visited Fort Belvoir, VA; Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA; Camp Lejeune, NC; and 

Eglin Air Force Base, FL. 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

support or areas they considered adequate to support their needs. To 

determine the extent to which DOD has provided support to communities 

to deal with base growth, we held discussion groups with and interviewed 

community representatives from growth communities. We also 

interviewed DOD and service officials as well as installation officials at the 

four visited installations. Further, we surveyed growth community 

representatives on any areas where they felt that they needed additional 

support and areas that they considered support to be adequate.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2012 to May 2013 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. A more detailed description of 

our scope and methodology is included in appendix I.

Since 2005, we have issued over 30 reports and testimonies on BRAC 

2005 planning, implementation, costs, and savings that provide 

information to assist Congress as it considers BRAC authorizing 

legislation and that DOD can use to improve the BRAC development and 

implementation process. (For a list of related reports and testimonies, see 

the Related GAO Products page at the end of this report.) 

Since 1988, DOD has relied on the BRAC process as an important 

means of reducing excess infrastructure and realigning bases to meet 

changing force structure needs. The 2005 BRAC round was the fifth 

round of base closures and realignments undertaken by DOD since 1988, 

and it was the biggest, most complex, and costliest BRAC round ever.10

 

10 DOD conducted BRAC rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005.

The 2005 BRAC process generally followed the legislative framework of 

previous BRAC rounds, providing for an independent Defense Base 

Closure and Realignment Commission to review the Secretary of 

Defense’s closure and realignment recommendations, which were 

produced through the BRAC processes coordinated by the Deputy Under 

Background 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment.11

Figure 1: Timeline of BRAC 2005 Round

The 

Commission assessed the Secretary’s recommendations, under its 

authority to approve, modify, reject, or add closure or realignment 

recommendations, before reporting its own recommendations to the 

President. The President then approved the Commission’s 

recommendations and forwarded them to Congress, and the 

recommendations became final in November 2005. Implementation of the 

recommendations was required to be complete by September 15, 2011. 

Figure 1 below is a timeline of the 2005 BRAC round.

 

11 Congress authorized BRAC 2005 with the passage of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-107, Title XXX (2001). The law 

reauthorized the BRAC process by amending the authority under which the 1991, 1993, 

and 1995 rounds had been carried out, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 

1990, Pub. L. No. 101-510, Title XXIX ((10 U.S.C. 2687 note). Throughout this report, we 

will refer to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (as amended) as “the 

BRAC statute.” 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

As specified in the BRAC statute, DOD has 6 years to complete all 

installation closures and realignments, although certain actions, such as 

the cleanup of environmentally contaminated property and the 

subsequent transfer of unneeded property to other users, may extend 

beyond the 6-year implementation period for each round. Once DOD 

officially closes an installation, the property is typically considered excess 

and offered to other federal agencies. As shown in figure 2, any property 

that is not taken by other federal agencies is then considered surplus and 

is disposed of through a variety of means to state and local governments, 

local redevelopment authorities, or private parties.

Figure 2: DOD’s Usual Procedures for Transferring Property

The various methods used to convey unneeded property to nonfederal 

parties noted in figure 2 are targeted, in many cases, to a particular end 

use of the property. For example, under a public benefit conveyance, 

state and local governments and local redevelopment authorities acquire 

surplus DOD property for little or no cost for purposes such as schools, 

parks, and airports. Under an economic development conveyance, 

property is transferred for uses that promote economic recovery and job 

creation. Conservation conveyances provide for the transfer of property to 

a state, a political subdivision of a state, or a qualified not-for-profit group 

for natural resource and conservation purposes. Property can also be 

conveyed to nonfederal parties through other methods shown in figure 2 

without regard, in many cases, to a particular end use. For example, 

property can be sold or special congressional legislation can dictate 

transfer to a particular entity.

In recent years, the growth of installations has occurred as a result of 

both the 2005 BRAC round and other DOD initiatives. Under the 2005 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

BRAC round, DOD implemented 182 recommendations, many of which 

resulted in significant personnel movement across installations and the 

subsequent growth of some of those installations. In addition, DOD has 

undertaken other actions outside of BRAC that have resulted in the 

growth of installations. For example, the Army has undergone a major 

force restructuring through its force modularity effort, which has been 

referred to as the largest Army reorganization in 50 years. This effort 

created Stryker brigades, primarily located at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, 

Washington. Finally, DOD’s Grow the Force initiative increased the end 

strength of the Army and the Marine Corps, affecting bases across the 

country. Although DOD has recently announced plans to downsize the 

Army and the Marine Corps, installations that experienced significant 

growth under these initiatives, and their surrounding communities, are still 

dealing with the impact of additional personnel and their dependents.

Within DOD, the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA)—a field activity 

under the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, 

Technology, and Logistics—assists communities by providing technical 

and financial assistance in planning and carrying out adjustment 

strategies in response to defense actions. OEA is the primary DOD office 

responsible for providing assistance to communities, regions, and states 

affected by significant defense actions including base closures and 

realignments. Much of that assistance in the past was directed toward 

communities that lost military and civilian personnel because of the 

closure or major realignment of a base. However, because the 2005 

BRAC round and other initiatives described above have created 

significant growth at many bases, OEA has also assisted affected 

communities with growth planning.

We have reported on the impact of BRAC actions numerous times over 

the last several years. In particular in our 2005 report on BRAC, we 

reported that DOD had closed 97 major installations since the first BRAC 

round in 1988.12

 

12 GAO, Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base Realignments and 

Closures, 

Specifically DOD closed 16 bases in BRAC 1988, 26 

bases in BRAC 1991, 28 bases in BRAC 1993, and 27 bases in BRAC 

1995. (See appendix II for a list of the 97 bases and the year of closure 

for each.) In that report, we studied 62 affected communities and found 

that most of the surrounding communities were able to replace the jobs 

GAO-05-138 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13, 2005).
 

Page 8 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

lost due to the installation closure with new jobs created by the reuse of 

the installation and that these communities generally had economic 

indicators that compared favorably with the U.S. national averages. 

Specifically, as of July 31, 2004, almost 70 percent of the 62 affected 

communities studied in that report (43 out of 62) had unemployment rates 

at or below the national average. Our analyses in that report of annual 

real per capita growth rates for the BRAC–affected communities showed 

mixed results.13 The latest available data at that time (1999-2001) showed 

that only 48 percent of the BRAC-affected communities (30 of the 62) had 

an estimated average real per capita income growth rate that was higher 

than the national average. This was a decline from when we reported 

these figures in our 2002 report, where we reported that 33 out of 62 

communities (53 percent) matched or exceeded the national average for 

real per capita income growth rate for 1996 to 1999.14

Communities surrounding the 23 major DOD installations15 closed in 

BRAC 2005 have used a variety of strategies to deal with the closures, 

and economic data on unemployment and real per capita income growth 

show the rates for these communities are comparable to national 

averages.

 

13 By real per capita growth rates, we mean growth rates that have been adjusted for 

inflation. 

14 GAO, Military Base Closures: Progress in Completing Actions from Prior Realignments 

and Closures, GAO-02-433 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5, 2002).

15 DOD defines major closure installations as those with a plant replacement value 

exceeding $100 million. DOD’s 2005 BRAC closure list includes 24 major installations, 

one being the Navy’s Broadway Complex in California. Subsequently, the Navy entered 

into a long-term lease with a private firm in November 2006 and as a result the Complex 

did not close. Therefore, this report only refers to 23 major installation closures. 

Communities Have 

Used a Variety of 

Strategies to Deal 

with BRAC 2005 

Closures and Select 

Local Economic Data 

Are Comparable to 

National Averages
 

Page 9 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

During the BRAC 2005 round, DOD closed 23 major installations in the 

United States, the majority of which were Army installations. Figures 3 

and 4 show the number of major installations that were closed by military 

service and the locations of these installations.

Figure 3: Major DOD Installations Closed in BRAC 2005 by Service

Communities Surrounding 

DOD Installations Closed 

in BRAC 2005 Have Used a 

Variety of Strategies to 

Adjust to the Closures
 

Page 10 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Figure 4: Locations of Major DOD Installations Closed in BRAC 2005

Communities affected by these installation closures faced a number of 

different challenges and developed strategies to deal with them. In 

particular, community representatives we spoke with or surveyed said 

that some of their greatest challenges in dealing with the installation 

closures were developing a plan for the reuse of the property, dealing 

with facilities that were in poor shape or not suitable for reuse, and 

obtaining funding for infrastructure improvements. Other challenges 

identified by community representatives included navigating the legal 

intricacies of property transfer, dealing with environmental cleanup, and 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

replacing lost jobs. Based on our analysis, we found that community 

representatives have used a variety of strategies to deal with these 

challenges. For example, several representatives that responded to our 

survey cited forming a local redevelopment authority16

Community representatives also cited working closely with DOD as an 

effective strategy for dealing with installation closure. For example, one 

community representative said the local redevelopment authority worked 

with the Army to ensure there was an effective and acceptable plan for 

dealing with environmental remediation prior to and after installation 

closure. Another local representative worked with DOD to have many of 

the facilities that were in poor condition demolished prior to finding new 

tenants, thus saving the community maintenance and operation dollars. A 

third representative said it would have been impossible without 

assistance from DOD for the local redevelopment authority to make its 

way through the maze of federal regulations and available information to 

create redevelopment plans. In addition, another community 

representative said that the Army was extremely helpful in transferring 

knowledge from numerous years of operating the installation. He said this 

historical knowledge allowed the local redevelopment authority to utilize 

previously completed studies in lieu of committing taxpayer dollars to 

repeat those investigations and reports. Further, he noted that data the 

Army maintained on utility and infrastructure would be used to manage 

repair and maintenance of the property in the future. Finally, another local 

redevelopment authority worked with local and headquarters Air Force 

as an effective 

strategy for dealing with installation closure. One community 

representative said his local redevelopment authority was comprised of 

local and regional stakeholders to help build alliances and partnerships 

across the entire community spectrum. Another said his local 

redevelopment authority operates in a public forum where all meetings 

are open to the public and community input is solicited at every meeting. 

This was also reiterated by another community representative who said it 

was important to use an open process involving public meetings and 

outreach to accept input and gain community support in developing a plan 

for the reuse of the property.

 

16 A local redevelopment authority is any entity (including an entity established by a state 

or local government) recognized by the Secretary of Defense as the entity responsible for 

developing the redevelopment plan with respect to an installation or for directing 

implementation of the plan. 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

staff to find follow-on jobs for DOD civilians that did not relocate or retire 

when the installation closed.

Some community representatives cited leveraging funds from state and 

federal agencies as a successful strategy. For example, one community 

representative said the local redevelopment authority was able to secure 

state-issued bonds to make the facilities more business-ready. Another 

local redevelopment authority secured federal funds to modify existing 

structures, and a third local redevelopment authority took advantage of a 

state tax benefit that allowed it to use state money to pay down 

improvement bonds. In addition, community representatives cited 

receiving grants from OEA as being helpful to their local redevelopment 

authority’s organizational, planning, and implementation efforts. For 

example, one representative said the funding OEA provided was used to 

hire personnel, maintain offices, and conduct planning. Another said OEA 

provided funding through a grant that permitted the local redevelopment 

authority to hire dedicated professional staff and contract with a 

consultant to prepare the redevelopment plan and assist with the property 

transfer application. Many other representatives told us that OEA 

provided resources to develop reuse plans or supporting studies or to hire 

specific consulting or legal services. Table 1 below displays the OEA 

grants provided to closure communities during calendar years 2005 

through 2012.

Table 1: OEA Grants Provided to Communities Surrounding Major DOD 

Installations Closed in BRAC 2005 (Calendar Years 2005 through 2012)

Closure Communities

Cumulative OEA Grants 

(calendar years 2005 - 2012) 

Army 

Fort Gillem, GA $3,115,158

Fort McPherson, GA 6,916,841

Fort Monmouth, NJ 10,309,387

Fort Monroe, VA 9,686,581

Kansas Army Ammunition Plant, KS 4,673,962

Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Realignment of 

Red River Army Depot, TX

5,841,923

Newport Chemical Depot, IN 3,698,199

Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, CA 3,492,545

Selfridge Army Activity, MI 726,602

Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR 1,224,033

Total Army $49,685,231
 

Page 13 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Closure Communities

Cumulative OEA Grants 

(calendar years 2005 - 2012) 

Navy 

Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME 9,019,525

Naval Air Station Willow Grove, PA 4,305,365

Naval Station Ingleside, TX 2,658,768

Naval Station Pascagoula, MS 697,701

Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment 

Concord, CA

5,806,694

Total Navy $22,488,053

Air Force 

Brooks City Base, TX 1,328,258

Galena Forward Operating Location, AK 371,841

General Mitchell Air Reserve Station, WI 514,118

Onizuka Air Force Station, CA 1,844,727

Total Air Force $4,058,944

Grand Total $76,232,228

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Economic Adjustment data.

Note: Deseret Chemical Depot, UT; Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, MS; Naval Air Station 

Atlanta, GA; and Kulis Air Guard Station, AK did not receive any grants from OEA.

In addition, community representatives who responded to our survey or 

that spoke with us said taking early possession of the property and 

leasing some of its assets was an effective strategy for dealing with 

installation closure. For example, one respondent said that since funding 

is limited for BRAC reuse projects, the local redevelopment authority 

entered into a protection and maintenance contract with the Army and 

was therefore able to lease out some of the assets on the installation, 

allowing the local redevelopment authority to increase revenue. Another 

community representative said the local redevelopment authority was 

able to move from complete financial dependence on federal funding to 

utilizing alternative revenue sources such as leases, tax revenue, and 

fees for service. He noted that the local redevelopment authority was 

awarded the Army caretaker contract for the former installation, and by 

providing services for fees, it was able to generate revenue. Furthermore, 

another local redevelopment authority representative told us that it is 

taking over the closure property in a piecemeal fashion. For example, it 

has already taken over all the historic homes at the installation and has 

leased out many of them. According to the community representative, this 

has provided the local redevelopment authority with some revenue to 

operate and maintain the facilities. The local redevelopment authority is 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

also preparing to take over the rest of the property when the primary 

caretaker leaves.

Community representatives also said hiring experts was an effective 

strategy for dealing with installation closure. For example, one community 

representative said the local redevelopment authority had to hire 

individuals who had experience with BRAC to get things done in a timely 

and professional way. In particular, she said the local redevelopment 

authority hired an attorney to draft documents associated with specific 

lease amendments. Likewise, a community representative said the local 

redevelopment authority hired an experienced BRAC attorney to advise 

them on the process for land transfer.
 

Page 15 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Selected economic indicators for the 21 communities surrounding the 23 

DOD installations closed in BRAC 2005 are comparable to national 

averages.17 In our analysis, we used annual unemployment and real per 

capita income growth rates compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) as 

broad indicators of the economic health of those communities where 

installation closures occurred.18 Our analyses of BLS annual 

unemployment data for 2011, the most recent data available, showed that 

11 (52 percent) of the 21 closure communities had unemployment rates 

at or below the national average of 8.9 percent for the period from 

January through December 2011. The other 10 communities had 

unemployment rates that were higher than the national average (see 

figure 5). Of the 21 closure communities, Portland, Maine (Naval Air 

Station Brunswick) had the lowest unemployment rate at 6.1 percent and 

Modesto, California (Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant) had the highest 

rate at 16.8 percent.19

 

17 In this section, the term community refers to the statistical area, as defined by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB), that the community surrounding an installation is 

located in. (Some locations fall within metropolitan statistical areas that are further

subdivided into areas called metropolitan divisions. In those cases, the metropolitan 

division is treated as the relevant statistical area for our purposes.) Therefore, the 23 DOD 

installations closed in BRAC 2005 are represented by only 21 communities because Fort 

Gillem, Fort McPherson, and Naval Air Station Atlanta are located in the same statistical 

area. Also, population and economic data in this report are for the statistical area within 

which an installation is or was located. With few exceptions, the names of installation 

localities used in the text and figures are an abbreviated version of the installation’s 

statistical area and are for the reader’s convenience. For example, economic data 

reported for Ft. Monroe (Virginia Beach locality) are based on the Virginia Beach-NorfolkNewport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area even though the installation is in 

Hampton, VA. Therefore, the cities listed here (e.g., Portland, Maine) are provided as a 

short-hand reference to the statistical area and do not refer to economic data about the 

city itself. See appendix III for a list of the major DOD installations closed in BRAC 2005 

and their corresponding economic areas.

18 Ideally, to assess how the local communities were affected after the BRAC 2005 round,

we would need economic information on how those communities would have fared without 

the BRAC round compared with how they fared since the BRAC program began. Because 

we did not have these baseline data, we compared the national averages for 

unemployment and real per capita income to assess the communities. This comparison 

does not isolate the economic effects of a base closure from other factors impacting the 

economy of a particular region.

19 The cities named in this section represent the economic region surrounding the closed 

installation that we used to analyze these data. See appendix III for a list of the census 

areas and the corresponding closed installations and cities. For convenience in the report, 

we refer to the name of the closest city to the installation, rather than the economic region.

Some Economic Data for 

Communities Surrounding 

DOD Installations Closed 

in BRAC 2005 Are 

Comparable to National 

Averages
 

Page 16 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Figure 5: Comparison of 2011 Unemployment Rates of Major 2005 BRAC Installation Closure Locations to the U.S. Rate 

Note: Installation localities listed in this figure are abbreviated versions of the Census Bureau 

Statistical Area within which an installation is/was located and do not represent the town/city by the 

same name. The data reported are for the entire Census Bureau Statistical Area, not only for the 

town/city used as the locality name.

We also analyzed BEA real per capita income growth rates between 2006 

and 2011 and found that 13 (62 percent) of the 21 closure communities 

had real per capita income growth rates that were higher than the national 

average of 0.14 (see figure 6). The other 8 communities had rates that 

were below the national average. Of the 21 communities affected, YukonKoyukuk, Alaska (Galena Forward Operating Location) had the highest 

growth rate at 4.31 percent and Atlanta, Georgia (Fort Gillem, Fort 

McPherson, and Naval Air Station Atlanta) had the lowest rate at -1.58 

percent.
 

Page 17 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Figure 6: Comparison of 2006-2011 Average Annual Real Per Capita Income Growth Rates of Major 2005 BRAC Installation 

Closure Locations to the U.S. Rate

Note: Installation localities listed in this figure are abbreviated versions of the Census Bureau 

Statistical Area within which an installation is/was located and do not represent the town/city by the 

same name. The data reported are for the entire Census Bureau Statistical Area, not only for the 

town/city used as the locality name.
 

Page 18 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Since 2005, DOD has implemented several major initiatives, including 

BRAC realignment actions and Army Modularity, that have resulted in 

growth in military and civilian personnel at 23 installations, and the 

communities surrounding these installations, which also experienced 

growth, have used a variety of practices and strategies to accommodate 

this growth. As shown in table 2, these 23 installations had a combined 

net growth of about 191,000 military and civilian personnel from fiscal 

years 2006 through 2012, with their total population growing from about 

526,000 to over 717,000, a 36.3 percent increase.20

Table 2: Growth in DOD Personnel (Military and Civilian, Not Including Dependents and Nonmission-Related Contractors) at 

23 Growth Installations from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2012

Service and Installation

Fiscal Year 2006

Population

Fiscal Year 2012 

Population 

Net Gain (Loss) in 

population

Percentage Gain 

or (Loss) in 

population

Army

Fort Belvoir, VA 21,065 45,796 24,731 117.40%

Fort Bliss, TX 23,541 43,258 19,717 83.76%

Fort Carson, CO 18,465 30,900 12,435 67.34%

Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA 32,231 a 52,837 20,606 63.93%

Fort Lee, VA 13,885 20,920 7,035 50.67%

Fort Meade, MD 33,548 49,385 15,837 47.21%

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 16,207 22,446 6,239 38.50%

Redstone Arsenal, AL 26,311 36,372 10,061 38.24%

Fort Bragg, NC 57,684 73,435 15,751 27.31%

Fort Riley, KS 20,275 25,423 5,148 25.39%

Fort Benning, GA 38,471 48,107 9,636 25.05%

Fort Drum, NY 20,354 23,455 3,101 15.24%

Fort Polk, LA 16,837 18,952 2,115 12.56%

Fort Stewart, GA 21,763 24,345 2,582 11.86%

Fort Sill, OK b 26,916 26,613 (303) (1.13%)

 

20 These figures do not include family members and nonmission-related contractors who 

have also relocated to the surrounding communities.

Growth Has 

Occurred at 23 Major 

Installations and 

Communities Have 

Used a Variety of 

Strategies to 

Accommodate 

this Growth
 

Page 19 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Service and Installation

Fiscal Year 2006

Population

Fiscal Year 2012 

Population 

Net Gain (Loss) in 

population

Percentage Gain 

or (Loss) in 

population

Fort Knox, KY 23,004 b 18,938 (4,066) (17.68%)

Navy/Marine Corps

Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA 8,431 13,171 4,740 56.22%

Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, MD

8,000 11,686 3,686 46.08%

Eastern North Carolina

(Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps 

Air Station New River and Cherry Point, NC) c 53,364 62,253 8,889 16.66%

Air Force 

Joint Base San Antonio, TX 22,067 a 38,047 15,980 72.42%

Cannon Air Force Base, NM 3,652 5,255 1,603 43.89%

Eglin Air Force Base, FL 11,934 15,407 3,473 29.10%

Andrews Air Force Base, MD 8,328 10,487 2,159 25.92%

Total 526,333 717,473 191,140 36.32%

Source: GAO analysis of Army, Navy, and Air Force data.

Notes:

a Joint Base Lewis-McChord is a joint Army and Air Force installation, though the Army has the lead 

for delivering installation support. Therefore, it is listed with Army installations. Joint Base San 

Antonio is also a joint Army and Air Force installation, though the Air Force has the lead for delivering 

installation support. Therefore, it is listed with the Air Force installations.

b While Fort Knox actually incurred losses in personnel between fiscal years 2006 and 2012; OEA has 

identified growth challenges for the surrounding communities due to the changes in personnel 

demographics and therefore treats Fort Knox as a growth installation. While originally projected to 

grow, Fort Sill also incurred personnel losses during this time period due to a change in stationing 

plans.

c There are three Marine Corps installations in eastern North Carolina – Marine Corps Base Camp 

Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station New River, and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point. Due to the 

close proximity of these locations, the surrounding community and OEA treat these installations as 

one growth location.

While Fort Sill, Oklahoma actually incurred a net loss during this time 

period, OEA treated it as a growth location because it was originally 

projected to increase by more than 2,000 personnel which was 

anticipated to impact the surrounding community in the areas of housing, 

schools, and transportation. In addition, Fort Knox, Kentucky also 

experienced a net loss in population, but changes to the mission and the 

resulting changes to the demographics, including the increase of full-time 

military personnel versus the temporary students that were previously 

stationed at the installation, caused significant challenges to the 

surrounding community. The growth of each of the 21 installations that 

did grow during this time period ranged from about 12 percent to 117

percent. Of the 23 growth installations, 16 were Army, 3 were Navy and 4 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

were Air Force. The seven installations that grew the most all had growth 

rates of more than 50 percent over fiscal years 2006 through 2012. These 

were five Army installations (Fort Belvoir, Virginia; Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort 

Carson, Colorado; Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington; and Fort Lee, 

Virginia); one Navy installation (Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia); 

and one Air Force installation (Joint Base San Antonio, Texas).

Between 2006 and 2011 all of the surrounding communities also 

experienced growth.21

Table 3: Population Change in Communities Surrounding Growth Installations from Calendar Years 2006 through 2011

Table 3 shows the change in population of the 

communities surrounding the major growth installations from calendar 

years 2006 through 2011. The growth rates for the individual communities 

associated with the installations ranged from about 1 to 14 percent over 

this period. As with the installations, the majority of the communities 

experiencing the most growth surround Army installations. Specifically, 

communities surrounding Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Stewart, Georgia; 

Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; and Fort Sill, Oklahoma experienced growth 

rates of more than 12 percent from 2006 through 2011. Also, one Air 

Force installation, Joint Base San Antonio, Texas experienced growth of 

more than 13 percent. The community with the sixth largest population 

gain was around the Marine Corps’ Camp Lejeune and New River Air 

Station, North Carolina with a growth rate of about 12 percent.

Service and Installation

Community Population in 

2006

Community Population in 

2011

Net Gain in Community 

Population Percentage Gain 

Army

Fort Bliss, TX 720,756 820,790 100,034 13.88%

Fort Stewart, GA 71,537 80,587 9,050 12.65%

Redstone Arsenal, AL 379,304 425,480 46,176 12.17%

Fort Sill, OK 112,293 125,815 13,522 12.04%

Fort Riley, KS 117,083 130,240 13,157 11.24%

Fort Knox, KY 110,653 121,771 11,118 10.05%

Fort Carson, CO 601,150 660,319 59,169 9.84%

 

21 For the purpose of this report, we used specific economic areas defined by the U.S. 

Census Bureau to determine the population surrounding the growth installations. For 

convenience, we refer to the city closest to the installation, rather than the economic area, 

in the report. See appendix IV for a list of growth locations and the corresponding 

economic areas. The latest year available for population data was 2011. 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Service and Installation

Community Population in 

2006

Community Population in 

2011

Net Gain in Community 

Population Percentage Gain 

Fort Belvoir, VA 4,107,820 a 4,477,409 369,589 9.00%

Fort Polk, LA 48,467 52,107 3,640 7.51%

Fort Bragg, NC 348,072 374,157 26,085 7.49%

Fort Lee, VA 1,195,634 1,269,380 73,746 6.17%

Joint Base LewisMcChord, WAb 764,241 807,904 43,663 5.71%

Fort Benning, GA 290,057 301,439 11,382 3.92%

Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, MDa 2,662,048 

2,729,110 67,062 2.52%

Fort Meade, MDa 2,662,048 2,729,110 67,062 2.52%

Fort Drum, NY 117,162 117,910 748 0.64%

Navy

Marine Corps Camp 

Lejeune, NC 

161,054 a 179,719 18,665 11.59%

Marine Corps Air Station 

New River, NC 

161,054 a 179,719 18,665 11.59%

Marine Corps Base, 

Quantico, VA 

4,107,820 a 4,477,409 369,589 9.00%

Marine Corps Air Station 

Cherry Point, NC

118,815 128,003 9,188 7.73%

Walter Reed National 

Military Medical Center, 

MD

1,157,192 1,226,539 69,347 5.99%

Air Force

Joint Base San Antonio, 

TX

1,932,720 b 2,194,927 262,207 13.57%

Andrews Air Force Base, 

MDa 4,107,820 

4,477,409 369,589 9.00%

Cannon Air Force Base, 

NM

45,660 49,649 3,989 8.74%

Eglin Air Force Base, FL 182,462 183,482 1,020 .56%

Totals 15,292,647 c 16,508,844 1,216,197 8.0%

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Notes: The data reported are for the entire Census Bureau Statistical Area surrounding the 

installations listed in this table. See appendix IV for a list of growth locations and the corresponding 

economic areas.

a Fort Meade, MD and Aberdeen Proving Ground include the same community. Similarly, Fort Belvoir, 

VA, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA, and Andrews Air Force Base include the same community. 

This is also true for Marine Corps Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River. Although 

Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point is located in the same geographic region as Marine Corps 

Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River, it falls within a different Census Bureau 

Statistical Area.
 

Page 22 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

b

Joint Base Lewis-McChord is a joint Army and Air Force installation, though the Army has the lead 

for delivering installation support. Therefore, it is listed with Army installations. Joint Base San 

Antonio is also a joint Army and Air Force installation, though the Air Force has the lead for delivering 

installation support. Therefore, it is listed with the Air Force installations.

c Totals for the same communities are only counted once in the overall total.

Further, we found that population growth in the communities surrounding 

the growth installations could differ based on factors other than 

installation growth. While some of the community growth can be attributed 

to additional servicemembers and their families living in the communities, 

growth could also happen for other reasons. For example, at Joint Base 

Lewis-McChord, Washington, the two counties surrounding the 

installation experienced growth at the same time that the number of 

servicemembers at the installation increased. Installation officials told us 

that while the population of the installation increased primarily due to the 

creation of the Army’s Stryker Brigades, the surrounding communities 

also experienced an increase due to the growth in local industry, including 

the aerospace industry. We also found that in some cases, an installation 

experienced a large growth in personnel, but the surrounding community 

did not experience the same level of growth. For example, Fort Belvoir 

had the largest percentage of installation growth but ranked tenth in 

percentage of community growth. This occurred for a number of reasons. 

According to DOD officials most personnel that transferred to this 

installation already lived in the region and thus were commuting from 

other local areas to Fort Belvoir rather than moving to the region. 

Therefore, while Fort Belvoir incurred significant growth, population 

growth in the local communities was not impacted as directly as it might 

have been if transferred personnel were coming from other communities. 

Furthermore, the actual community growth for this area was almost 

370,000 people—the largest overall increase of any community in our 

review—but because the metropolitan area was so large to start with the 

increase did not change the percentage of growth as significantly as did 

smaller changes to smaller communities.

Growth of an installation can cause a variety of challenges for a 

community, and we found that communities have used a variety of 

strategies to cope with these challenges, which include increased 

demand for transportation, education, and other public services. For 

example, based on our site visits, interviews with DOD officials, data we 

collected from surveys, and discussion groups, transportation was a key 

challenge facing communities around growth installations. During all our 

site visits, DOD officials cited transportation as a major challenge, as did 

several other installations we contacted. For instance, several installation 

Installation Growth 

Raises Challenges for 

Communities, Which 

Have Used a Variety 

of Strategies to 

Accommodate 

This Growth 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

officials expressed concerns about the impact of traffic in the community 

and on the installation when vehicles are entering or leaving the base. In 

September 2009, OEA conducted a project needs assessment for 

defense growth communities.22

Communities have used a variety of strategies and practices to deal with 

these concerns. The most common successful strategy, cited by DOD 

officials, community representatives we interviewed, survey respondents, 

and discussion group participants, was to form a regional working group 

composed of representatives from all of the jurisdictions affected by the 

growth at the installation. Examples of some of the regional working 

groups are cited below:

This assessment was initiated to assess 

projects identified by communities as needed to support DOD growth 

actions. As a result of this assessment, communities identified 

transportation improvements to mitigate growth impacts as the greatest 

need. In addition, based on data we collected from our surveys and 

interviews of growth community representatives, transportation was the 

most frequently cited challenge. Another challenge for communities 

discussed during our site visits as well as in interviews with DOD officials 

and discussion groups and cited by survey respondents involved 

overcrowding in local schools. DOD officials at installations we contacted 

expressed concerns about the capacity of local area schools to handle 

the growth. In addition, the 2009 OEA project needs assessment 

identified education as the second greatest funding need for defense 

communities. Other challenges noted by DOD officials and community 

representatives included the need for additional medical care and 

housing, lack of federal funding to deal with the growth, and inadequate 

utility systems.

• In response to growth at the North Carolina Eastern Region, which 

includes Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station 

Cherry Point and New River, the North Carolina’s Eastern Region 

Military Growth Task Force was established. The task force included 

representatives from surrounding counties, and its mission was to 

analyze community impacts from the sudden and unanticipated 

growth of these installations and develop potential recommendations 

to address those impacts.

 

22 Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment, Project Needs Assessment, 

September 2009 Snapshot: Assessing a Continuing Funding Gap for Local Economic 

Adjustment Projects.
 

Page 24 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

• In response to mission growth at Fort Bragg, the Fort Bragg Regional 

Alliance was formed to evaluate economic, employment, 

infrastructure, and social impacts associated with this expansion and 

to identify actions required to address future growth needs in the area.

• The community around Walter Reed National Military Center 

established a stakeholders’ advisory board that brought together local 

business and community leaders and representatives from all levels 

of government and the Navy, who worked together to identify growth 

impacts and to propose solutions.

In addition, DOD officials, community representatives, survey 

respondents, and discussion group participants cited seeking grants as a 

successful strategy to cope with the challenges posed by installation 

growth. In some cases, communities were successful in obtaining funding 

to address the associated growth in their area. OEA provided growth 

communities with grants to cover administrative expenses, including 

hiring consultants to conduct growth management studies. As seen in 

table 4 below, from 2005 through 2012, OEA provided over $73 million in 

grants to growth communities. In addition to OEA funding, state and local 

governments also provided funding to address various issues. For 

example, at Redstone Arsenal, state and local governments provided 

funding to address the overcrowding of the local schools.

Table 4: OEA Grants to Growth-Impacted Communities and Selected States (2005 through 2012)

Growth Communities and States OEA Grant Awards from 2005 - 2012

Army

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD $7,970,310

Fort Belvoir, VA 7,704,174

Fort Benning, GA 4,892,414

Fort Bliss, TX 2,653,808

Fort Bragg, NC 4,687,136

Fort Carson, CO 3,306,801

Fort Drum, NY 1,555,329

Fort Knox, TN 2,397,775

Fort Lee, VA 733,181

Fort Meade, MD 3,896,349

Fort Polk, LA 168,173

Fort Riley, KS 2,219,194

Fort Sill, OK 897,157

Fort Stewart, GA 1,246,364
 

Page 25 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Growth Communities and States OEA Grant Awards from 2005 - 2012

Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA 2,321,934

Redstone Arsenal, AL 1,544,938

Navy

Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, MD 1,525,273

Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station New River and Marine Corps 

Air Station Cherry Point, NC

4,425,735

Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA 1,687,698

Air Force

Andrews Joint Base, MD 495,000

Cannon Air Force Base, NM 625,598

Eglin Air Force Base, FL 1,433,435

Joint Base San Antonio, TX 4,422,550

States b

Commonwealth of Kentucky 1,327,209

Commonwealth of Virginia 1,250,909

State of Kansas 1,047,963

State of Maryland 7,144,221

Totals $73,580,628 a

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Economic Adjustment data.

Notes:

a Grant totals represent OEA planning and organization grant funds awarded to communities affected 

by BRAC, Grow the Army/Grow the Force, Army Modular Forces, and Global Defense Posture 

Realignment in calendar years 2005 through 2012.

b These states had multiple installations impacted by DOD actions, requiring state intervention to 

mitigate the resulting issues. Therefore, OEA provided these states with some grant money which 

they are using for such things as transportation planning.

Conducting studies to determine installation and community needs was 

also cited as a key practice in working effectively through the challenges 

that base growth creates. Studies provide the necessary data to guide the 

individual bases and community representatives to take action to find 

solutions to address challenges. Examples of studies are cited below:

• At Joint Base Lewis-McChord, the South Sound Military and 

Communities Partnership, a group comprised of communities 

surrounding the installation, conducted a survey of servicemembers 

and found that where servicemembers live in the community is 

influenced by how much they can afford with their Basic Allowance for 

Housing. Further, installation officials identified a lack of affordable 

housing as an issue and worked with community representatives to 

develop a rental property program where landlords from the 
 

Page 26 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

community voluntarily sign up to give discounts to servicemembers in 

exchange for receiving their rent as an allotment directly from the 

Army. This helped the community by decreasing vacancy rates, and 

helped the base by finding servicemembers affordable housing.

• At Fort Bragg, a study conducted for the Fort Bragg Regional Alliance, 

a group formed to deal with the growth at Fort Bragg, revealed that 

many people working in the Fort Bragg area were not prepared to 

compete for high-wage and high-skill jobs both on base and in the

community. As a result the base and community worked together to 

develop a career exploration platform and installed enhanced 

technology classrooms into 33 schools and 8 community colleges 

throughout the region, which provided training and resources to better 

prepare the community for the workforce.

• At Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, a study conducted for the North 

Carolina’s Eastern Region Military Growth Task Force identified traffic 

issues between the base and the surrounding neighborhoods. The 

study group proposed the implementation of an Intelligent Traffic 

System in the surrounding City of Jacksonville to offer instant relief by 

monitoring and controlling key choke points on area roadways that 

connect the base to the neighborhoods where employees live. 

Intelligent traffic lights were later installed and helped with the flow of 

traffic on base and the surrounding communities.

Community representatives we surveyed and spoke with indicated that 

DOD provides good support to communities facing base closure through 

its OEA, but representatives from communities surrounding closed Army 

installations that took ownership of the facilities stated that in many 

instances the Army facilities were not maintained at a sufficient level to 

retain their value or facilitate reuse. The Navy and the Air Force have 

guidance that aligns with DOD guidance specifying levels of maintenance 

to be provided during the BRAC process but the Army has not issued its 

own guidance. If Army officials and community representatives do not 

have a clear understanding as to the level of maintenance that should be 

carried out, local redevelopment authorities and the Army will continue to 

have differing expectations of the maintenance that should be provided to 

closed facilities, hindering the transfer and reuse process.

DOD Provides Assistance 

to Communities 

Surrounding Closure 

Installations, but 

Additional Army Guidance 

Is Needed to Improve 

Maintenance of Facilities
 

Page 27 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

DOD, primarily through OEA, provides assistance to communities 

surrounding closure installations. OEA assigns a project manager to each 

community who can provide assistance in a variety of ways. For example, 

project managers can provide funds for hiring consultants to assist in 

developing a reuse plan, information on federal grant money or other 

available resources, and information on best practices used by other 

closure communities. Installation and community representatives that we 

spoke with and surveyed stated that they were pleased with the level of 

assistance that OEA provided. For example, one representative stated 

that the OEA project manager was a valuable resource in dealing with the 

base closure. Another representative stated that OEA’s assistance was 

helpful to address crucial issues with closing the installation. A third 

representative described OEA’s support as invaluable and stated that his 

community could not have planned for base reuse without OEA’s 

assistance. Further, OEA provides grant money to closure communities 

as described above.

All of the respondents to our survey that requested best practice 

information from DOD, OEA or the services stated that they received 

some or all of the information they requested. In addition, OEA project 

managers regularly connect communities so that they can share best 

practices and OEA’s website provides reports containing lessons learned 

from other communities and information on other available resources. 

OEA is currently developing a community forum function on its website 

where community members can exchange ideas and learn from each 

other’s experiences.

The Navy and the Air Force have issued guidance on the appropriate 

maintenance levels to be performed on closed facilities, but the Army has 

not. In both interviews and discussion groups, representatives from 

communities surrounding some closed Army installations stated that the 

Army did not provide adequate facility maintenance to buildings it planned 

to transfer ownership of during the BRAC process. An official from the 

Army BRAC office stated, however, that the Army makes every effort to 

provide maintenance in accordance with the planned usage of the 

facilities and that communities have unrealistic expectations of the 

condition of the buildings. DOD guidance states that surplus facilities and 

equipment at installations that have been closed can be important to the 

eventual reuse of the installation and that each military department is 

DOD’s Office of Economic 

Adjustment Provides 

Assistance to Communities 

Surrounding Closure 

Installations 

Two of the Three Military 

Departments Have 

Guidance on Maintenance 

Levels for Closed Facilities
 

Page 28 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

responsible for protecting and maintaining such assets in order to 

preserve the value of the property.23

The Navy has developed the most comprehensive guidance on the 

maintenance of closure facilities. The Department of the Navy’s Base 

Realignment and Closure Implementation Guidance describes a process 

for establishing initial maintenance levels in consultation with the local 

redevelopment authority.

The guidance further states that the 

services should consult with the local redevelopment authority to 

determine the maintenance levels for the facilities. Finally, while the DOD 

guidance states that the services have developed specific maintenance 

levels, only the Navy and the Air Force have published service-specific 

guidance to clearly describe their maintenance levels consistent with 

factors outlined in DOD’s guidance.

24

 

23 DOD Manual 4165.66-M, Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual, (March 1, 

2006).

Building maintenance levels are based on the 

intended reuse of the individual building. For example, a building that is 

designated for immediate reuse, meaning that the local redevelopment 

authority has already identified a tenant, will be given the highest level of 

maintenance. A building that does not have a reuse identified is given the 

lowest level of maintenance, where only conditions adversely affecting 

public health, the environment and safety are to be corrected. This 

guidance further states that the Navy’s BRAC Program Management 

Office is responsible for overseeing this process and for serving as the 

Navy’s liaison to the community. Navy officials stated that the local 

redevelopment authorities often want all of the buildings maintained at a 

high level or that they change their minds on the immediacy of reuse of 

the buildings after the Navy has begun maintenance at a different 

maintenance level, resulting in property that is not maintained to the level 

that the community would like because degradation of the property may 

have already occurred. Officials further stated that they are willing to work 

with communities to determine the appropriate maintenance levels and 

even to change the maintenance levels if possible, but the best way to 

ensure maintenance levels are in place to meet the needs of the 

community is for the local redevelopment authority to work closely with 

the Navy early on in the closure process to determine the proper level of 

maintenance for individual facilities.

24 Department of the Navy, Base Realignment and Closure Implementation Guidance, 

Mar. 23, 2007.
 

Page 29 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Air Force guidance from 1991 states that as facilities are vacated, they 

shall be placed into one of six maintenance levels that are dependent on 

the planned reuse of the facilities.25

Community representatives surrounding some closed Army installations 

who we spoke with in interviews and discussion groups stated that the 

Army did not always maintain the facilities to their expectations, resulting 

in facility deterioration. For example, at the former Kansas Army 

Ammunition Plant, community representatives stated that a storm 

damaged the roof of one building that was never repaired by the Army, 

resulting in mold growing inside the building and requiring the building to 

be demolished at the expense of the local redevelopment authority (see 

figure 7).

This guidance has not been updated 

to reflect the current command structure of the Air Force, including the Air 

Force Real Property Agency, which was formed in 2002 and would have 

responsibility for overseeing the implementation of these actions in a 

future BRAC round. However, officials stated that the current policy is still 

in effect and being followed, even though the Air Force has reorganized 

the components overseeing this process. The Army has not issued any 

guidance in this area. An Army official stated that the Army had draft 

guidance, but it was never finalized and that the Army therefore relies 

solely on the DOD guidance. However, the DOD guidance does not 

describe specific levels of maintenance.

 

25 Memorandum from the Civil Engineer, Department of the Air Force, Policy Guidance for 

Facility Protection and Maintenance at Closure Bases, Nov. 26, 1991.
 

Page 30 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Figure 7: Damaged Roof at Kansas Army Ammunition Plant

In interviews, discussion groups and survey responses, other 

representatives from communities surrounding closed Army installations 

provided examples of poorly maintained property. One representative 

stated that the service did not provide any maintenance to a housing 

facility, resulting in significant mold growth inside the facility and rendering 

it unusable. The community had to demolish this facility at its own 

expense. Another representative told us that the service did not properly 

maintain the grass on the property, causing it to become overgrown and 

attract wildlife. Because of this increase in wildlife in the area, the service 

had to spend approximately three times the originally budgeted amount 

for environmental restoration of the property. Another community 

representative stated that her local redevelopment authority took over the 

maintenance of an Army installation prior to transfer through a 

maintenance contract with the Army. She stated that her organization did 

this to fix issues of deferred maintenance and to ensure that buildings 

were properly maintained so that they could be reused.

An official with the Army BRAC office told us that the Army makes an 

effort to maintain closed facilities in accordance with their planned usage. 

For example, he stated that in fiscal year 2013 the Army provided $49 

million in caretaker funds for installations closed during BRAC 2005. He 

further stated that local redevelopment authorities would like the buildings 
 

Page 31 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

to be in new condition, but that is not a realistic expectation. As a result, 

an expectations gap exists between the Army and communities regarding 

the levels of maintenance to be provided to facilities during the transition 

period. Without clear guidance on the expected levels of maintenance for 

closed facilities, the communities will not have a clear understanding of 

what maintenance the Army will provide, hindering the transfer and reuse 

process.

Community representatives we surveyed or spoke with indicated that 

DOD provides good support to communities facing base growth through 

its OEA, but more data and long-term coordination could improve the 

communities’ and DOD’s ability to respond to future force structure 

changes. Without accurate and timely information, and a means to ensure 

continued effective communication throughout the growth process, 

communities will be hindered in their efforts to effectively plan for growth.

Similar to the types of support that DOD provides to communities facing

installation closures, DOD, primarily through OEA, also provides support 

to communities facing base growth. OEA provides a project manager to 

growth communities to help with technical and financial information 

assistance and growth management planning assistance. The project 

manager assists the communities in identifying available resources, 

including potential OEA grants as described above. In addition, as in the 

case of communities facing installation closures, the OEA project 

manager can link growth communities with other growth communities to 

facilitate collaboration and the sharing of best practices.

Growth community representatives that we spoke with or that responded 

to our survey were pleased with the level of support that they received 

from OEA. For example, one growth community representative 

commented that his community’s OEA project manager was a great 

source of information and had a lot of experience. Another community 

representative commented that having OEA support was tremendously 

beneficial to the community. She further stated that with OEA’s support, 

her community was able to better plan for community needs. Several 

community representatives that we spoke with stated that their project 

DOD Provides 

Support to 

Communities Facing 

Installation Growth, 

but More Data and 

Long-Term 

Coordination Is 

Needed 

DOD’s Office of Economic 

Adjustment Provides 

Support to Communities 

Facing Installation Growth
 

Page 32 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

manager visited their community regularly and participated in planning 

meetings.

Community and installation representatives that we spoke with and 

responded to our survey identified some areas where improvements

could be made to enable both DOD and the communities to be in a 

position to better respond to potential installation growth, particularly with 

regard to additional data for planning purposes and long-term 

coordination between the community and the installation.

First, community representatives indicated that they need additional 

information to adequately plan for the growth in their community. DOD 

guidance states that maximum advance information and support should 

be provided to state and local governments to plan for military growth 

actions.26 The services implemented DOD’s guidance by issuing servicespecific guidance specifying certain information that shall be provided to 

communities including military and civilian personnel changes; school-age 

children increases or decreases; and construction activity.27

 

26 DOD Directive 5410.12, Economic Adjustment Assistance to Defense-Impacted 

Communities (July 5, 2006).

However, 

some community representatives noted that they would like more specific 

information. For example, they told us that installations are unable to 

provide communities with aggregate data on where servicemembers and 

their families live while stationed at the local installation, because they do 

not have a system that tracks this type of information. Service officials 

confirmed that current personnel data systems contain the 

servicemembers’ home station of record rather than their current 

residence and payroll systems may only include direct deposit information 

and not a home address, and that therefore this information is not 

currently available. In addition, although the housing office at the 

installation may have information on the number of servicemembers living 

off the installation, there is no requirement to maintain information on 

27 Memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and 

Environment), Economic Adjustment Assistance to Defense-Impacted Communities, Jan. 

26, 2011; Memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Energy, 

and Environment), Economic Adjustment Assistance to Defense-Impacted Communities, 

Jan. 20, 2011; Memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations, 

Environment and Logistics), Economic Adjustment Assistance to Defense-Impacted 

Communities, Mar. 15, 2011.

Communities Facing 

Installation Growth 

Expressed the Need for 

More Data and Long-Term 

Coordination 
 

Page 33 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

where those servicemembers live. Installation and service officials did 

note, however, that existing data systems could potentially be modified to 

provide this information. Installation officials noted that communities 

continually asked for this information so that they can plan for the impact 

of installation growth on transportation routes, local school districts, and 

the need for various social services. Installation and service officials 

expressed some concerns about privacy and force protection issues 

stemming from the release of this information, but acknowledged that it 

would be beneficial for communities to have some type of aggregate 

information on where servicemembers reside in the communities to help 

with community planning and traffic management, including where traffic 

will feed into the access control points on base. One community 

representative noted that as installation growth often happens 

incrementally over time, having updated information that captures where 

the additional servicemembers move to during the ongoing growth period 

would enhance the communities’ ability to respond to this growth.

In addition to the need for more data on where personnel live, community 

representatives and installation officials we interviewed stated that 

establishing a long-term civilian point of contact at the base installation 

level is necessary to effectively plan for the long-term effects of growth on 

the base and local community. Both the Navy and the Marine Corps have 

a provision for a Community Planning and Liaison Officer at installations 

whose role is to be the central information point with the community. Navy 

guidance states that to ensure continuity, the inclusion of a civilian 

planner in the community planning liaison team is strongly encouraged. 

The guidance further states that not every installation can support a fulltime Community Planning and Liaison Officer position, and that this 

position can be a collateral duty. In the Marine Corps, the Community 

Planning and Liaison Officer is usually a senior civilian who has the 

responsibility to develop and maintain a network with state and local 

officials. Air Force officials told us that the Air Force has a draft instruction 

with information on this type of position, but it has not yet been approved 

and an Army official confirmed that the Army does not currently have this 

type of position. We have previously reported that career civilians 

possess institutional memory, which is particularly important in DOD 

because of the frequent rotation of military personnel.28

 

28

An official from 

GAO-03-98, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of 

Defense (Washington, D.C.: January 2003). 
 

Page 34 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

the Army BRAC office agreed that a long-term point of contact at an 

installation is important to maintaining community relationships. In the 

past, the Army specifically stationed an additional officer to large growth 

installations to be the primary contact point for the installation during the 

growth period. This official further stated that he believes that the liaison 

function can be performed by an active duty person; however, many Army 

installations have a civilian deputy garrison commander acting in this 

capacity.

According to leaders we spoke with, base commanders do an excellent 

job with community outreach; however, because they are typically only in 

their positions for 2 to 3 years and then transferred, community outreach 

has to start all over again once a new commander is appointed. In the 

Navy and the Marine Corps, the Community Planning and Liaison Officer 

does not replace the installation commander in community outreach; 

rather, the position provides an additional person to act as a day to day 

point of contact to work directly with local governments, community 

representatives, and non-governmental organizations. Officials at 

installations that we visited felt that maintaining such a position at the 

installation level would be beneficial in establishing long-term working 

relationships with the community. Accurate and timely information on 

such things as personnel residence areas and expected changes in 

demand for public services could better facilitate communities’ efforts to 

accommodate installation growth. Further, effective communication 

throughout the growth process enables community and installation 

leaders to collaborate on solutions to the problems raised by installation 

growth.

DOD plays a significant role in communities across the country, and 

actions taken by the department and the military services to change force 

structure, composition, size, or distribution can have direct impacts on the 

communities where such actions are implemented. A decision to change 

the size or population of a base installation or to close it entirely affects 

the economy of the surrounding community. DOD has taken effective 

steps to aid both growth and closure communities during the BRAC 

process, however further efforts could prove useful.

Base closure presents many challenges for a surrounding community. 

The condition of the buildings that DOD no longer needs and plans to 

either sell or transfer to the communities has a direct effect on the 

development of a successful reuse plan or arrangement between the 

parties; if properties deteriorate during the closure transition time, they will 

Conclusions 
 

Page 35 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

have less value for the communities that acquire them. In the case of the 

Army, both installation officials and communities would benefit if there 

were clear Army guidance to govern the maintenance of facilities prior to 

their transfer to the community.

Installation growth can affect surrounding communities, creating new 

demands for transportation, education, and other social services. To meet 

these needs, community representatives stated that additional information 

could be helpful to facilitate planning efforts.

Finally, community leaders pointed out that having an established longterm point of contact with the military community on base to help see 

growth projects through to completion would also be helpful. Community 

representatives generally expressed satisfaction with the quality of DOD’s 

support and regular interaction with community planners. However, the 

support and regular interaction that is so important to maintaining 

productive and efficient working relationships between communities and 

installations can be enhanced by taking steps to lessen the impact of 

changes in personnel such as those that occur with changes of station for 

military personnel. With DOD hoping to pursue more BRAC rounds in the 

future, actions that would further ease the transitions that communities 

face would be worthwhile.

To improve the ability of the Army and local communities to manage 

future base closures, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct 

the Secretary of the Army to issue, consistent with DOD guidance, 

guidance on specific levels of maintenance to be followed in the event of 

a base closure based on the probable reuse of the facilities.

To improve the ability of DOD and the local communities to respond to 

future growth actions, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct 

the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to consider 

developing a procedure for collecting service members’ physical 

addresses while stationed at an installation, annually updating this 

information, and sharing aggregate information with community 

representatives relevant for local planning decisions, such as additional 

population per zip code, consistent with privacy and force protection 

concerns.

Furthermore, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the 

Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force to consider creating or 

designating a civilian position at the installation level to be the focal point 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 36 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

and provide continuity for community interaction for future growth 

installations and to consider expanding this position to all installations. 

This position may be a collateral duty.

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with one 

recommendation and partially concurred with two recommendations. 

DOD concurred with our first recommendation to direct the Secretary of 

the Army to issue guidance on specific levels of maintenance to be 

followed in the event of a base closure, based on the probable reuse of 

the facilities. DOD stated that the Army agrees to publish property 

maintenance guidance prior to closing installations in the event of future 

base closures. 

DOD partially concurred with our second recommendation to develop a 

procedure for collecting service members’ physical addresses while

stationed at an installation, annually updating this information, and 

sharing aggregate information with community representatives. DOD 

stated that it agrees that information pertaining to the physical location of 

installation personnel helps affected communities plan for housing, 

schools, transportation and other off-post requirements and that existing 

policy requires the military departments to share planning information, 

including base personnel, with states and communities. DOD also stated 

that in the event of future basing decisions affecting local communities, it 

will work with the military departments to assess and determine the best 

means to obtain, aggregate, and distribute this information to help ensure 

that adequate planning information is made available. We are pleased 

that DOD recognizes the importance of this information to community 

planners and plans to address this in the future. However, we believe that 

proactively determining the best means to provide such information, 

rather than assessing the problem should it arise due to future basing 

decisions, would reduce the challenges the department and affected 

communities face.

DOD partially concurred with our third recommendation to direct the Army 

and the Air Force to create or designate a civilian position at the 

installation level to be the focal point for community interaction for future 

growth installations, and consider expanding this position to all 

installations. DOD stated that it agrees with the need for a designated 

position at the installation level and will ensure that each military 

department is meeting this need through current practices. DOD also 

stated that many growth installation officials often already serve as “exofficio members” of the community’s growth management organizations, 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 37 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

and as we noted in our report, community officials agree that this has 

been quite valuable for both the department and affected growth 

communities. However, it is not clear from DOD’s comments whether the 

department specifically agrees that installations should maintain a civilian 

rather than military position to fulfill the role of community liaison, and 

thus we reiterate our belief that creating or designating a civilian position 

would provide greater continuity over time than would assigning liaison 

responsibilities to a military servicemember. DOD’s comments are printed 

in their entirety in appendix V.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air 

Force; and the Director of the Office of Economic Adjustment. In addition, 

the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7968 or mctiguej@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix VI.

James R. McTigue, Jr.

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
 

Page 38 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable James Inhofe

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Tim Johnson

Chairman

The Honorable Mark Kirk

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Military Construction, 

 Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable John Culberson

Chairman

The Honorable Sanford Bishop

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Military Construction, 

 Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 39 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

To identify communities experiencing installation closures and to compare 

their current economic indicators to national averages, we focused our 

review on the 23 major DOD installations closed in the BRAC 2005 round 

and their surrounding communities. For BRAC 2005, DOD defined major 

installation closures as those that had a plant replacement value 

exceeding $100 million. We identified the major closure installations using 

DOD’s information provided for our previously issued report on BRAC.1

We defined the “community” surrounding each installation as the 

economic area identified in DOD’s Base Closure and Realignment 

Report2 which linked a metropolitan statistical area, a metropolitan 

division, or a micropolitan statistical area to each installation.3

 

1

Because 

DOD’s BRAC report did not identify the census area for the Galena 

Forward Operating Location in Alaska or the Naval Weapons Station Seal 

Beach Detachment in Concord, California, we identified the town of 

Galena as within the “Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area” and the city of 

Concord in the Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division and 

our analyses used the population and economic data for these areas. To 

compare the economic indicator data of the communities surrounding the 

23 major DOD installations closed in the BRAC 2005 round to U.S. 

national averages, we collected and analyzed calendar year 2011 

unemployment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and

calendar year 2006 through 2011 per capita income growth data, along 

with data on inflation, from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), 

which we used to calculate real per capita income growth. The most 

current calendar year for which local area data was available from these 

databases was 2011. We assessed the reliability of these data by 

reviewing BLS and BEA documentation regarding the methods used by 

GAO-13-149. 

2 Department of Defense, Base Closure and Realignment Report, Volume I, Part 1 of 2: 

Results and Process, (May 2005).

3 Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas (metro and micro areas) are geographic 

entities delineated by the Office of Management and Budget for use by Federal statistical 

agencies in collecting, tabulating, and publishing federal statistics. A metro area contains 

a core urban area of 50,000 or more population, and a micro area contains an urban core 

of at least 10,000 (but less than 50,000) population. Each metro or micro area consists of 

one or more counties and includes the counties containing the core urban area, as well as 

any adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economic integration (as 

measured by commuting to work) with the urban core. A Metropolitan Division is used to 

refer to a county or group of counties within a Metropolitan Statistical Area that has a 

population core of at least 2.5 million. There are 11 Metropolitan Statistical Areas deemed 

large enough to be subdivided into metropolitan divisions.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 40 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

each agency in producing their data and found the data to be sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes. We used unemployment and real per capita 

income as key performance indicators because (1) DOD used these 

measures in its community economic impact analysis during the BRAC 

location selection process and (2) economists commonly use these 

measures in assessing the economic health of an area over time. While 

our assessment provides an overall picture of how these communities 

compare with the national averages, it does not necessarily isolate the 

condition, or the changes in that condition, that may be attributed to a 

specific BRAC action.

To identify the installations that have experienced significant population 

increases since 2005 (“growth installations”) and their surrounding 

communities, we collected and analyzed available military service data 

regarding the personnel growth at 23 growth installations within the 

United States. We identified the major growth installations by using 

DOD’s information provided for our previously issued report on BRAC and 

OEA grant data.4

 

4

We defined the “community” surrounding each 

installation as the community identified in DOD’s Base Closure and 

Realignment Report which linked a Metropolitan Statistical Area to each 

installation, supplemented with U.S. Bureau Census data as needed. To 

describe the populations of the 23 DOD growth installations and their 

surrounding communities, we collected and analyzed population data 

from the military services and the U.S. Census Bureau, respectively. In 

order to present information regarding expected growth at each military 

installation, we analyzed Army and Air Force headquarters-level data, 

and Navy and Marine Corps installation-level population data. We 

obtained and analyzed the installation population data for fiscal years 

2006 and 2012, the most recent data available, for military and civilian 

personnel excluding dependents and nonmission-related contractors. We 

contacted cognizant Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force officials to 

gather and explain these data. We found this data to be sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes. We analyzed community population data for 

calendar years 2006 through 2011, the most recent data available. For 

the 2006 populations, we used the latest estimates available, which were 

from 2009. We assessed the reliability of the Census Bureau data by 

reviewing documentation regarding the methods used to produce the 

data. We assessed the reliability of the military service data by asking 

GAO-08-665. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 41 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

service officials to answer a set of standard questions about the accuracy 

and completeness of the data including relevant data collection, storage, 

maintenance, and error-checking procedures. In addition, we conducted 

logic and computational checks on the data that the Army provided. We 

found all these data sources to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

While our assessment provides an overall picture of how these 

installations and communities grew during this timeframe, it does not 

necessarily isolate the condition, or the changes in that condition, that 

may be attributed to a specific BRAC action.

To gain initial insight into the practices and strategies communities used 

to address installation closures and growth, we held two discussion group 

meetings with closure community representatives and two discussion 

group meetings with growth community representatives at the Association 

of Defense Communities Conference in August 2012 in Monterey, 

California. Officials from six closure communities and six growth 

communities participated in these groups. A discussion group protocol 

was developed to help the moderator gather information from these 

officials about the experiences of these communities. The protocol 

contained questions about challenges the communities had experienced, 

strategies that the communities have found successful in preparing for or 

dealing with installation closure or growth, and the type and quality of 

assistance they had received from multiple sources. Notes were taken by 

at least one, but usually multiple, GAO note-takers. Sessions were audiorecorded but recordings were used as a backup to written notes only. The 

results of these discussion groups cannot be generalized to all closure or 

growth communities, but common responses across groups and similar 

findings through the survey provide converging validation. We also 

conducted a survey of closure and growth communities, which is 

described in detail below. We also called and talked to several 

respondents by phone to clarify their answers to the survey and ask 

additional follow-up questions. Further, we collected data from OEA about 

the grants that they provided to closure and growth communities. We 

assessed the reliability of the OEA data by asking OEA officials to answer 

a set of standard questions about the accuracy and completeness of the 

data including relevant data collection, storage, maintenance, and errorchecking procedures. We found these data to be sufficiently reliable for 

our purposes.

To gain additional insight into the practices and strategies communities 

used to address installation growth, we visited four locations representing 

each of the military departments: Camp Lejeune Marine Corp Base, North 

Carolina; Eglin Air Force Base, Florida; Fort Belvoir, Virginia; and Joint 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 42 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. At each location we interviewed 

installation and local community officials regarding the communities’ 

growth challenges and strategies.

To determine the extent to which DOD has provided support to 

communities to address base closure or growth, we discussed this issue 

with closure and growth community representatives individually and in the 

discussion groups described earlier and we interviewed DOD and service 

officials. We also surveyed closure and growth community 

representatives on their experiences and any areas where they felt they 

needed additional support or areas they considered adequate to support 

their needs. The survey is described in detail below. We also reviewed 

DOD and service guidance on DOD and the services’ roles and 

responsibilities in the event of a base closure or growth.

To inform multiple objectives, we sent a survey to representatives of all 

23 growth communities and 22 of the 23 closure communities to gather 

detailed information on the greatest challenges each community had 

experienced, successful strategies they had used to deal with change, 

and assistance and information they had received from federal sources. 

We did not send a survey to the Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant 

because the property was transferred from the U.S. Army to the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, which did not require disposal 

through a local redevelopment authority.

The survey was implemented as a self-administered Microsoft Word form 

emailed to respondents. We sent e-mail notifications to community 

representatives beginning on November 5, 2012. We then sent the 

questionnaire and a cover e-mail to representatives on November 7, 2012 

and asked them to fill in the questionnaire form and email it back to us 

within two weeks. To encourage respondents to complete the 

questionnaire, we sent e-mail message reminders and a replacement 

questionnaire to each non-respondent approximately one week and three 

weeks after the initial questionnaire was sent. We also made follow-up 

phone calls to non-respondents from December 11, 2012 to February 4, 

2013. We closed the survey on February 19, 2013. Overall, we received 

37 completed questionnaires for an overall response rate of 82.2 percent. 

Of those, 21 were from growth communities and 16 were from closure 

communities, for response rates of 91.3 percent and 72.7 percent, 

respectively.

To minimize errors that might occur from respondents interpreting our 

questions differently than we intended, we pretested our questionnaire 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 43 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

with four community officials (two from growth communities, two from 

closure communities) who were in positions similar to the respondents

who would complete our actual survey. During these pretests, we asked 

the officials to complete the questionnaire as we observed the process 

and noted potential problems (two sessions were conducted in-person, 

two were conducted by phone). We then discussed the questions and 

instructions with the officials to check whether (1) the questions and 

instructions were clear and unambiguous, (2) the terms used were 

accurate, (3) the questionnaire was unbiased, (4) the questionnaire did 

not place an undue burden on the officials completing it, and (5) to 

identify potential solutions to any problems identified. We also submitted 

the questionnaire for review by an independent GAO survey specialist 

and two external reviewers who were experts on the topic of the survey

(selected based on their experience with military installation closure 

and/or growth issues). We modified the questionnaire based on feedback 

from the pretests and reviews, as appropriate.

Because we attempted to collect data from every community rather than a 

sample of communities, there was no sampling error. However, the 

practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors, 

commonly referred to as non-sampling errors. For example, differences in 

how a particular question is interpreted, the sources of information 

available to respondents, how the responses were processed and 

analyzed, or the types of people who do not respond can influence the 

accuracy of the survey results. We took steps in the development of the 

survey, the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors and help ensure the accuracy of the answers that were 

obtained. For example, a social science survey specialist designed the 

questionnaire, in collaboration with GAO staff with subject matter

expertise. Then, as noted earlier, the draft questionnaire was pretested to 

ensure that questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to 

comprehend. The questionnaire was also reviewed by external experts 

and an additional GAO survey specialist. Data were electronically 

extracted from the Word questionnaires into a comma-delimited file which 

was then imported into a statistical program for analyses. No manual data 

entry was performed, thereby removing an additional potential source of 

error. We examined the survey results and performed computer analyses 

to identify inconsistencies and other indications of error, and addressed 

such issues as necessary. Quantitative data analyses and the compilation 

of open-ended responses were conducted by the first GAO survey 

specialist using statistical software and working directly with GAO staff 

with subject matter expertise. An independent GAO data analyst checked 

the statistical computer programs for accuracy.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 44 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

The verbatim wording of key survey questions whose results are 

discussed in this report is below:

What have been your community’s three greatest challenges in 

dealing with base closure or growth in your community? Please 

list one challenge per box below. You can list up to three challenges 

in any order. (Response options provided: Three text boxes.)

What successful strategies, if any, has your community used in 

dealing with the first challenge? The box will expand as you type. 

(Response option provided: One text box.)

Has your community received any financial, technical, or other 

assistance (e.g., networking assistance) from the Office of 

Economic Adjustment, the military services, or any other office 

within the Department of Defense (DOD) to deal with the first 

challenge you listed above? Please do not include any 

assistance you received from the Association of Defense 

Communities or any other agency or organization other than 

DOD. (Response options provided: Checkboxes labeled “Yes”, “No”, 

and ‘Don’t know.”) 

If Yes, what assistance has your community received from the 

Office of Economic Adjustment, the military services, or any 

other office within DOD to deal with the first challenge you listed 

above? (Response option provided: One text box.)

In your opinion, did the Office of Economic Adjustment provide 

adequate assistance to address the first challenge you listed 

above? (Response options provided: Checkboxes labeled “Yes”, 

“No”, and ‘Don’t know.”) 

Responses to closed-ended (e.g., Yes/No) questions were summarized 

as standard descriptive statistics. Responses to open-ended questions 

were analyzed through content analysis. In conducting the content 

analysis, one GAO analyst reviewed each open-ended response from 

each community representative to identify recurring themes. Using the 

identified themes, the analyst then developed categories for coding the 

responses. A second GAO analyst reviewed each response from each 

community representative and reviewed the first analyst’s themes and 

categories to reach concurrence on the themes and categories. Each of 

the two GAO analysts then independently reviewed the answers to each 

open-ended question and placed them into one or more of the categories. 

The analysts then compared their coding to identify any disagreements 

and reached agreement on all items through discussion.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 45 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

We conducted this performance audit from June 2012 to May 2013 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.
Appendix II: Major Installations Closed During 

1988, 1991, 1993 BRAC Rounds

Page 46 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Major DOD Installation BRAC Round

Army Material Tech Lab, MA 1988

Cameron Station, VA 1988

Chanute Air Force Base, IL 1988

Fort Douglas, UT 1988

Fort Sheridan, IL 1988

George Air Force Base, CA 1988

Jefferson Proving Ground, IN 1988

Lexington Army Depot, KY 1988

Mather Air Force Base, CA 1988

Naval Station Brooklyn, NY 1988

Naval Station Galveston, TX 1988

Naval Station Lake Charles, LA 1988

Norton Air Force Base, CA 1988

Pease Air Force Base, NH 1988

Philadelphia Naval Hospital, PA 1988

Presidio of San Francisco, CA 1988

Bergstrom Air Force Base, TX 1991

Carswell Air Force Base, TX 1991

Castle Air Force Base, CA 1991

Chase Field Naval Air Station, TX 1991

Eaker Air Force Base, AR 1991

England Air Force Base, LA 1991

Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN 1991

Fort Devens, MA 1991

Fort Ord, CA 1991

Grissom Air Force Base, IN 1991

Hunters Point Annex, CA 1991

Loring Air Force Base, ME 1991

Lowry Air Force Base, CO 1991

Moffett Naval Air Station, CA 1991

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, SC 1991

Naval Electronic Systems Engineering Center San Diego, CA 1991

Naval Station Long Beach, CA 1991

Naval Station Philadelphia, PA 1991

Naval Station Puget Sound, WA 1991

Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, PA 1991

Richards-Gebaur Air Reserve Station, MO 1991

Appendix II: Major Installations Closed 

During 1988, 1991, 1993 BRAC Rounds
Appendix II: Major Installations Closed During 

1988, 1991, 1993 BRAC Rounds

Page 47 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Major DOD Installation BRAC Round

Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base, OH 1991

Sacramento Army Depot, CA 1991

Tustin Marine Corps Air Station, CA 1991

Williams Air Force Base, AZ 1991

Wurtsmith Air Force Base, MI 1991

Charleston Naval Shipyard, SC 1993

Defense Personnel Support Center, PA 1993

Gentile Air Force Station, OH 1993

Homestead Air Force Base, FL 1993

K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base, MI 1993

Mare Island Naval Shipyard, CA 1993

Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, CA 1993

Naval Air Station Agana, Guam 1993

Naval Air Station Alameda, CA 1993

Naval Air Station Barbers Point, HI 1993

Naval Air Station Cecil Field, FL 1993

Naval Air Station Dallas, TX 1993

Naval Air Station Glenview, IL 1993

Naval Aviation Depot Alameda, CA 1993

Naval Aviation Depot Norfolk, VA 1993

Naval Aviation Depot Pensacola, FL 1993

Naval Electronic Systems Engineering Center St. Inigoes, MD 1993

Naval Hospital Oakland, CA 1993

Naval Station Charleston, SC 1993

Naval Station Mobile, AL 1993

Naval Station Staten Island, NY 1993

Naval Station Treasure Island, CA 1993

Naval Training Center Orlando, FL 1993

Naval Training Center San Diego, CA 1993

Newark Air Force Base, OH 1993

O’Hare International Airport Air Reserve Station, IL 1993

Plattsburgh Air Force Base, NY 1993

Vint Hill Farms, VA 1993

Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal, NJ 1995

Bergstrom Air Reserve Base, TX 1995

Defense Distribution Depot Memphis, TN 1995

Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, UT 1995
Appendix II: Major Installations Closed During 

1988, 1991, 1993 BRAC Rounds

Page 48 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Major DOD Installation BRAC Round

Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, CO 1995

Fleet Industrial Supply Center Oakland, CA 1995

Fort Chaffee, AR 1995

Fort Holabird, MD 1995

Fort Indiantown Gap, PA 1995

Fort McClellan, AL 1995

Fort Pickett, VA 1995

Fort Ritchie, MD 1995

McClellan Air Force Base, CA 1995

Naval Air Facility Adak, AK 1995

Naval Air Station South Weymoth, MA 1995

Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Indianapolis, IN 1995

Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Warminster, PA 1995

Naval Shipyard Long Beach, CA 1995

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division Detachment, 

Louisville, KY

1995

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division Detachment, 

White Oak, MD

1995

Oakland Army Base, CA 1995

Ontario International Airport Air Guard Station, CA 1995

Reese Air Force Base, TX 1995

Roslyn Air Guard Station, NY 1995

Savanna Army Depot Activity, IL 1995

Seneca Army Depot, NY 1995

Ship Repair Facility, Guam 1995

Source: DOD.
Appendix III: Locations of Major Installations 

Closed in BRAC 2005 and Their Corresponding 

Economic Areas

Page 49 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Closure Installation Locality Economic Area[a] 

Army 

Deseret Chemical Depot, UT Tooele, UT Salt Lake City, UT 

 Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Gillem, GA Forest Park, GA Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 

 Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort McPherson, GA Atlanta, GA Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 

 Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Monmouth, NJ Eatontown, NJ Edison, NJ 

 Metropolitan Division

Fort Monroe, VA Hampton, VA Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 

 Metropolitan Statistical Area

Kansas Army Ammunition Plant, KS Parsons, KS Parsons, KS 

 Micropolitan Statistical Area

Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, TX Texarkana, TX Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR 

 Metropolitan Statistical Area

Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, MS Hancock County, MS Picayune, MS

 Micropolitan Statistical Area

Newport Chemical Depot, IN Newport, IN Terre Haute, IN 

 Metropolitan Statistical Area

Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, CA Riverbank, CA Modesto, CA 

 Metropolitan Statistical Area

Selfridge Army Activity, MI Chesterfield Township, MI Warren-Farmington Hills-Troy, MI 

 Metropolitan Division

Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR Hermiston, OR Pendleton-Hermiston, OR 

 Micropolitan Statistical Area

Navy 

Naval Air Station Atlanta, GA Marietta, GA Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 

 Metropolitan Statistical Area

Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME Brunswick, ME Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME 

 Metropolitan Statistical Area

Naval Air Station Willow Grove, PA Horsham, PA Philadelphia, PA 

 Metropolitan Division

Naval Station Ingleside, TX Ingleside, TX Corpus Christi, TX 

 Metropolitan Statistical Area

Naval Station Pascagoula, MS Pascagoula, MS Pascagoula, MS 

 Metropolitan Statistical Area

Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Concord, CA Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA

Concord Detachment, CA Metropolitan Division

Appendix III: Locations of Major Installations 

Closed in BRAC 2005 and Their 

Corresponding Economic Areas
Appendix III: Locations of Major Installations 

Closed in BRAC 2005 and Their Corresponding 

Economic Areas

Page 50 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Closure Installation Locality Economic Area[a] 

Air Force 

Brooks City-Base, TX San Antonio, TX San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 

 Metropolitan Statistical Area

Galena Forward Operating Location, AK Galena, AK Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 

 

General Mitchell Air Reserve Station, WI Milwaukee, WI Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Kulis Air Guard Station, AK Anchorage, AK Anchorage, AK 

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Onizuka Air Force Station, CA Sunnyvale, CA San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 

 Metropolitan Statistical Area

Source: DOD and community data.

Note: a We identified the economic area using DOD’s Base Closure and Realignment Report which 

linked a Metropolitan Statistical Area, a Metropolitan Division, or a Micropolitan Statistical Area to 

each installation. Because DOD’s BRAC report did not identify the census area for the Galena 

Forward Operating Location in Alaska, we identified the town of Galena as within the “Yukon-Koyukuk 

Census Area” and the city of Concord in the Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division 

and our analyses used the population and economic data for these areas.
Appendix IV: Locations of Major DOD Growth 

Installations in BRAC 2005 and 

Their Corresponding Economic Areas

Page 51 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Growth Installation Locality Economic Area 

Army

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD Aberdeen, MD Baltimore-Towson, MD

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Belvoir, VA Fairfax County, VA Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan 

Division

Fort Benning, GA Cusseta, GA Columbus, GA-AL 

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Bliss, TX El Paso, TX El Paso, TX

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Bragg, NC Fayetteville, NC Fayetteville, NC

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Carson, CO Colorado Springs, CO Colorado Springs, CO

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Drum, NY Watertown, NY Watertown-Fort Drum, NY

Micropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Knox, KY Radcliff, KY Elizabethtown, KY

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Lee, VA Hopewell, Petersburg and 

Colonial Heights, VA

Richmond, VA

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Meade, MD Odenton, Laurel, Columbia and 

Jessup Counties, MD

Baltimore-Towson, MD

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Polk, LA Leesville, LA Fort Polk South, LA

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Fort Riley, KS Junction City, Ogden, and 

Manhattan, KS

Manhattan, KS,

Micropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Sill, OK Lawton, OK Lawton, OK

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Stewart, GA Hinesville , GA Hinesville- Fort Stewart, GA

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Joint Base Lewis-McChord, 

WA

Lakewood, WA Tacoma, WA

Metropolitan Division

Redstone Arsenal, AL Huntsville AL Huntsville AL

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Navy

Marine Corps Camp Lejeune, 

NC 

Jacksonville and Havelock, NC Jacksonville, NC

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Marine Corps Air Station New 

River, NC

Jacksonville and Havelock, NC Jacksonville, NC

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Appendix IV: Locations of Major DOD 

Growth Installations in BRAC 2005 and 

Their Corresponding Economic Areas
Appendix IV: Locations of Major DOD Growth 

Installations in BRAC 2005 and 

Their Corresponding Economic Areas

Page 52 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Growth Installation Locality Economic Area 

Marine Corps Base, Quantico, 

VA 

Triangle,VA Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

Metropolitan Division

Marine Corps Air Station 

Cherry Point, NC

Jacksonville and Havelock, NC New Bern, NC

Micropolitan Statistical Area

Walter Reed National Military 

Medical Center, MD

Bethesda, MD Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, MD

Metropolitan Division

Air Force

Joint Base San Antonio, TX San Antonio, TX San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Andrews Air Force Base, MD Prince George’s County, MD Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan 

Division

Cannon Air Force Base, NM Clovis, NM Clovis, NM

Micropolitan Statistical Area

Eglin Air Force Base, FL Shalimar, Niceville, Valparaiso

and Fort Walton Beach, FL 

Crestview -Fort Walton Beach- -Destin, FL

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Source: DOD and community data. 

Note: We identified the economic area using DOD’s Base Closure and Realignment Report which 

linked a Metropolitan Statistical Area, a Metropolitan Division, or a Micropolitan Statistical Area to 

each installation
Appendix V: Comments from the 

Department of Defense

Page 53 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Appendix V: Comments from the 

Department of Defense 
Appendix V: Comments from the 

Department of Defense

Page 54 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 55 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

James R. McTigue, Jr., (202) 512-7968 or mctiguej@gao.gov. 

In addition to the contact named above, Laura Durland, Assistant 

Director; Bonita Anderson; Leslie Bharadwaja; Timothy Carr; Mary Jo 

LaCasse; Gregory Marchand; Michael Silver; and Erik Wilkins-McKee 

made key contributions to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products

Page 56 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Defense Infrastructure: Improved Guidance Needed for Estimating 

Alternatively Financed Project Liabilities. GAO-13-337. Washington, D.C.: 

April 18, 2013.

Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment 

and Closure Rounds. GAO-13-149. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2013.

DOD Joint Bases: Management Improvements Needed to Achieve 

Greater Efficiencies. GAO-13-134. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 

2012.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: The National GeospatialIntelligence Agency’s Technology Center Construction Project. 

GAO-12-770R. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2012.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Updated Costs and Savings 

Estimates from BRAC 2005. GAO-12-709R. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 

2012.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Key Factors Contributing to 

BRAC 2005 Results. GAO-12-513T. Washington, D.C.: March 8, 2012.

Excess Facilities: DOD Needs More Complete Information and a Strategy 

to Guide Its Future Disposal Efforts. GAO-11-814. Washington, D.C.: 

September 19, 2011.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Review of the Iowa and Milan 

Army Ammunition Plants. GAO-11-488R. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 

2011.

GAO’s 2011 High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-11-394T. Washington, 

D.C.: February 17, 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. Washington, D.C.: 

January 26, 2011.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Is Taking Steps to 

Mitigate Challenges but Is Not Fully Reporting Some Additional Costs. 

GAO-10-725R. Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2010.

Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products

Page 57 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Defense Infrastructure: Army Needs to Improve Its Facility Planning 

Systems to Better Support Installations Experiencing Significant Growth.

GAO-10-602. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2010.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have 

Increased While Savings Estimates Have Decreased Since Fiscal Year 

2009. GAO-10-98R. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 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. GAO-09-750. 

Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2009.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Needs to Update Savings 

Estimates and Continue to Address Challenges in Consolidating SupplyRelated Functions at Depot Maintenance Locations. GAO-09-703. 

Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2009.

Defense Infrastructure: DOD Needs to Periodically Review Support 

Standards and Costs at Joint Bases and Better Inform Congress of 

Facility Sustainment Funding Uses. GAO-09-336. Washington, D.C.: 

March 30, 2009.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Faces Challenges in 

Implementing Recommendations on Time and Is Not Consistently 

Updating Savings Estimates. GAO-09-217. Washington, D.C.: January 

30, 2009.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Army Is Developing Plans to 

Transfer Functions from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, to Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, Maryland, but Challenges Remain. GAO-08-1010R. 

Washington, D.C.: August 13, 2008.

Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help 

Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth.

GAO-08-665. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2008.

Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and Road 

Improvements Surrounding Growth Installations. GAO-08-602R. 

Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2008.
Related GAO Products

Page 58 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Higher Costs and Lower 

Savings Projected for Implementing Two Key Supply-Related BRAC 

Recommendations. GAO-08-315. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2008.

Defense Infrastructure: Realignment of Air Force Special Operations 

Command Units to Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. GAO-08-244R. 

Washington, D.C.: January 18, 2008.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have 

Increased and Estimated Savings Have Decreased. GAO-08-341T. 

Washington, D.C.: December 12, 2007.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Cost Estimates Have 

Increased and Are Likely to Continue to Evolve. GAO-08-159. 

Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2007.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Impact of Terminating, 

Relocating, or Outsourcing the Services of the Armed Forces Institute of 

Pathology. GAO-08-20. Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2007.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Transfer of Supply, Storage, 

and Distribution Functions from Military Services to Defense Logistics 

Agency. GAO-08-121R. Washington, D.C.: October 26, 2007.

Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase Risks for Providing Timely 

Infrastructure Support for Army Installations Expecting Substantial 

Personnel Growth. GAO-07-1007. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 

2007.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Plan Needed to Monitor 

Challenges for Completing More Than 100 Armed Forces Reserve 

Centers. GAO-07-1040. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Observations Related to the 

2005 Round. GAO-07-1203R. Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2007.

Military Base Closures: Projected Savings from Fleet Readiness Centers 

Likely Overstated and Actions Needed to Track Actual Savings and 

Overcome Certain Challenges. GAO-07-304. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 

2007.

Military Base Closures: Management Strategy Needed to Mitigate 

Challenges and Improve Communication to Help Ensure Timely 
Related GAO Products

Page 59 GAO-13-436 Defense Infrastructure

Implementation of Air National Guard Recommendations. GAO-07-641. 

Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2007.

Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental 

Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property. 

GAO-07-166. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2007.

Military Bases: Observations on DOD’s 2005 Base Realignment and 

Closure Selection Process and Recommendations. GAO-05-905. 

Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2005.

Military Bases: Analysis of DOD’s 2005 Selection Process and 

Recommendations for Base Closures and Realignments. GAO-05-785. 

Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005.

Military Base Closures: Observations on Prior and Current BRAC 

Rounds. GAO-05-614. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2005.

Military Base Closures: Assessment of DOD’s 2004 Report on the Need 

for a Base Realignment and Closure Round. GAO-04-760. Washington, 

D.C.: May 17, 2004.

(351734)
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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 website, 

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.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.