Defense Infrastructure: Military Services Lack Reliable Data on  
Historic Properties (06-APR-01, GAO-01-437).			 
								 
Available information indicates that the military services do not
have an accurate inventory of historic properties. The inventory 
of historic properties should include all properties that are	 
listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic	 
Places to ensure that the military services have visibility over 
all historical properties. In addition, a complete inventory	 
would ensure that the services are properly recording real	 
property transactions, ensure the accuracy of reporting on real  
property required to be included in annual financial statements, 
and provide an improved basis for long-term planning of facility 
maintenance and repair. At the same time, composite data on the  
costs of maintaining historic structures is not readily 	 
available.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-437 					        
    ACCNO:   A00760						        
    TITLE:   Defense Infrastructure: Military Services Lack Reliable  
             Data on Historic Properties                                      
     DATE:   04/06/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Data bases 					 
	     Historic preservation				 
	     Military facilities				 
	     National historic sites				 
	     National Register of Historic Places		 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-437

Report to Congressional Committees

United States General Accounting Office GAO

April 2001 DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE

Military Services Lack Reliable Data on Historic Properties

GAO- 01- 437

Page i GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure Letter 1 Appendix I Comments From
the Department of Defense 15

Appendix II GAO Contact and Acknowledgments 16

Tables

Table 1: Historic Properties by Service 4 Table 2: Properties Reaching 50
Years of Age Between 2001 and

2010 by Service 8 Contents

Page 1 GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure April 6, 2001 Congressional
Committees

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 1 established a national
program to provide for the ongoing identification and protection of historic
properties. 2 Under the act, a historic property is one that is listed on or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 3 required us to
review historic properties within the Department of Defense (DOD).
Accordingly, our objectives were to assess the services' current and
projected inventories of historic properties and the cost of maintaining and
repairing these properties. For purposes of this review, we limited our
assessment of historic properties to buildings and structures- the
predominant types of historic properties in the Department of Defense.

The military services do not have complete and reliable data on the number
of their historic properties. None of the services have a centralized
database that identifies all of their respective historic properties.
Available data indicates that the services have about 17, 300 historic
properties-

about 10,100 in the Army. 4 This represents less than 5 percent of all
Department of Defense facilities. However, because of inconsistencies
between the services' real property databases and cultural resource records,
and the lack of an inventory of properties that are eligible for listing on
the National Register, the reliability of this number is

questionable. Nearly all historic buildings are currently in use as family 1
P. L. 89- 665, as amended, is codified at 16 U. S. C. 470 et. seq. 2 The
National Park Service administers the National Register and it defines five
types of historic properties. Buildings are defined as any construction
sheltering human activity. Structures are defined as any constructions other
than for human shelter and include such items as airplanes, bridges, and
highways. Objects are distinguished from buildings and structures based on
being artistic in nature and small in scale and include monuments, boundary
markers, and statuary. A site is a location of significance such as a
battlefield, cemetery, or shipwreck and also includes archeological
locations. A district is defined as “possessing a significant
concentration, linkage, or continuity of buildings, structures,

objects, or sites united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical
development.” 3 P. L. 106- 398, sec. 393. 4 This figure excludes World
War II wooden buildings that have been approved for demolition.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 Results in
Brief

Page 2 GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure housing or office space. Although
a large number of buildings will need to be evaluated over the next 10
years, it is uncertain how many of these

buildings will meet the criteria and become eligible for listing on the
National Register.

Data is not readily available to identify the costs of maintaining historic
properties or to separately account for repairs related to the historic
aspects of these properties. The services do not account separately for or
otherwise distinguish between money spent to maintain and repair historic

properties and that spent on nonhistoric properties. Therefore, we were
unable to determine composite maintenance and repair costs specific to the
Department's historic properties. Cost data we examined at several
installations showed that overall, the day- to- day maintenance conducted on
historic properties was similar to maintenance on nonhistoric properties.
However, the costs of such maintenance can be proportionally greater where
historic properties are larger in size than current military requirements.
This is especially true of historic military family housing. At the same
time, replacement of unique historical features such as large porches,
windows, and slate or tile roofs can result in higher maintenance and repair
costs for historic properties in the year the work is performed.

We are making a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense to require the
military services to update their real property databases to ensure an
accurate inventory of properties that are listed and eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places. The Department of Defense agreed
with our recommendation.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established a national
historic preservation program to provide for the ongoing identification and
protection of historic properties. An historic property is any building,
structure, object, site, or district listed on or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. To be eligible for the National
Register, a property must meet one of the following criteria: (1) be

associated with historic events or activities, (2) be associated with
important people, (3) embody distinctive design or physical characteristics,
or (4) have potential to provide important information about prehistory or
history. In addition, the property generally has to be

50 years of age or older. The act generally requires federal agencies to
identify, evaluate, and nominate historic properties under agency control to
the National Register of Historic Places. The Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense Background

Page 3 GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure for Environmental Security
implements the act within DOD and requires each military service to
designate federal preservation officers to

coordinate its historic property program. As part of the program, the
services require each installation to prepare an integrated cultural
resources management plan 5 that should include an inventory of all known

historic properties as well as an evaluation of properties that may be
eligible for listing on the National Register. Once an installation
completes its evaluation, it coordinates its recommendation with the State
Historic Preservation Officer. If the state disagrees with the
installation's recommendation, the decision can be elevated to the National
Park Service. The military services maintain information on historic
properties such as year acquired, square footage, and current use in their
real property databases. The act also requires that federal agencies (1)
consider the effects of any

maintenance, repair, or renovation on historic properties- both those on the
National Register, as well as those eligible to be placed on the register,
and (2) consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to attempt to
reach an agreement regarding actions that affect historic properties that is
beneficial to all. Thus, when installation officials are about to begin work
on a property either on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register,
they should consult with the state about what work will be accomplished and
what materials will be used; however, responsibility for funding the

work remains with the Department of Defense. Each of the military services
has reported backlogs of facilities maintenance and repair work in recent
years, regardless of whether a property is historic or nonhistoric. Although
the military services maintain cultural resource records on

historical properties and also real property databases, containing both
historical and nonhistorical properties, they do not have complete and
reliable data on the number of historic properties. None of the services
have a centralized database that identifies all of their respective historic

properties. Our analysis of data from the military services' real property
databases and cultural resource records indicates the services have about
17,300 historic properties, most of which are in- use. However, results of
military service auditor tests of additions, deletions, and modification

transactions for fiscal year 1999 indicated that real property transactions
were not promptly recorded. These problems, along with issues we 5 Based on
DOD Instruction 4715. 3. Data on the Number of Historic Properties

Is Not Reliable

Page 4 GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure identified such as conflicting
information between the Army's real property database and its cultural
resource records, and the lack of information on Navy and Air Force
properties that are eligible for listing,

raise questions regarding the reliability of the services' information.
Further, while there is a large number of properties that need to be
evaluated over the next 10 years, it is uncertain how many of these
properties will meet criteria and become eligible for listing on the
National Register.

Although each service maintains a real property database that should
indicate whether individual buildings and structures are historic
properties, our work has shown that these databases are not reliable. For
example, the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force systems only identify
properties listed on the National Register, not other properties that are
eligible for listing on the National Register. While the Army database
includes both listed and eligible properties, it does not include all
properties identified as historic in the cultural resource records. At the

same time, questions exist regarding the accuracy and completeness of
cultural resource records. The number of historic properties in table 1
represents our analysis of the services' real property databases and
cultural resource records. Table 1: Historic Properties by Service

Number of historic properties Service Listed Eligible Total

Army a a 10,110 b Navy 2,135 391 c 2,526

Marine Corps 49 590 c 639

Air Force 1,691 2,346 c 4,037 Total 17,312

a Army data does not identify whether a property is listed on or eligible
for the National Register. b This figure excludes 8,254 buildings approved
for demolition. c These service real property databases do not include
information on eligible properties; these numbers were developed from the
services' cultural resource records. Source: Our analysis of available
service data. While information included in table 1 provides the best
available data on

the number of historic properties, it is subject to certain limitations. The
following examples highlight the problems we had in determining the number
of historic properties within each service.

Page 5 GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure ? The Army's real property
database identifies 6,189 properties and its cultural resource records,
maintained at each installation, indicate 8,593

properties as historic- excluding buildings approved for demolition. 6 Our
comparison of information between the real property database and cultural
resource records indicates the Army has 10,110 historic properties. Army
officials stated that the additional properties included in the cultural
resource records represent properties that are eligible for listing, but
installations have not updated the real property database. For example, the
cultural resource records identified 1,790 historic properties at Hawthorne
Army Depot, Nevada, which were not identified as historic in the Army's real
property database. About 1,533 of these historic

properties are munitions storage structures. While a cultural resources
official with the Army believes that the cultural resource records are more
accurate than the database, he also has concerns about the accuracy of these
records. For example, the cultural resource records indicate that there are
15 historic properties within the Military District of Washington. 7
According to the real property database, there are 576 historic properties

within the District.

? The Navy's real property database identifies 1,283 historic properties,
but our work indicates the Navy has at least 2,526 such properties. The real
property database does not identify 855 8 historic properties included in
the Pearl Harbor, Hawaii historic district. In addition, the database does
not identify 295 family housing dwellings at various locations, 64
properties at

Naval Shipyard Portsmouth, Maine, nor 32 properties at the Naval Academy,
Maryland, as historic properties, eligible for listing on the National
Register. The cultural resource office does not maintain records on
properties eligible for listing on the register, so we could not determine
how many properties might be eligible throughout the Navy. In addition, the
facilities database identifies 66 properties built after 1950 as historic-

6 The Army has a category of 8,254 historic buildings called “World
War II Wood.” DOD has an agreement with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation and the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers that allows the Department to demolish all the
buildings in this category. The Army plans to demolish most of its inventory
of World War II Wood properties, and to maintain those for which there is an
operational

requirement. We did not include any buildings in this category in our Army
total. 7 The Military District of Washington includes the following Army
posts with historic properties: Fort A. P. Hill, Fort Belvoir, Fort George
G. Meade, Fort Hamilton, Fort McNair,

and Fort Myer. 8 The Navy is developing a programmatic agreement with the
state of Hawaii regarding the potential reuse and demolition of some of
these properties.

Page 6 GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure 14 at the Naval Training Center
Great Lakes, Illinois, and 11 at the U. S. Naval Academy, Maryland. However,
cultural resource officials at both

installations stated that none of these properties are historic. The
remaining 41 properties are at locations we did not visit.

? The Marine Corps uses the same real property database as the Navy and it
does not identify properties that are eligible for listing on the register.
Our analysis of available cultural resource records at Marine Corps
headquarters indicates there are 590 properties eligible for listing,

including 239 at the Marine Corps Combat Development Center, Quantico,
Virginia, and 210 at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

? The Air Force's cultural resource records indicate that there are 1,831
properties listed on the National Register. However, our analysis of the
cultural resource data indicates that there are 1,691 properties 9 on the

National Register. The difference occurs because the Air Force included (1)
properties owned by the Army, (2) nonhistoric properties at some
installations, and (3) properties that had been demolished. The Air Force

cultural resource records also identify 2,346 eligible properties; however,
the cultural resource office could not identify where 1,183 of these
properties were located. An Air Force cultural resource official stated that
the number of eligible properties was developed from a 1999 inquiry-
telephone and e- mail responses- but no supporting documentation was
retained. The remaining 1,163 eligible properties are family housing that
the Air Force can identify by base.

Service officials stated they are aware of the inconsistencies in the number
of historic properties between the real property databases and the cultural
resource records. Army officials in the Office of the Assistant Chief of
Staff for Installation Management stated that they are working to reconcile
the inconsistencies. The Navy cultural resource manager agreed that the
existing real property database does not accurately capture data on historic
properties. He also acknowledged that the database does not distinguish
between properties that are listed on the National Register and those
determined to be eligible for listing and whether properties are part of a
historic district or listed individually. However, he stated that the

Navy is updating its real property database to allow it to make these
distinctions. 9 This includes 241 historic properties at base closure
locations.

Page 7 GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure Cultural resource officials in
each of the service headquarters stated, and our own observations confirmed,
that the majority of the historic properties are being used. About 36
percent of all historic properties are

family housing dwellings. There were a relatively small number of vacant
buildings at some of the installations we visited. In some cases, the
installations were developing plans to lease these properties to the private
sector.

At the installations we visited, 87, or about 4 percent, of the identified
2,395 historic properties were vacant. In some cases, the buildings were
vacant because the base did not have sufficient funds to make the buildings
usable and/ or the structures were no longer needed for mission
requirements. For example, 2 of the identified 65 historic properties at the
Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, were vacant because, according to the
installation's Director of Public Works, funds were not available to repair
and update the property for administrative office space. At Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard, Maine, there is no mission requirement for the naval

prison structure there that has been closed since 1974. Navy officials at
Portsmouth are trying to lease the prison building and six other historic
properties to the private sector. Other locations are also developing plans

to lease vacant buildings, including 40 historic buildings at Fort Sam
Houston, Texas. 10 Further, properties that were no longer needed to meet
mission

requirements and had lost their historical significance or structural
integrity were demolished by each of the services. In fact, seven of the
nine installations we visited had demolished or reached an agreement with
their respective state preservation office to demolish certain historic
properties. For example, officials at Fort Bliss, Texas, stated they have an
agreement to demolish 24 historic properties as long as other historic
properties are maintained. Likewise, 5 of the 107 original historic

properties have been demolished at Scott Air Base, Illinois. According to
service real property databases, about 73,600 properties within the services
will turn 50 years of age over the next 10 years. However, the services will
not know whether any of these properties are eligible for listing until the
cultural resource officials at the various

10 10 U. S. C. 2667 allows DOD to lease nonexcess property to others.
Section 111 of the National Historic Preservation Act also allows for the
lease and/ or exchange of historic properties. Most Historic Properties Are
Being Used

The Potential for Increased Numbers of Historic Properties in the Future Is
Uncertain

Page 8 GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure military installations evaluate
the properties using the National Register criteria. Nonetheless, service
proposals to privatize 11 or demolish some family housing could
significantly reduce this potential universe. In addition, the Army is
considering a legislative proposal that would seek to exempt certain classes
of property from future National Historic Preservation Act compliance,
similar to the exemption DOD received on World War II wooden buildings. For
example, the Army would like to

exempt an entire class of Cold War era housing known as Capehart and Wherry
housing from future National Historic Preservation Act compliance.

Table 2: Properties Reaching 50 Years of Age between 2001 and 2010 by
Service Type of property Total Service Housing Other

Army 15,538 12,260 27,798

Navy 8,072 4,187 12,259

Marine Corps 6,684 1,751 8,435

Air Force 16,167 8, 965 25,132 Total 46,461 27,163 73,624 Percent 63 37 100

Source: Military service real property databases. As seen in table 2,
housing accounts for about 46,400, or about 63 percent, of the properties
that will turn 50 years of age over the next 10 years. Service plans to
privatize housing over the next several years could reduce the potential
number of properties that would have to be evaluated by the services for
listing on the National Register, as seen in the following examples.

? The Army plans to privatize 10,039 family housing dwellings, or about 65
percent of its housing. ? The Navy plans to privatize 910 family housing
dwellings, or about

11 percent of its housing. In addition, the Naval Training Center, Great
Lakes, has already determined that 338 family housing dwellings that will 11
Congress authorized the Military Housing Privatization Initiative, which
permitted DOD to enter into a variety of arrangements with private sector
entities to build and renovate military housing both on or near military
bases. (10 U. S. C. 2871- 2885.)

Page 9 GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure reach 50 years of age over the
next 10 years are not eligible for the National Register.

? The Marine Corps plans to privatize or demolish 4,008 family housing
dwellings, or about 60 percent of its housing.

? The Air Force plans to privatize or demolish 8,504 family housing
dwellings, or about 53 percent of its housing.

As previously stated, the potential eligibility of the remaining properties
will not be known until installation cultural resource officials evaluate
the properties to determine if they meet the National Register criteria.
This should occur over the next 10 years as the properties reach 50 years of

age. Although properties at the installations we visited comprise only a
small portion of the properties that will turn 50 years of age over the next
10 years, cultural resource officials at most of these installations do not
believe that many of these properties will be found to have historical
significance or unique architectural features that would make them eligible
for the National Register. For example, the cultural resource

officer at Fort Bliss believes only 351 of the 1,911 properties, or 17
percent, turning 50 years of age over the next 10 years could be eligible
for the National Register. In addition, installation plans call for the
demolition of 302 of the 351 properties because they are family housing that
needs to be replaced.

We were unable to determine composite maintenance and repair cost for fiscal
year 2000 for DOD's historic properties because the services do not identify
or account separately for the money spent to repair and maintain historic
properties or to restore the historic aspects of these properties. Our
analysis of cost data and interviews with officials at several installations
indicate that the overall day- to- day maintenance and repair on historic
properties is similar to maintenance and repair on nonhistoric properties.
However, the cost of such maintenance can be proportionally greater where
historic properties are larger in size than nonhistoric properties. This is
especially true of historic military family housing. Replacement of unique
historic features such as large porches, windows, and slate or tile roofs
can also add to the cost of maintenance and repair in the year that the work
is performed. However, some of these types of

materials may be cost- effective from a life- cycle standpoint. The military
services have provided annual budget exhibits to Congress that showed the
inventory and the cost to maintain, repair, and improve historic family
housing. The DOD eliminated the cost exhibit for the fiscal year 2002
Information on the

Cost to Maintain and Repair Historic Properties Is Not Readily Available

Page 10 GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure budget submission, but it will
still require the services to provide budget exhibits showing their
inventory of historic housing. The military services do not routinely track
information on the overall cost to maintain and repair historic properties.
In addition, they do not separately or otherwise distinguish between money
spent to maintain historic properties and that spent on nonhistoric
properties. Information

obtained in our discussions with installation officials and review of
maintenance and repair projects and costs indicated that the overall day-
to- day maintenance of historic properties was similar to nonhistoric
properties. Officials at most of the installations we visited noted that
deciding which maintenance and repair projects to fund is based on mission
and worse case conditions, and not on whether a property is historic or
nonhistoric. Also, officials at each of the services noted

growing backlogs of maintenance and repair projects that limit the amount of
preventive maintenance that is done on historic as well as nonhistoric
properties. They stated that trade- offs are often required to address the
most critical needs. In addition to lack of composite data on the costs of
maintaining historic properties, limitations exist in the accuracy and
reliability of data associated with maintaining DOD properties regardless of
whether they are historic. Deficiencies identified by DOD auditors during
financial audits raised questions of the reliability of the cost data
recorded in the services' real property databases. For example, as a result
of its fiscal year 1999 financial statement audit, Navy auditors identified
millions of dollars of improved assets, including approximately $18.4
million in capital improvements to the Naval Facilities Engineering Command
headquarters

buildings, a historical property, that were not recorded in the Navy's real
property database. In addition to previously reported deficiencies, we found
problems with recorded cost data at military installations. At two of the
three Army installations visited, we found maintenance and repair costs that
should have been allocated to multiple properties but were

allocated to only one or two properties. For example, a $385,767 project at
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to paint and repair 17 housing units was allocated
to 2 housing units. Likewise, a $98,250 project at Fort Sam Houston to
repair porches on eight housing units was allocated to only one unit. An
Army headquarters' housing official stated that he is aware

that installations do not always accurately record cost information. We have
previously reported on weaknesses in the Department of Defense's

Page 11 GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure financial management systems
that limit the ability to consistently identify the cost of operations. 12
The Department has identified many actions to improve its financial
management systems, but these actions are expected

to require several years to complete. While available information indicates
that day- to- day maintenance and repair on historic properties is similar
to such work on nonhistoric properties, prior DOD and service property
reports have shown that the

size of historic properties, especially historic military family houses, can
result in costs being larger when compared to nonhistoric properties. For
example, a 1997 Army family housing report to Congress 13 stated that the
average historic house is 3,376 gross square feet while the average size of
a nonhistoric house is 1,490 gross square feet. On a square foot basis, the
report concludes routine maintenance and repair may be comparable

between historic and nonhistoric properties, about $2.60 per square foot. 14
However, the study stated that “the larger the dwelling unit (more
roof area, square feet of walls, and floors) the more maintenance and
utilities funding required.” The 1997 Navy report to Congress 15 and a
February 2001 DOD report 16 provide similar data and conclusions. At the
same time, according to prior DOD and service historic reports and

service officials we interviewed, the unique features of some historic
buildings result in higher maintenance and repair costs. Some historic
houses have slate or tile roofs, copper downspouts and gutters, or large
wooden porches whereas most nonhistoric homes do not have these features.
For example, at Fort Leavenworth, craftsmen repaired porches averaging about
800 square feet for about $20,757 each in fiscal year 1999.

While repair or replacement of these features may represent sizeable costs
in the year in which they occur, some of these types of materials may be
cost- effective from a life- cycle standpoint. Service officials stated that
while a shingle roof might cost less than a slate roof initially, if life-
cycle costs are considered the cost may be the same, although the impact on
an 12 Financial Management: Analysis of DOD's First Biennial Financial
Management

Improvement Plan (GAO/ AIMD- 99- 44, Jan. 29, 1999). 13 Report to Congress
on Historic Army Quarters, Mar. 1997.

14 Fiscal year 1996 Army- wide family housing cost data from the Army's real
property database. 15 Department of Navy's Response to Congress on Historic
Preservation, Apr. 1997. 16 The Cost of Maintaining Historic Military Family
Housing, Feb. 2001.

Page 12 GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure installation's budget may be
greatest in the year in which the cost is incurred. Service officials stated
that they know they must replace existing slate or tile roofs on historic
properties with the same material, so they do not consider using any other
material. As a result, they do not compare the

cost of replacing a slate roof with a shingle roof. Available information
indicates that the military services do not have an accurate inventory of
historic properties. The inventory of historic properties should include all
properties that are listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places to ensure that the military services

have visibility over all historical properties. In addition, a complete
inventory would ensure that the services are properly recording real
property transactions, ensure the accuracy of reporting on real property
required to be included in annual financial statements, and provide an
improved basis for long- term planning of facility maintenance and repair.
At the same time, composite data on the costs of maintaining historic
structures is not readily available.

To ensure that the military services have an accurate inventory of historic
properties, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense require the military
services to update their real property databases to account for all
properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places.

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of Defense
concurred with our recommendation. The Department's comments are reprinted
in appendix I. DOD also provided technical comments on our report, which we
incorporated as appropriate.

To determine the number of historic properties that the military services
have, we obtained data from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, real property
databases and the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force cultural resource
offices. We interviewed the Navy cultural resource manager regarding the

location of historic properties since the Navy cultural resource office did
not maintain a centralized record on the number of historic properties. We
also obtained data regarding the number of (1) historic housing from each
service's family housing office and (2) buildings that will reach 50 years
of age over the next 10 years from the military services' real property

databases. Conclusion

Recommendation for Executive Action Agency Comments

Scope and Methodology

Page 13 GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure To determine the availability of
maintenance and repair costs of historic properties, we interviewed
officials in the headquarters of each service's cultural resource and
housing office. We learned that we would have to

obtain maintenance and repair cost data from each installation that has
historic properties because the services do not have a centralized system
that tracks this cost information. We did obtain data on the funds spent to
maintain historic properties at the installations we visited: Fort Bliss,

Texas; Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Naval Training
Center, Great Lakes, Illinois; Naval Academy, Maryland; Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard, Maine; Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana; Randolph Air Force
Base, Texas; and Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. Finally, we interviewed
officials at the installations visited and reviewed DOD reports regarding
the cost to maintain historic versus nonhistoric properties. We did not
independently verify the data DOD provided.

We conducted our review from October 2000 to February 2001 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies
of this report to the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; The
Honorable Joseph W. Westphal, Acting Secretary of the Army; the Honorable
Robert B. Pirie, Jr., the Acting

Secretary of the Navy; the Honorable Lawrence J. Delaney, Acting Secretary
of the Air Force; Mr. Bruce A. Dauer, Deputy Comptroller, Office of the
Secretary of Defense; and the Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Director,
Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be available to others
upon request. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this
report, please

contact me at (202) 512- 8412. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix II. Barry W. Holman, Director Defense Capabilities and Management

Page 14 GAO- 01- 437 Defense Infrastructure List of Congressional Committees
The Honorable John Warner

Chairman The Honorable Carl Levin Ranking Member Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate The Honorable Ted Stevens Chairman The Honorable Daniel
Inouye Ranking Member Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Stump Chairman The Honorable Ike Skelton Ranking Minority
Member Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives The Honorable Jerry Lewis Chairman The Honorable
John Murtha Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives

Appendix I: Comments From the Department of Defense Page 15 GAO- 01- 437
Defense Infrastructure Appendix I: Comments From the Department

of Defense

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments Page 16 GAO- 01- 437 Defense
Infrastructure William Crocker (202) 512- 4533

In addition to the staff named above, Michael Kennedy, Richard Meeks, Paul
Newton, and John Brosnan made key contributions to this report. Appendix II:
GAO Contact and Acknowledgments

GAO Contact Acknowledgments (709543)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent. Orders by mail:

U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013

Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet For information on how to access GAO reports on the
Internet, send an e- mail message with “info” in the body to:
Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at:

http:// www. gao. gov Contact one:

? Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm ? E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov

? 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document ***