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 19661

 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 20013

 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 plan5

 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 10,110b

Navy 2,135 391c2,526 

Marine Corps 49 590c 639 

Air Force 1,691 2,346c4,037 

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 8558

 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 properties9

 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 

 1010 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 privatize11 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 

 11Congress 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 Congress13 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 Congress15 and a February 2001 

DOD report16 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 

 12Financial Management: Analysis of DOD’s First Biennial Financial Management 

Improvement Plan (GAO/AIMD-99-44, Jan. 29, 1999). 

13Report to Congress on Historic Army Quarters, Mar. 1997. 

14Fiscal year 1996 Army-wide family housing cost data from the Army’s real property 

database. 

15Department of Navy’s Response to Congress on Historic Preservation, Apr. 1997. 

16The 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 4th St., NW (corner of 4th 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