Defense Infrastructure
Services' Use of Land Use Planning Authorities Gao ID: GAO-08-850 July 23, 2008The 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.
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.
GAO-08-850, Defense Infrastructure: Services' Use of Land Use Planning Authorities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-850
entitled 'Defense Infrastructure: Services' Use of Land Use Planning
Authorities' which was released on July 23, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2008:
Defense Infrastructure:
Services' Use of Land Use Planning Authorities:
GAO-08-850:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-850, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
Photograph: Enhanced Use Lease Site at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-850]. For more
information, contact Brian Lepore at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Many Land Use Planning Authorities Are Available, but Section 2667 and
Section 2681 of Title 10 Are Predominantly Used:
Land, Buildings, and Facilities on DOD Installations May Appear
Underutilized or Not Utilized for Several Reasons:
The Services Use Similar Policies and Procedures for Responding to
Requests for Space at an Installation:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Reported Use of 10 U.S.C. § 2667 by Service Location, Fiscal
Years 2005 through 2007:
Table 2: Reported Use of 10 U.S.C. § 2681 by Service Location, Fiscal
Years 2005 through 2007:
Table 3: Examples of Other Land Use Planning Authorities Used by the
Services by Service Location, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007:
Table 4: Installations Visited:
Figures:
Figure 1: North Side of California Least Tern Nesting Area at Naval Air
Station North Island, California, Adjacent to Maintenance Facilities:
Figure 2: South-Facing View of California Least Tern Nesting Area Near
Hangars and Other Facilities:
Figure 3: Long Barracks at Fort Sam Houston:
Abbreviations:
BRAC: base realignment and closure:
DOD: Department of Defense:
MHPI: Military Housing Privatization Initiative:
OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 23, 2008:
Congressional Committees:
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[Footnote 1] is a high-
risk area, in part because of deteriorating facilities and problems
with excess and underutilized property.[Footnote 2] 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[Footnote 3] 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.[Footnote 4]
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[Footnote
5] 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.[Footnote 6] 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.
Results in Brief:
Although many land use planning authorities currently exist that permit
the Secretary of Defense, the secretaries of the military departments,
or both to make more efficient use of real property under their
control, such as authorities to outlease or convey certain real
property, our analysis of service data showed that the most frequently
used of these authorities is Section 2667 of Title 10, leasing of
nonexcess property of military departments. The services reported that
this authority was used a total of 744 times during fiscal years 2005
through 2007 and its use was spread among the real property controlled
by the services. The services reported that Section 2667 of Title 10
was used for both traditional leases and longer-term, more financially
complex enhanced use leases. The majority of agreements executed under
Section 2667 of Title 10 are traditional non-enhanced use lease
agreements. During fiscal year 2007, the services reported that 222 new
agreements were signed pursuant to Section 2667 of Title 10 and that
approximately $51 million in revenue was earned. In addition, under the
same authority, the services reported that more financially complex,
longer-term enhanced use leases are being executed. These leases are
usually for a term of longer than 30 years and payment is typically in
in-kind services, such as new construction, rather than cash. The Army
and the Air Force reported that 14 of these enhanced use leases were
entered into on land under the control of the respective departments,
and they project that the leases will bring in more than $1.1 billion
in value over their lives.[Footnote 7] Furthermore, the Army, the Air
Force, and the Navy are currently considering pursuing several
additional enhanced use leases. The services also reported that the
Secretary of Defense frequently used 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. However, this authority was most
frequently used on Army major range and test facility installations,
with about 86 percent of the authority's reported 601 uses during
fiscal years 2005 through 2007. Beyond Section 2667 and Section 2681 of
Title 10, there are many other land use 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, such as authorities permitting outleasing or conveyance of
DOD real property or the issuance of licenses, permits, or easements
upon DOD real property. Our analysis indicates that there are more than
30 available authorities of permanent and general applicability in the
U.S. Code available to the Secretary of Defense, the secretaries of the
military departments, or both under certain circumstances that pertain
to the utilization of land under their control covering a wide range of
real estate transactions; however, service officials indicated that the
other authorities are utilized much less often. Further, 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 conduct a particular land use activity at a
specific installation or parcel of land controlled by DOD, typically
within a specified period of time.
Land, buildings, and facilities on DOD installations may appear to be
underutilized or not utilized for several reasons. Land that appears
empty or underutilized, for example, often has a variety of
restrictions and constraints placed upon its use. These restrictions
and constraints include setbacks for antiterrorism protection, mission
requirements, necessary safety zones, and environmental considerations.
At Naval Base Coronado, California, for example, officials told us that
a large parcel of vacant land at the center of the installation cannot
be used because it is a nesting area for the California least tern, a
federally listed endangered species. The attempt to relocate this
nesting area could take as long as 5 years, if it is successful at all.
In addition to underutilized land, the services identified several
reasons why buildings and facilities might be classified as
underutilized or not utilized but still remain unavailable for other
uses. These reasons include historical considerations, the need to
reserve space for incoming personnel, or the need for repair or
demolition funding. Property may be classified as not utilized when it
has been condemned and 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 condemned
and not utilized for health reasons because mold is present. While
these facilities remain not utilized, the Air Force has sought funding
both to demolish the visiting officers' quarters and to repair the
student dormitory.
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. Department-specific policies govern the
procedures for allowing the use of space by other federal agencies. In
general, service officials stated 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. The
request is typically reviewed at the installation level, and the
installation commander makes a recommendation to the approving
official. The position or location of the approving official may
differ, depending on the service and the nature of the request. For
example, requests for space at Navy installations are generally
approved by the regional commander and Commander, Navy Installations
Command. We visited installations from each service and found that each
installation we visited had multiple DOD and non-DOD federal tenants.
Background:
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.[Footnote 8] 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).[Footnote 9] 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[Footnote 10] and its implementing
regulations. Further, the National Historic Preservation Act[Footnote
11] 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.
Many Land Use Planning Authorities Are Available, but Section 2667 and
Section 2681 of Title 10 Are Predominantly Used:
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.
The Services Reported That Section 2667 of Title 10 Was Most Frequently
Used during Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007:
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.
Table 1: Reported Use of 10 U.S.C. § 2667 by Service Location, Fiscal
Years 2005 through 2007:
Service: Army;
FY 2005: 165;
FY 2006: 153;
FY 2007: 112;
Total by service: 430;
Percentage by service: 58.
Service: Navy;
FY 2005: 88;
FY 2006: 41;
FY 2007: 56;
Total by service: 185;
Percentage by service: 25.
Service: Marine Corps;
FY 2005: 10;
FY 2006: 8;
FY 2007: 27;
Total by service: 45;
Percentage by service: 6.
Service: Air Force;
FY 2005: 32;
FY 2006: 25;
FY 2007: 27;
Total by service: 84;
Percentage by service: 11.
Service: Total by fiscal year;
FY 2005: 295;
FY 2006: 227;
FY 2007: 222;
Total by service: 744;
Percentage by service: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of service-reported data.
Note: Air Force numbers are estimates.
[End of table]
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[Footnote 12] 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[Footnote 13] 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.
Table 2: Reported Use of 10 U.S.C. § 2681 by Service Location, Fiscal
Years 2005 through 2007:
Service: Army;
FY 2005: 135;
FY 2006: 179;
FY 2007: 205;
Total by service: 519.
Service: Navy;
FY 2005: 26;
FY 2006: 27;
FY 2007: 22;
Total by service: 75.
Service: Marine Corps;
FY 2005: 0;
FY 2006: 0;
FY 2007: 0;
Total by service: 0.
Service: Air Force;
FY 2005: 6;
FY 2006: 1;
FY 2007: 0;
Total by service: 7.
Service: Total by fiscal year;
FY 2005: 167;
FY 2006: 207;
FY 2007: 227;
Total by service: 601.
Source: GAO analysis of service-reported data.
[End of table]
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.
The Services Used Other Land Use Planning Authorities Less Often:
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.
Table 3: Examples of Other Land Use Planning Authorities Used by the
Services by Service Location, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007:
Service: Army;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2005: 6;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2006: 7;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2007: 6;
10 U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations
in order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2005: 1;
10 U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations
in order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2006: 1; 10
U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations in
order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2007: 0.
Service: Navy;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2005: 3;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2006: 3;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2007: 5;
10 U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations
in order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2005: 0;
10 U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations
in order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2006: 0;
10 U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations
in order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2007: 0.
Service: Marine Corps;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2005: 2;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2006: 3;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2007: 3;
10 U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations
in order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2005: 0;
10 U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations
in order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2006: 0;
10 U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations
in order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2007: 0.
Service: Air Force;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2005: 3;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2006: 5;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2007: 7;
10 U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations
in order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2005: 0;
10 U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations
in order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2006: 0;
10 U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations
in order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2007: 0.
Service: Total;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2005: 14;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2006: 18;
10 U.S.C. 2878--authority to convey or lease property for the purpose
of using the proceeds for MHPI: 2007: 21;
10 U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations
in order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2005: 1;
10 U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations
in order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2006: 1;
10 U.S.C. 2869--authority to convey property at military installations
in order to support construction or limit encroachment: 2007: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of service-reported data.
[End of table]
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.
Special Legislation Is Regularly Enacted to Assist Installations with
Land Use Planning:
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.
Land, Buildings, and Facilities on DOD Installations May Appear
Underutilized or Not Utilized for Several Reasons:
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.
Certain Restrictions and Constraints Often Limit Land Use:
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.
[Footnote 14] 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.
Figure 1: North Side of California Least Tern Nesting Area at Naval Air
Station North Island, California, Adjacent to Maintenance Facilities:
[See PDF for image]
Photograph.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: South-Facing View of California Least Tern Nesting Area Near
Hangars and Other Facilities:
[See PDF for image]
Photograph.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Buildings and Structures May Be Classified as Underutilized or Not
Utilized but Still Be Unavailable for Other Uses:
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.
Figure 3: Long Barracks at Fort Sam Houston:
[See PDF for image]
Photograph.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 15] 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.
The Services Use Similar Policies and Procedures for Responding to
Requests for Space at an Installation:
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.[Footnote 16] 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.[Footnote 17] 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.[Footnote 18] 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.[Footnote
19] 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.[Footnote 20]
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,[Footnote 21] 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.[Footnote 22] An Army regulation states
that approval of requests for space by other federal agencies will be
made by Headquarters, Department of the Army.[Footnote 23]
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.
Agency Comments:
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 [hyperlink, 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.
Signed by:
Brian J. Lepore:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
List of Committees:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ted Stevens:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John P. Murtha:
Chairman:
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
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.
Table 4: Installations Visited:
Army:
Fort Meade, MD;
Fort Sam Houston, TX.
Air Force:
Randolph Air Force Base, TX;
Lackland Air Force Base, TX;
Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA;
Hill Air Force Base, UT.
Navy:
Naval Base San Diego, CA;
Naval Base Coronado, CA;
Naval Base Point Loma, CA.
Marine Corps:
Camp Pendleton, CA.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Brian J. Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
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.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] According to DOD, real property consists of land or land together
with the improvements, structures, fixtures located on that land, and
other buildings and permanent structures.
[2] See GAO, High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-122] (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
2003), and Federal Real Property: Progress Made Toward Addressing
Problems, but Underlying Obstacles Continue to Hamper Reform,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-349] (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 13, 2007).
[3] Land that DOD classifies as underutilized or not utilized may not
necessarily be considered "excess property" for the purposes of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. §
101 et seq.). Pursuant to Section 102 of Title 40, excess property is
defined as property under the control of a federal agency that the head
of the agency determines is not required to meet the agency's needs or
responsibilities. Therefore, a parcel of DOD real property could
potentially be underutilized yet still not be excess because it is
required to meet certain DOD's needs or responsibilities.
[4] Section 2667 of Title 10 does not use the term enhanced use lease
to differentiate leases executed pursuant to this authority that are
longer than 30 years and involve in-kind payments.
[5] The authority to convey excess property located on an installation
not closed or realigned under base closure law pursuant to Section 2869
currently only applies from October 17, 2006, through September 30,
2008. (A conveyance for which the concerned secretary has provided
advance public notice during this time period may be completed after
September 30, 2008.)
[6] While the committee report directed us to "provide particular
attention to the San Diego area" in conducting this analysis, we
subsequently agreed, in consultation with committee staff, to analyze
DOD's overall land planning without a special focus on a particular
geographic region.
[7] We did not evaluate the validity of the services' lease proceeds
estimates because it was outside the scope of our review.
[8] Amounts paid for utilities and services furnished to lessees by the
secretary of a military department, money received directly from a
lease for agricultural or grazing purposes, and money received from a
lease at a military installation approved for closure or realignment
under base closure law are not required to be deposited into these
special Treasury accounts.
[9] In 1996, alternative authorities for construction and improvement
of military housing were enacted (commonly referred to as the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative, or MHPI), which provide DOD with a
variety of authorities to attract private capital investments by using
private developers to build, operate, and maintain homes primarily for
military members and their families. National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-106, § 2801 (1996) (codified as
amended at 10 U.S.C. §§ 2871-2885).
[10] 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
[11] 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.
[12] The Navy and Marine Corps did not provide fiscal year 2005 and
2006 revenue data.
[13] Net present value allows the consideration of the time value of
money by finding the present value in "today's dollars" of the future
net cash flow of a project.
[14] 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
[15] We have previously reported that DOD frequently defers facility
maintenance resulting in damaged facilities, shortened facility service
lives, and increased future cost for facility restoration. See GAO,
Defense Infrastructure: Continued Management Attention Is Needed to
Support Installation Facilities and Operations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-502] (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
24, 2008).
[16] Department of Defense Instruction 4165.70, Real Property
Management, April 6, 2005.
[17] Department of Defense Instruction 4000.19, Interservice and
Intergovernmental Support, August 9, 1995.
[18] Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 11000.16A, Command
Responsibility for Shore Activity Land and Facilities, April 28, 1997.
[19] Army Regulation 405-70, Utilization of Real Property, May 12,
2006.
[20] Air Force Handbook 32-9007, Managing Air Force Real Property, May
1, 1999.
[21] Secretary of the Navy Instruction 11011.47A, Acquisition,
Management, and Disposal of Real Property and Real Property Interests
by the Department of the Navy, February 23, 2006.
[22] Air Force Handbook 32-9007.
[23] Army Regulation 5-10, Stationing, March 1, 2001.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
