This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-436 
entitled 'Defense Infrastructure: Communities Need Additional Guidance 
and Information to Improve Their Ability to Adjust to DOD Installation 
Closure or Growth' which was released on May 14, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

May 2013: 

Defense Infrastructure: 

Communities Need Additional Guidance and Information to Improve Their 
Ability to Adjust to DOD Installation Closure or Growth: 

GAO-13-436: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-436, a report to congressional committees. 

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 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. 

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. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-436]. For more 
information, contact James R. McTigue, Jr. at (202) 512-7968 or 
mctiguej@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Communities Have Used a Variety of Strategies to Deal with BRAC 2005 
Closures and Select Local Economic Data Are Comparable to National 
Averages: 

Growth Has Occurred at 23 Major Installations and Communities Have 
Used a Variety of Strategies to Accommodate this Growth: 

DOD Provides Support to Communities Facing Installation Growth, but 
More Data and Long-Term Coordination Is Needed: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

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

Appendix III: Locations of Major Installations Closed in BRAC 2005 and 
Their Corresponding Economic Areas: 

Appendix IV: Locations of Major DOD Growth Installations in BRAC 2005 
and Their Corresponding Economic Areas: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: OEA Grants Provided to Communities Surrounding Major DOD 
Installations Closed in BRAC 2005 (Calendar Years 2005 through 2012): 

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: 

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

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

Figures: 

Figure 1: Timeline of BRAC 2005 Round: 

Figure 2: DOD's Usual Procedures for Transferring Property: 

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

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

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

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: 

Figure 7: Damaged Roof at Kansas Army Ammunition Plant: 

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: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 
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,[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 closures[Footnote 3] 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 consistent 
dissemination of planning information on changes in military and 
civilian personnel and school-age children.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 5] 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. 

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. 
[Footnote 6] We also collected 2006 through 2011 economic indicator 
data--the most recent available--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,[Footnote 
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 9] Further, we surveyed 
community representatives from all 23 growth installations and 
received 21 responses, for a response rate of 91 percent. 

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 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.) 

Background: 

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. 
[Footnote 10] 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 Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment. 
[Footnote 11] 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. 

Figure 1: Timeline of BRAC 2005 Round: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

December 28, 2001: 
Congress authorized BRAC 2005 round. 

November 15, 2002: 
Secretary of Defense sets BRAC 2005 goals. 

2002-2005: 
DOD proposed BRAC recommendations development. 

December 23, 2003: 
Draft BRAC selection criteria published in federal register. 

March 23, 2004: 
DOD certifies need for another BRAC round. 

2005: 
Commission review; 
President and Congress review. 

May 3, 2005: 
BRAC Commission begins first hearing. 

May 13, 2005: 
DOD issues recommendations to Commission. 

July 1, 2005: 
FAO reports to Congress on BRAC observations. 

September 8, 2005: 
Commission reports to President on final BRAC recommendations. 

September 2005: 
President and Congress review. 

September 15, 2005: 
President approves BRAC recommendations in their entirety and forward 
to Congress. 

November 9, 2005: 
BRAC recommendations become binding. 

2005-2011: 
DOD implementation of BRAC recommendations. 

September 15, 2011: 
Statutory deadline for completing BRAC 2005 recommendations. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Excess: 
Other defense activities; 
Other federal agencies; 
leads to: 

Surplus: 
* Public benefit conveyance; 
* Economic development conveyance; 
* Conservation conveyance; 
* Lease termination/expiration; 
* Negotiated and public sale; 
* Special legislation. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

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 
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.[Footnote 12] 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 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.[Footnote 
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.[Footnote 14] 

Communities Have Used a Variety of Strategies to Deal with BRAC 2005 
Closures and Select Local Economic Data Are Comparable to National 
Averages: 

Communities surrounding the 23 major DOD installations[Footnote 15] 
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. 

Communities Surrounding DOD Installations Closed in BRAC 2005 Have 
Used a Variety of Strategies to Adjust to the Closures: 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Military service: Army; 
Major installations: 12. 

Military service: Navy; 
Major installations: 6. 

Military service: Air Force; 
Major installations: 5. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD information. 

[End of figure] 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Brooks City-Base, Texas; 
Deseret Chemical Depot, Utah; 
Fort Gillem, Georgia; 
Fort McPherson, Georgia; 
Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; 
Fort Monroe, Virginia; 
Galena Forward Operating Location, Alaska; 
General Mitchell Air Reserve Station, Wisconsin; 
Kansas Army Ammunition Plant, Kansas; 
Kulis Air Guard Station, Alaska; 
Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texas; 
Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, Mississippi; 
Naval Air Station, Atlanta, Georgia; 
Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine; 
Naval Air Station, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania; 
Naval Station, Ingleside, Texas; 
Naval Station, Pascagoula, Mississippi; 
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment, Concord, California; 
Newport Chemical Depot, Indiana; 
Onizuka Air Force Station, California; 
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, California; 
Selfridge Army Activity, Michigan; 
Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon. 

Source: DOD; Map Resources (map). 

[End of figure] 

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 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 authority[Footnote 16] 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. 

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 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): 

Army: 

Closure Communities: Fort Gillem, GA; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): $3,115,158. 

Closure Communities: Fort McPherson, GA; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): 6,916,841. 

Closure Communities: Fort Monmouth, NJ; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): 10,309,387. 

Closure Communities: Fort Monroe, VA; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): 9,686,581. 

Closure Communities: Kansas Army Ammunition Plant, KS; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): 4,673,962. 

Closure Communities: Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Realignment of 
Red River Army Depot, TX; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): 5,841,923. 

Closure Communities: Newport Chemical Depot, IN; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): 3,698,199. 

Closure Communities: Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, CA; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): 3,492,545. 

Closure Communities: Selfridge Army Activity, MI; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): 726,602. 

Closure Communities: Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): 1,224,033. 

Closure Communities: Total Army; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): $49,685,231. 

Navy: 

Closure Communities: Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): $9,019,525. 

Closure Communities: Naval Air Station Willow Grove, PA; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): $4,305,365. 

Closure Communities: Naval Station Ingleside, TX; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): $2,658,768. 

Closure Communities: Naval Station Pascagoula, MS; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): $697,701. 

Closure Communities: Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment 
Concord, CA; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): $5,806,694. 

Closure Communities: Total Navy; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): $22,488,053. 

Air Force: 

Closure Communities: Brooks City Base, TX; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): $1,328,258. 

Closure Communities: Galena Forward Operating Location, AK; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): $371,841. 

Closure Communities: General Mitchell Air Reserve Station, WI; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): $514,118. 

Closure Communities: Onizuka Air Force Station, CA; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): $1,844,727. 

Closure Communities: Total Air Force; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): $4,058,944. 

Closure Communities: Grand Total; 
Cumulative OEA Grants (calendar years 2005 - 2012): $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. 

[End of table] 

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 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. 

Some Economic Data for Communities Surrounding DOD Installations 
Closed in BRAC 2005 Are Comparable to National Averages: 

Selected economic indicators for the 21 communities surrounding the 23 
DOD installations closed in BRAC 2005 are comparable to national 
averages.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 19] 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

National average annual unemployment rate: 8.9%. 

Areas near a 2005 major BRAC installation closure: 

Area: Modesto, California; 
Annual unemployment rate: 16.8%. 

Area: Yukon-Koyukuk, Alaska; 
Annual unemployment rate: 15.7%. 

Area: Pascagoula, Mississippi; 
Annual unemployment rate: 11.4%. 

Area: Picayune, Mississippi; 
Annual unemployment rate: 11.0%. 

Area: Warren-Farmington Hills, Michigan; 
Annual unemployment rate: 10.8%. 

Area: Terre Haute, Indiana; 
Annual unemployment rate: 10.4%. 

Area: Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, California; 
Annual unemployment rate: 10.4%. 

Area: San Jose, California; 
Annual unemployment rate: 9.9%. 

Area: Atlanta, Georgia; 
Annual unemployment rate: 9.6%. 

Area: Parsons, Kansas; 
Annual unemployment rate: 9.2%. 

Area: Pendleton-Hermiston, Oregon; 
Annual unemployment rate: 8.9%. 

Area: Edison, New Jersey; 
Annual unemployment rate: 8.6%. 

Area: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 
Annual unemployment rate: 8.3%. 

Area: Milwaukee, Wisconsin; 
Annual unemployment rate: 7.9%. 

Area: Corpus Christi, Texas; 
Annual unemployment rate: 7.9%. 

Area: Texarkana, Texas; 
Annual unemployment rate: 7.5%. 

Area: San Antonio, Texas; 
Annual unemployment rate: 7.4%. 

Area: Virginia Beach, Virginia; 
Annual unemployment rate: 7.0%. 

Area: Anchorage, Alaska; 
Annual unemployment rate: 6.7%. 

Area: Salt Lake City, Utah; 
Annual unemployment rate: 6.5%. 

Area: Portland, Maine; 
Annual unemployment rate: 6.1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data. 

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. 

[End of figure] 

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, Yukon-Koyukuk, 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. 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

National average annual real per capita income growth rate: 0.14%. 

Annual average annual real per capita income growth rates: 

Area: Yukon-Koyukuk, Alaska; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: 4.31%. 

Area: Pendleton-Hermiston, Oregon; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: 2.49%. 

Area: Corpus Christi, Texas; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: 2.41%. 

Area: Pascagoula, Mississippi; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: 2.18%. 

Area: Parsons, Kansas; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: 1.87%. 

Area: Picayune, Mississippi; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: 1.74%. 

Area: Texarkana, Texas; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: 1.51%. 

Area: Terre Haute, Indiana; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: 1.23%. 

Area: Anchorage, Alaska; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: 1.02%. 

Area: Virginia Beach, Virginia; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: 0.89%. 

Area: San Antonio, Texas; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: 0.57%. 

Area: Area: Portland, Maine; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: 0.51%. 

Area: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: 0.46%. 

Area: Edison, New Jersey; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: -0.05%. 

Area: San Jose, California; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: -0.20%. 

Area: Modesto, California; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: -0.22%. 

Area: Milwaukee, Wisconsin; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: -0.26%. 

Area: Salt Lake City, Utah; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: -0.46%. 

Area: Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, California; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: -1.12%. 

Area: Warren-Farmington Hills, Michigan; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: -1.27%. 

Area: Atlanta, Georgia; 
Annual real per capita income growth rate: -1.58%. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data. 

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. 

[End of figure] 

Growth Has Occurred at 23 Major Installations and Communities Have 
Used a Variety of Strategies to Accommodate this Growth: 

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. 
[Footnote 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: 

Army: 

Service and Installation: Fort Belvoir, VA; 
Fiscal Year 2006: 
Population: 21,065; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 45,796; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 24,731; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 117.40%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Bliss, TX; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 23,541; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 43,258; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 19,717; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 83.76%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Carson, CO; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 18,465; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 30,900; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 12,435; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 67.34%. 

Service and Installation: Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA[A]; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 32,231; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 52,837; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 20,606; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 63.93%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Lee, VA; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 13,885; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 20,920; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 7,035; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 50.67%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Meade, MD; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 33,548; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 49,385; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 15,837; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 47.21%. 

Service and Installation: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 16,207; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 22,446; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 6,239; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 38.50%. 

Service and Installation: Redstone Arsenal, AL; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 26,311; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 36,372; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 10,061; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 38.24%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Bragg, NC; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 57,684; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 73,435; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 15,751; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 27.31%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Riley, KS; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 20,275; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 25,423; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 5,148; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 25.39%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Benning, GA; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 38,471; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 48,107; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 9,636; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 25.05%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Drum, NY; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 20,354; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 23,455; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 3,101; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 15.24%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Polk, LA; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 16,837; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 18,952; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 2,115; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 12.56%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Stewart, GA; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 21,763; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 24,345; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 2,582; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 11.86%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Sill, OK [B]; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 26,916; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 26,613; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: (303); 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: (1.13%). 

Service and Installation: Fort Knox, KY [B]; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 23,004; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 18,938; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: (4,066); 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: (17.68%). 

Navy/Marine Corps: 

Service and Installation: Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 8,431; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 13,171; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 4,740; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 56.22%. 

Service and Installation: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 
MD; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 8,000; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 11,686; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 3,686; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 46.08%. 

Service and Installation: Eastern North Carolina; (Marine Corps Base 
Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station New River and Cherry Point, NC) 
[C]; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 53,364; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 62,253; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 8,889; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 16.66%. 

Air Force: 

Service and Installation: Joint Base San Antonio, TX [A]; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 22,067; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 38,047; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 15,980; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 72.42%. 

Service and Installation: Cannon Air Force Base, NM; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 3,652; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 5,255; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 1,603; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 43.89%. 

Service and Installation: Eglin Air Force Base, FL; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 11,934; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 15,407; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 3,473; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 29.10%. 

Service and Installation: Andrews Air Force Base, MD; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 8,328; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 10,487; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 2,159; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 25.92%. 

Service and Installation: Total; 
Fiscal Year 2006: Population: 526,333; 
Fiscal Year 2012 Population: 717,473; 
Net Gain (Loss) in population: 191,140; 
Percentage Gain or (Loss) in population: 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. 

[End of table] 

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 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.[Footnote 21] 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. 

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

Army: 

Service and Installation: Fort Bliss, TX; 
Community Population in 2006: 720,756; 
Community Population in 2011: 820,790; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 100,034; 
Percentage Gain: 13.88%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Stewart, GA; 
Community Population in 2006: 71,537; 
Community Population in 2011: 80,587; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 9,050; 
Percentage Gain: 12.65%. 

Service and Installation: Redstone Arsenal, AL; 
Community Population in 2006: 379,304; 
Community Population in 2011: 425,480; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 46,176; 
Percentage Gain: 12.17%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Sill, OK; 
Community Population in 2006: 112,293; 
Community Population in 2011: 125,815; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 13,522; 
Percentage Gain: 12.04%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Riley, KS; 
Community Population in 2006: 117,083; 
Community Population in 2011: 130,240; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 13,157; 
Percentage Gain: 11.24%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Knox, KY; 
Community Population in 2006: 110,653; 
Community Population in 2011: 121,771; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 11,118; 
Percentage Gain: 10.05%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Carson, CO; 
Community Population in 2006: 601,150; 
Community Population in 2011: 660,319; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 59,169; 
Percentage Gain: 9.84%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Belvoir, VA[A]; 
Community Population in 2006: 4,107,820; 
Community Population in 2011: 4,477,409; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 369,589; 
Percentage Gain: 9.00%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Polk, LA; 
Community Population in 2006: 48,467; 
Community Population in 2011: 52,107; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 3,640; 
Percentage Gain: 7.51%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Bragg, NC; 
Community Population in 2006: 348,072; 
Community Population in 2011: 374,157; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 26,085; 
Percentage Gain: 7.49%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Lee, VA; 
Community Population in 2006: 1,195,634; 
Community Population in 2011: 1,269,380; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 73,746; 
Percentage Gain: 6.17%. 

Service and Installation: Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA[B]; 
Community Population in 2006: 764,241; 
Community Population in 2011: 807,904; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 43,663; 
Percentage Gain: 5.71%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Benning, GA; 
Community Population in 2006: 290,057; 
Community Population in 2011: 301,439; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 11,382; 
Percentage Gain: 3.92%. 

Service and Installation: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD[A]; 
Community Population in 2006: 2,662,048; 
Community Population in 2011: 2,729,110; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 67,062; 
Percentage Gain: 2.52%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Meade, MD[A]; 
Community Population in 2006: 2,662,048; 
Community Population in 2011: 2,729,110; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 67,062; 
Percentage Gain: 2.52%. 

Service and Installation: Fort Drum, NY; 
Community Population in 2006: 117,162; 
Community Population in 2011: 117,910; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 748; 
Percentage Gain: 0.64%. 

Navy: 

Service and Installation: Marine Corps Camp Lejeune, NC [A]; 
Community Population in 2006: 161,054; 
Community Population in 2011: 179,719; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 18,665; 
Percentage Gain: 11.59%. 

Service and Installation: Marine Corps Air Station New River, NC [A]; 
Community Population in 2006: 161,054; 
Community Population in 2011: 179,719; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 18,665; 
Percentage Gain: 11.59%. 

Service and Installation: Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA [A]; 
Community Population in 2006: 4,107,820; 
Community Population in 2011: 4,477,409; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 369,589; 
Percentage Gain: 9.00%. 

Service and Installation: Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC; 
Community Population in 2006: 118,815; 
Community Population in 2011: 128,003; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 9,188; 
Percentage Gain: 7.73%. 

Service and Installation: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 
MD; 
Community Population in 2006: 1,157,192; 
Community Population in 2011: 1,226,539; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 69,347; 
Percentage Gain: 5.99%. 

Air Force: 

Service and Installation: Joint Base San Antonio, TX[B]; 
Community Population in 2006: 1,932,720; 
Community Population in 2011: 2,194,927; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 262,207; 
Percentage Gain: 13.57%. 

Service and Installation: Andrews Air Force Base, MD[A]; 
Community Population in 2006: 4,107,820; 
Community Population in 2011: 4,477,409; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 369,589; 
Percentage Gain: 9.00%. 

Service and Installation: Cannon Air Force Base, NM; 
Community Population in 2006: 45,660; 
Community Population in 2011: 49,649; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 3,989; 
Percentage Gain: 8.74%. 

Service and Installation: Eglin Air Force Base, FL; 
Community Population in 2006: 182,462; 
Community Population in 2011: 183,482; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 1,020; 
Percentage Gain: 0.56%. 

Service and Installation: Totals[C]; 
Community Population in 2006: 15,292,647; 
Community Population in 2011: 16,508,844; 
Net Gain in Community Population: 1,216,197; 
Percentage Gain: 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. 

[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. 

[End of table] 

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. 

Installation Growth Raises Challenges for Communities, Which Have Used 
a Variety of Strategies to Accommodate This Growth: 

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 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. 
[Footnote 22] 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. 

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: 

* 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. 

* 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): 

Army: 

Growth Communities and States: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $7,970,310. 

Growth Communities and States: Fort Belvoir, VA; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $7,704,174. 

Growth Communities and States: Fort Benning, GA; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $4,892,414. 

Growth Communities and States: Fort Bliss, TX; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $2,653,808. 

Growth Communities and States: Fort Bragg, NC; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $4,687,136. 

Growth Communities and States: Fort Carson, CO; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $3,306,801. 

Growth Communities and States: Fort Drum, NY; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $1,555,329. 

Growth Communities and States: Fort Knox, TN; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $2,397,775. 

Growth Communities and States: Fort Lee, VA; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $733,181. 

Growth Communities and States: Fort Meade, MD; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $3,896,349. 

Growth Communities and States: Fort Polk, LA; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $168,173. 

Growth Communities and States: Fort Riley, KS; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $2,219,194. 

Growth Communities and States: Fort Sill, OK; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $897,157. 

Growth Communities and States: Fort Stewart, GA; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $1,246,364. 

Growth Communities and States: Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $2,321,934. 

Growth Communities and States: Redstone Arsenal, AL; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $1,544,938. 

Navy: 

Growth Communities and States: Walter Reed National Military Medical 
Center, MD; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $1,525,273. 

Growth Communities and States: Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Marine 
Corps Air Station New River and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, 
NC; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $4,425,735. 

Growth Communities and States: Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $1,687,698. 

Air Force: 

Growth Communities and States: Andrews Joint Base, MD; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $495,000. 

Growth Communities and States: Cannon Air Force Base, NM; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $625,598. 

Growth Communities and States: Eglin Air Force Base, FL; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $1,433,435. 

Growth Communities and States: Joint Base San Antonio, TX; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $4,422,550. 

States[B]: 

Growth Communities and States: Commonwealth of Kentucky; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $1,327,209. 

Growth Communities and States: Commonwealth of Virginia; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $1,250,909. 

Growth Communities and States: State of Kansas; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $1,047,963. 

Growth Communities and States: State of Maryland; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $7,144,221. 

Growth Communities and States: Totals; 
OEA Grant Awards from 2005 to 2012: $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. 

[End of table] 

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 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. 

DOD Provides Assistance to Communities Surrounding Closure 
Installations, but Additional Army Guidance Is Needed to Improve 
Maintenance of Facilities: 

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's Office of Economic Adjustment Provides Assistance to Communities 
Surrounding Closure Installations: 

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. 

Two of the Three Military Departments Have Guidance on Maintenance 
Levels for Closed Facilities: 

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 responsible for protecting and 
maintaining such assets in order to preserve the value of the 
property.[Footnote 23] 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. 

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.[Footnote 24] 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. 

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.[Footnote 25] 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. 

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). 

Figure 7: Damaged Roof at Kansas Army Ammunition Plant: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: DOD; Great Plains Development Authority. 

[End of figure] 

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 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. 

DOD Provides Support to Communities Facing Installation Growth, but 
More Data and Long-Term Coordination Is Needed: 

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. 

DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment Provides Support to Communities 
Facing Installation 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 manager visited their community regularly and participated in 
planning meetings. 

Communities Facing Installation Growth Expressed the Need for More 
Data and Long-Term Coordination: 

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.[Footnote 26] The services implemented DOD's guidance by 
issuing service-specific 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.[Footnote 27] 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 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 full-time 
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.[Footnote 28] An official from 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. 

Conclusions: 

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 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 long-
term 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. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

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 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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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 "ex-officio members" of the community's growth 
management organizations, 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 
[hyperlink, 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. 

Signed by: 

James R. McTigue, Jr. 
Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 

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: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

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.[Footnote 29] We defined the 
"community" surrounding each installation as the economic area 
identified in DOD's Base Closure and Realignment Report[Footnote 30] 
which linked a metropolitan statistical area, a metropolitan division, 
or a micropolitan statistical area to each installation.[Footnote 31] 
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 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.[Footnote 32] 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 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 audio-recorded 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 error-checking 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 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 
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 non-sampling 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. 

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. 

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. 

[End of section] 

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

Major DOD Installation: Army Material Tech Lab, MA; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Cameron Station, VA; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Chanute Air Force Base, IL; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Fort Douglas, UT; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Fort Sheridan, IL; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: George Air Force Base, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Jefferson Proving Ground, IN; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Lexington Army Depot, KY; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Mather Air Force Base, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Station Brooklyn, NY; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Station Galveston, TX; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Station Lake Charles, LA; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Norton Air Force Base, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Pease Air Force Base, NH; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Philadelphia Naval Hospital, PA; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Presidio of San Francisco, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1988. 

Major DOD Installation: Bergstrom Air Force Base, TX; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Carswell Air Force Base, TX; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Castle Air Force Base, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Chase Field Naval Air Station, TX; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Eaker Air Force Base, AR; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: England Air Force Base, LA; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Fort Devens, MA; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Fort Ord, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Grissom Air Force Base, IN; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Hunters Point Annex, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Loring Air Force Base, ME; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Lowry Air Force Base, CO; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Moffett Naval Air Station, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, SC; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Electronic Systems Engineering Center San 
Diego, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Station Long Beach, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Station Philadelphia, PA; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Station Puget Sound, WA; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, PA; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Richards-Gebaur Air Reserve Station, MO; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base, OH; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Sacramento Army Depot, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Tustin Marine Corps Air Station, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Williams Air Force Base, AZ; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Wurtsmith Air Force Base, MI; 
BRAC Round: 1991. 

Major DOD Installation: Charleston Naval Shipyard, SC; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Defense Personnel Support Center, PA; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Gentile Air Force Station, OH; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Homestead Air Force Base, FL; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base, MI; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Mare Island Naval Shipyard, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Air Station Agana, Guam; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Air Station Alameda, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Air Station Barbers Point, HI; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Air Station Cecil Field, FL; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Air Station Dallas, TX; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Air Station Glenview, IL; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Aviation Depot Alameda, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Aviation Depot Norfolk, VA; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Aviation Depot Pensacola, FL; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Electronic Systems Engineering Center St. 
Inigoes, MD; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Hospital Oakland, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Station Charleston, SC; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Station Mobile, AL; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Station Staten Island, NY; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Station Treasure Island, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Training Center Orlando, FL; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Training Center San Diego, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Newark Air Force Base, OH; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: O'Hare International Airport Air Reserve 
Station, IL; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Plattsburgh Air Force Base, NY; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Vint Hill Farms, VA; 
BRAC Round: 1993. 

Major DOD Installation: Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal, NJ; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Bergstrom Air Reserve Base, TX; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Defense Distribution Depot Memphis, TN; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, UT; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, CO; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Fleet Industrial Supply Center Oakland, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Fort Chaffee, AR; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Fort Holabird, MD; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Fort Indiantown Gap, PA; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Fort McClellan, AL; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Fort Pickett, VA; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Fort Ritchie, MD; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: McClellan Air Force Base, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Air Facility Adak, AK; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Air Station South Weymoth, MA; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, 
Indianapolis, IN; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, 
Warminster, PA; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Shipyard Long Beach, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division 
Detachment, Louisville, KY; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division 
Detachment, White Oak, MD; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Oakland Army Base, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Ontario International Airport Air Guard 
Station, CA; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Reese Air Force Base, TX; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Roslyn Air Guard Station, NY; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Savanna Army Depot Activity, IL; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Seneca Army Depot, NY; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Major DOD Installation: Ship Repair Facility, Guam; 
BRAC Round: 1995. 

Source: DOD. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Locations of Major Installations Closed in BRAC 2005 and 
Their Corresponding Economic Areas: 

Army: 

Closure Installation: Deseret Chemical Depot, UT; 
Locality: Tooele, UT; 
Economic Area[a]: Salt Lake City, UT. Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Fort Gillem, GA; 
Locality: Forest Park, GA; 
Economic Area[a]: Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA. Metropolitan 
Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Fort McPherson, GA; 
Locality: Atlanta, GA; 
Economic Area[a]: Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA. Metropolitan 
Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Fort Monmouth, NJ; 
Locality: Eatontown, NJ; 
Economic Area[a]: Edison, NJ. Metropolitan Division. 

Closure Installation: Fort Monroe, VA; 
Locality: Hampton, VA; 
Economic Area[a]: Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC. 
Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Kansas Army Ammunition Plant, KS; 
Locality: Parsons, KS; 
Economic Area[a]: Parsons, KS. Micropolitan Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, TX; 
Locality: Texarkana, TX; 
Economic Area[a]: Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR. Metropolitan 
Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, MS; 
Locality: Hancock County, MS; 
Economic Area[a]: Picayune, MS. Micropolitan Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Newport Chemical Depot, IN; 
Locality: Newport, IN; 
Economic Area[a]: Terre Haute, IN. Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, CA; 
Locality: Riverbank, CA; 
Economic Area[a]: Modesto, CA. Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Selfridge Army Activity, MI; 
Locality: Chesterfield Township, MI; 
Economic Area[a]: Warren-Farmington Hills-Troy, MI. Metropolitan 
Division. 

Closure Installation: Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR; 
Locality: Hermiston, OR; 
Economic Area[a]: Pendleton-Hermiston, OR. Micropolitan Statistical 
Area. 

Navy: 

Closure Installation: Naval Air Station Atlanta, GA; 
Locality: Marietta, GA; 
Economic Area[a]: Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA. Metropolitan 
Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME; 
Locality: Brunswick, ME; 
Economic Area[a]: Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME. Metropolitan 
Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Naval Air Station Willow Grove, PA; 
Locality: Horsham, PA; 
Economic Area[a]: Philadelphia, PA. Metropolitan Division. 

Closure Installation: Naval Station Ingleside, TX; 
Locality: Ingleside, TX; 
Economic Area[a]: Corpus Christi, TX. Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Naval Station Pascagoula, MS; 
Locality: Pascagoula, MS; 
Economic Area[a]: Pascagoula, MS. Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Concord 
Detachment, CA; 
Locality: Concord, CA; 
Economic Area[a]: Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA. Metropolitan Division. 

Air Force: 

Closure Installation: Brooks City-Base, TX; 
Locality: San Antonio, TX; 
Economic Area[a]: San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX. Metropolitan 
Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Galena Forward Operating Location, AK; 
Locality: Galena, AK; 
Economic Area[a]: Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area. 

Closure Installation: General Mitchell Air Reserve Station, WI; 
Locality: Milwaukee, WI; 
Economic Area[a]: Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI. Metropolitan 
Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Kulis Air Guard Station, AK; 
Locality: Anchorage, AK; 
Economic Area[a]: Anchorage, AK. Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Closure Installation: Onizuka Air Force Station, CA; 
Locality: Sunnyvale, CA; 
Economic Area[a]: 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. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Locations of Major DOD Growth Installations in BRAC 2005 
and Their Corresponding Economic Areas: 

Army: 

Growth Installation: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; 
Locality: Aberdeen, MD; 
Economic Area: Baltimore-Towson, MD; Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Fort Belvoir, VA; 
Locality: Fairfax County, VA; 
Economic Area: Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 
Metropolitan Division. 

Growth Installation: Fort Benning, GA; 
Locality: Cusseta, GA; 
Economic Area: Columbus, GA-AL; Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Fort Bliss, TX; 
Locality: El Paso, TX; 
Economic Area: El Paso, TX; Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Fort Bragg, NC; 
Locality: Fayetteville, NC; 
Economic Area: Fayetteville, NC; Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Fort Carson, CO; 
Locality: Colorado Springs, CO; 
Economic Area: Colorado Springs, CO; Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Fort Drum, NY; 
Locality: Watertown, NY; 
Economic Area: Watertown-Fort Drum, NY; Micropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Fort Knox, KY; 
Locality: Radcliff, KY; 
Economic Area: Elizabethtown, KY; Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Fort Lee, VA; 
Locality: Hopewell, Petersburg and Colonial Heights, VA; 
Economic Area: Richmond, VA; Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Fort Meade, MD; 
Locality: Odenton, Laurel, Columbia and Jessup Counties, MD; 
Economic Area: Baltimore-Towson, MD; Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Fort Polk, LA; 
Locality: Leesville, LA; 
Economic Area: Fort Polk South, LA; Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Fort Riley, KS; 
Locality: Junction City, Ogden, and Manhattan, KS; 
Economic Area: Manhattan, KS; Micropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Fort Sill, OK; 
Locality: Lawton, OK; 
Economic Area: Lawton, OK; Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Fort Stewart, GA; 
Locality: Hinesville, GA; 
Economic Area: Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA; Metropolitan Statistical 
Area. 

Growth Installation: Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA; 
Locality: Lakewood, WA; 
Economic Area: Tacoma, WA; Metropolitan Division. 

Growth Installation: Redstone Arsenal, AL; 
Locality: Huntsville AL; 
Economic Area: Huntsville AL; Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Navy: 

Growth Installation: Marine Corps Camp Lejeune, NC; 
Locality: Jacksonville and Havelock, NC; 
Economic Area: Jacksonville, NC; Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Marine Corps Air Station New River, NC; 
Locality: Jacksonville and Havelock, NC; 
Economic Area: Jacksonville, NC; Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA; 
Locality: Triangle,VA; 
Economic Area: Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV; 
Metropolitan Division. 

Growth Installation: Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC; 
Locality: Jacksonville and Havelock, NC; 
Economic Area: New Bern, NC; Micropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, MD; 
Locality: Bethesda, MD; 
Economic Area: Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, MD; Metropolitan Division. 

Air Force: 

Growth Installation: Joint Base San Antonio, TX; 
Locality: San Antonio, TX; 
Economic Area: San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX; Metropolitan Statistical 
Area. 

Growth Installation: Andrews Air Force Base, MD; 
Locality: Prince George's County, MD; 
Economic Area: Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 
Metropolitan Division. 

Growth Installation: Cannon Air Force Base, NM; 
Locality: Clovis, NM; 
Economic Area: Clovis, NM; Micropolitan Statistical Area. 

Growth Installation: Eglin Air Force Base, FL; 
Locality: Shalimar, Niceville, Valparaiso and Fort Walton Beach, FL; 
Economic Area: 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: 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office of the Under Secretary Of Defense
3000 Defense Pentagon: 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics:  
Washington, DC 20301-3000: 

April 26, 2013: 

Mr. James R. McTigue, Jr. 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. McTigue: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft 
report, GAO-13-436, "Defense Infrastructure: Communities Need 
Additional Guidance and Information to Improve Their Ability to Adjust 
to DoD Installation Closure or Growth," dated March 26, 2013 (GAO Code 
351734). Detailed comments on the report recommendations are enclosed. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report. Should 
you have any questions, please contact Ms. Joan Sigler at 703-697-2139 
or joan.sigler@wso.whs.mil. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

John Conger: 
Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense: 
(Installations and Environment): 

Enclosure: As stated: 

GAO Draft Report Dated March 26, 2013: 
GAO-13-436 (GAO CODE 351734): 

"Defense Infrastructure: Communities Need Additional Guidance And 
Information To Improve Their Ability To Adjust To DOD Installation 
Closure Or Growth" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendation: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends 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. 

DoD Response: Concur. The Army agrees to publish property maintenance 
guidance prior to closing installations in the event of future base 
closures. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force 
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. 

DoD Response: Partially concur. The Department agrees that information 
pertaining to the physical location of installation personnel helps 
affected communities plan for housing, schools, transportation and 
other off-post requirements in support of our installations. Existing 
policy requires the Military Departments to provide planning 
information, including base personnel, to states and communities to 
support the establishment or expansion of a military base. In the 
event of future basing decisions affecting local communities, the 
Department will work with the Military Departments to assess and 
determine the best means to obtain, aggregate, and distribute this 
information to help ensure adequate planning information is made 
available. 

Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends 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 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. 

DoD Response: Partially concur. The Department agrees with the need 
for a designated position at the installation level to work with the 
community and will ensure this requirement is being met through 
current practices and in accordance with each Military Department's 
personnel system. In many of the growth impacted communities, 
installation officials serve as ex-officio members of the community's 
growth management organization and relevant installation staff, 
including those engaged with public works, housing, education, and 
land use planning, and coordinate as needed with their civilian 
community counterparts. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

James R. McTigue, Jr., (202) 512-7968 or mctiguej@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Defense Infrastructure: Improved Guidance Needed for Estimating 
Alternatively Financed Project Liabilities. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-337]. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 
2013. 

Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment 
and Closure Rounds. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-149]. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 
2013. 

DOD Joint Bases: Management Improvements Needed to Achieve Greater 
Efficiencies. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-134]. 
Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2012. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: The National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency's Technology Center Construction Project. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-770R]. Washington, 
D.C.: June 29, 2012. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Updated Costs and Savings 
Estimates from BRAC 2005. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-709R]. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 
2012. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Key Factors Contributing to 
BRAC 2005 Results. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-814]. Washington, D.C.: September 
19, 2011. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Review of the Iowa and Milan 
Army Ammunition Plants. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-488R]. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 
2011. 

GAO's 2011 High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-725R]. Washington, 
D.C.: July 21, 2010. 

Defense Infrastructure: Army Needs to Improve Its Facility Planning 
Systems to Better Support Installations Experiencing Significant 
Growth. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-602]. 
Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2010. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have 
Increased While Savings Estimates Have Decreased Since Fiscal Year 
2009. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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 Supply-
Related Functions at Depot Maintenance Locations. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-665]. Washington, D.C.: 
June 17, 2008. 

Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and Road 
Improvements Surrounding Growth Installations. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-602R]. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 
2008. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Higher Costs and Lower 
Savings Projected for Implementing Two Key Supply-Related BRAC 
Recommendations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-244R]. Washington, D.C.: January 
18, 2008. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have 
Increased and Estimated Savings Have Decreased. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1040]. Washington, 
D.C.: September 13, 2007. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Observations Related to the 
2005 Round. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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 
Implementation of Air National Guard Recommendations. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-166]. Washington, D.C.: 
January 30, 2007. 

Military Bases: Observations on DOD's 2005 Base Realignment and 
Closure Selection Process and Recommendations. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-785]. Washington, D.C.: July 1, 
2005. 

Military Base Closures: Observations on Prior and Current BRAC Rounds. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-760]. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 
2004. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[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. 

[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, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-138] 
(Washington, D.C., Jan. 13, 2005). 

[4] GAO, Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help 
Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-665] (Washington, D.C.: 
June 17, 2008). 

[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, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-149] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7, 
2013). 

[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] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-665]. 

[9] We visited Fort Belvoir, VA; Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA; Camp 
Lejeune, NC; and Eglin Air Force Base, FL. 

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

[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." 

[12] GAO, Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base 
Realignments and Closures, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-138] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13, 
2005). 

[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, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 

[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. 

[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-Norfolk-Newport 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. 

[20] These figures do not include family members and nonmission-
related contractors who have also relocated to the surrounding 
communities. 

[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. 

[22] Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment, Project 
Needs Assessment, September 2009 Snapshot: Assessing a Continuing 
Funding Gap for Local Economic Adjustment Projects. 

[23] DOD Manual 4165.66-M, Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual, 
(March 1, 2006). 

[24] Department of the Navy, Base Realignment and Closure 
Implementation Guidance, Mar. 23, 2007. 

[25] Memorandum from the Civil Engineer, Department of the Air Force, 
Policy Guidance for Facility Protection and Maintenance at Closure 
Bases, Nov. 26, 1991. 

[26] DOD Directive 5410.12, Economic Adjustment Assistance to Defense-
Impacted Communities (July 5, 2006). 

[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. 

[28] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-98], Major 
Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Defense 
(Washington, D.C.: January 2003). 

[29] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-149]. 

[30] Department of Defense, Base Closure and Realignment Report, 
Volume I, Part 1 of 2: Results and Process, (May 2005). 

[31] 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. 

[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-665]. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, 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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]