GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

June 27, 2005

Congressional Committees

Subject: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Comprehensive Master Plans for 

Changing U.S. Defense Infrastructure Overseas 

After the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the U.S. military’s 

overseas presence began to change. Force structure was reduced or relocated and the 

number of overseas military installations was decreased, often dramatically. Much of the 

Department of Defense’s (DOD) remaining overseas infrastructure—installations and 

facilities used to support U.S. forces overseas—remained organized around Cold War 

strategic concepts, even though new threats, new deployment concepts, and new geopolitical 

realities have emerged. Recently, DOD’s Quadrennial Defense Review Report1

 addressed, 

among other issues, further reorienting the U.S. military global posture. The report called for 

developing a permanent overseas basing system that provides U.S. forces greater flexibility in 

critical areas of the world, as well as providing temporary access to facilities in foreign 

countries. In 2004, President Bush announced what was described as the most 

comprehensive restructuring of U.S. military forces overseas since the end of the Korean 

War. Closely thereafter, DOD issued a report entitled Strengthening U.S. Global Defense 

Posture,

2

 also referred to as the integrated global presence and basing strategy, that outlined 

adjustments in the various theaters overseas. While the strategy is intended to enhance 

flexibility and achieve efficiencies, new facilities totaling billions of dollars will be required 

according to DOD plans. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee has expressed concern about the use of military 

construction budget authority for projects at overseas bases that may soon be obsolete due 

to changes being considered by DOD military services as well as the need for a more 

complete picture of future requirements than is typically available in annual budget requests. 

Accordingly, the conference report3

 accompanying the fiscal year 2004 military construction 

appropriation bill directed DOD4

 to prepare detailed comprehensive master plans for 

changing infrastructure requirements for U.S. military facilities in each of the overseas 

regional commands. In that regard, DOD was required to provide a baseline report on these 

plans with yearly updates on the status of those plans and their implementation with annual 

military construction budget submissions through 2009. Additionally, the fiscal year 2004 

 

1

 DOD, Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2001). 2

 DOD, Strengthening U.S. Global Defense Posture (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2004). 3

 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-342, at 17 (2003). 

4

 Although not specifically requested in the conference report, the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

asked the overseas regional commands to prepare comprehensive master plans for their areas of 

responsibility. 
Page 2 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure 

Senate military construction appropriation bill report5 required those plans to identify precise 

facility requirements, the status of properties being returned to host nations, and the funding 

requirements as well as the division of funding responsibilities between the United States and 

cognizant host nations. The Senate report also directed us to monitor the master plans 

developed and implemented for the overseas regional commands and to provide the 

congressional defense committees with annual assessment reports through fiscal year 2008. 

Our reports are to include an assessment of the status of the plans; the associated costs; host 

nation burden-sharing implications; and other relevant information involving property returns 

to host nations, including residual value6

 and environmental remediation issues. 

This is our second report that responds to the reporting requirements contained in the fiscal 

year 2004 Senate military construction appropriation bill report. In our prior work,7

 we found 

that the overseas regional commands we visited at that time were awaiting decisions on the 

integrated global presence and basing strategy, as well as final guidance from the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense (OSD) before completing their master plans for overseas facilities. 

OSD provided initial guidance in February 2004 to aid the commands in developing their 

plans. However, that guidance did not include requirements to address environmental 

remediation, multiple U.S. funding sources available to support infrastructure changes, or 

residual property values—information that others and we would need to track the 

commands’ progress in implementing overseas basing changes. Accordingly, we 

recommended in our July 2004 report that OSD include these requirements in its final 

guidance to the overseas regional commands. In issuing further guidance in October 2004,8

OSD included requirements to identify information on environmental remediation in 

accordance with status-of-forces agreements9

 and on multiple U.S. funding sources available 

to support infrastructure changes, but not residual property value issues. 

For this report, we completed a more extensive assessment of that guidance and its use in 

developing the overseas master plans DOD submitted to Congress on March 2005. This report 

discusses the extent to which (1) OSD has provided sufficient guidance to overseas regional 

commands to meet the reporting requirements contained in congressional mandates and as 

suggested by GAO; and (2) overseas regional commands complied with the reporting 

requirements and in doing so, provided information in a complete, clear, and consistent 

manner, and whether improvements in guidance and reporting were needed. 

To address our objectives, we met with OSD officials to discuss the level of guidance 

available to the commands to facilitate consistent preparation of overseas master plans and 

whether those plans meet the requirements for information contained in congressional 

mandates and as suggested by GAO. We also visited overseas regional commands—the 

Pacific Command (PACOM), including U.S. Forces Korea and U.S. Forces Japan; European 

Command (EUCOM); and Central Command (CENTCOM)—to see firsthand selected 

installations and military construction projects and discuss OSD’s guidance and the various 

 

5

 S. Rep. No. 108-82, at 13-14 (2003). 

6

 Residual value is the negotiated dollar value of U.S.-constructed or improved facilities that are turned 

over to host nations. DOD policy is to obtain the maximum residual value permissible. 

7

 GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Factors Affecting U.S. Infrastructure Costs Overseas and the 

Development of Comprehensive Master Plans, GAO-04-609 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004). 8

 DOD, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Overseas Master Plans

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 8, 2004). 

9

 Status-of-forces agreements determine the legal status of U.S. armed forces stationed abroad, often 

including some provisions for environmental remediation of U.S.-generated requirements. 
Page 3 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure

factors that can affect U.S. infrastructure requirements and costs overseas.10 Once the master 

plans were issued, we reviewed them to determine the extent to which they complied with 

the reporting requirements and provided information in a complete, clear, and consistent 

manner, and discussed whether improvements in the guidance and reporting were needed 

with OSD and command officials. 

We conducted our review from October 2004 through May 2005 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. (See encl. I for more information on our scope and 

methodology.) 

Results in Brief 

The scope of OSD’s guidance issued to date generally exceeded the reporting requirements 

established by Congress for the comprehensive master plans and included most additional 

reporting elements previously recommended by us, except for residual value. We believe that 

where the guidance requires overseas regional commands to provide greater specificity than 

identified by the congressional mandates, doing so is appropriate and adds value because this 

provides a more complete picture of future infrastructure requirements and associated 

funding levels. However, OSD did not include residual value in its guidance to the commands 

because officials continue to believe that residual value—which is based on the reuse of 

property being turned over to the host nation, and often diminished by actual or anticipated 

environmental remediation costs—cannot be readily predicted and therefore should not be 

assumed in the master plans. We believe that, without fully explaining the challenges 

commands experience in obtaining residual values for properties being returned to host 

nations or the implications, if any, for U.S. funding requirements, Congress and other users of 

the plans do not have a complete understanding of the potential impacts and limitations of 

residual value on future funding levels. 

The overseas regional commands generally complied with the reporting requirements defined 

by OSD, and by extension of Congress, but varied in the extent to which they provided 

complete, clear, and consistent information in their master plans. This is due, in part, to the 

limitations in information that could be provided because of three key factors we identified: 

ongoing negotiations with host nations, continuing evolution of U.S. overseas basing strategy, 

and differences in interpretation of OSD guidance by commands. Opportunities exist to 

improve the completeness, clarity, and consistency of the commands’ reporting of various 

items—host nation agreements and funding levels; U.S. funding levels and sources; 

environmental remediation and restoration issues; population levels; and facility 

requirements and funding levels for Hawaii, Guam, U.S. territories, and insular areas in the 

Pacific.11 Also, the plans do not yet provide a definitive picture of future U.S. funding 

requirements, particularly for new locations. Specifically, the master plans did not provide 

information on U.S. funding sources in addition to military construction appropriations that 

may be used for ongoing and future infrastructure changes. An OSD official explained that 

though some of these data were initially collected, they were too voluminous and too detailed 

to be included. Still, master plans that provided a greater degree of information 

 

10 For the purposes of this report, we did not include Southern Command in our analysis because this 

command has significantly fewer facilities overseas than the other regional commands in the Pacific, 

Europe, and Central Asia. 

11 Although Hawaii, Guam, U.S. territories, and other insular areas technically were not considered 

overseas locations for this year’s master plans, in this case several of these locations nevertheless are 

important components and factor significantly into future strategic considerations within PACOM’s 

area of responsibility. 
Page 4 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure 

encompassing the various sources of U.S. funding or, at a minimum, total funding levels by 

type, would better assist users in monitoring changes in U.S. funding levels due to changing 

infrastructure requirements. In several other instances, the lack of supplementary narrative 

to better explain the assumptions used or reasons data were omitted diminished the 

usefulness of the plans. Also, examples of better reporting by individual overseas regional 

commands on selected data elements provided insights into how collective reporting among 

all commands could be enhanced to provide more complete, clear, and consistent 

information. Specifically, the detailed reporting by EUCOM of individual construction 

projects according to military service, country, and base category12 at the installation level 

provided a more complete and consistent basis for tracking progress and annual changes in 

its master plan. Also, CENTCOM provided a more concise depiction of the anticipated 

strategic end state in terms of the expected sites and capabilities to support its objectives as 

of 2010. Without more complete, clear, and consistent reporting by individual overseas 

commands in the master plans, Congress and other users lack the best available data on 

which to track infrastructure requirements and changes from year to year and between 

commands. 

We are making recommendations to the Secretary of Defense that are intended to make 

future comprehensive master plans more complete, clear, and consistent to facilitate annual 

review and oversight by Congress and other users of the plans. In comments on a draft of this 

report, DOD agreed with four of our recommendations and disagreed with three. Specifically, 

it disagreed with our recommendations that (1) overseas regional commands briefly explain 

the status and challenges for host nation negotiations and results pertaining to host nation 

funding levels, including those for special bilateral agreements; (2) overseas regional 

commands report voluntary environmental remediation and restoration initiatives that 

support planned infrastructure requirements; and (3) PACOM provide information on facility 

requirements and funding levels for Hawaii, Guam, U.S. territories, and other insular areas in 

the Pacific in future comprehensive master plans and updates. We continue to believe these 

latter recommendations have merit and have added a matter for congressional consideration 

regarding them. 

Background 

In recent years, DOD has been undergoing a transformation to develop a defense strategy and 

force structure capable of meeting changing global threats. As part of its transformation, 

DOD has been reexamining overseas basing requirements to allow for greater U.S. military 

flexibility to combat the conventional and asymmetric threats worldwide. U.S. military 

presence overseas has been converting from a posture established on familiar terrain to 

counter a known threat to one that is intended to be capable of projecting forces from 

strategic locations into relatively unknown areas in an uncertain threat environment. In 

September 2001, DOD issued a Quadrennial Defense Review Report, which addressed, 

among other issues, reorienting the U.S. military global posture. The report called for 

developing a permanent basing system that provides greater flexibility for U.S. forces in 

critical areas of the world as well as providing temporary access to facilities in foreign 

 

12 DOD’s Strengthening U.S. Global Defense Posture provided new base category definitions—main 

operating bases, forward operating sites, and cooperative security locations. Main operating bases, 

with permanently stationed combat forces and robust infrastructure, are characterized by command 

and control structures and family support facilities. Forward operating sites are expandable “warm 

facilities” maintained with a limited rotational U.S. military support presence and possibly 

prepositioned equipment. Cooperative security locations are facilities with little or no permanent U.S. 

presence and will provide contingency access while being a focal point for security cooperation 

activities. 
Page 5 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure

countries that enable U.S. forces to train and operate in the absence of permanent ranges and 

bases. 

In August 2004, President Bush announced what was described as the most comprehensive 

restructuring of U.S. military forces overseas since the end of the Korean War. The initiative 

is intended to close bases no longer needed to meet Cold War threats, as well as bring home 

many U.S. forces while stationing more flexible, deployable capabilities in strategic locations 

around the world. Closely thereafter, DOD issued a report entitled Strengthening U.S. Global 

Defense Posture, also referred to as the integrated global presence and basing strategy. This 

strategy is the culmination of various DOD studies including the overseas basing and 

requirements study, the overseas presence study, and the U.S. global posture study. The most 

recent military construction appropriation request for fiscal year 2006 included 

approximately $5.9 billion for military construction and family housing, nearly $1 billion (16.9 

percent) of which is designated for specific overseas locations, mostly comprising enduring 

installations, and not for new and emerging requirements outside existing basing structures.13

For several years, the Senate Appropriations Committee has expressed concern regarding the 

progress DOD has made in updating the overseas basing structure to reflect the new realities 

of an uncertain threat environment. The committee also expressed concern about the use of 

military construction budget authority for projects at installations that may soon be obsolete 

due to overseas presence and basing changes under consideration, as well as a history of 

changing requirements that sometimes occurred following changes in command leadership. 

Consequently, in the Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2004 military construction 

appropriation bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed DOD to prepare 

comprehensive master plans identifying the infrastructure requirements for U.S. military 

facilities in each of its overseas regional commands. Subsequently, similar action was 

directed by the conference report accompanying the 2004 military construction appropriation 

bill. The conference report also required DOD to provide a report on the status and 

implementation of those plans with each yearly military construction budget submission 

through fiscal year 2009. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee also directed GAO to monitor the comprehensive 

master plans being developed and implemented for the overseas regional commands and to 

provide the congressional defense committees with a report each year through fiscal year 

2008 giving an assessment of the status of the plans; associated costs; burden-sharing 

implications; and other relevant information involving property returns to host nations, 

including environmental remediation issues and residual values. In July 2004, we reported the 

overseas regional commands were awaiting decisions on the integrated global presence and 

basing strategy and final OSD guidance regarding the development of detailed, 

comprehensive master plans, and that they continued to develop and implement plans for 

installations they believe will have an enduring presence in future years.14 Additionally, we 

reported various factors, such as residual property value, environmental remediation, and the 

availability of multiple U.S. funding sources, that affect the cost of U.S. infrastructure 

overseas as well as the development of comprehensive master plans. We recommended the 

overseas regional commands address these factors in their comprehensive master plans and 

the extent to which they may affect implementation of the plans. 

 

13 These figures exclude the amounts requested by DOD for the base realignment and closure process 

and unspecified sites, which include funding for minor construction, planning and design, operating 

expenses, and other construction-related activities. 

14 GAO-04-609. 
Page 6 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure 

Within the department, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics was tasked with fulfilling the reporting requirement of these congressional 

mandates. In turn, the Under Secretary assigned the overseas regional commands 

responsibility for preparing detailed, comprehensive master plans for their area of 

responsibility. The guidance instructed the overseas regional commands to draft plans 

identifying precise facility requirements, status of properties being returned to host nations, 

funding requirements, the division of funding responsibilities between the United States and 

cognizant host nations, multiple U.S. funding sources, and environmental remediation. 

OSD Guidance Generally Exceeded 

Congressional Reporting Requirements 

To its credit, the scope of OSD’s guidance generally exceeded the reporting requirements 

mandated by Congress and included most additional reporting elements suggested by us, 

except for residual value information. (See table 1.) However, we continue to believe OSD 

should require commands to report on residual value or, at a minimum, the issues associated 

with obtaining residual value returned to the control of each host nation, because of the 

potential implications for U.S. funding requirements. 

Table 1: Comparison of OSD’s Guidance with the Reporting Requirements Contained in 

Congressional Mandates and as Suggested by GAO 

Mandated requirements OSD guidance 

Report on: 

 Precise facility requirements Precise facility requirements (on a regional basis)a 

 -- Broad purpose and planned capability 

 -- Equipment and aircraft 

-- Estimated U.S. military population (permanent and 

 rotational capacity—specifically surge) 

 Status of property returns Status of property returns 

 Funding requirements 

Funding requirements: 

-- Projects and costs proposed for fiscal year 2006 military

 construction bill 

-- Projects and costs proposed for fiscal years 2007-2011 

 (cumulative) 

 Division of funding responsibilities 

 between U.S. and host nations Projects funded by host nations 

Prior GAO recommendations 

Report on: 

 Multiple U.S. funding sources 

 available 

Funding requirements (breakdown by military 

construction, operation and maintenance, etc.) 

 Environmental remediation issues Environmental remediation issuesb 

 Residual value issues Not included 

Source: GAO analysis of OSD’s guidance, the fiscal year 2004 Senate Military Construction Appropriation Bill Report, and our 

prior recommendations. 

a Commands have the flexibility to define regional as installation, town, country, and geographic area or in a way that is most 

effective and applicable to communicate their situation. 

b To the extent there are any environmental remediation issues in accordance with requirements of status-of-forces 

agreements, they should be addressed.

OSD’s guidance generally exceeded the reporting requirements mandated by Congress, and 

we believe that those instances when it requires overseas regional commands to provide 
Page 7 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure

greater specificity than identified by the congressional mandates are appropriate and have 

the potential to provide a more complete picture of changing infrastructure requirements 

overseas. For example, the guidance requires the overseas regional commands to provide 

greater specificity in precise facility requirements in terms of reporting details on military 

capabilities and population changes than identified by the mandates. Similarly, the guidance 

requires the commands to provide greater specificity in funding requirements for military 

construction projects proposed for the fiscal year 2006 military construction budget 

submission, than identified by the mandates. In addition, the scope of OSD’s guidance 

included most reporting elements recommended by us in our prior report,15 except for 

information on residual value issues. According to an OSD official, residual value, typically 

received in the form of construction services, was excluded from the guidance because it is 

based on the reuse of property being turned over to the host nation, which is limited for most 

categories of military facilities, and is often reduced by actual or anticipated environmental 

remediation costs. Consequently, it cannot be readily predicted and therefore should not be 

assumed in the master plans. However, since these issues vary by host nation and may not be 

clear to all users of the plans, we continue to believe OSD should require commands, at a 

minimum, to explain the issues with obtaining residual value in each host nation and report 

the implications for U.S. funding requirements. 

Commands Generally Complied with OSD Guidance 

and Congressional Reporting Requirements, but 

Varied in Completeness, Clarity, and Consistency 

The overseas regional commands generally complied with the reporting requirements defined 

by OSD, and by extension the congressional mandates for reporting, where information was 

provided.16 However, the plans do not yet provide a definitive picture of future funding 

requirements, particularly for new locations, because they varied in the extent to which they 

included complete, clear, and consistent information. This is due, in part, to the limitations in 

information that could be provided because of ongoing negotiations with host governments, 

the continuing evolution of U.S. overseas basing strategy, and differences commands had in 

interpreting OSD guidance—which provides the commands flexibility to define regional as 

installation, town, country, geographic area (e.g., southern Europe), or in a way that is most 

effective and applicable to communicate their situation. Also, reporting by some commands 

was better than others for selected areas and offered insights into how overall reporting can 

be improved. 

More complete, clear, and consistent reporting by individual overseas commands on selected 

data elements could further enhance future comprehensive master plans and their 

implementation. For example: 

• While several of the planned infrastructure requirements reported are not based on 

finalized, negotiated agreements with host nations, none of the commands fully 

explained the status of negotiations or challenges for finalizing these agreements, or 

provided complete data for host nation funding levels presented in the plans. These 

agreements depend largely on the political environment and economic conditions in 

host nations. Such arrangements can impact the extent of host nation support—

access or funding levels—to U.S. forces, and accordingly, may increase or decrease 

U.S.-funded costs for future infrastructure changes. This year, the EUCOM master 

 

15 GAO-04-609. 

16 While CENTCOM generally complied with the reporting requirements defined by OSD guidance, it 

excluded any discussion of Iraq. 
Page 8 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure 

plan referenced locations that have not been fully negotiated with host nations. While 

this type of information was useful in presenting a picture of potential infrastructure 

sites in the future, EUCOM did not provide explanatory information regarding the 

status of negotiations or challenges for finalizing these host nation agreements. 

Another command referenced a multilateral project, but did not identify any host 

nation funding in its plan or fully explain the reasons for this omission. Also, the 

magnitude of expected host nation funding identified in another command’s plan 

appeared questionable, absent any narrative explanation regarding status of 

negotiations given the historically low host nation funding levels in the region 

compared with the projected funding requirements identified in the plan. Lastly, 

PACOM’s schedule of host nation funding did not fully incorporate projects and 

funding levels initiated through special bilateral agreements negotiated with host 

nations, such as those that established the Special Action Committee on Okinawa and 

Yongsan relocation plan, or fully explain the reasons for these omissions. Without 

explaining the status of negotiations and challenges for obtaining host nation 

agreements and fully reporting host nation funding levels using common time frames, 

it is difficult for users to determine the extent to which reported infrastructure 

changes and associated costs are likely to occur and whether reported host nation 

funding levels are realistic or complete where funding amounts were provided. Until 

all planned infrastructure requirements are agreed to by the affected host nation or 

nations, overseas regional commands will remain uncertain of total future 

infrastructure requirements and associated costs. 

• Although required by OSD guidance, the regional commands did not provide 

information on U.S. funding sources in addition to military construction 

appropriations that may be used to finance current and future infrastructure 

requirements. An OSD official explained that some of these data were initially 

collected and judged to be too voluminous and detailed to include in the master plans. 

Still, inclusion of these types of funding data in future master plans or, at a minimum, 

reporting totals by funding type, would provide users a more complete baseline to 

better monitor all U.S. funding sources that may be used to finance current and future 

infrastructure requirements. 

• Although required by OSD guidance, none of the regional commands identified 

environmental remediation and restoration issues in their master plans. While we 

recognize OSD guidance limited the reporting requirement to those matters in 

accordance with the requirements of the status-of-forces agreements, command 

officials told us during subsequent discussions about a number of voluntary 

environmental remediation and restoration initiatives that will entail substantial 

funding—some may total more than $1 million—in support of planned infrastructure 

requirements outlined in the master plans. Without their inclusion or an explanation 

for their exclusion, it is difficult for users to compare and comprehend how 

environmental remediation and restoration activities and costs have varied by 

location and from year to year, and how these costs may impact planned U.S. funding 

levels. 

• Several of the reported actual or projected population levels at specific locations 

appear questionable when compared to the applicable base categories and funding 

requirements identified in the plans. Specifically, CENTCOM’s plan did not provide an 

explanation of how its seemingly smaller bases could accommodate large numbers of 

people without a corresponding increase in facilities. During subsequent discussions, 

CENTCOM officials were able to explain that many of its reported population and 
Page 9 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure

funding requirements are based on real-time conditions at the installations and on the 

seeming different interpretations of identified base categories, such as forward 

operating sites and cooperative security locations. Still, without an adequate 

explanation of these conditions, users are unable to determine whether facilities and 

facility funding can adequately support the reported population—stationed or surge. 

Given the seemingly differences in interpretation and usage of terminology related to 

forward operating sites and cooperative security locations, additional narrative 

information regarding how each command is interpreting and applying these basing 

concepts would provide users a clearer picture of the infrastructure requirements at 

these sites. 

• In compliance with OSD’s guidance defining overseas locations, the commands 

reported on requirements and funding for U.S. facilities in foreign countries and, thus, 

excluded the 50 states and U.S. territories. Based on the guidance, PACOM included 

Japan, South Korea, Diego Garcia, and several other countries located in its area of 

responsibility and excluded any detailed discussion of facility requirements and 

funding levels for Hawaii, Guam, U.S. territories, and other insular areas in the 

Pacific—strategic basing locations in the theater. Officials explained that Hawaii and 

Guam were excluded in part because they were included in DOD’s ongoing base 

closure and realignment process. However, the omission of these locations does not 

provide users full representation of U.S. military presence, infrastructure 

requirements, and associated U.S. funding levels in the Pacific. Given that they are 

increasingly integral to achieving PACOM’s strategic objectives and that the base 

closure and realignment decisions will be finalized later this year, their inclusion in 

future PACOM master plans would provide users more complete information so they 

can comprehend the full magnitude of facility requirements and associated costs in 

the Pacific. 

Further, instances of better reporting by individual overseas commands on selected data 

elements provided insights into how collective reporting among all commands could be 

enhanced to provide more complete, clear, and consistent information. For example: 

• The detailed reporting by EUCOM of precise facility requirements regarding planned 

construction projects provided a clearer and more complete basis for identifying 

requirements for fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and tracking progress and changes 

from year to year than did the other commands. Specifically, EUCOM listed projects 

by military service and base category17 at the installation level, while PACOM rolled 

up projects into three broad regions—Japan, South Korea, and Diego Garcia—or by 

base category. As a result, we could readily identify estimated costs for EUCOM’s 

construction projects at specific localities, to the extent information was available 

and provided, but could not complete a similar analysis for PACOM’s projects. 

• The detailed reporting by CENTCOM of an anticipated strategic end state of its 

overseas basing infrastructure as of 2010, although not specifically required by OSD 

guidance, provided a clearer and more complete basis for tracking progress in 

meeting its infrastructure objectives for the region than did the other commands. 

Specifically, CENTCOM provided a concise depiction of expected locations and 

capabilities to support its objectives as of 2010, while EUCOM highlighted 

infrastructure consolidations and troop movements and PACOM limited this type of 

 

17 See note 12. 
Page 10 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure 

analysis to South Korea. Such information would have been useful from each 

command, but would require additional guidance on this issue from DOD to ensure 

consistency in reporting. 

Conclusions 

To its credit, DOD’s completion of this year’s overseas master plans provides a more 

complete picture of future facility and funding requirements for changing U.S. defense 

infrastructure overseas than is available in other DOD reports, documents, and annual budget 

requests. It is obvious that the preparation of the master plans required significant effort on 

the part of OSD and the overseas regional commands. Still, opportunities exist to improve the 

guidance and term definitions to help overseas regional commands provide more complete, 

clear, and consistent information and present a more definitive picture of infrastructure and 

funding requirements, particularly for new locations, in the future. The less than definitive 

picture in this year’s plans was due, in part, to the limitations in information that could be 

provided because of three key factors we identified: ongoing negotiations with host nations, 

continuing evolution of U.S. overseas basing strategy, and differences commands had in 

interpretation of OSD guidance. Since we have previously recommended that overseas 

regional commands address the extent to which residual value issues could affect U.S. 

funding requirements in our prior report, we are not including it again in this report. 

However, since residual value issues vary by host nation and may not be clear to all users of 

the plans, we consider it an open and continuing recommendation from our prior report. 

Additionally, without more complete, clear, and consistent reporting of various items—host 

nation agreements and funding levels, including special bilateral agreements; U.S. funding 

levels and sources in addition to military construction funds; environmental remediation and 

restoration issues; population levels; and facility requirements and funding levels for Hawaii, 

Guam, U.S. territories, and other insular areas in the Pacific—across future master plans, 

users do not have the best data available to facilitate their annual review and oversight. Also, 

individual master plans provide examples of how selected data elements could be reported to 

enhance future plans and their implementation. Specifically, without the detailed reporting of 

individual construction projects as EUCOM did in its plan and the anticipated strategic end 

state of the command’s overseas basing infrastructure as of 2010 as CENTCOM did in its 

plan, Congress and other users do not have the best available and consistent data on which to 

track progress and changes from year to year and between commands. In many of these 

instances, providing supplementary narrative explanation of the assumptions used or reasons 

data were omitted could improve the usefulness of the comprehensive master plans. 

Recommendations for Executive Action 

To improve reporting of and make future comprehensive master plans and updates more 

complete, clear, and consistent to facilitate annual review and oversight by Congress and 

other users, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to revise OSD’s guidance to require that 

• overseas regional commands (1) briefly explain the status of negotiations and 

challenges for reported host nation agreements and (2) fully report host nation 

funding levels, including those for special bilateral agreements; 

• overseas regional commands report information on U.S. funding sources in addition 

to military construction appropriations that may be used to finance current and future 
Page 11 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure

infrastructure requirements or, at a minimum, the totals for these other U.S. funding 

sources; 

• overseas regional commands report environmental remediation and restoration 

initiatives that support planned infrastructure requirements outlined in the master 

plans; 

• overseas regional commands briefly explain any significant variances in population 

levels and usage of terminology related to the three base categories—main operating 

bases, forward operating sites, and cooperative security locations; 

• PACOM provide information on facility requirements and funding levels for Hawaii, 

Guam, U.S. territories, and other insular areas in the Pacific; 

• overseas regional commands follow the presentation of individual construction 

projects as EUCOM did in its plan; and 

• overseas regional commands follow the presentation of the strategic end state of their 

overseas basing infrastructure using a common date as CENTCOM did in its plan. 

Matters for Congressional Consideration 

On the basis of DOD’s comments on our recommendations, as discussed below, Congress 

may wish to consider requiring DOD in future comprehensive master plans and updates to (1) 

briefly explain the status of negotiations and challenges for reported host nation agreements 

and fully report host nation funding levels, including those for special bilateral agreements; 

(2) report environmental remediation and restoration initiatives that support planned 

infrastructure requirements outlined in the master plans; and (3) provide information on 

facility requirements and funding levels for Hawaii, Guam, U.S. territories, and other insular 

areas in the Pacific. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 

Installations and Environment concurred with four of our recommendations dealing with the 

presentation of U.S. funding levels and sources in addition to military construction funds; 

population levels and usage of terminology related to the three base categories; individual 

construction projects; and strategic end state using a common date. The Deputy Under 

Secretary of Defense did not concur with three of our recommendations that (1) overseas 

regional commands briefly explain the status and challenges for host nation negotiations and 

results pertaining to host nation funding levels, including those for special bilateral 

agreements; (2) overseas regional commands report voluntary environmental remediation 

and restoration initiatives that support planned infrastructure requirements outlined in the 

master plans; and (3) PACOM provide information on facility requirements and funding levels 

for Hawaii, Guam, U.S. territories, and other insular areas in the Pacific. We disagree and 

believe implementation of our recommendations would improve the reporting of and make 

future comprehensive master plans and updates more complete, clear, and consistent to 

facilitate annual review and oversight by Congress and other users. 
Page 12 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure 

DOD stated that the master plans are not the appropriate vehicle to report the status of 

negotiations and the results of agreements pertaining to host nation funding, including those 

for special bilateral agreements, and noted that these types of data are maintained at the 

Departments of State and Defense levels. We disagree. Since the status of negotiations and 

the results of agreements pertaining to host nation funding, including those for special 

bilateral agreements, directly affect overseas regional commands and their plans for changing 

their infrastructure, we believe the master plans are an appropriate vehicle to report these 

types of data. In addition, the master plans are classified documents whose distribution is 

limited to U.S. officials with a need to know the status of ongoing negotiations and the results 

of agreements pertaining to host nation funding. Also, while this information may be 

maintained at the Departments of State and Defense levels, in practice overseas regional 

commands monitor the status of these negotiations as indicated by several of the planned 

infrastructure changes being reported in the current master plans—some of which are not 

based on finalized, negotiated agreements with host nations. Since none of the commands 

fully explained the status or challenges for finalizing these agreements, or provided complete 

data for host nation funding levels, these omissions make it difficult, if not impossible, for 

Congress and other users of the plans to determine the extent to which reported 

infrastructure changes and associated costs are likely to occur and whether reported host 

nation funding levels are realistic or complete. 

DOD disagreed with our recommendation that the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics revise OSD’s guidance to require overseas regional 

commands report voluntary environmental remediation and restoration initiatives that 

support planned infrastructure requirements outlined in their master plans. DOD stated that 

its environmental policy overseas allows for remediation efforts only to eliminate known, 

imminent, and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment and does not 

authorize voluntary remediation initiatives. However, as recognized in our draft report, what 

actually occurs overseas is not reflected by DOD’s comments. In reality, command officials 

told us about a number of voluntary environmental remediation and restoration initiatives 

they plan to implement that will entail substantial funding in support of planned 

infrastructure requirements. Indeed, DOD policy grants overseas regional commanders 

discretion to perform additional remediation to protect human health and safety. In any 

event, since these actions affect overall costs in these rebasing efforts, we continue to believe 

it is important to reflect these costs in the master plans. In addition, as we previously noted 

in this report, OSD guidance requested overseas regional commands to report information on 

environmental remediation and restoration activities taken in accordance with the status-offorces agreements. Because none of the regional commands identified environmental 

remediation and restoration initiatives or costs in their master plans, it may lead Congress 

and other users of the plans to conclude incorrectly that regional commands do not incur any 

environmental-related costs even though they have voluntarily undertaken such initiatives in 

the past and may plan do so again in the future. Accordingly, we believe that a narrative 

explanation of these initiatives and associated costs would provide a more complete picture 

of all activities associated with the U.S. defense infrastructure overseas. Therefore, we are 

amending our recommendation to state that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics should revise OSD guidance to require overseas regional 

commands to report all environmental remediation and restoration initiatives that support 

planned infrastructure requirements outlined in their master plans whether they are required 

by DOD policy, international agreement, or are performed under the authority granted to 

overseas regional commanders under DOD policy. 

DOD disagreed with our recommendation to require that PACOM provide information on 

facility requirements and funding levels for Hawaii, Guam, U.S. territories, and other insular 

areas in the Pacific. It stated that Hawaii and U.S. territories in the Pacific were no different 
Page 13 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure

from other U.S. facilities within the continental United States and that it was inappropriate to 

include them in overseas master plans. We continue to believe it is important to include this 

information, as the omission of these locations from PACOM’s master plan provides 

Congress and other users an incomplete picture of the changing U.S. military presence in the 

Pacific and only a portion of the infrastructure and funding requirements associated with 

these changes. For example, in September 2004, the Commander, PACOM, testified before 

the Senate Armed Services Committee that the command was collocating the Stryker with 

high-speed vessels and airlift in Hawaii, deploying rotational bomber elements to Guam, 

stationing submarines in Guam, and had proposed moving an additional carrier strike group 

forward somewhere in the Pacific. Both Hawaii and Guam have been discussed as the 

potential site for this additional carrier strike group. In light of this, and because these 

locations are increasingly integral to achieving U.S. security objectives in the region, we 

believe that the inclusion of Hawaii, Guam, and other insular areas will provide a more 

complete picture of PACOM’s infrastructure requirements and associated costs in the Pacific. 

The Deputy Under Secretary’s comments are included in enclosure II of this report. 

- - - - - 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees and members; the 

Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Commandant of 

the Marine Corps; and Unified Combatant Commanders. The report is also available at no 

charge on GAO’s Web Site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-5581 or holmanb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Alissa Czyz, Mark 

Little, Ricardo Marquez, Donna Rogers, and Nelson Torres were major contributors to this 

report. 

Barry W. Holman, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 
Page 14 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure 

List of Congressional Addressees 

The Honorable John Warner 

Chairman 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ted Stevens 

Chairman 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison 

Chair 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Military Construction and 

 Veterans’ Affairs 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young 

Chairman 

The Honorable John P. Murtha 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable James T. Walsh 

Chairman 

The Honorable Chet Edwards 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and 

 Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 
Enclosure I Enclosure I 

Page 15 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure

Scope and Methodology 

To determine the extent to which OSD provided sufficient guidance to overseas regional 

commands to meet the reporting requirements contained in congressional mandates and 

suggested by GAO, we compared and contrasted OSD guidance to the reporting requirements 

provided in the congressional mandates and suggested previously by GAO. We also met with 

officials from OSD and each of the following commands and agencies: PACOM; EUCOM; 

CENTCOM; U.S. Army, Pacific; U.S. Pacific Fleet; U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Pacific; U.S. 

Pacific Air Force; U.S. Forces Korea; Eighth Army, South Korea; Seventh Air Force, South 

Korea; Army Installation Management Agency, South Korea Regional Office; Army Corps of 

Engineers, South Korea; U.S. Forces Japan; U.S. Army, Japan; U.S. Marine Corps Forces, 

Japan; U.S. Army, Europe; Commander, Naval Region Europe; U.S. Air Force, Europe; Army 

Installation Management Agency, Europe Regional Office; and Special Operations Command. 

In general, we discussed the reporting requirements contained in OSD’s guidance, host nation 

agreements and associated issues, host nation funding levels, U.S. funding levels and sources, 

environmental remediation and restoration issues, property returns to host nations, and 

residual values likely to be obtained by the United States as a result of these property returns. 

We also analyzed available reports, documents, policies, directives, international agreements, 

and information and guidance pertaining to these factors. In South Korea, we also met with 

an official from the office of the Political Military Unit at the U.S. Embassy South Korea to 

discuss the U.S. diplomatic perspective on potential basing changes in South Korea, burdensharing implications, and environmental remediation and restoration issues. We also met 

with an official from the Republic of South Korea Ministry of National Defense to obtain a 

host nation perspective on the status of implementation of master plans and burden-sharing 

implications for relocation of U.S. facilities in South Korea and to discuss funding and time 

frames for decisions by the Republic of South Korea. To see firsthand the condition of 

facilities and status of selected construction projects, we visited and toured the facilities at 

Camp Butler, Camp Foster, Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, and Yokota Air Base, Japan; 

Camp Humphreys, Osan Air Base, and Kunsan Air Base, South Korea; Army Garrison 

Grafenwoehr, Germany; and Caserna Ederle (including Dal Molin airfield, property of the 

Italian government), Naval Air Station Sigonella, Naval Support Activity Capodichino, and 

Navy Support Site Gricignano, Italy. 

To determine the extent to which overseas regional commands complied with OSD’s 

reporting requirements and provided information in a complete, clear, and consistent 

manner, we compared the comprehensive master plans with the reporting requirements 

provided in OSD guidance and suggested previously by us, and compared and contrasted the 

plans to each other. To determine whether improvements in guidance and reporting were 

needed, we assessed the plans to identify those elements and properties that provided 

information in the most complete, clear, and consistent manner. Also, we assessed the 

quantity and quality of one plan’s responses for each of the data elements and compared 

them to equivalent responses in other plans; formed conclusions as to the completeness, 

clarity and consistency of one plan’s responses; and generated observations and 

recommendations for improving other plans’ responses. We also discussed our observations 

and recommendations, specific reporting requirements, and whether improvements in the 

guidance and reporting were needed with DOD officials. 

While we met with Special Operations Command officials, its planning efforts were not 

specifically included in the master plans provided in response to the congressional mandates 

and detailed data were not available for inclusion in this report. In addition, we did not 
Enclosure I Enclosure I 

Page 16 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure 

include Southern Command in our analysis because this command has significantly fewer 

facilities overseas than the other regional commands in the Pacific, Europe, and Central Asia. 

We conducted our review from October 2004 through May 2005 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 
Enclosure II Enclosure II 

Page 17 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure

Comments from the Department of Defense 
Enclosure II Enclosure II 

Page 18 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure 
Enclosure II Enclosure II 

Page 19 GAO-05-680R Defense Infrastructure

(350585) 
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. However, 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. 
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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (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 www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER