Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Federal Interagency Coordination Is Warranted to Address Transportation Needs beyond the Scope of the Defense Access Roads Program
Published: 2011-01-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The unprecedented growth at 26 military installations across the country due to the implementation of several concurrent Department of Defense (DOD) initiatives is expected to stress transportation needs for surrounding communities. The Defense Access Roads program, while small when compared to other transportation funding sources, provides a means for DOD to pay a share of the cost of highway improvements due to unusual and sudden DOD-generated activities. In response to a congressional request to review the program, GAO (1) assessed the use of the program to mitigate transportation needs and (2) identified additional steps that may be necessary to address unmet transportation needs. GAO conducted extensive interviews with 26 growth installations and visited installations and state authorities in Maryland, Texas, and Virginia to discuss transportation issues.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Defense Access Roads program is providing some assistance in mitigating transportation needs in communities surrounding growth installations, but program usage has been limited, in part, by a lack of knowledge of the program, outdated regulations, and unclear guidance on how to navigate the program's complex process. DOD has certified 20 transportation projects at 11 of the 26 military installation locations since 2004. Of the 20 certified projects, 11 have been funded at about $125 million. Considering funding delays and construction time frames, most of the approved projects to date are unlikely to provide relief in the near term. The procedures of the Defense Access Roads program are complex, involving multiple federal, state, and local stakeholders. The guidance describing the program's procedures and, specifically, the application of the criteria, is difficult to follow and some regulations and guidance are outdated. Despite program outreach efforts and positive experiences with program administrators, military officials from 11 installations said that more information would be helpful to clarify the program's procedures. Without program guidance that clearly details the program's procedures and is effectively communicated to all stakeholders, the program may not be used to its fullest extent. GAO identified an additional step that may be necessary to meet the large pool of the transportation needs that are not being met by the Defense Access program--greater high-level federal interagency coordination. Aside from the Defense Access Roads program, other sources of funding exist that can be used to help mitigate unmet needs in the defense-affected communities. Local and state agencies generally have the responsibility for constructing and maintaining highways and are the recipients of billions of dollars from federal sources, such as grants from the Department of Transportation or through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. GAO found that some of the transportation projects at several of the military growth locations have been funded by the states in which they are located and others are recipients of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. Because this assistance is coming from diverse sources and is largely uncoordinated among the stakeholders involved, it is unclear to what extent priority consideration is being given to the defense-affected communities as prescribed by Executive Order 12788. This presidential order provided for a federal committee--the Economic Adjustment Committee--bringing together 22 agencies, under the leadership of the Secretary of Defense or his designee to, among other things, support various programs designed to assist communities most affected by defense activities. As chair of the committee, DOD has the opportunity to convene full committee meetings and exercise high-level leadership needed to ensure that federal agencies are affording priority consideration to defense-affected communities. However, the committee has only rarely convened and has at no time discussed transportation needs affecting all 26 growth locations. Without this leadership, it is unlikely that the federal agencies can provide the effective interagency and intergovernmental coordination and potential funds needed to help address the unmet transportation needs of defense-affected communities.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD in coordination with the Department of Transportation (1) update, clarify, and communicate the program's guidelines to all stakeholders to promote more effective program utilization, and (2) ensure regular meetings of appropriate high-level leaders to identify existing federal transportation funding resources and develop a strategy for giving priority consideration to defense-affected communities. DOD partially concurred with our recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The recent concurrent implementation of numerous Department of  Defense (DOD) initiatives—including the 2005 Base Realignment and  Closure (BRAC) round, force structure increases for the Army and the  Marine Corps under the Grow the Force initiative, a major Army  reorganization known as force modularity and the redeployment of U.S.  forces in overseas locations back to the United States under the Global  Defense Posture Realignment—has resulted in anticipated and actual  growth at many domestic military installations and has produced a  concomitant increase in unmet transportation needs in many surrounding  communities. According to several transportation experts, while many of  these needs may have existed prior to the growth, DOD growth has  exacerbated those needs with, for example, increased traffic congestion.  Military and civilian quality of life as well as military mission, in certain  cases, can be adversely affected if off-installation transportation  infrastructure becomes significantly overburdened due to growth in  installation populations.
State and local highway agencies are primarily responsible for developing  and maintaining public highways that meet normal defense and other  transportation needs. These agencies rely on federal dollars primarily from  the Highway Trust Fund to help accomplish this mission. In fiscal year  2009, approximately $42.4 billion was provided to states and the District of  Columbia through this fund for highway-related projects. In addition, in  February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009  provided another approximately $25.6 billion for state and local highway  infrastructure investment projects. Nonetheless, a large backlog of unmet  transportation needs remains, in part because state and local governments  have experienced fiscal pressures that have strained their ability to help  fund their share of transportation projects. While it is difficult to  determine the magnitude of the unmet needs, we reported in 2009 that  communities surrounding 18 military installations expecting BRAC-related  growth had estimated over $2 billion in defense-related transportation  needs. This has resulted in an increased interest in the Defense Access  Roads (DAR) program to help mitigate adverse transportation impacts.
The DAR program, established in 1956, authorizes the Secretary of  Transportation to use funds appropriated for Defense Access Roads to  fully or partially fund public road improvements that are certified as  important to national defense. The program is co-administered by DOD  and the Department of Transportation and provides a means for DOD to  pay its “fair share” of public road improvements needed in response to  sudden and unusual defense-generated traffic impacts to help ensure  adequate transportation capacity is in place when needed. Although the  program is much smaller than other federal transportation funding  sources, averaging about $22.5 million a year in funding for transportation  projects since calendar year 2001, it is unique in that it establishes a  method for DOD to play a role in funding projects that typically fall under  the Department of Transportation’s scope of responsibility. Under DAR  program regulations, military installation commanders can initiate a  request for assistance from DAR if the defense-related transportation need  affecting the surrounding community is sudden, unusual, or unique in  nature, and state and local transportation authorities are either unable or  unwilling to address the need within an acceptable time frame.
In our prior work on the impact of military growth installations on  surrounding communities, we found that 80 percent of those communities  cited transportation as one of their top three infrastructure challenges  stemming from the growth. We have also reported previously on federal,  state, and local actions to mitigate growth impacts and found that federal  monetary support for those defense-affected communities has been  limited. Moreover, we reported that while it is DOD’s policy to take a  leadership role to assist defense-affected communities as detailed in DOD  Directive 5410.12, DOD had not provided the high-level leadership critical  to achieving effective interagency collaboration, by neglecting to convene  the 22-agency Economic Adjustment Committee—which includes the  Secretary of Transportation or his designated principal deputy and is to be  chaired by the Secretary of Defense or his designee. Under Executive  Order 12788, the Economic Adjustment Committee is expected to provide  coordinated federal economic adjustment assistance to defense-affected  communities. (See appendix IV for a reprint of Executive Order 12788.)  As of November 2010, DOD officials said that DOD had yet to convene the  entire Economic Adjustment Committee regarding domestic military  growth impacts. We further reported that, in the absence of high-level  leadership in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, DOD’s Office of  Economic Adjustment had been proactive in assisting affected  communities by providing technical assistance and grants to plan for  growth, but could not guide interagency operations at a high enough level  to promote effective interagency coordination to better identify available  federal assistance.
While recognizing the importance of the current DOD growth initiatives,  the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Military  Construction and Veterans Affairs expressed concerns about the potential  impact on the quality of life and military mission if off-installation  transportation infrastructure becomes significantly overburdened due to  population increases at growth installations. Consequently, the  subcommittee asked us to review DOD’s use of the DAR program to  mitigate defense-generated traffic impacts. For this report, our objectives  were (1) to assess the extent to which the DAR program has been used to  mitigate defense-related transportation impacts on surrounding  communities, and (2) to identify additional steps that may be necessary to  address unmet transportation needs in those impacted communities.
To address our objectives, we focused our review on the transportation  needs and use of the DAR program at the 26 domestic military installation  locations eligible for assistance from DOD’s Office of Economic  Adjustment as growth installations. These 26 installations are listed in  table 1. (See fig. 1 in the Background section of this report for a map of  these locations.)
To assess the extent to which the DAR program has been used to mitigate  defense-related transportation needs, we used a data collection instrument  consisting of structured interview questions related to transportation  needs and use of the DAR program that we asked of installation officials  responsible for transportation issues at the 26 growth locations. We used  the structured interview approach to provide consistency and help assure  comparability of the responses we received. We subsequently analyzed the  responses to identify any significant trends and to gain further insight into  the nature of the transportation needs and issues with use of the DAR  program to mitigate transportation issues. We also analyzed appropriate  DOD and Department of Transportation laws and regulations and  conducted extensive follow-on interviews with DOD officials responsible  for implementing the DAR program at DOD’s Military Surface Deployment  and Distribution Command and with Federal Highway Administration  officials within the Department of Transportation. To better understand  how military installation officials interact with the wide array of state and  local transportation officials and community stakeholders, we conducted  more in-depth field work in the three states with the largest number of  military growth communities—Maryland, Texas, and Virginia. In those  states, we discussed transportation issues with state government officials  and conducted field work at three growth bases—the Naval Support  Activity Bethesda in Maryland; Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas; and several  Fort Belvoir locations in Northern Virginia—where we reviewed relevant  documentation and discussed specific DAR projects and transportation  needs that remain unmet.
To identify additional steps that may be necessary to address unmet  transportation needs surrounding military growth installations, we used  our data collection instrument to ask military officials at the 26 growth  installations what they thought was working well within the DAR program  and what actions, if any, could be taken to improve the program. We also  interviewed DOD and Department of Transportation officials regarding  what other funding resources were available to address unmet  transportation needs and the extent of high-level interaction to address  transportation needs. We further reviewed our prior work related to  challenges facing military growth communities and the status of actions  taken by DOD in response to the findings resulting from that work. (See  appendix I for more information on our scope and methodology.)
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 through  December 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DOD is currently implementing several major force structure and basing  initiatives that are expected to result in a large number of personnel  movements and changes in the size and shape of its domestic installation  infrastructure, most of which are expected to be completed by the end of  2011. First, under the 2005 BRAC round, DOD is implementing 182  recommendations, as set forth by the BRAC Commission, which must be  completed by the statutory deadline of September 15, 2011. Through the  2005 BRAC process, DOD intended to transform its departmentwide  domestic installation infrastructure and, as such, the recommendations  have an unusually large number of realignment actions that are expected  to result in significant personnel movements across DOD’s installations.  Second, under the Global Defense Posture Realignment, DOD is realigning  its overseas basing structure to more effectively support current allies and  strategies in addition to addressing emerging threats and is returning  thousands of service members, along with family members and civilian  employees, to the United States. Third, the Army is also undergoing major  force restructuring in implementing its force modularity effort, which has  been referred to as the largest Army reorganization in 50 years. Finally,  DOD is implementing a Grow the Force initiative intended to permanently  increase the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps by 74,000 soldiers  and 27,000 marines, respectively, to enhance overall U.S. forces. When  considered collectively, the simultaneous implementation of these  initiatives is generating large personnel increases at many military  installations within the United States, which, in turn, is impacting the  communities that are in close proximity to those installations.
As specified in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year  2006, it is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should seek  to ensure that the permanent facilities and infrastructure necessary to  support the mission of the armed forces and the quality-of-life needs of  members of the armed forces and their families are ready for use at  receiving locations before units are transferred to such locations.  Because communities surrounding these locations also play a vital role in  providing support to the military, it is executive branch and DOD policy  that DOD shall take the leadership role within the federal government in  helping substantially and seriously affected communities plan for and  identify resources to help adapt to the effects of various defense program  activities. The Secretary of Defense, or his designee, chairs the  President’s Economic Adjustment Committee, which consists of 22 federal  agencies and is charged with, among other things, ensuring that  communities that are substantially and seriously impacted by DOD actions  are aware of available federal programs. The Economic Adjustment  Committee is also responsible for supporting the Defense Economic  Adjustment Programs, which includes assuring interagency and  intergovernmental coordination and adjustment assistance and serving as  a clearinghouse to exchange information among federal, state, regional,  and community officials in the resolution of certain DOD-related  community economic problems. Within DOD, the Office of Economic  Adjustment—a field activity under the Office of the Under Secretary of  Defense (Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics)—provides  administrative support for the Economic Adjustment Committee in  addition to its duties to provide technical and planning assistance to  affected communities.
As of December 2010, DOD’s Office of Economic Adjustment had  identified the affected communities surrounding 26 domestic growth  installations in need of assistance based on direct DOD growth activities  and in light of community-specific needs and resources. Figure 1 shows  the location of the 26 growth installations.
In our previous work reviewing DOD’s impact on communities  surrounding growth installations, we found that inadequate transportation  infrastructure was the number one issue cited by communities. Many of  these needs had been long-standing and existed prior to recent DOD- related growth activities according to several transportation experts, and  the communities, states, and the federal Department of Transportation are  normally responsible for addressing transportation needs outside of the  installation. In addition, to receive federal transportation funding, projects  must emerge from the relevant community and state department of  transportation planning process. The Federal Highway Administration’s  regulations state that state and local highway agencies are expected to  assume the same responsibility for developing and maintaining adequate  highways to permanent defense installations as they do for highways  serving private industrial establishments or any other permanent traffic  generators, and that the federal government expects that highway  improvements in the vicinity of defense installations will receive due  priority consideration and treatment as state and local agencies develop  their programs of improvement.
Nonetheless, the DAR program, which is co-administered by DOD and the  Department of Transportation, provides a means for the Secretary of  Transportation to use funds appropriated for defense access roads to fully  or partially fund public road improvements that are certified by the  Secretary of Defense as important to the national defense. The DOD  service regulation states that the program provides a means for DOD to  pay a fair share of improvements required as a result of sudden and  unusual defense-generated traffic impacts or unique defense  requirements. (See appendix II for selected provisions regarding the  Defense Access Roads program.) Although the program is a small fraction  of other federal transportation resources—averaging about $22.5 million a  year compared to the $42.4 billion provided to states and the District of  Columbia through the Department of Transportation’s Highway Trust  Fund in fiscal year 2009—it establishes a method for DOD, under very  specific circumstances, to transfer appropriated funds to the Department  of Transportation to make road improvements. Under the DOD service  regulation governing DAR, military installation commanders are  responsible for identifying public highway deficiencies that require  corrective action, and contacting state and local transportation authorities  for relief. State and local transportation authorities are expected to  consider the defense-related needs in the context of all road improvement  needs, including needs to expand and maintain existing roads and bridges  when deciding which transportation projects to fund. If state and local  transportation authorities are either unable or unwilling to address the  need within an acceptable time frame, the installation commander may  initiate a request for assistance under the DAR program, which may  ultimately result in a determination by DOD regarding whether the request  meets DAR eligibility criteria.
section_title: The DAR Program Has Begun to Address Some Transportation Needs in Growth Communities but Its Use Has Been Limited
paragraphs: Although the DAR program has addressed some transportation needs in  communities surrounding many military growth installations, we found  that a lack of knowledge of the program in general and, specifically, a lack  of clear guidance on how to navigate the program’s complex certification  and funding processes, has limited its use.
subsections: section_title: The DAR Program Has Begun to Address Some Transportation Needs
paragraphs: From calendar year 2001 to 2010, Congress has appropriated about $225  million for DAR projects—ranging from no funds in several years to $89.9  million in 2008—for an average of about $22.5 million per year. Our  analysis of DOD data shows that about $125 million of that amount was  designated for projects at military growth installation locations. As  shown in table 2, as of December 2010, DOD had certified 20  transportation projects as DAR-eligible for DOD funding at 11 of the 26  growth installation locations since calendar year 2004. Of the 20 projects  certified eligible for DAR, over half of those projects (11 of 20) had been  funded. A senior DOD official stated that funding for the remaining  projects was pending, and that any funds provided would occur in fiscal  year 2011 and beyond. Moreover, none of the funded projects were  completed at the time of our review and the earliest expected completions  were for 3 projects in 2011 at the former Engineering Proving Ground  location at Fort Belvoir. Because most of the population growth at the  26 installations will likely occur by September 15, 2011—the mandated  completion of the 2005 BRAC round—and considering the 10-year time  frame necessary to proceed from design to construction for some major  transportation projects, as estimated by the Maryland Department of  Transportation’s State Highway Administration, most of the certified DAR  projects to date will not immediately mitigate the transportation needs in  the near term but should provide some relief in later years if and when the  projects are funded and completed.
As shown in table 2, the most common type of DAR project at the growth  installations involves intersection improvements (8 of the 20), which can  accommodate an increase in traffic volume using a variety of approaches.  For example, the two DAR projects at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama will  increase the capacity of the intersections by adding turning lanes. The  DAR project at Fort Lee, Virginia will increase traffic volume capacity by  transforming intersections into a roundabout. The DAR project at the  Naval Support Activity Bethesda in Maryland will address a “pedestrian- vehicular conflict” at the intersection of Rockville Pike and South Wood  Road to allow installation employees and hospital visitors to safely cross  the busy intersection from the public transit metro stop. (Figure 2 shows  the intersection as it exists today.)
Four installations have DAR projects that will add new interchanges, such  as entry and exit ramps, to existing highways. For example, Fort Bliss will  add interchange ramps accessing Texas State Loop 375 and additional  underpass lanes in preparation for the Army’s new Brigade Combat Teams  and associated traffic expected as a result of the 2005 BRAC round  decisions. (See fig. 3 for a photo of the underpass, which will be widened.)
Another eight DAR projects involve new roads, road improvements, or  road realignments. Fort Belvoir, the installation with the largest number of  DAR projects, is using appropriated military construction funds to build  Mulligan Road, as shown in figure 4 below, which will be the new public  access connection through the installation between Richmond Highway  and Telegraph Road. This road replaces the Beulah Street/ Woodlawn  Road corridor, which was closed following September 11, 2001, for  security reasons since it crossed through the northern portion of the Main  Post of Fort Belvoir.
section_title: The Process for Certifying and Funding DAR Projects Is Complex
paragraphs: The process for certifying and funding a DAR project is complex due to  the need to coordinate with numerous DOD, Department of  Transportation, state, and local stakeholders. The process begins with the  installation commander. According to the DOD service regulation  governing the DAR program, when the commander of a DOD installation  determines that improvements to a public road are needed, it is the  responsibility of that commander to bring deficiencies to the attention of  the appropriate state or local authority. In cases where the state or local  transportation authority cannot or will not correct the deficiency, the  installation commander has the option to initiate the process of requesting  assistance for improvements under the DAR program by preparing a needs  report. After reviews through military service command channels, DOD’s  Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command then determines  potential project eligibility and requests that the Federal Highway  Administration conduct an evaluation of the transportation need and  potential solutions in coordination with the relevant state department of  transportation and other officials. Using the results of that study, the  Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command determines  whether the transportation project meets one of the DAR program  eligibility criteria:     A new access road to an installation is needed to accommodate a defense  action.
A defense action causes traffic to double.    Urgent improvements are needed to accommodate a temporary surge in  traffic to or from an installation because of a defense action.
A new or improved access road is needed to accommodate special military  vehicles, such as heavy equipment transport vehicles.
A replacement road or connector is required for one closed because of  military necessity.
The share of the total project cost that DOD will contribute is negotiated  between DOD, the Department of Transportation, and appropriate state  and local authorities. Based on the eligibility criteria determination and  funding negotiations, the Commander of the Military Surface Deployment  and Distribution Command may then certify the project as important to  the national defense, as required by the DAR statute. The DAR program  does not have a separate source of funds; instead, for DOD’s share of the  funding, DAR projects must compete against other construction projects— such as child care centers, maintenance buildings, and mission facilities  such as piers, hangars, and barracks—across installations and  commands. In addition, securing funds for a DAR project may take years  as many planned projects are already awaiting funds, due in part to DOD’s  numerous ongoing growth initiatives. For example, a senior Army official  emphasized the competing needs for military construction funds, by  noting that as of April 2010, there were 2,500 projects worth $62 billion in  the service’s database, of which only about $2 billion could be expected to  be funded each year.
After Congress appropriates funds designated for a DAR project, DOD  transfers those funds to the Department of Transportation, which, in turn,  disburses those funds to the appropriate state or federal entity to  accomplish the necessary work to complete the project. Following the  transfer of funds, the Department of Transportation’s Federal Lands  Highway Office and the appropriate state division office of the Federal  Highway Administration oversee project execution.  According to a senior  program official, DOD is also involved in project oversight through the  review of project documents and the authorization of the expenditure of  DAR funds by the Department of Transportation for appropriate phases of  the work, thus ensuring DAR projects meet the agreed-upon defense  requirements. (Appendix III provides additional detail in an overall  schematic of the DAR process.)
section_title: Some Military Officials Were Unfamiliar with the Program and How It Works
paragraphs: We found that some military officials were unfamiliar with the DAR  program and how it works, despite DOD’s outreach efforts to inform  growth installations about the program. Representatives of the Military  Surface Deployment and Distribution Command contacted officials at  installations gaining over 1,000 personnel in population as a result of  BRAC 2005 to discuss the DAR program. In addition, representatives of the  command presented information on the DAR program at three  conferences led by DOD in Atlanta, Georgia in May 2006; St. Louis,  Missouri in December 2007; and Orlando, Florida in November 2009.  Nonetheless, officials from 4 of the 26 growth installations stated that they  had no knowledge of the program or who administers it. Of the remaining  22 installations, officials from 11 installations commented positively on the  efforts of DAR program administrators, stating that they were helpful or  transparent. When officials from these 22 installations were asked what  could be improved with the program, 11 of the 22 said that more  information on how to certify and fund DAR projects would be helpful.
One official characterized the process as a complicated puzzle because so  many steps and players had to come together in just the right way to be  successful. Navy officials at the Naval Support Activity Bethesda in  Maryland noted that they relied extensively on the installation’s full-time  transportation planner, who was able to work with the many stakeholders  involved in the DAR process and stated that this was a potential “lesson  learned” for other growth installations. Officials from 5 of the 26  installations we interviewed expressed confusion about the DOD chain of  command in the DAR process, particularly inside the Army. For example,  Army officials from four installations misunderstood DOD data requests  funneled through the Army Installation Management Command as DAR  project data calls and therefore did not take appropriate action to begin  the DAR certification process at the installation level. We also found the  roles of various state and federal agencies can differ and can be a source  of confusion for DAR stakeholders. For example, senior transportation  officials stated that a Federal Lands Highway division office is directing  the construction of DAR projects at three installations whereas the states’  departments of transportation are directing the construction of the other  DAR projects. In addition, officials from one of the Federal Highway  Administration’s Federal-aid Division Offices were unclear as to when  their own office becomes involved with the DAR program.
section_title: DAR Regulations and Guidance Are Outdated and Do Not Clarify Process
paragraphs: We also found that the DAR process is not readily explained in available  DAR regulations and guidance, which are outdated in certain ways. DAR  program regulations and guidance are promulgated by both DOD and the  Department of Transportation. A senior Department of Transportation  official told us that some of the DAR regulations and guidance have not  been updated in nearly 20 years even though the program has changed.  For example, under current Department of Transportation eligibility  criteria, the doubling of traffic criterion is limited to secondary roads,  rather than highways, which would limit DAR projects to smaller, more  rural roads. Although the DOD organization—the Military Surface  Deployment and Distribution Command—that currently administers the  program no longer makes such a distinction when considering projects for  certification, the expanded eligibility of urban highway projects is not  apparent in the program regulations and guidance. In addition, the  command responsible for administering the DAR program changed its  name in 2004, but this change is not reflected in DOD or Department of  Transportation regulations and guidance. Furthermore, the DOD service  regulation refers to the Federal Highway Administration’s Federal-Aid  Policy Guide, which has been replaced. Moreover, in addition to certain  outdated aspects of current regulations and guidance, there is a lack of  working-level guidance available to help clarify the application of the  eligibility criteria for potential DAR program users in complex situations.  For instance, users often conclude that meeting the doubling of traffic  criterion is potentially impossible on an already congested urban highway,  without recognizing that, if the transportation need was limited in scope, it  could potentially meet the criteria. For example, if the scope is limited to  an exit ramp at a particularly busy time of day, the doubling of traffic  criterion could possibly be met to make a case for DAR eligibility for the  ramp itself but not necessarily the highway. One installation official stated  that his office had determined that a potential DAR project did not meet  the doubling of traffic criterion and consequently did not apply.
section_title: Good Internal Controls Require That the Program Regulations and Guidance Be Clear and Current
paragraphs: Having clear and current regulations and guidance helps to foster  improved understanding of a program and reduces confusion among key  stakeholders. According to the Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government, a good internal control environment requires that  the agency’s organizational structure clearly defines key areas of authority  and responsibility and that lines of communication exist both within the  agency to ensure compliance with laws and regulations and externally  with stakeholders to obtain information that may have significant impact  on the agency’s ability to achieve its goals. As a result of outdated  regulations and a lack of working-level guidance clearly communicated to  better inform potential DAR program users, those users may be overly  dependent on DOD and Department of Transportation program officials  for advice and instruction throughout the process for each DAR project.  Although current DOD and Department of Transportation program  administrators have been able to implement the DAR program despite  these challenges, any change in key personnel at either agency could  significantly impact the program’s implementation because DAR users are  currently dependent on their assistance to navigate the DAR process. In  addition, without up-to-date regulations and working-level guidance  clearly communicated to better inform potential users about the DAR  program process, the likelihood exists that the program as designed is not  being used to its fullest extent.
section_title: DOD and the Department of Transportation Have Not Taken Additional Steps Necessary to Effectively Identify and Coordinate Other Funding Options to Address Unmet Transportation Needs
paragraphs: A number of federal transportation programs, other than DAR, provide  funding for state and local governments to use to help address defense- related transportation needs. However, communities most affected by  DOD growth continue to face unmet transportation needs and federal  agencies lack a coordinated strategy to address those needs. Installation  officials identified many unmet transportation needs and two issues  limiting their ability to use the DAR program to address these needs.
subsections: section_title: Defense-Related Transportation Needs Are Funded through Various Means
paragraphs: Transportation projects in defense-affected communities can be funded  through several federal or state resources. A number of existing federal  transportation programs provide funding that state and local governments  can use to help address defense-related transportation needs. These  programs provided approximately $42.4 billion for highway improvements  in states and the District of Columbia in fiscal year 2009. In addition,  since February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of  2009 (the Recovery Act) has provided additional funding for highway  infrastructure projects—approximately $25.6 billion to state and local  governments for over 12,300 highway projects—selected by the state and  local governments. Recovery Act funds may be used for defense-related  projects, but the projects need to have been ready to begin construction in  2009 or 2010. The Recovery Act required that the Department of  Transportation obligate 100 percent of these funds to the states, by  March 1, 2010. Defense-related projects in some communities may not  have been eligible for Recovery Act funds if the projects were in the design  or planning phase and were not ready to begin construction. Furthermore,  in order to receive any federal transportation funding, all projects must go  through the relevant state and local transportation planning processes,  which, according to a Department of Transportation official, require a  comprehensive approach to highway planning, including consideration of  alternatives and environmental and safety planning. The time requirements  to complete federally required state planning processes may prevent some  transportation products from being completed by the September 15, 2011,  BRAC implementation deadline, as these processes can require significant  time to complete. Nevertheless, some states were able to use Recovery Act  funds to begin construction on projects in certain defense-affected  communities. During our interviews with installation officials, 11 of the 26  installations we spoke with identified Recovery Act funds as a source of  funding for some of transportation needs. For example, the state of  Florida is using $46 million in Recovery Act funds for an intersection grade  separation project near Eglin Air Force Base, and Virginia is using about  $60 million in Recovery Act funds to complete the Fairfax County Parkway  project, which is expected to alleviate traffic congestion near Fort Belvoir.
Some states have assisted installations by prioritizing projects to  accommodate defense-related growth. For example, in Maryland, state  transportation officials expedited a project at Aberdeen Proving Ground  that was under consideration for DAR certification by providing full  funding from state sources. This project was considered to be the most  critical improvement in the community surrounding the installation to  accommodate the anticipated growth. Additionally, the state of Alabama  offered $15 million to Redstone Arsenal to support road improvements on  the installation. These funds will improve transportation infrastructure  inside the installation to support its traffic growth. Also, the state of Texas  used a public-private partnership to fund a new road to accommodate the  anticipated growth at Fort Bliss. Under this partnership, a private  company helped to fund the road and upon completion the Texas  Department of Transportation will pay an annual fee based on the volume  of traffic using the road. Through this partnership, the state of Texas was  able to ensure that this needed infrastructure improvement would be in  place prior to the arrival of Fort Bliss’s expected growth.
section_title: Installation Officials Identified Many Unmet Transportation Needs and Two Factors That Limit DAR Use to Address Them
paragraphs: The unmet needs across the communities most affected by DOD growth  exceed the capabilities of the DAR program alone to meet them. One  example is at Fort Belvoir’s Mark Center location—the Army’s recently  acquired location in Alexandria, Virginia located about 13 miles north of  Fort Belvoir’s main post and about 6 miles south of the Pentagon. As a  result of the 2005 BRAC process, construction of a high rise facility is  currently under way and is expected to accommodate about 6,400 defense  agencies’ employees and other tenants that are expected to arrive by  September 2011. Local residents, commuters, and elected officials have  expressed concerns about the traffic impact along an already congested  segment of Interstate 395. Figure 5 shows a typical morning rush hour near  the site.
In July 2010, DOD finalized a transportation management plan to minimize  traffic impacts by encouraging carpooling, walking, and bicycling to  work—the effectiveness of which is yet to be determined. In addition, the  Virginia Department of Transportation, DOD, and the City of Alexandria  have funded various studies on the future traffic impact of the Mark  Center and have identified potential traffic mitigation alternatives.  However, none of the improvements are planned to be in place prior to the  occupancy of the Mark Center in 2011. According to one senior DOD  official, it is unclear whether any future plans for improving roads, ramps,  and public transportation would qualify for DAR funding.
Of the 26 military installations we interviewed, 15 identified at least one of  two main factors related to the current design of the DAR program that  limit their ability to use the program as a tool to provide greater  transportation assistance to affected communities—eligibility criteria and  funding process. First, installation officials noted that the program’s  eligibility criteria limit the number of transportation projects that qualify  for DOD funding. For example, those officials said that the criterion  requiring installations to demonstrate a doubling of traffic is difficult to  meet in urban areas, such as the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area,  because many of these roadways are already beyond capacity due to the  high volume of traffic and doubling of that traffic is nearly impossible.
The National Academy of Sciences is currently examining, among other  defense-related transportation impacts, the possible impact of expanding  the DAR criteria. Additionally, DOD is currently studying expanding the  DAR eligibility criteria but is awaiting the results of the National Academy  of Sciences study, which is to be issued in January 2011, before  determining whether to expand the criteria to allow more transportation  projects to become eligible for the DAR program. The potential reasons  for not expanding the criteria could include the fact that the resulting  increase in the number of transportation projects deemed eligible for DAR  funds would not necessarily result in those projects being funded.
The second area of the current DAR program design identified by  installation officials limiting the usefulness of DAR is the program’s  funding process, which calls for potential DAR projects to compete for  military construction funding with on-installation infrastructure projects,  such as barracks and administrative buildings. The installation officials  who cited funding as an issue told us that installation commanders are  reluctant to prioritize off-installation roads over on-installation needs for  military construction funding and that roads were unlikely to receive  military construction funding given the other demands on this funding  source. According to a senior Army official, there are currently at least  $62 billion in unfunded military construction projects awaiting funding in  the Army alone. In addition, as we reported in September 2009,  communities surrounding installations affected by growth resulting from  the BRAC process alone have identified an estimated $2 billion in unmet  transportation needs.
section_title: DOD and Department of Transportation Lack a Coordinated Approach for Identifying Transportation Project Funding for DOD- Growth Communities
paragraphs: As we have noted in our prior work on DOD-growth communities, high- level leadership is essential to leverage scarce federal resources to help  address vital infrastructure issues. DOD Directive 5410.12 states that it is  the Department of Defense policy to take the leadership role in assisting  communities substantially and seriously affected by DOD relocation  activities. Executive Order 12788 directs federal agencies to give priority  consideration to requests from defense-affected communities for federal  assistance. In 2008, we recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct  the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics)— who oversees assistance to defense-affected communities and serves as  the Chair of the 22-agency Economic Adjustment Committee—to  implement Executive Order 12788 by holding regular meetings of the full  executive-level Economic Adjustment Committee and by serving as a  clearinghouse for identifying expected community impacts and problems  as well as identifying existing resources for providing economic assistance  to communities affected by DOD activities. Despite concurring with our  recommendation, DOD has yet to convene the full committee except to  address concerns stemming from the military buildup in Guam and, to a  limited extent, at Fort Bragg. We continue to believe that it is necessary  and appropriate for DOD to implement our prior recommendation to use  the committee as a coordinated body for marshalling resources at the  federal level that can help address potential infrastructure gaps at the  affected communities. Specifically concerning unmet transportation  needs, until DOD takes a larger leadership role and better coordinates  with the Department of Transportation, at a minimum, to address unmet  transportation needs surrounding DOD growth installations, it is likely  that a large number of transportation needs will not be met and quality of  life for both military and civilian residents could be degraded.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Despite its traditionally limited utility, more attention has been focused on  the DAR program as a potential solution to traffic congestion and other  unmet transportation needs. The long list of unaddressed transportation  needs has recently been intensified by the combination of a nationwide  economic downturn coupled with unprecedented military growth  activities. While the DAR program has begun to help mitigate some of  these needs, the potential exists that it could provide more assistance  under the current program design if it was better understood by all  installation commanders. Without a concerted effort by DOD and the  Department of Transportation to update DAR regulations and guidance,  provide additional working-level guidance to potential DAR program  users, and effectively communicate that guidance to stakeholders,  opportunities may be missed to make effective use of the existing DAR  program under the current procedures. Further, given the project-specific  process of determining eligibility under current criteria and the challenge  of obtaining funding for those projects certified as eligible, recent  successes may be driven more by the dedicated work of the individuals  involved rather than the program’s design. While we acknowledge that  simply updating and clarifying the regulations and providing and  communicating better working level guidance concerning the DAR  program would not put it in a position to address all the transportation  needs surrounding growing military installations, such actions could  increase the accessibility and usefulness of the program to its  stakeholders.
High-level interagency coordination regarding policy and funding  decisions by DOD and the Department of Transportation could affect the  potential of the DAR program to meet the needs of communities most  severely affected by DOD growth. Furthermore, unless high-level  interagency leadership takes additional steps to improve the utilization of  DAR—in conjunction with other federal programs that provide funding for  transportation projects nationwide—both installations and communities  affected by DOD growth will continue to struggle to address their  transportation needs. Moreover, without a strategy for providing priority  assistance and leveraging funding for transportation projects surrounding  its DOD-growth installations, infrastructure needs both on and off the  installation will continue to be subject to funding uncertainties, and both  military readiness and the communities’ ability to plan to meet the needs  of their citizens could suffer. Specifically, Executive Order 12788 provides  DOD a tool—the 22-agency Economic Adjustment Committee—to help  ensure that the federal government effectively and efficiently leverages  scarce resources to assist impacted communities. By convening the  committee specifically to address transportation issues surrounding  military growth installations, DOD may be able to reach agreement with  other federal agencies to meet more of those unmet needs by more fully  leveraging federal resources to their best advantage.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: In order to better utilize the DAR program as it is currently designed, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense work with the Secretary of  Transportation to (1) update regulations and clarify guidance for the DAR  certification and funding processes, (2) develop working-level guidance  for potential program users, and (3) effectively communicate the  regulations and working-level guidance to all federal, state and local  stakeholders.
As DOD implements our June 2008 recommendation to regularly hold  meetings with high-level federal officials of the full Economic Adjustment  Committee, as DOD agreed to do in concurring with our  recommendation, we further recommend that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and  Logistics) to routinely coordinate with the Secretary of Transportation to  (1) meet regularly, (2) identify all existing federal transportation funding  resources, and (3) develop a strategy for affording priority consideration  for the use of those funds and other resources for the benefit of  communities most severely affected by DOD.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred  with our recommendations. The Department of Transportation agreed to  consider, but did not provide detailed comments on our recommendations.  Both agencies provided technical comments, which we incorporated  where appropriate. DOD’s written comments are reprinted in their entirety  in appendix V.
Regarding our first recommendation that the Secretary of Defense work  with the Secretary of Transportation to update regulations and clarify  guidance communicated to all stakeholders, DOD partially concurred.  DOD stated that although it will work with the Department of  Transportation to update DAR regulations and clarify guidance, they  believe sufficient guidance for and awareness of the program exists.  However, we continue to believe that in order to provide an opportunity  for better utilization of the DAR program, DOD needs to work with the  Department of Transportation to develop working-level guidance and  effectively communicate the regulations and working-level guidance to all  federal, state, and local stakeholders. The primary basis for this  recommendation was our finding that some military officials from the  26 installations interviewed were unfamiliar with the DAR program and  how it works despite DOD’s outreach efforts. Furthermore, officials from  11 installations stated that more information on how to certify and fund  DAR projects would be helpful. Thus, we continue to believe that, without  taking steps to improve and communicate DAR guidance, the opportunity  to provide for better utilization of the program by its stakeholders remains  limited.
Regarding our second recommendation that the Secretary of Defense  routinely coordinate with the Secretary of Transportation to meet  regularly, identify existing federal transportation funding resources, and  develop a strategy for affording priority consideration for the use of those  funds, DOD partially concurred.  DOD stated that the department would  continue to work closely with the Department of Transportation to assist  communities affected by DOD actions, but that the Department of  Transportation does not have discretionary funds that it can use to target  defense-impacted communities, and instead, state and local communities  must advance defense-related transportation projects. We recognize that  highway grant funding formulas place limits on the ability of the  Department of Transportation to direct federal transportation funds to  defense affected communities and that state and local communities have a  role in prioritizing transportation funding, as clearly stated in our report.  Nonetheless, Executive Order 12788 specifies that the Economic  Adjustment Committee shall develop procedures for, among other things,  ensuring that states and localities are notified of available federal  economic adjustment programs that would presumably include  transportation-related assistance. DOD also stated in its letter that it  continues to assist communities most severely affected by DOD actions to  adequately scope needed transportation projects. Our recommendation is  intended to enhance DOD’s and the Department of Transportation’s efforts  in working within the existing federal-state partnership of transportation  agencies to scope needed transportation projects and help ensure that  federal agencies through the Economic Adjustment Committee continue  to afford priority consideration to requests for assistance from defense  affected communities. If DOD and the Department of Transportation  prefer to jointly assist defense affected communities and, by extension, the  relevant state agencies, to ensure adequate transportation improvements  at the growth bases outside of the Economic Adjustment Committee  process, as DOD suggested in its written comments, that would meet the  intent of our recommendation.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. We will then send copies of this report to interested  congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of  Transportation, Secretaries of Army, Air Force, and Navy and the  Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of Management  and Budget. The report is also available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address our objectives, we focused our review on the 26 military  installations that have created “growth communities” identified by the  Department of Defense’s (DOD) Office of Economic Adjustment as those  communities substantially and seriously affected by defense actions  arising from the implementation of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure  (BRAC) recommendations, the Global Defense Posture Realignment, Army  force modularity, and Grow the Force initiatives, as of December 2010.  The Office of Economic Adjustment also identified Guam as a growth  community. However, we have and are continuing to perform a body of  work focused exclusively on Guam, and therefore Guam was not included  in this review. For the purposes of this report, we describe the growth by  installation name rather than by the community name. According to DOD,  three installations are located in the growth community of North Carolina  Eastern Region—Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, Cherry Point Marine  Corps Air Station, and New River Marine Corps Air Station—and  therefore, this review addresses the transportation needs and the use of  the Defense Access Roads (DAR) program at a total of 26 growth  “installations,” as listed in table 1 of this report, rather than 24 growth  “communities.” In addition, to address our objectives, we developed a data  collection instrument consisting of 12 structured interview questions  addressing: (1) the installation’s transportation needs; (2) the possible  sources of funding to address the needs; (3) the installation officials’  experience in interacting with state, local, and federal transportation  authorities; (4) the impact, if any, of unmet transportation needs; (5) the  installation officials’ awareness of the DAR program; its purpose, and its  process; (6) the use of DAR program at the installation since 2000; and (7)  the installation officials’ experiences with what works well and what  improvements could be made to the DAR program. We administered the  data collection instrument by conducting telephone interviews with  officials from 23 of the 26 installations and in-person interviews with  officials from the remaining three installations—the Naval Support  Activity Bethesda in Maryland; Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas; and Fort  Belvoir’s three locations in Northern Virginia—between May 2010 and  July 2010. We worked with the military services’ audit liaisons and the  installations’ internal review staff to identify and schedule interviews with  appropriate officials at each installation who were knowledgeable about  the installation’s transportation needs. By using structured interviews, we  were able to compare and analyze responses across the growth  installations. Prior to conducting our structured interviews of the  26 installations, we pre-tested our data collection instrument with officials  at Fort Belvoir to ensure that it accurately captured the information we  were seeking. We analyzed the collected data for trends in transportation  needs, the impact of unmet needs, funding options, DAR program usage,  and experience with the DAR process in particular and the program in  general. Due to installation officials’ varying level of familiarity and  experience with the DAR program, not all officials provided responses to  the questions related to the DAR program. Where applicable, we reported  the responses out of the total number of installations that responded.
To assess the extent to which the DAR program has been used to mitigate  defense-related transportation needs in communities surrounding the  26 military growth installations, we collected and analyzed DOD data  regarding use of the Defense Access Roads program at these installation  locations between January 2001 and December 2010. To verify that  appropriate documentation existed for the process of certifying a project  as eligible under the program, we reviewed program files for the 11 growth  installations that had secured program eligibility for at least one project. In  order to determine the program’s purpose and processes, we (1) reviewed  appropriate DOD and Department of Transportation regulations and  guidance, (2) interviewed a DOD official in the Office of the Deputy Under  Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) and Department of  Transportation officials at the headquarters of the Federal Highway  Administration in Washington, D.C., and (3) conducted extensive  interviews with DOD officials responsible for implementing the DAR  program at the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command— DOD’s program administrator—at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, and with  Department of Transportation officials from the Federal Highway  Administration’s Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division in Sterling,  Virginia, whose jurisdiction’s includes 18 of the 26 growth installations  considered in this review. Furthermore, we reviewed recent DOD reports  directed by Congress and congressional committees pertaining to the  Defense Access Roads program and the transportation impacts at  installations resulting from DOD initiatives. In addition, to identify the  policy issues surrounding the DAR program and any differences in DAR- related processes between the military services and to obtain points of  contact for the installations in the scope of our review, we interviewed  representatives from the military services that were cognizant of  transportation and other growth-related issues, including officials from:    Office of the Air Force Civil Engineer, Program Division, U.S. Air Force,    Army Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management,    Army Installation Management Command, Headquarters, San Antonio,    Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Arlington, Virginia    Navy Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office,    Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Military Construction, Arlington,    Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Arlington, Virginia   To better determine how states’ varying approaches to responding to  DOD-initiated growth and how interactions between officials from military  installations and transportation authorities impacted the use of the DAR  program, we conducted more in-depth field work in Maryland, Texas, and  Virginia, the three states with the largest number of military growth  communities, as shown in table 3 below.
In each of the three states we visited, we interviewed officials from one  growth installation, as well as transportation authorities from the Federal  Highway and the three states’ transportation departments. In Maryland, we  interviewed officials at Naval Support Activity Bethesda, the Federal  Highway Administration Federal-aid Division Office in Baltimore, and the  Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration in  Baltimore. In Virginia, we interviewed officials at Fort Belvoir in  Springfield, Fairfax County, the Federal Highway Administration Federal- aid Division Office in Richmond, and the Virginia Department of  Transportation in Chantilly. In Texas, we interviewed officials at Fort Bliss  in El Paso, the Federal Highway Administration Federal-aid Division  Office in Austin, and the Texas Department of Transportation in Austin.  We also met with local transportation officials from El Paso, Texas.
We chose to conduct field work and interview officials at the Naval  Support Facility Bethesda in Maryland, because of the unique nature of the  installation’s DAR project. While the details are still undetermined, the  DAR project will assist in funding a pedestrian access—a non-road-related  project—to address a road-related transportation need at a congested  intersection. We chose Fort Bliss, Texas because it was the only  installation in the state with a DAR project and because the installation  applied for DAR funds in 2009, years after the installation’s planned  growth was made known. We chose Fort Belvoir, Virginia because the  installation had the most DAR projects of all growth installations. During  field work at Fort Belvoir, we observed the three geographically separate  locations of the installation—the Main Post in Fairfax County; the North  Post, formerly referred to as the Engineering Proving Ground, also in  Fairfax County; and the Mark Center in the City of Alexandria (located  about 13 miles north of the Main Post). To obtain community perspectives  about transportation challenges and the DAR program, we reviewed the  literature of and interviewed officials from the Association of Defense  Communities, the National Governors Association, and DOD’s Office of  Economic Adjustment. We also attended two local community meetings in  Alexandria, Virginia pertaining to transportation issues related to the Fort  Belvoir location at the Mark Center.
To identify any additional steps that may be necessary to address a large  pool of unmet transportation needs in impacted communities, we  identified potential transportation funding resources related to assisting  defense-affected communities. To identify other federal resources  available to fund transportation projects, we reviewed the Safe,  Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for  Users and our prior work on the Highway Trust Fund and the American  Recovery and Reinvestment Act. To determine the leadership structure  and roles and responsibilities related to the DAR program, we interviewed  officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition,  Technology and Logistics) the U.S. Transportation Command, and the  Federal Highway Administration. To determine federal policy regarding  assistance for defense-impacted communities, we reviewed Executive  Order 12788, which designates the Secretary of Defense, or his designee,  as chair of the Economic Adjustment Committee and directs federal  agencies to give priority consideration to requests for federal assistance  from defense-affected communities as part of a comprehensive plan used  by the committee, and DOD Directive 5410.12, which states that it is DOD  policy to take a leadership role in assisting defense-affected communities.  To determine the status of the Economic Adjustment Committee, we  spoke with officials at DOD’s Office of Economic Assistance. We further  reviewed our prior work related to challenges facing military growth  communities and the findings resulting from that work, and confirmed the  status of Economic Adjustment Committee meetings with DOD. We also  attended a meeting at the National Academy of Sciences on Federal  Funding of Transportation Improvements in BRAC Cases and met with the  Director of Studies and Special Programs at the National Academy of  Sciences’ Transportation Research Board to determine the scope and  projected time frames for the Academy’s ongoing study on funding sources  for defense-related transportation impacts.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 through  December 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Selected Provisions Regarding the Defense Access Roads Program
subsections: section_title: Replacing existing highways and highway connections that are shut off from the
paragraphs: 23 U.S.C. § 210  general public use by necessary closures or restrictions or     Certified by the Secretary of Defense or other designated official as important to the  Policy—Department of Defense (DOD)
State and local Government authorities are expected to develop and maintain  adequate highways to serve permanent defense installations and activities the same  as for other non-defense traffic generators.
The DAR program provides a means for DOD to pay a fair share for public highway  improvements required as the result of a sudden or unusual defense-generated traffic  impact or a unique defense public highway requirement.
State and local highway agencies are expected to assume the same responsibility for  developing and maintaining adequate highways to permanent defense installations as  they do for highways serving private industrial establishments or any other permanent  traffic generators.
The Federal Government expects that highway improvements in the vicinity of  defense installations will receive due priority consideration and treatment as State and  local agencies develop their programs of improvement.
The Federal Highway Administration will provide assistance, as requested by DOD’s  Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, to ascertain state program  plans for improvements to roads serving as access to defense installations.
It is recognized that problems may arise in connection with the establishment,  expansion, or operation of defense installations which create an unanticipated impact  upon the long-range requirements for the development of highways in the vicinity.  These problems can be resolved equitably only by federal assistance from other than  normal federal-aid highway programs for part or all of the cost of highway  improvements necessary for the functioning of the installation.
Highways constructed to replace those closed by establishment of new military  installations or the expansion of old ones.
Access roads providing new connections between either old or new military  installations and main highways.
Urgently needed improvements of existing highways upon which traffic is suddenly  doubled by reason of the establishment or expansion of a permanent military  installation.
Urgent improvements needed to avoid intolerable congestion or critical structural  failure of any highway serving a temporary surge of defense-generated traffic.
Alteration of a public road in the immediate vicinity of a military installation to  accommodate regular and frequent movements of special military vehicles. transportation need(s)  in local community.
Can civil programs fully  fund the transportation  incorporate need(s) into  need(s)? eligibility?
Final eligibility?
Issue DAR  Certification/ Notification of certification  get project into the MILCON  Budget again?
MILCON Budget?
Congress?
section_title: Appendix IV: Executive Order 12788 as Amended through May 2005
paragraphs: Section  1.    Function  of  the  Secretary  of  Defense.    The  Secretary  of  Defense  shall,  through  the  Economic  Adjustment  Committee,  design  and  establish  a  Defense  Economic Adjustment Program.
Sec.  2.    The  Defense  Economic  Adjustment  Program  shall  (1)  assist  substantially  and  seriously  affected  communities, businesses, and workers from the effects of  major Defense base closures, realignments, and Defense  contract-related  adjustments,  and  (2)  assist  State  and  local  governments  in  preventing  the  encroachment  of  civilian  communities  from  impairing  the  operational  utility of military installations.
subsections: section_title: Sec. 3 Functions of the Defense Economic Adjustment Program. The Defense Adjustment Program shall:
paragraphs: (k) Assist in the diversification of local economies to lessen  dependence on Defense activities;  (a)  Identify  problems  of  States,  regions,  metropolitan  areas,  or  communities  that  result  from  major  Defense  base closures, realignments, and Defense contract-related  adjustments,  and  the  encroachment  of  the  civilian  community  on  the  mission  of  military  installations  and  that require Federal assistance;  (l)  Encourage  and  facilitate  private  sector  interim  use  of  lands  and  buildings  to  generate  jobs  as  military  activities  diminish;   (m)  Develop  ways  to  streamline  property  disposal  procedures  to  enable  Defense-impacted  communities  to  acquire base property to generate jobs as military activities  diminish; and  (b)  Use  and  maintain  a  uniform  socioeconomic  impact  analysis justify to  the  use  of  Federal  economic  adjustment resources prior to particular realignments;  (n)  Encourage  resolution  of  regulatory  issues  that  impede  encroachment  prevention  and  local  economic  adjustment  efforts.
Sec. 4. Economic Adjustment Committee.
Sec. 5.  Responsibilities of Executive Agencies.  (a) The head of each agency represented on the Committee  shall designate an agency representative to:       (1)  Serve  as  a  liaison  with  the  Secretary  of  Defense's  economic adjustment staff;       (2)  Coordinate  agency  support  and  participation  in  economic adjustment assistance projects; and       (3)  Assist  in  resolving  Defense-related  impacts  on  Defense-affected communities. (19)  Administrator  of  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency;     (20)  Administrator of General Services;      (21) Administrator of the Small Business  Administration; and  (b) All executive agencies shall:       (1)  Support,  to  the  extent  permitted  by  law,  the  economic  adjustment  assistance  activities  of  the Secretary  of  Defense.    Such  support  may  include  the  use  and  application  of  personnel,  legal  authorities, and available financial resources.  This support  may be used, to the extent permitted by law, to provide a  coordinated  Federal  response  to  the  needs  of  individual  States, regions, municipalities, and communities adversely  affected by necessary Defense changes; and        (2)  Afford  priority  consideration  to  requests  from  Defense-affected  communities  technical  assistance, financial resources, excess or surplus property,  or other requirements, that are part of a comprehensive plan  used by the Committee. (22) Postmaster General.  (b)  The Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary’s designee,  shall chair the Committee.    (c)  The Secretaries of Labor and Commerce shall serve as  Vice  Chairmen  of  the  Committee.    The  Vice  Chairmen  shall  co-chair  the  Committee  in  the  absence  of  both  the  Chairman  and  the  Chairman's  designee  and  may  also  preside over meetings of designated representatives of the  concerned executive agencies.
Sec. 6.  Judicial Review.  This order shall not be interpreted  to  create  any  right  or  benefit,  substantive  or  procedural,  enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its  agencies, its officers, its agents, or any person. (d) Executive  Director.    The  head  of  the  Department  of  Defense's Office of Economic Adjustment shall provide all  necessary  policy  and  administrative  support  for  the  Committee  and  shall  be  responsible  for  coordinating  the  application of the Defense Economic Adjustment Program  to Department of Defense activities.
Sec.  7.    Construction. (a)  Nothing  in  this  order  shall  be  construed  as  subjecting  any  function  vested  by  law  in,  or  assigned pursuant to law to, any agency or head thereof to  the  authority  of  any  other  agency  or  officer  or  as  abrogating or restricting any such function in any manner. (e) Duties.  The Committee shall:       (1)  Advise,  assist,  and  support  the  Defense  Economic  Adjustment Programs;       (2) Develop procedures for ensuring that State, regional,  and community officials, and representatives of organized  labor  in  those  States,  municipalities,  localities,  or  labor  organizations  that  are  substantially  and  seriously  affected  by  changes  in  Defense  expenditures,  realignments  or  closures,  or  cancellation  or  curtailment  of  major  Defense  contracts,  are  notified  of  available  Federal  economic  adjustment programs; and       (3)  Report  annually  to  the  President  and  then  to  the  Congress  on  the  work  of  the  Economic  Adjustment  Committee during the preceding fiscal year. (b)  This  order  shall  be  effective  immediately  and  shall  supersede Executive Order No 12049.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, James R. Reifsnyder (Assistant  Director), Karen L. Kemper (Analyst-in-Charge), Lindsay C. Taylor,  Sara K. Olds, José A. Cárdenas, Susan C. Ditto, Gregory A. Marchand, and  Elizabeth W. Wood made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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.
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.
Interagency Collaboration: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight of  National Security Strategies, Organizations, Workforce, and  Information Sharing. GAO-09-904SP. Washington, D.C.: September 25,  2009.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Transportation Impact of  Personnel Increases Will Be Significant, but Long-Term Costs Are  Uncertain and Direct Federal Support Is Limited. GAO-09-750.  Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2009.
High Level Leadership Needed to Help Guam Address Challenges Caused  by DOD-Related Growth. GAO-09-500R. Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2009.
Highway Trust Fund: Improved Solvency Mechanisms and  Communication Needed to Help Avoid Shortfalls in the Highway  Account. GAO-09-316. Washington, D.C.: February 6, 2009.
Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help  Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth.  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.
Defense Infrastructure: Army and Marine Corps Grow the Force  Construction Projects Generally Support the Initiative. GAO-08-375.  Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2008.
Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed for More  Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs. GAO-08-400.  Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2008.
Highway Public-Private Partnerships: More Rigorous Up-front Analysis  Could Better Secure Potential Benefits and Protect the Public Interest.  GAO-08-44. Washington, D.C.: February 8, 2008.
State and Local Governments: Growing Fiscal Challenges Will Emerge  during the Next 10 Years. GAO-08-317. Washington, D.C.: January 22,  2008.
Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and  Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. GAO-06-15. Washington,  D.C.: October 21, 2005.