Defense Infrastructure: Military Services Lack Reliable Data on Historic Properties
Published: 2001-04-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Available information indicates that the Defense Department lacks an accurate inventory of historic properties. The inventory of historic military properties should include all properties that are listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 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 for facility maintenance and repair. At the same time, composite data on the costs of maintaining historic structures are not readily available.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established a national  program to provide for the ongoing identification and protection of  historic properties. 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 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  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 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.
section_title: Data on the Number of Historic Properties Is Not Reliable
paragraphs: 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  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.
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.
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. 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.  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 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— 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 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.
subsections: section_title: Most Historic Properties Are Being Used
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: The Potential for Increased Numbers of Historic Properties in the Future Is Uncertain
paragraphs: 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  military installations evaluate the properties using the National Register  criteria. Nonetheless, service proposals to privatize 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.
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  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.
section_title: Information on the Cost to Maintain and Repair Historic Properties Is Not Readily Available
paragraphs: 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  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  financial management systems that limit the ability to consistently identify  the cost of operations. 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 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.  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 and a February 2001  DOD report 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  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.
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Comments From the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the staff named above, Michael Kennedy, Richard Meeks,  Paul Newton, and John Brosnan made key contributions to this report.