Defense Infrastructure: Services' Use of Land Use Planning Authorities
Published: 2008-07-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) is one of the largest landholding agencies in the federal government with more than 577,500 facilities at 5,300 sites on over 32 million acres. GAO has previously reported that the management of DOD-held real property is a high-risk area, in part because of deteriorating facilities and problems with excess and underutilized property. To address these problems, DOD has developed a multipart strategy involving base realignment and closure, housing privatization, and demolition of facilities that are no longer needed. DOD is also leasing out underutilized real property to gain resources to repair or construct facilities. The House Armed Services Committee Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 directed the Comptroller General to provide an analysis of DOD's use of its land use planning authorities. Specifically, GAO examined (1) how DOD has used its authorities; (2) the reasons why land, buildings, and facilities on DOD installations may appear to be underutilized or not utilized; and (3) the policies and procedures used by the services to respond to requests by other federal agencies for space at a DOD installation. GAO reviewed pertinent legislation and DOD and service policies, interviewed officials from DOD and all four services, and visited 10 installations from all four services.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Although many land use planning authorities currently exist that permit the Secretary of Defense, the secretaries of the military departments, or both to help make more efficient use of real property under their control, Section 2667 of Title 10, U.S. Code, leasing of nonexcess property of military departments, was used the most frequently--744 times from fiscal years 2005 through 2007. Under Section 2667 of Title 10, traditional short-term lease agreements are typically executed, but more financially complex, longer-term enhanced use leases are also executed. Section 2681 of Title 10, the authority to enter into contracts with commercial entities that desire to conduct commercial test and evaluation activities at a major range and test facility installation, was also used frequently, with 601 uses during fiscal years 2005 through 2007. GAO's analysis indicates that there are more than 30 authorities in the U.S. Code pertaining to DOD's utilization of real property. Service officials indicated that they have used these other authorities much less often and only for a limited number of leases or other transactions. Land, buildings, and facilities on DOD installations may appear to be underutilized or not utilized for several reasons. For example, land that appears empty or underutilized often has a variety of restrictions and constraints placed upon its use, including setbacks for antiterrorism protection, mission requirements, safety zones, and environmental concerns. The services identified several reasons why buildings and facilities might be classified as underutilized or not utilized but still remain unavailable for other uses, including historical considerations. Each of the military departments has similar policies and procedures in place for responding to requests for space on an installation from other federal agencies. Service officials told us that requests for space are submitted directly to the installation and should include information on facilities and land requirements, justification for selecting the proposed installation, and a statement of environmental impact. An official request for space is reviewed at the installation level, and the installation commander makes a recommendation to the approving official, although the approving official differs depending on the service and the nature of the request.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) is the one of the largest landholding  agencies in the federal government, with more than 577,500 facilities at  5,300 sites on over 32 million acres. We have previously reported that the  management of DOD-held real property is a high-risk area, in part because  of deteriorating facilities and problems with excess and underutilized  property. To address these problems, DOD has developed a multipart  strategy involving base realignment and closure (BRAC), housing  privatization, and demolition of facilities that are no longer needed. DOD  is also leasing out its underutilized real property to gain additional  resources for the maintenance and repair of existing facilities or the  construction of new facilities.
Many land use authorities currently exist that permit the Secretary of  Defense, the secretaries of the military departments, or both to make more  efficient use of underutilized real property under their control or  jurisdiction, such as authorities permitting outleasing or conveyance of  DOD real property or the issuances of licenses, permits, or easements  upon DOD real property. For example, under Section 2667 of Title 10 of  U.S. Code, the secretaries of the military departments generally have the  authority to lease nonexcess real property under the control of the  respective department in exchange for cash or in-kind consideration not  less than the fair market value of the lease interest whenever a department  secretary considers it advantageous to the United States. In-kind  consideration accepted with respect to a lease under this section can  include construction of new facilities or maintenance of existing facilities.  Utilizing this authority, short-term leases of property have traditionally  been granted to various groups, including farmers for cultivating crops,  phone companies for cellular phone towers, and local school districts for  building schools on the installations. Leases executed pursuant to Section  2667 of Title 10 generally may not be for more than 5 years; however, if the  secretary concerned determines that a lease for a longer period would  promote the national defense or be in the public interest, the authority  under Section 2667 of Title 10 may be utilized to enter into longer-term  leases. Under this same authority, longer and more complex leases have  also been executed, which service officials commonly refer to as enhanced  use leases. Such leases are usually for more than 30 years and typically  involve in-kind payments. Another authority under Section 2681 of Title  10 allows the Secretary of Defense to enter into contracts with commercial  entities that desire to conduct test and evaluation activities at a major  range and test facility installation. A third authority under Section 2869 of  Title 10 gives the secretary concerned authority to enter into an agreement  to convey real property that is either located on a military installation that  is closed or realigned under a base closure law or located on a military  installation that is not closed or realigned under a base closure law and is  determined to be excess to the needs of DOD to any person who agrees,  in exchange for the real property, to carry out a military construction  project to limit encroachment or to transfer military family housing,  unaccompanied housing, or both, provided certain conditions are met.
The House Armed Services Committee Report on the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 directed the Comptroller General to  provide an analysis of DOD’s use of its land use planning authorities.
Specifically, we examined (1) how DOD has used its land use planning  authorities; (2) the reasons why land, buildings, and facilities on DOD  installations may appear to be underutilized or not utilized; and (3) the  policies and procedures used by the services to respond to requests by  other federal agencies for space at a DOD installation. In addition, the  committee report directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on  DOD’s land use planning and for the Comptroller General to review this  report.  However, because DOD’s report had not been released as of July 1,  2008, we were unable to comment on it in this report.
In performing our work, we reviewed pertinent legislation and guidance  from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the services on the  use of specific authorities. We interviewed officials from OSD, the Army,  the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps. We selected 10 installations  across the four services to visit, based on size; proximity to other  installations; and past, current, or future planned large real estate projects,  such as enhanced use leases or conveyances. At these installations, we  interviewed officials about their use of land use planning authorities, the  reasons buildings and land may be underutilized or not utilized, and their  processes for responding to requests from other federal agencies for space  at the installation. After speaking with officials at several installations  about the authorities they used most often, we selected several of those  authorities and surveyed the services to determine how often they had  been used servicewide from fiscal years 2005 through 2007. We did not  analyze the contracts or other agreements entered into pursuant to these  authorities. We conducted this performance audit from September 2007 to  July 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. A detailed description of  our scope and methodology is presented in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Many land use authorities currently exist that permit the Secretary of  Defense, the secretaries of the military departments, or both to make more  efficient use of underutilized or not utilized real property under their  jurisdiction or control, such as authorities permitting outleasing or  conveyance of real property controlled by DOD or the issuance of  licenses, permits, or easements upon real property controlled by DOD. The  services reported that one of the most commonly used authorities is  Section 2667 of Title 10. Under this authority, the secretaries of the  military departments generally have the authority to lease nonexcess real  property under the control of the respective department in exchange for  cash or in-kind consideration not less than the fair market value of the  lease interest. Leases executed pursuant to this authority must comply  with several conditions; for example, a lease may not be for more than 5  years unless the secretary concerned determines that a lease for a longer  period will promote the national defense or be in the public interest.  Money received from leases entered into pursuant to Section 2667 must be  deposited into special Treasury accounts, with some exceptions. Further,  to the extent provided in appropriations acts, at least half of the proceeds  deposited into these special Treasury accounts must be returned to the  installation where the proceeds were derived. Most recently, the National  Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 further refined this leasing  authority in several ways; for example, provision or payment of utility  services was designated as an acceptable in-kind service, while facility  operation support for the secretary concerned was eliminated as an  acceptable form of consideration.
Leases executed pursuant to Section 2667 not only benefit the installation  by leveraging underutilized land in exchange for rent money or in-kind  consideration, such as new construction or maintenance of existing  facilities, they also benefit the developer and the community. For example,  according to DOD officials, these projects can establish long-term  relationships between developers and private sector and government  entities with specific real estate needs that are potential occupants of the  space. In addition, developers receive market rate returns on their  investments and access to new markets, such as federal government and  military support contractors. These agreements benefit the community by  providing additional jobs, a broader tax base, and renovation of  deteriorated assets.
Another frequently used authority, Section 2681 of Title 10, authorizes the  Secretary of Defense to enter into contracts with commercial entities that  desire to conduct commercial test and evaluation activities at a major  range and test facility installation. Such contracts must contain various  provisions pertaining to the Secretary’s ability to terminate, prohibit, or  suspend certain tests under the contracts, as well as requirements  pertaining to the contract price. Section 2681 also contains rules on the  retention of funds. Further, the Secretary of Defense is required to issue  regulations to carry out this provision.
Under Section 2878 of Title 10, the secretary concerned may convey or  lease property or facilities to eligible entities for the purpose of using the  proceeds to carry out activities under the Military Housing Privatization  Initiative (MHPI). This authority cannot be used to convey or lease  property or facilities located on or near military installations approved for  closure under a base closure law. The conveyance or lease of property or  facilities under this section must be for such terms and conditions as the  secretary concerned considers appropriate for MHPI purposes while  protecting the interests of the United States. As part or all of the  consideration for a conveyance or lease under this section, the purchaser,  or lessor, shall enter into an agreement with the secretary to ensure that a  preference will be given to members of the armed forces and their  dependents in the lease or sublease for a reasonable number of the  housing units covered by the conveyance or lease. Property leased or  conveyed using this authority is exempt from certain property  management laws.
Another authority, Section 2869 of Title 10, allows the secretary concerned  to enter into an agreement to convey real property (including any  improvements) under the secretary’s jurisdiction that is located on a  military installation that is either closed or realigned under a base closure  law or located on an installation not closed or realigned under base  closure law and determined to be excess to DOD needs. Such a  conveyance may be made only to a person who agrees, in exchange for the  real property, (1) to carry out a military construction project or land  acquisition, including the acquisition of all right, title, and interest or a  lesser interest in real property under an agreement entered into under  section 2684a of Title 10 to limit encroachments and other constraints on  military training, testing, and operations, or (2) to transfer to the secretary  concerned housing that is constructed or provided by the person and  located at or near a military installation at which there is a shortage of  suitable military family housing, military unaccompanied housing, or both.  There are various rules and conditions regarding the use of this authority,  including a requirement that advance notice be provided to Congress  before use, certain limits on the deposit and use of funds, and annual  reporting requirements to Congress.
Beyond the various real property authorities that may be utilized by DOD  under certain circumstances, a framework of legal requirements and  restrictions must be complied with in DOD’s use of its land, buildings, and  facilities, many of which relate to environmental and cultural preservation.  For example, DOD guidance requires that all proposed outleasing actions  (regardless of grantee or consideration) be subject to the appropriate level  of analysis required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and  its implementing regulations. Further, the National Historic Preservation  Act lays out the responsibilities of federal agencies related to certain  cultural resources under their stewardship and authorizes the expansion  and maintenance of a National Register of Historic Places composed of  districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in the history,  architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture of the United States and  worthy of preservation, among other things.
section_title: Many Land Use Planning Authorities Are Available, but Section 2667 and Section 2681 of Title 10 Are Predominantly Used
paragraphs: Although many land use planning authorities currently exist that permit  the Secretary of Defense, the secretaries of the military departments, or  both to help make more efficient use of real property under their  jurisdiction or control under various circumstances, our analysis of  service data showed that Section 2667 of Title 10 is most frequently used  for both traditional leases as well as longer-term, more financially complex  enhanced use leases. We further found that the second most frequently  used authority is Section 2681 of Title 10, though this authority was most  frequently used with respect to Army real property with about 86 percent  of its reported usage during fiscal years 2005 through 2007. There are  many other land use planning authorities that the Secretary of Defense, the  secretaries of the military departments, or both may use under certain  circumstances to better utilize existing real property under their control.  Our analysis indicates that there are more than 30 available authorities of  general and permanent applicability in the U.S. Code available to the  Secretary of Defense, the secretaries of the military departments, or both  pertaining to the utilization of existing real property controlled by DOD.  The services reported that these other authorities have not been used as  frequently as Section 2667 and Section 2681 of Title 10. In addition to these  codified authorities of general and permanent applicability, special  legislation is often enacted that grants authority to or requires the  Secretary of Defense, the secretary of a military department, or both to  execute particular land use activities at specific installations or parcels of  land controlled by DOD.
subsections: section_title: The Services Reported That Section 2667 of Title 10 Was Most Frequently Used during Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007
paragraphs: The services reported using Section 2667 of Title 10 a total of 744 times  during fiscal years 2005 through 2007 for both traditional leases as well as  longer-term, more financially complex enhanced use leases. Table 1 shows  the breakdown by the reported use of Section 2667 of Title 10 according to  the service at which the real property was located during fiscal years 2005  through 2007.
The majority of agreements that have been executed under Section 2667 of  Title 10 over the past 3 years are traditional non-enhanced use lease  agreements. During fiscal year 2007, the services reported that 222 new  agreements were signed under Section 2667 of Title 10 and earned  approximately $51 million in revenue. For example, at Fort Meade,  Maryland, installation officials provided data showing that the installation  will receive $5,600 monthly through November 2010 on two 5-year cellular  phone tower leases and at Camp Pendleton, California, the Marine Corps  earned over $1 million from two agricultural leases during fiscal year 2007.  Using Section 2667 of Title 10, the Army and Air Force reported earning   combined totals of approximately $14 million in fiscal year 2005 and   $22 million in fiscal year 2006.
Under this same authority, the services also reported that more financially  complex, longer-term enhanced use leases were executed. These leases  are usually for a term of greater than 30 years and payment is typically in  in-kind services, such as new construction or maintenance and repair,  rather than cash. According to the Army’s draft Enhanced Use Leasing  Handbook, the longer lease terms are more in line with private real estate  development standards, and therefore help satisfy financial lending  requirements and help make the development worthwhile to all enhanced  use lease project stakeholders.
During fiscal years 2005 through 2007, Army officials reported that 10 of  these enhanced use leases were signed, and Air Force officials reported  that 4 were signed. These leases are projected by the services to be worth  more than $1.1 billion over the life of the leases, with the Army estimating  the bulk of the projected revenue. For example, the Army reported that a  lease was signed with a motor vehicle company to provide land for it to  install a hot weather vehicle test track at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona.  The track will be available for the Army’s use for testing its vehicles, and  the Army will obtain additional compensation to allow it to install an  additional test track at a total net present value estimated at $26.8 million  over the 50-year life of the lease. In addition, at Nellis Air Force Base,  Nevada, Air Force officials reported that land was provided through a  public-private partnership to install an electricity generating photo voltaic  array whose net present value is estimated at $10.9 million for electricity  that will be provided to the installation over the 20-year life of the lease.
Furthermore, service officials reported that several more enhanced use  leases are in process – 24 for the Army, 33 for the Air Force, and 14 for the  Navy.  For example, the Army is trying to lease land owned by Fort Meade,  Maryland, to a contractor who will build a new office complex. This 50- year lease project is expected to provide office space for military and  security-related defense contractor jobs coming to the area as a result of  the 2005 BRAC round. The contractor is expected to move a golf course at  the interior of the fort to the exterior of the fort to make room on the old  golf course for BRAC and National Security Agency-related construction.  The Air Force is negotiating for a 50-year ground lease of 180 acres of land  along the western perimeter of Hill Air Force Base, Utah. Air Force  officials told us that the lessee will construct an approximately 2.8 million  square foot office park consisting of commercial office, retail, hotel, and  restaurant space on the 180 acres of leased Air Force land. At least 600,000  square feet of the development will become Air Force owned and  maintained office space, and Air Force officials expect to receive  additional in-kind compensation over the life of the lease to be used for  additional Air Force projects and maintenance. At the end of the lease  period, the land and all improvements on both of the projects described  above will revert back to the applicable service. At the time of our review,  the Navy was considering an enhanced use lease of the former Portsmouth  Naval Prison at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, for not more  than 50 years. Marine Corps officials told us that an enhanced use lease  has not yet been executed with regard to Marine Corps land, but that  several potential projects are being considered.
Service officials reported that Section 2681 of Title 10 was used 601 times  during fiscal years 2005 through 2007, and about 86 percent of its use was  with respect to Army major range and test facility installations. This  authority was also used with respect to Navy and Air Force installations  during this period but much less frequently than for the Army. This  authority was not used with respect to Marine Corps real property during  this period. Table 2 shows the breakdown of the reported use of 2681 of  Title 10 during fiscal years 2005 through 2007 according to the service at  which the installation was located.
The authority was used on Army installations to allow defense contractors  to test major weapons systems under development for the Army and the  other services. This authority was used on Navy installations for several  projects, including allowing an aviation company to evaluate noise  reduction technology of a static engine. The authority was also used at an  Air Force facility to allow a major automobile manufacturing company to  test automobile antennas for radio frequency emissions.
section_title: The Services Used Other Land Use Planning Authorities Less Often
paragraphs: Our analysis shows that there are more than 30 authorities of general and  permanent applicability in the U.S. Code available to the Secretary of  Defense, the secretaries of the military departments, or both pertaining to  the utilization of existing DOD real property, such as the authority to  outlease, grant easement upon, permit special use of, or convey real  property. Many of these authorities may only be used under various  specified circumstances and contain unique requirements or limitations.  For example, while Section 2878 of Title 10 gives the secretary concerned  the authority to convey or lease certain DOD real property to an eligible  entity, this authority may only be used for the specific purpose of using the  proceeds to carry out activities under MHPI and contains limitations,  including the kind of real property leased or conveyed and certain  requirements for consideration. Service officials indicated that while some  of these other authorities were utilized with regard to their respective real  property during fiscal years 2005 through 2007, they have been used much  less often than Section 2667 and Section 2681 of Title 10. For example, the  services reported the authority in Section 2878 of Title 10 was used 53  times during fiscal years 2005 through 2007. Table 3 shows examples of  authorities other than Section 2667 and Section 2681 of Title 10 that the  services reported using with respect to real property under their control  over the 3-year period.
The services reported that Section 2869 of Title 10 was used only two  times during fiscal years 2005 through 2007. DOD reported that in 2005, the  Secretary of the Army signed an exchange agreement with a private  developer, trading the 16.29-acre Bellmore, New York, property—closed  during the 1995 BRAC process—for the construction of a covered fuel  truck storage facility at Fort Drum, New York, and an additional   $6.65 million in cash. DOD also reported that in 2006, 13 acres of Army  land at Devens Reserve Forces Training Area, Massachusetts, were  transferred to the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency in  exchange for over $1 million in renovations to buildings and land at the  same installation. Air Force officials stated that Section 2869 of Title 10 is  currently being used to exchange land, previously used by the Defense  Logistics Agency as a fuel supply depot, for military construction at March  Air Reserve Base, California.
section_title: Special Legislation Is Regularly Enacted to Assist Installations with Land Use Planning
paragraphs: In addition to land use authorities of general and permanent applicability  in the U.S. Code, special legislation pertaining to specific land use  activities at particular installations or parcels of land is also regularly  enacted. For example, the John Warner National Defense Authorization  Act for Fiscal Year 2007 contained a provision prohibiting the Secretary of  Defense and the Secretary of the Navy from entering into an agreement (or  authorizing any other person to enter into an agreement) that would either  (1) authorize civil aircraft to regularly use an airfield or any other property  or (2) convey any real property at the installation for the purpose of  permitting the use of the property by civil aircraft, at four Navy and Marine  Corps bases in California—Naval Air Station North Island, Marine Corps  Air Station Miramar, Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton, and  Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Most of the nearly 50 pieces of  special legislation included in the National Defense Authorization Acts for  Fiscal Years 2005, 2006, and 2007 pertained to land conveyances or  exchanges at specific bases or installations. For example, Section 2851 of  the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 authorized the  Secretary of the Navy to convey to the County of San Diego, California,  approximately 230 acres along the eastern boundary of Marine Corps Air  Station, Miramar, California, for the purpose of removing the property  from the boundaries of the installation and permitting the county to  preserve the entire property as a public park and recreational area known  as the Stowe Trail. The legislation contained several terms and conditions  on its use, such as a requirement to provide written notice to Congress  related to its use.
section_title: Land, Buildings, and Facilities on DOD Installations May Appear Underutilized or Not Utilized for Several Reasons
paragraphs: Land, buildings, and facilities on DOD installations may appear  underutilized or not utilized but are nonetheless unavailable for other uses  for several reasons. Restrictions and constraints on DOD’s use of lands  under its control include setbacks for antiterrorism protection, mission  requirements, necessary safety zones, and environmental considerations.  In addition to underutilized land, buildings and facilities on DOD  installations may appear underutilized or not utilized because of historical  considerations, the need to make room for incoming personnel, or the  need for repair or demolition funding.
subsections: section_title: Certain Restrictions and Constraints Often Limit Land Use
paragraphs: Antiterrorism requirements place constraints on the use of land. For  example, antiterrorism concerns require standoff distances for inhabited  buildings from the controlled perimeter of the base and from other  adjacent buildings, parking areas, and trash containers, to minimize the  extent of injury or death to occupants in the event of a terrorist incident.
For example, officials at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California,  told us that unutilized land between existing buildings could not be used  to construct new buildings because of antiterrorism constraints and  requirements.
Installation mission needs, including the need for open space to fulfill  training requirements, also cause restrictions on the use of land. Maneuver  training lands and ranges are strictly controlled areas that do not mix well  with other land uses. For example, officials at Marine Corps Base Camp  Pendleton stated that undeveloped land on the coast is the only space  available to the Marines on the West Coast for amphibious assault training.  Similarly, at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, a curving strip of land on the  western side of the base, approximately 1 mile long and 800 feet wide,  serves as a combination parade, drill, and training ground for the units  headquartered along its length.
In addition, safety requirements, which necessitate that land be kept clear  to perform the installation’s mission, can place additional restrictions on  the use of land. For instance, installations that have active runways require  clear zones and accident potential zones that place constraints on land use  because of air operations. These constraints include restrictions on  development requiring a minimum separation distance from airfield  pavements and height limitations on buildings.  Structures that violate  these criteria are generally not permitted to be built without a waiver.  Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, for example, has clear zones and  accident potential zones that extend off both ends of its dual parallel  runways into the adjacent communities. These communities, base officials  told us, have cooperated with the Air Force to limit development within  the accident potential zones. Also, for safety reasons, live fire ranges and  munitions storage bunkers require clear zones. Facilities are usually not  sited within munitions clear zones unless they are part of the munitions  operations.
Various environmental restrictions and constraints, which can affect the  location of new facilities and even mission operations, place additional  limits on land use. These restrictions and constraints can be caused by the  presence of threatened or endangered species; critical habitats, such as  seasonal breeding grounds, flood plains, wetlands, and sensitive plant  communities; and the existence of hazardous materials. Further, a  framework of legal requirements and restrictions must be complied with in  DOD’s use of its land use planning authorities. For example, DOD  guidance requires that all proposed outleasing actions (regardless of  grantee or consideration) be subject to the appropriate level of analysis  required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and its  implementing regulations. Installations use various management tools,  such as integrated natural resource management plans, to integrate their  military missions and natural resources conservation. The construction of  new facilities can damage critical habitats, and mission-related noise and  light can affect the ability of some endangered species to successfully  breed. For example, Navy officials told us that Naval Air Station North  Island, California, an installation of Naval Base Coronado, has a vacant  parcel of land that remains undeveloped because it is the nesting area for  an endangered bird, the California least tern. As shown in figures 1 and 2,  the nesting area borders maintenance facilities and is adjacent to the  control tower. A base official told us that an attempt to transplant the  nesting area to a more suitable location on the installation could take 5  years, if it is successful at all. Additionally, at Naval Base San Diego, a  reclamation project on the largest parcel of open usable land on the base  is removing the top 2 feet of soil from the location and disposing of the  contaminated soil. Base officials told us that the reclaimed land will house  the base transportation office and a Defense Logistics Agency facility.
section_title: Buildings and Structures May Be Classified as Underutilized or Not Utilized but Still Be Unavailable for Other Uses
paragraphs: The historical significance of buildings and structures may contribute to  buildings being underutilized or not utilized. Installations work with state- designated state historic preservation officers and their representatives to  determine the cultural impact that actions such as construction,  renovation, or demolition might have on a historic building. Because of the  expense of meeting requirements for historic buildings, installation  officials indicated that it often costs less to demolish a building and  construct a new one than to renovate an existing historic building for  reuse with a new or different mission. In fiscal year 2007, DOD reported  more than 2,200 buildings as historically significant and more than 7,500  buildings eligible for historic designation. For example, Army officials  stated that Fort Sam Houston has over 800 historical buildings, many of  which are located in a designated national historic district. One group of  these buildings, the Long Barracks, on the periphery of the historic  district, consists of 11 buildings that have been largely unutilized for over  15 years. (See fig. 3.) One of these unutilized buildings is a 1,000-foot long,  two-story former barracks listed as a contributing element to a national  historic district. A base official told us that the prolonged nonutilization is  both because of the Long Barracks’ inclusion in a national historic district  and because the associated buildings require extensive, costly  renovations.
In some cases, the services reported that the enhanced use leasing and  housing privatization authorities have been used to creatively maintain  and renovate historic buildings. For example, the old Brooke Army  Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston went unutilized after the new Brooke  Army Medical Center opened. Army officials stated that an enhanced use  lease was negotiated with developers whereby the old Brooke Army  Medical Center was renovated into usable office space that is currently  fully leased to various Army tenants. Similarly, Air Force officials stated  that Section 2878 of Title 10 was used on Randolph Air Force Base to  successfully renovate, repair, and maintain 297 housing units designated  as contributing elements to the national historic district located on the  base.
Incoming and outgoing or reduced missions, units, or personnel can leave  portions of buildings and structures temporarily underutilized or not  utilized while the transition occurs. A building or facility may require  renovation to accommodate incoming or changing missions. For example,  officials at Naval Base Point Loma, California, described two buildings  currently not utilized. The first, an empty warehouse, is under  consideration to house the Navy Band, currently located at Naval Base  Coronado. If this plan is approved, the warehouse would have to be  modified to fit the Navy Band’s mission requirements before the relocation  could occur. The second unutilized building is a barracks that has been  laid up, or mothballed, because of the reduced number of personnel on the  base. In addition, at Naval Base San Diego, units have been consolidated  into one building so that another building may be renovated prior to the  arrival of a new shipping platform at the base. The Navy will be unable to  utilize this building during the renovation.
In addition, property may be classified as not utilized when a service is  waiting for funding for repairs or demolition. For example, Lackland Air  Force Base has a 48-unit visiting officers’ quarters and a student  dormitory, both of which are unused because of the presence of mold. The  Air Force has sought funding both to demolish the visiting officers’  quarters and to repair the student dormitory; meanwhile, both of these  facilities remain not utilized. In addition, officials at Naval Base San Diego  told us that a condemned maintenance repair building is occupied by  tenants on the first floor only. The second and third floors have been  condemned because of structural conditions and remain unoccupied while  the building awaits demolition.
section_title: The Services Use Similar Policies and Procedures for Responding to Requests for Space at an Installation
paragraphs: The services use similar policies and procedures for responding to  requests for space on an installation by other federal agencies and by  organizations within DOD. DOD guidance requires the military  departments to maintain a program monitoring the use of real property to  ensure that all real property holdings under their control are being used to  the maximum extent possible consistent with both peacetime and  mobilization requirements, and establishes priorities that the military  departments must use when assigning available space on their respective  installations. DOD guidance also provides that DOD activities should  provide requested support to other DOD activities when support can be  provided without jeopardizing the mission of the installation. Further, the  secretaries of the military departments have established programs and  procedures to manage their real property, which encourage such space  sharing. For example, a Navy instruction states that the outleasing of any  underutilized real property that is judged necessary for mobilization/surge  capacity to both ensure that the property is maintained and generate  revenue for the installation should be pursued, and that in land planning,  decision makers be presented with alternatives that analyze and develop  recommendations for mutual land and facilities use with other DOD  entities; federal, state, and local governments; and private entities, where  appropriate. An Army regulation states that when real property is  underutilized, not used, or not put to optimum use but required to support  DOD missions, the garrison commander should consider allowing its  interim use by other federal agencies, state and local governments, or the  private sector, among other things. Finally, Air Force policy states that  Air Force property should be made available for use by others as much as  possible and that priority be given to other military departments and  federal agencies over private organizations.
Department-specific policies govern the procedures for allowing the use of  space by other federal agencies, including both DOD and non-DOD  tenants. In general, department officials told us that requests are received  at the installation level and must include information on the requester’s  facilities and land requirements, justification for selecting the proposed  installation, and a statement of environmental impact. After a request is  received, it is reviewed by the installation. The process for reviewing these  requests varies by installation. For example, officials at Camp Pendleton  told us that at their installation the request is reviewed by the facilities  directorate and any affected base activities. The facilities directorate and  affected activities make a presentation to the base commander with their  recommendations on the request. Navy Region Southwest has a Regional  Space Allocation Committee that reviews all requests for space at Naval  Base Point Loma, Naval Base Coronado, and Naval Base San Diego. The  committee, with input from the base commanders, meets on an as-needed  basis and reviews all requests and then makes recommendations to the  Commander, Navy Region Southwest. Final approval authority varies by  military department and is specified in department guidance. In  accordance with a Secretary of the Navy Instruction, requests for space  at Navy installations must be approved by the regional commander and  Commander, Navy Installations Command, and requests for space at a  Marine Corps installation are approved by either the installation  commander/commanding officer and Commandant of the Marine Corps  for Marine Corps property, while licenses of 1 year or less may be  approved by the regional commander for Navy property or by the  commander/commanding officer for Marine Corps property. An Air Force  handbook states that the Secretary of the Air Force, under administrative  powers, may authorize other federal government agencies, DOD agencies,  or military departments to use Air Force real property by permit. An  Army regulation states that approval of requests for space by other federal  agencies will be made by Headquarters, Department of the Army.
We visited installations from each service and found that each installation  we visited had multiple DOD and non-DOD federal tenants. For example,  the Environmental Protection Agency, the Architect of the Capitol, and the  National Guard use space at Fort Meade in Maryland. Installations in Navy  Region Southwest are home to groups from the Coast Guard, the Army,  the Air Force, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of  Transportation. Finally, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, has several DOD  tenants, including the Army Corps of Engineers and the Defense Logistics  Agency, as well as non-DOD federal tenants, such as the Federal Aviation  Administration and the Forest Service.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We requested comments from DOD, but none were provided.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense and to  interested congressional committees. We will make copies available to  others upon request. This report will also be available at no charge on  GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine how the Department of Defense (DOD) has used its land use  planning authorities, we researched and developed a comprehensive list of  many of the most relevant authorities in the U.S. Code that could  potentially be utilized by the Secretary of Defense, the secretaries of the  military departments, or both. After speaking with DOD and service  officials about the authorities that they used most often, we provided a  written request to each service inquiring which of a select list of  authorities they used and what kind and amount of overall compensation  they obtained from using these authorities during fiscal years 2005 through  2007. We also asked the services, in writing, about special land use  planning legislation available to them during these same fiscal years.  Service headquarters’ officials provided this information to us.  Specifically, we spoke with officials from the Air Force Real Property  Agency, the Marine Corps’ Land Use and Military Construction Branch, the  Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and  Environment, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for  Installations and Environment. We cross referenced data where  appropriate. Specifically, in our count of the number of pieces of special  legislation pertaining to land use planning in the National Defense  Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2005, 2006 and 2007, we included both  new and modified authorities available to the Secretary of Defense or  secretaries of the military departments pertaining to the utilization of a  specific piece of real property, such as the authority to outlease, convey,  or transfer that property, as well as requirements that the applicable  secretary use a specific piece of real property in a particular manner. We  did not include, for example, statements regarding the sense of congress  with respect to land planning, or reports required regarding land planning.   We analyzed their responses and followed up with questions on any areas  of ambiguity. We visited selected installations and interviewed installation  officials about their land use activities, discussed both traditional leases  and enhanced use leases with them, and obtained documentation on  specific leases, their terms, and compensation. We selected 10 installations  to visit based on size; proximity to other installations; and past, current, or  future planned large real estate projects, such as enhanced use leases or  conveyances. Table 4 lists the installations that we visited, by service.
We also gathered additional information on each service’s enhanced use  lease program and analyzed data we obtained on existing leases and on  those that are currently under consideration.
To determine the reasons why land, buildings, and facilities on DOD  installations may appear underutilized or not utilized, we reviewed DOD  and service guidance relevant to land use planning. We interviewed service  officials to identify the available uses for land, buildings, and facilities that  may be underutilized or not utilized yet still be unavailable for  development or other use. We visited selected installations and  interviewed installation officials about the restrictions and constraints  placed on the utilization of land, buildings, and facilities. We also reviewed  documentation from the installations relevant to land use planning and  restrictions and constraints on the use of their lands, buildings, and  facilities.
To determine the policies and procedures used by the services to respond  to requests by other federal agencies for space at a DOD installation, we  reviewed relevant DOD and service guidance. We also visited selected  installations and interviewed installation officials about how they respond  to requests for space by other federal agencies. We reviewed  documentation from selected installations on the agreements that they  currently have with other federal agencies.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2007 to July 2008 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Harold Reich, Assistant  Director; William Bates; Scott Behen; Leslie Bharadwaja; Joanne  Landesman; Katherine Lenane; Richard Meeks; and Charles Perdue made  key contributions to this report.