United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

DEFENSE 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

Opportunity to 

Improve the 

Timeliness of Future 

Overseas Planning 

Reports and Factors 

Affecting the Master 

Planning Effort for the 

Military Buildup on 

Guam 

September 2008 

 

GAO-08-1005 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2008

DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE 

Opportunity to Improve the Timeliness of Future 

Overseas Planning Reports and Factors Affecting the 

Master Planning Effort for the Military Buildup on 

Guam 

Highlights of GAO-08-1005, a report to 

congressional committees 

The Department of Defense (DOD)

continues its efforts to reduce the

number of troops permanently 

stationed overseas and consolidate

overseas bases. The Senate and

conference reports accompanying 

the fiscal year 2004 military

construction appropriation bill 

directed DOD to develop and GAO

to monitor DOD’s overseas master 

plans and to provide annual

assessments. The Senate report 

accompanying the fiscal year 2007

military construction appropriation 

bill directed GAO to review DOD’s 

master planning effort for Guam as 

part of these annual reviews. This

report examines (1) the changes

and challenges described in the

fiscal year 2009 master plans, the 

extent the plans address GAO’s 

prior recommendations, and the 

plans’ timeliness and (2) the status 

of DOD’s master planning efforts 

for the proposed buildup of

military forces and infrastructure

on Guam. GAO reviewed the plans 

and other relevant documents, and 

visited three overseas combatant

commands, various installations,

and Guam organizations. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD 

(1) develop the global defense 

posture reports earlier each year to 

coincide with the budget 

submissions and (2) provide 

Congress annual updates of the 

Guam working-level plan until a 

comprehensive master plan is 

finalized and provided to Congress. 

DOD agreed with the second 

recommendation and partially 

agreed with the first, which was 

clarified in response to comments. 

While the fiscal year 2009 master plans generally reflect recent changes in U.S. 

overseas basing strategies and the challenges DOD faces as well as address 

GAO’s prior recommendations, DOD provided Congress the plans in May 

2008, well after the February budget submission when the Senate and 

conference reports require DOD to issue the plans. This year’s plans contain 

information on current overseas basing strategies and infrastructure 

requirements and the challenges that DOD faces implementing the plans. The

plans also generally address GAO’s recommendations except that the U.S. 

Pacific Command plan does not provide an update of the Air Force’s training 

challenges in South Korea, despite GAO’s prior recommendation that it should 

describe the challenges and their potential effects on infrastructure and 

funding requirements. DOD officials said that since last year the South Korean 

government and the U.S. Air Force have taken several steps to address these 

training challenges. According to DOD officials, efforts to incorporate lastminute changes in basing plans and projects and the lengthy review and 

approval process have contributed to the fiscal year 2009 plans’ lateness. 

While the congressional requirement for the overseas master plans expired 

with the fiscal year 2009 plans, DOD said that it intends to provide Congress 

annual updates of its global defense posture through 2014 and that these 

updates would replace the master plans as DOD’s overseas planning report to 

Congress. Since DOD will continue to provide annually updated global 

defense posture reports, it has an opportunity to reexamine its timeline for 

producing future reports earlier to provide Congress with time for review. 

DOD has developed a basic framework for the military buildup on Guam but 

has not issued the congressionally required master plan that was initially due 

in December 2006, and which Congress later extended to September 2008. The 

Joint Guam Program Office, which is planning and managing the proposed 

military buildup, is coordinating the multi-service development of a workinglevel plan for DOD that is to be submitted to Congress by the 2008 deadline. 

However, this is a onetime requirement, and DOD officials said that the plan 

will be a snapshot of the status of the planning process and will not be 

considered a comprehensive master plan for several reasons. First, while the 

required environmental impact statement and the resulting record of decision 

will influence many key decisions about the buildup of military forces and 

infrastructure on Guam, these documents are not expected to be completed 

until January 2010. Also, officials of the Joint Guam Program Office said that 

they expect to complete a comprehensive master plan within 90 days after 

these required documents are finalized. Second, plans for the detailed force 

composition of units relocating to Guam, associated facility requirements, and 

implications for other services’ realignments on Guam continue to be refined. 

Third, additional time is needed to fully address the challenges related to 

funding uncertainties, operational requirements, and Guam’s economic and 

infrastructure requirements. However, without a comprehensive master plan,

Congress may have limited data on requirements on which to make informed 

appropriation decisions and to carry out its oversight responsibilities. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-1005. 

For more information, contact Brian J. Lepore 

at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 7

Overseas Master Plans Generally Reflect Changes, Challenges, and 

Our Prior Recommendations, but Could Be More Timely 12 

DOD Has Established a Framework for Military Buildup on Guam 

but Has Yet to Develop the Congressionally Required Master 

Plan 20

Conclusions 30

Recommendations for Executive Action 31 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 32 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 36 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 38 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 40 

Related GAO Products 41 

Figure 

Figure 1: U.S. Pacific, European, Central, and Africa Commands’ 

Proposed Areas of Responsibility on September 30, 2008 9 

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. 

Page i GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

September 17, 2008 

Congressional Committees 

In its ongoing global realignment of U.S. forces and installations, the 

Department of Defense (DOD) plans to reduce the number of troops 

permanently stationed overseas and consolidate overseas bases. 

Realigning the U.S. overseas posture involves closing obsolete and 

redundant bases, constructing new facilities costing billions of dollars, and 

ensuring that other needed infrastructure is in place to support realigned 

forces and missions. For example, the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review

Initiative1

 established a framework for U.S. force structure in Japan that 

relocates U.S. military units from Japan to other areas, including Guam. As 

a part of this initiative, DOD tentatively plans to move about 8,000 Marines 

and their estimated 9,000 dependents from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam by 

2014. 

The Senate report and subsequent conference report accompanying the

fiscal year 2004 military construction appropriation bill directed DOD to 

prepare detailed, comprehensive master plans to ensure that 

infrastructure requirements at U.S. military facilities in each overseas 

regional command’s area of responsibility2

 reflected DOD’s global 

realignment of U.S. forces and installations.3

 The Senate report also 

directed us to provide assessment reports on these master plans each year 

to the congressional defense committees. Subsequently, the conference 

report accompanying the 2004 military construction appropriation bill also

directed the department to prepare comprehensive master plans with 

yearly updates through fiscal year 2009. In July 2006, the Senate report 

accompanying the fiscal year 2007 military construction appropriation bill

directed DOD to submit a master plan for the military buildup in Guam by 

December 29, 2006.4

 This deadline was later extended to September 15, 

 1

DOD officials refer to the results of the negotiations between the United States and Japan 

to realign U.S. forces in Japan as the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative. 

2

In fulfilling this requirement, the Office of the Secretary of Defense asked the overseas 

regional combatant commands to prepare comprehensive master plans for their areas of 

responsibility. 

3

S. Rep. No. 108-82, at 13-14 (2003) and H.R. Rep. No. 108-342, at 17 (2003) (Conf. Rep.). 

4

S. Rep. No. 109-286, at 15 (2006). 

Page 1 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
2008.

5

 The Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2007 military 

construction appropriation bill also directed us to review DOD’s master 

planning effort for Guam as part of our annual review of the overseas 

master plans. DOD considers the master plan for Guam as separate from 

the overseas master plans because Guam is a U.S. territory. 

This is our fifth report responding to the requirements contained in the 

fiscal year 2004 Senate military construction appropriation bill report and 

our second report responding to the reporting requirements on the Guam 

military buildup contained in the fiscal year 2007 Senate military 

construction appropriation bill report.6

 This report examines (1) the 

changes and challenges described in this year’s overseas master plans, the 

extent to which they address our prior recommendations,7

 and the plans’ 

timeliness and (2) the status of DOD’s master planning efforts for the 

proposed buildup of military forces and infrastructure on Guam. This 

report is our final report to fulfill the congressional mandates, which 

expired with DOD’s May 2008 fiscal year 2009 report.8

In conducting our work, we visited three overseas regional combatant 

commands—U.S. Pacific Command, including U.S. Forces Korea and U.S. 

Forces Japan; U.S. European Command; and U.S. Central Command.9

 We 

observed selected installation and military construction projects and 

interviewed command officials to understand the challenges the 

 5

H.R. Rep. No.110-424, at 437 (2007) (Conf. Rep.). 

6

See related GAO products at the end of this report. 

7

GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Overseas Master Plans Are Improving, but DOD Needs to 

Provide Congress Additional Information about the Military Buildup on Guam, 

GAO-07-1015 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2007); DOD’s Overseas Infrastructure Master

Plans Continue to Evolve, GAO-06-913R (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 22, 2006); Opportunities 

Exist to Improve Comprehensive Master Plans for Changing U.S. Defense Infrastructure 

Overseas, GAO-05-680R (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2005); and Defense Infrastructure: 

Factors Affecting U.S. Infrastructure Costs Overseas and the Development of 

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

8

Department of Defense, Comprehensive Master Plans at Department of Defense Overseas

Facilities (Washington, D.C.: May 2008). This year, DOD submitted the overseas master 

plans to Congress on May 13, 2008, and made them available to us on May 20, 2008. 

9

We did not include U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Southern Command in our review

because they have significantly fewer facilities outside of the United States than the other 

regional commands. Also not included were U.S. Special Operations Command, U.S.

Strategic Command, U.S. Joint Forces Command, and U.S. Transportation Command. 

These unified, functional commands have few facilities outside the United States and have

not issued master plans for changing U.S. infrastructure overseas. 

Page 2 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
commands face in implementing the master plans. After DOD issued its 

fiscal year 2009 plans, we reviewed them to determine how they had 

changed since last year, how they address the challenges to their 

implementation, and to what extent they addressed the congressional 

reporting requirements and responded to our prior recommendations. We 

assessed whether the fiscal year 2009 plans were in compliance with the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense’s (OSD) most recent guidance on 

overseas master plans.10 We generally concluded that the master plans 

addressed the congressional reporting requirements if the plans included

details on base categories (i.e., military population on main operating 

bases, forward operating sites, and cooperative security locations),11 host 

nation funding levels, facility requirements and costs, environmental 

remediation issues, and other challenges affecting implementation of the 

plans. To identify the challenges and determine the status of planning 

efforts for the proposed buildup on Guam, we met with the Governor of 

Guam, the Guam Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

officials from U.S. Pacific Command, Marine Forces Pacific, Third Marine 

Expeditionary Force, the Navy Joint Guam Program Office,12 the Guam 

legislature, the Mayors’ Council of Guam, and various Guam community 

groups. At these meetings, we discussed the challenges to the military 

buildup, the planning framework for the military buildup, the schedule and 

development of the Guam master plan, and the status of the environmental 

 10Department of Defense, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics, Update of Overseas Master Plans (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 2007). The

congressional requirement for annual updates of the overseas master plans expired this

year with DOD’s fiscal year 2009 plans. 

11Overseas master plans defined the base categories as the following: (1) main operating 

base, a facility outside the United States and U.S. territories with permanently stationed 

operating forces and robust infrastructure and characterized by command and control 

structures, enduring family support facilities, and strengthened force protection measures; 

(2) forward operating site, a scalable location outside the United States and U.S. territories

intended for rotational use by operating forces with limited U.S. military support presence

and possibly pre-positioned equipment; and (3) cooperative security location, a facility 

located outside the United States and U.S. territories with little or no permanent U.S. 

presence that is maintained with periodic service, contractor, or host nation support. 

Cooperative security locations provide contingency access, logistics support, and 

rotational use by operating forces and can be a focal point for security cooperation 

activities. 

12In August 2006, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the Secretary of the Navy to 

establish the Joint Guam Program Office to plan and execute the military services’ buildup 

on Guam. 

Page 3 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
impact study required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.13

We visited Naval Base Guam; Andersen Air Force Base, Guam; and 

potential Marine Corps basing locations to directly observe existing 

installations and future military construction sites. We also analyzed 

available reports and documents that described ongoing and proposed 

military activities and the challenges that may affect DOD’s development 

and implementation of a master plan for the proposed military buildup on 

Guam. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2007 through 

August 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. See appendix I for more 

information on our scope and methodology. 

While the fiscal year 2009 overseas master plans generally reflect recent 

changes in U.S. basing strategies and the challenges DOD faces in their 

implementation, as well as address most of our prior recommendations, 

DOD provided the plans to Congress in May 2008, 3 months after the 

February 2008 budget submission, even though both the Senate and 

conference reports accompanying the fiscal year 2004 military 

construction bill require DOD to issue the plans with the military 

construction budget submission. The master plans contain information on 

current defense basing strategies and infrastructure requirements overseas 

and the challenges that DOD faces in implementation of the plans. The 

plans also generally address our prior recommendations except that the 

U.S. Pacific Command plan does not provide details of training challenges 

for the Air Force in South Korea, despite our prior recommendation that it

should describe these challenges and their potential effects on 

Results in Brief 

 13The primary purpose of an environmental impact statement is to serve as an actionforcing device to ensure that the policies and goals defined in the National Environmental 

Policy Act are infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the federal government.

Regulations for implementing the act established by the Council on Environmental Quality 

specify that to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental 

impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental impact 

analyses and related surveys and studies required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

and other environmental review laws and executive orders. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.25. 

Page 4 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
infrastructure and funding requirements. DOD officials said that since last 

year the South Korean government and the U.S. Air Force have taken 

several steps to address these training challenges. However, DOD has 

submitted the plans to Congress after the annual budget submissions even 

though the congressional reporting requirement directed DOD to provide 

updates of the master plans with each yearly military construction budget 

submission. According to DOD officials, OSD’s most recent efforts to 

incorporate last-minute changes in basing plans and projects contributed

to providing Congress the fiscal year 2009 plans 3 months late. Further, 

overseas command officials commented that the lengthy review and 

approval process among the commands and OSD also contributed to the 

plans’ lateness. In comments on a draft of this report, DOD said that it 

intends to replace the overseas master plans, which are no longer 

mandated, with annual updates of its global defense posture as the 

department’s overseas planning report to Congress through 2014. Since 

the department will continue to report on its overseas planning to 

Congress, it has an opportunity to reexamine its timeline for producing 

these reports to provide them with the administration’s annual budget 

submission to provide Congress with adequate time for review. 

DOD has developed a basic framework for the military buildup in Guam 

but has not issued its congressionally required comprehensive master plan 

that was initially due in December 2006, and which Congress later 

extended to September 2008. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

in coordination with the Joint Guam Program Office is developing a 

working-level plan for DOD that is to be submitted to Congress by the 2008

deadline. The plan will address the realignment of Marine Corps forces in 

the context of other DOD proposed actions on Guam, including the Navy’s 

plan to enhance its infrastructure, logistics capabilities, and waterfront 

facilities and the Army’s plan to place a ballistic missile defense task force 

on Guam. However, this is a onetime requirement, and DOD officials said

that this plan will be a snapshot of the status of the planning process at 

that time and will not be considered a master plan for several reasons. 

First, the required environmental impact statement and resulting record of

decision are not expected to be completed until December 2009 and 

January 2010, respectively.

14 DOD officials said that the results of these 

 14Following the final environmental impact statement, DOD will prepare a record of 

decision that will state what the decision is for the proposed military buildup on Guam; 

identify alternatives considered and specify those that are environmentally preferable; state 

whether all practicable mitigation measures were adopted, and if not, explain why; and

commit to a monitoring and enforcement program to ensure implementation of mitigation 

measures. 

Page 5 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
documents will influence many key decisions on the exact location, size, 

and makeup of the military infrastructure development on Guam. 

According to Joint Guam Program Office officials, they expect to complete 

a comprehensive master plan within 90 days after the record of decision is

finalized. Second, plans for the detailed force composition of units 

relocating to Guam, associated facility requirements, and implications for 

other services’ realignments on Guam continue to be refined. Third, 

additional time is needed to fully address the challenges related to funding 

uncertainties, operational requirements, and Guam’s economic and 

infrastructure requirements. Without a comprehensive master plan for 

Guam, Congress may have limited data on funding requirements on which 

to base its decisions about appropriations. 

We are recommending that DOD (1) initiate a process of developing its 

global defense posture updates earlier each year so that it can provide 

Congress the department’s overseas planning report with the 

administration’s annual budget submission and (2) provide Congress with 

annual updates of the Guam working-level plan until the department 

finalizes a comprehensive master plan. In written comments on a draft of

this report, DOD partially agreed with our recommendation to initiate a 

process of developing overseas master plans earlier each year so that it 

can provide Congress the master plans with the administration’s annual 

budget submission, but noted that it plans to replace the master plans with 

annual updates of its global defense posture as DOD’s overseas planning 

report to Congress. Since the Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 

2009 military construction appropriation bill requires that these updates 

include data similar to those presented in prior master plans and explains 

that the timely filing of mandated reports is essential to the ability of the 

committee to exercise its oversight responsibilities,15 we continue to 

believe that our recommendation still has merit but have revised our 

recommendation to reflect DOD’s approach since it meets the intent of our 

original recommendation. DOD agreed with our recommendation to 

provide Congress with annual updates of the Guam working-level plan 

until the department finalizes a comprehensive master plan for the military 

buildup on Guam. DOD’s comments are discussed in more detail in the 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation section and are reprinted in 

appendix II.

 15S. Rep. No. 110-428, at 10 (2008). 

Page 6 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
In recent years, DOD has been undergoing a transformation that has been

described as the most comprehensive restructuring of U.S. military forces

overseas since the end of the Korean War. The realignment is to improve 

the U.S. military’s flexibility to address conventional and terrorist threats 

worldwide. As part of this restructuring, DOD created new bases in 

Central Asia and Eastern Europe, downsized the U.S. presence in 

Germany, and realigned forces in South Korea and Japan. 

In 2004, the United States and Japan began a series of sustained security 

consultations aimed at strengthening the U.S.-Japan security alliance to 

better address the rapidly changing global security environment. The 

resulting U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative established a 

framework for the future of the U.S. force structure in Japan and is to 

facilitate a continuing presence for U.S. forces in the Pacific theater by 

relocating units to other areas, including Guam. As a result of this and 

other DOD realignments planned on Guam, the total military and related 

infrastructure buildup is estimated to increase Guam’s current population 

of 171,000 by an estimated 25,000 active duty military personnel and 

dependents. The population could swell further because these estimates 

do not include DOD civilians, contractors, or transient personnel from a 

Navy aircraft carrier that is planned to conduct periodic visits to Guam in 

the future. The total cost of all services’ realignments on Guam is 

estimated to be more than $13 billion, although additional costs are 

anticipated for other DOD activities and the local Guam community. 

Realignment costs for the Marine Corps move from Okinawa are to be 

shared by the United States and Japan. 

DOD uses military construction appropriations to plan, design, construct, 

alter, and improve military facilities worldwide. The military construction 

budget submission for fiscal year 2009 includes approximately 

$24.4 billion for military construction and family housing, of which nearly

$1.1 billion (4.7 percent) is designated for specific overseas locations. 

Most of these funds are to enhance and support enduring installations, 

rather than for new or emerging requirements outside existing basing 

structures.16

Background 

Overseas Master Plans 

 16In our estimate for military construction and family housing for overseas locations, we

included Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, we

excluded worldwide classified and unspecified appropriations from our total because these 

categories may include domestic military construction and family housing. 

Page 7 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
In 2003, the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concern about 

the use of military construction budget authority for projects at bases that 

may become obsolete because of force realignments.17 Consequently, in 

Senate Report 108-82, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed DOD 

to prepare detailed, comprehensive master plans for the changing 

infrastructure requirements at U.S. military facilities in each of its overseas 

regional commands. According to the Senate report, at a minimum, the 

plans were to identify precise facility requirements, the status of 

properties being returned to host nations, funding requirements, and the 

respective cost-sharing responsibilities of the United States and the host 

nations. The Senate report also directed DOD to provide a report to 

congressional defense committees on the plans’ status and implementation 

with each yearly military construction budget request. The Senate report 

directed us to provide the congressional defense committees an annual 

assessment of the plans. Subsequently, the conference report

accompanying the fiscal year 2004 military construction appropriation bill

directed that DOD update its overseas master plans annually through fiscal 

year 2009.18

The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 

responded to these congressional reporting requirements and assigned the 

overseas regional combatant commands responsibility for preparing 

comprehensive master plans for their respective areas of responsibility. 

U.S. Pacific Command is responsible for DOD activities in East Asia and 

South Asia; U.S. European Command is responsible for DOD activities in 

Eastern and Western Europe; and U.S. Central Command is responsible 

for DOD activities in the Middle East and Central Asia. In February 2007, 

the President directed the Secretary of Defense to establish a new 

geographic combatant command to consolidate the responsibility for DOD 

activities in Africa that have been shared by U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. 

European Command, and U.S. Central Command (see fig. 1).19 U.S. Africa 

Command was officially established on October 1, 2007, with a goal to 

reach full operational capability as a separate, independent geographic 

 17S. Rep. No. 108-82, at 13 (2003). 

18H.R. Rep. No. 108-342, at 17 (2003) (Conf. Rep.). 

19U.S. Africa Command’s area of responsibility will include the African continent and its 

island nations, with the exception of Egypt. Egypt will remain within U.S. Central 

Command’s area of responsibility. These commands will have overlapping but distinct 

relationships with Egypt, which will be addressed under separate memorandums of

agreement. 

Page 8 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
combatant command by September 30, 2008. DOD officials said that U.S.

Africa Command will issue a plan for its area of responsibility next year.

Figure 1: U.S. Pacific, European, Central, and Africa Commands’ Proposed Areas of

Responsibility on September 30, 2008 

ARCTIC

OCEAN

INDIAN

OCEAN

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

PACIFIC

OCEAN

Source: GAO analysis of DOD information.

U.S. Pacific

Command U.S. Central

Command

U.S. European

Command

U.S. Africa 

Command

Master Planning Effort for 

Guam 

In 2004, the U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and the Japanese 

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of State for Defense began a series 

of sustained security consultations aimed at strengthening the U.S.-Japan 

security alliance and addressing the changing global security environment. 

The resulting U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative established a 

framework for the future of the U.S. force structure in Japan designed to 

reduce the U.S. military’s burden on Japanese communities and create a 

continuing presence for U.S. forces in the Pacific theater. The initiative’s 

goal of moving about 8,000 Marines and 9,000 dependents from Okinawa 

to Guam by 2014 is one of several current proposals to build up military 

forces and infrastructure on Guam. In addition to the initiative, the Navy 

plans to enhance its infrastructure, logistics capabilities, and waterfront 

facilities to support transient nuclear aircraft carriers, combat logistics 

Page 9 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
force ships, submarines, surface combatants, and high-speed transport 

ships at the Naval Base Guam. The Air Force plans to develop a global 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance strike hub at Andersen Air 

Force Base in Guam by hosting various types of aircraft, such as fighters, 

bombers, tankers, and Global Hawk systems, on a permanent and 

rotational basis. The Army plans to place a ballistic missile defense task

force on Guam. 

U.S. Pacific Command was responsible for the initial planning for the 

movement of forces to Guam. In August 2006, OSD directed the Navy to

establish the Joint Guam Program Office to facilitate, manage, and execute 

requirements associated with the rebasing of U.S. assets from Okinawa, 

Japan, to Guam. Specifically, the office was tasked to lead the coordinated 

planning efforts of all of DOD’s components and other stakeholders to 

consolidate, optimize, and integrate the existing military infrastructure on 

Guam. In addition, the office is to integrate the operational support 

requirements; develop, program, and synchronize the services’ respective 

realignment budgets; oversee military construction; and coordinate 

government and business activities. The office is also expected to work 

closely with Congress, U.S. agencies, the government of Guam, and the

government of Japan to manage this effort and develop a master plan. 

As initiatives for expanding the U.S. military presence on Guam began to 

emerge, the Senate Appropriations Committee noted the ambitiousness of 

the military construction program and the need for a well-developed 

master plan to efficiently use the available land and infrastructure. The 

Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2007 military construction 

appropriation bill directed DOD to submit a master plan for the military 

buildup in Guam by December 29, 2006.20 The Senate report also directed 

us to review DOD’s master planning effort for Guam as part of our annual 

review of DOD’s overseas master plans. The conference report 

accompanying the fiscal year 2008 military construction appropriation bill

extended the due date for the Guam master plan to September 15, 2008.21

 20S. Rep. No. 109-286, at 15 (2006). 

21H.R. Rep. No. 110-424, at 437 (2007) (Conf. Rep.). 

Page 10 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
We previously reported that while DOD’s overseas master plans generally 

exceeded the reporting requirements established by Congress, 

opportunities existed for the plans to provide more complete, clear, and 

consistent information and to present a more definitive picture of future 

requirements.22 In our 2007 report on DOD’s overseas master plans, we 

suggested that Congress consider requiring the Secretary of Defense to 

ensure that the overseas master plans include information on residual 

value compensation23 and training limitations for U.S. Pacific Command, 

which are discussed later in this report.24 We also suggested that Congress 

consider requiring the Secretary of Defense to report periodically to the 

defense committees on the status of the department’s planning efforts for 

Guam to help ensure the best application of federal funds and leveraging 

of options for supporting the military buildup until DOD finalizes a 

comprehensive master plan. In our May 2008 testimony on the Guam 

military buildup master planning effort, we reported that while DOD had 

established a framework for the military buildup on Guam, many key 

decisions remain and both DOD and the government of Guam faced 

significant challenges.25 We also reported that Guam’s efforts to address 

infrastructure challenges caused by the buildup were in their initial stages 

and that existing uncertainties contributed to the difficulties in developing 

precise plans. 

Prior Reviews of the 

Overseas Master Plans and 

the Master Planning Effort 

for Guam 

 22See GAO-07-1015, GAO-06-913R, GAO-05-680R, and GAO-04-609NI. 

23Residual value compensation is funding paid by the host nation to the United States to

compensate for the value of U.S.-funded improvements to the base. The amount of 

compensation is negotiated between the United States and the foreign country. 

24See GAO-07-1015. 

25GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Planning Efforts for the Proposed Military Buildup on 

Guam Are in Their Initial Stages, with Many Challenges Yet to Be Addressed, 

GAO-08-722T (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2008). 

Page 11 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
The fiscal year 2009 master plans generally reflect recent changes in the 

U.S. overseas defense basing strategies and requirements and current 

challenges that DOD faces in implementation. The plans also reflect DOD’s 

responses to the recommendations we made in our previous reports 

except that the U.S. Pacific Command plan does not provide the status of 

the Air Force’s training challenges in South Korea, despite our prior 

recommendation that it should describe the challenges and their potential 

effects on infrastructure and funding requirements. DOD officials said that

since last year South Korea and the U.S. Air Force have taken steps to 

address these training challenges. In addition, DOD has submitted the 

plans to Congress several months after the annual budget submissions 

even though the Senate and conference reports accompanying the fiscal

year 2004 military construction appropriation bill directed DOD to provide 

updates of the master plans with its military construction budget 

submissions. Without timely access to the plans, the congressional defense 

committees may not have the information needed at the appropriate time 

to prepare the annual defense and military construction legislation and to 

carry out their oversight responsibilities. 

The fiscal year 2009 master plans incorporated recent changes associated 

with the continuing evolution of U.S. overseas basing strategies and 

requirements. Generally, major force structure realignments that were 

discussed in the fiscal year 2009 master plans had already been mentioned 

last year. However, for fiscal year 2009, several changes identified in the 

overseas master plans included updated information involving realignment 

initiatives in South Korea and Japan, DOD’s efforts to establish missile 

defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland, and the ongoing 

development of U.S. Africa Command. 

Overseas Master 

Plans Generally 

Reflect Changes, 

Challenges, and Our 

Prior 

Recommendations, 

but Could Be More 

Timely

Plans Update the 

Evolution of Overseas 

Basing Strategies and 

Requirements 

The U.S. Pacific Command plan discussed the progress of realignment 

initiatives, which will relocate military personnel and facilities in Japan 

and South Korea. Specifically, the command reported that the U.S.-Japan 

Defense Policy Review Initiative has served as an effective framework to 

manage alliance transformation and realignments in Japan and that 

planning and execution efforts are ongoing to achieve one of the largest 

changes in recent history to U.S. force posture in the Pacific. Also, as part 

of the initiative, the command described the importance of relocating 

8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam and of consolidating the remaining 

U.S. Marine Corps presence in Okinawa to reduce the impact on local 

communities. It also included information on U.S. Forces Japan’s efforts to 

return to the government of Japan U.S. facilities and more than 14,000 

acres of land on Japan and Okinawa. Also, U.S. Pacific Command updated

Page 12 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
the status of the U.S.-South Korea Land Partnership Plan and the Yongsan 

Relocation Plan,26 including its efforts to reduce major U.S. installations 

from 41 to 10 (76 percent) in South Korea. The command also provided 

information regarding almost 3,000 acres of land acquisitions, including 

the expansion of Army Garrison Humphreys (formerly known as Camp

Humphreys) and other sites. 

The U.S. European Command plan updated the network of forward 

operating sites and cooperative security locations in Eastern Europe. For 

example, the plan provided details on the mission, planned capabilities, 

equipment and aircraft, population, and facility requirements for Novo 

Selo Training Area in Bulgaria and Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base in 

Romania. It also described recent efforts to proceed with formal 

negotiations with the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic on 

establishing missile defense sites and facility requirements to support this 

effort. For example, it identified over $284 million in facility requirements 

to support the ballistic missile defense program in the Czech Republic. 

U.S. European Command also explained the establishment of U.S. Africa 

Command and that its future mission is to conduct military-to-military 

programs, military-sponsored activities, and other operations. 

The U.S. Central Command plan reflected a long-term planning vision for

the development of required infrastructure in the region to achieve its 

missions. The command also reported a need for an increase in both U.S. 

military construction and host nation support funding. For example, the 

command identified a goal of $1.7 billion in host nation funding, which it 

considered reasonable since the infrastructure may also be used by the 

host nation. Also, the command’s plan provides detailed descriptions of 

each forward operating site by providing information on its mission (such 

as providing logistical support), the units it could host, and its role in the 

region (such as supporting the war against terrorism or strengthening 

capabilities for rapid and flexible response in the Central Asian states), as 

well as identifying the requirements for equipment and facilities at the site. 

 26With the provisions of the Land Partnership Plan and the Yongsan Relocation Plan, U.S. 

Forces Korea intends to strengthen its overall military effectiveness by consolidating 

installations north of Seoul, including the Yongsan Army Garrison located in Seoul, into

two major hubs in the central and southern sections of South Korea. U.S. Forces Korea 

expects the consolidation and relocation of thousands of soldiers to increase readiness, 

efficiencies, and cost savings; enhance quality of life; provide a less-intrusive presence; and 

increase training opportunities. 

Page 13 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
This year’s master plans discuss a number of challenges, such as 

uncertainties with host nation relations and environmental concerns, 

which DOD faces in the implementation of the plans. They also provide 

more detailed descriptions of these challenges than prior years’ plans. 

All of the regional commands describe to varying degrees the status of 

recent negotiations and agreements with host nations in their fiscal year 

2009 master plans. In our review of the overseas master plans in 2005, we 

found that none of the commands fully explained the (1) status of or (2) 

challenges to finalizing host nation agreements and recommended that the 

commands briefly explain the status of negotiations with host nations to 

provide more complete and clearer plans. These agreements depend 

largely on the political environment and economic conditions in host 

nations and can affect the extent of host nation support—access to 

facilities or funding—to U.S. forces. Accordingly, the resulting agreements 

may increase or decrease U.S.-funded costs for future infrastructure 

changes. For example, this year: 

Plans Generally Reflect 

Challenges 

This Year’s Plans Provided 

More Complete Descriptions of 

Host Nation Relations 

• The U.S. Pacific Command plan updates information on the results of the 

U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative. The plan describes the 

planned arrival of the USS George Washington, a nuclear aircraft carrier, 

at Naval Base Yokosuka to replace the USS Kitty Hawk, a conventional 

aircraft carrier. The plan also describes how the funding for the Japanese 

Facilities Improvement Program, historically the source of major 

construction on U.S. facilities in Japan, has been decreasing. For example, 

the command noted that the funding for this program has decreased from 

an estimated $1 billion in 1993 to $242 million. U.S. Forces Japan 

anticipates that the government of Japan will continue to reduce these 

funds because of Japan’s commitment to provide several other forms of 

host nation support (i.e., utilities and Japanese labor force) and funding 

for the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative under which the 

Marine Corps forces are moving from Okinawa to Guam. Several DOD 

officials believe that these financial commitments and other constraints 

may result in U.S. facilities in Japan receiving less host nation support, 

which in turn would require more financial support from the U.S. 

government than in the past. In addition, the U.S. Pacific Command plan 

provided details on current realignment efforts regarding the delayed 

move from Yongsan Army Garrison in Seoul to Army Garrison Humphreys 

south of Seoul. Originally expected to be completed by December 2008, 

the plan stated that the move may not be completed until 2012. According 

to the plan, early challenges with land procurement and bilateral funding 

negotiations have now been overcome and the relocation is moving 

forward. The plan also recognized that any future constraints on host 

Page 14 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
nation funding or U.S. military construction funds could further delay the 

Yongsan Relocation Plan. 

• The U.S. European Command plan provided a status of ongoing 

realignments in Europe. It also described the rationale for the 

realignments and listed the facilities returned to the host nations. 

Specifically, the plan provided information on efforts to return 

installations in Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Turkey, and

several classified locations in Europe. It further reported that while 

supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. Army Europe returned 

nearly 20,000 soldiers and their families, including parts of the 1st Infantry

Division, back to the United States. U.S. Army Europe has also prepared 

three military communities in Wuerzburg, Hanau, and Dermstadt for 

return to the government of Germany. Also, the plan discussed the 

relocation of U.S. Army Europe headquarters from Heidelberg to 

Wiesbaden, Germany, to become the 7th Army deployable headquarters by

fiscal year 2012. The plan also discussed the Army’s efforts to keep U.S. 

Army Garrison Baumholder as an enduring base because without it the 

five other Army main operating bases (i.e., Grafenwoehr/Vilseck/Hohenfels 

complex, Stuttgart, Ansbach, Kaiserslautern, and Wiesbaden) in Germany 

would be filled beyond capacity. It also explained how U.S. European 

Command’s transformation depends on host nation negotiations, politicalmilitary considerations, base realignment and closure in the United States, 

and fiscal limitations. 

• The U.S. Central Command plan discussed efforts to solicit contributions 

from host nations and to obtain the coordination and support that are 

needed from DOD, the Department of State, and host nations. It discussed 

the challenges of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the 

command’s intention to sustain long-term access to locations across its 

area of responsibility. The plan described how ongoing operations in Iraq 

and Afghanistan have increased the basing footprint by using contingency

construction funding, although the command expects to work with DOD 

and Congress to transition from using contingency funding to support its 

sites. For the future, the command will focus on transitioning from current

contingency operations to developing plans for more a fixed posture, in 

terms of forces and infrastructure. 

Most of the commands addressed the extent of their environmental 

challenges in this year’s master plans. In contrast, during our review of the

overseas master plans in 2005, none of the commands identified 

environmental remediation and restoration issues. This year, U.S. Pacific 

Command provided information on the removal of underground storage 

tanks with host nation funding on U.S. installations in various locations in

South Korea. Also, U.S. Forces Korea identified one base that was closed 

for which environmental information had been exchanged; however, the 

Most of This Year’s Plans 

Provided Descriptions of 

Environmental Challenges 

Page 15 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
command was still in the process of returning the base to the government 

of South Korea. This year, U.S. European Command included information 

on the progress of the environmental cleanup of contaminated sites at 

Rhein Main Air Base, Germany. The command identified that some sites 

had been cleaned, others needed further investigation, but all

investigations are expected to be completed at the earliest by the end of 

2012. Because there were no environmental issues in the command’s area 

of responsibility, according to a command official, U.S. Central Command

did not report any environmental issues. 

Over the years, OSD has modified its guidance for preparing the overseas 

master plans in an effort to address our prior recommendations related to 

the following topics: 

Overseas Master Plans 

Generally Address Our 

Prior Recommendations 

• Facility requirements and costs. This year, all of the regional 

commands identified their precise facility requirements and costs for fiscal 

years 2009 through 2014, and reported estimated facility sustainment and

recapitalization costs for fiscal year 2009. 

• Base categories. This year, all of the commands categorized their 

installations into applicable base categories of main operating base, 

forward operating site, and cooperative security location, which provided 

users a clearer picture of the infrastructure plans and requirements at 

these sites. The commands also supplemented the information on base 

categories with detailed data on the installations’ capabilities, overall 

mission, population, and types of equipment and facilities located at each 

site. 

• End state date. This year, all of the commands identified a common 

strategic end state date, which identifies the last fiscal year of the 

construction time frame and thus provides users a more complete and

clearer basis for tracking progress in meeting the command infrastructure 

objectives for their areas of responsibility. 

• Host nation funding levels. This year, all of the commands reported 

host nation funding levels at the project level for fiscal year 2009 and at the 

aggregate level for fiscal years 2010 through 2014, which provided users a 

better basis to determine the extent to which U.S. funding is needed for 

facility requirements.27

• Effects of other defense activities. This year, all of the commands 

described the effects of other defense activities on implementation of their 

 27During our review of the fiscal year 2009 master plans, we found that U.S. European 

Command had omitted $153 million in host nation funding for 17 projects. 

Page 16 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
master plans. For example, both U.S. European Command and U.S. 

Central Command described how the development of U.S. Africa 

Command would affect their commands and the increased need to 

coordinate efforts in the future. 

Until this year, the overseas master plans have not discussed residual 

value even though we have recommended that they should. In response to 

this recommendation, OSD and command officials stated that residual 

value could not be readily predicted and therefore should not be assumed 

in the master plans.28 These officials also reported that residual value 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. However, we have

always maintained that since these issues vary by host nation and may not

be clear to all users of the plans, 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. This 

year, U.S. European Command described the difficult and lengthy process 

to return and negotiate the value of facilities to address our prior 

recommendation.29 The command noted that attempting to forecast 

residual value would not be prudent fiscal planning because of the 

uncertainties in receiving residual value, such as the negotiated price to be

paid. After we received the U.S. European Command plan, command 

officials provided data showing that the U.S. government has received 

approximately $656 million in residual value and payment-in-kind 

compensation since 1989. Payment-in-kind projects include installation of

water, sewer, electrical, and communication lines, and quality of life 

projects, such as dormitories and neighborhood renovations. 

While the overseas master plans have continued to evolve and have 

provided more comprehensive data every year since fiscal year 2006, the 

U.S. Pacific Command master plan does not describe the challenges the 

command faces in addressing the U.S. Air Force’s training limitations in 

South Korea even though we have recommended that it should describe 

the challenges and their potential effects on infrastructure and funding 

No Recognition of the Training 

Challenges in South Korea 

 28See GAO-07-1015. 

29In U.S. Pacific Command’s area of responsibility, there is no need for international 

agreements to provide for residual value because host nations generally provide 

replacement facilities. Arrangements vary by country in U.S. Central Command, where six 

host nations have agreements to allow for residual value negotiations and nine countries

have no such agreements. 

Page 17 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
requirements. While DOD officials indicated that the Air Force’s training 

conditions have improved on the Korean peninsula, this information was 

not provided in the U.S. Pacific Command’s plan.

For several years, the government of South Korea has attempted to 

relocate the Koon-Ni training range, which had served as the primary airto-ground range for the Seventh Air Force. The air and ground range 

management of the Koon-Ni training range was transferred to the 

government of South Korea, which closed the range in August 2005. While 

there is an agreement with the government of South Korea to enable U.S. 

forces to train at other ranges, according to senior Air Force and U.S. 

Forces Korea officials, the other ranges do not provide electronic scoring 

capabilities necessary to meet the Air Force’s air-to-surface training 

requirements and there is difficulty in obtaining access to these ranges. In

technical comments on a draft of this report, DOD officials said that the 

South Korean government has increased the U.S. Air Force’s access to airto-ground training ranges and improved one training site. DOD also noted 

that newly agreed upon airspace management practices are expected to

facilitate more training opportunities for U.S. Air Force pilots in South 

Korea. However, U.S. Pacific Command did not discuss the progress made 

in addressing these training challenges in its fiscal year 2009 overseas 

master plan. 

Though it omits the training challenges and progress in South Korea, the 

U.S. Pacific Command plan provides details on the training limitations in 

Japan. The plan discussed training limitations on carrier landing practice 

and the need for aircraft from Naval Air Facility Atsugi to train at Iwo 

Jima, Japan, which is considered a hardship due to the extra distance the 

aircraft need to fly to Iwo Jima. Currently, the United States and 

government of Japan are reviewing options that would provide the Naval

Air Facility Atsugi access to closer training ranges. The plan also discusses 

how noise and land use sensitivities and maneuver area limitations in 

Okinawa require U.S. forces to deploy to other Pacific locations to 

supplement their training. It also describes efforts by U.S. Forces Japan 

and the government of Japan to engage in bilateral discussions to address 

these training shortfalls and explore solutions. 

DOD has recently submitted the overseas master plans to Congress several 

months after the annual budget submissions even though the Senate and 

conference reports accompanying the fiscal year 2004 military 

construction appropriation bill directed DOD to provide updates of the 

master plans with each yearly military construction budget submission. 

Overseas Master Plans 

Generally Have Been 

Submitted to Congress 

Late 

Page 18 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Recently, the Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2009 military 

construction appropriations bill expressed concern about DOD’s frequent 

failure to comply with deadlines for submitting congressionally mandated

reports.30 According to the Senate report, many of these mandated reports 

are planning documents, intended to demonstrate that DOD is adequately 

coordinating its many ongoing initiatives, such as the Global Defense 

Posture moves and the Grow the Force initiative.31 The Senate report 

further noted that these mandated reports are necessary to ensure proper 

congressional oversight and to inform congressional decisions related to

DOD’s budget requests.

Congressional staff members have stressed to us the importance of DOD 

providing the defense committees the overseas master plans at the same 

time as the annual budget submission. The President generally submits the 

administration’s budget submissions in February of each year.

32 However, 

DOD provided the defense committees the fiscal year 2007 plans on April 

27 and the fiscal year 2008 plans on March 28. This year, DOD submitted

the plans to Congress in mid-May, 3 months after the fiscal 2009 military 

construction budget submission was provided to Congress. According to 

DOD officials, OSD’s most recent efforts to incorporate last-minute 

changes in basing plans and projects contributed to providing Congress 

the plans months after the military construction budget submission. In 

addition, overseas command officials commented that the lengthy review

and approval process among the commands and OSD has contributed to 

the plans’ lateness. 

In comments on a draft of this report, DOD said that it intends to replace 

the overseas master plans with annual updates of its global defense 

posture as the department’s overseas planning report to Congress. 

Because of continued concern over the possibility of changes to the global 

defense posture, the Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2009 

military construction appropriation bill extended the requirement for DOD 

 30S. Rep. No. 110-428, at 12 (2008). 

31In January 2007, the President announced an initiative, referred to as Grow the Force, to

increase the end strength in the Army by more than 74,000 by 2013 and in the Marine Corps

by 27,000 personnel by 2011 to enhance U.S. forces, reduce stress on deployable personnel,

and provide necessary forces for success in the Global War on Terrorism.

32The President is required to submit a budget for the following fiscal year to Congress on 

or after the first Monday in January but not later than the first Monday in February. See 31

U.S.C. § 1105. 

Page 19 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
to provide annually updated reports on the status of its global basing 

initiative to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 

Congress.33 These global basing reports are to be submitted with the 

administration’s budget submissions each year through fiscal year 2014

and should include, at a minimum, an overview of the current overseas 

basing strategy and an explanation of any changes to the strategy; the

status of host nation negotiations; the cost to date of implementing the 

military construction elements of the strategy; an updated estimate of the 

cost to complete the construction program; and an updated timeline for 

implementing the strategy. The Senate report further noted that the timely 

filing of these reports is essential to the ability of the committee to 

exercise its oversight responsibilities, and it is therefore important that 

DOD adhere to the schedule and provide these reports at the same time as 

the annual budget submission. Since the department will continue to 

report on its overseas planning to Congress, DOD has an opportunity to 

reexamine its timeline for producing these reports and provide them to 

Congress with the administration’s annual budget submission to provide 

Congress with adequate time for review. Without access to these reports 

on a timely basis, congressional committees may not have the information 

needed at the appropriate time to prepare the annual defense and military 

construction legislation and to carry out oversight responsibilities of 

DOD’s global realignment of U.S. forces and installations overseas. 

DOD has established various planning and implementation documents that 

serve as a framework to guide the military realignment and buildup on 

Guam. However, the department has not issued a comprehensive master 

plan for the buildup that was initially due in December 2006, which 

Congress later extended to September 2008. While the Joint Guam 

Program Office is coordinating the development of a working-level plan 

for DOD that is to be submitted to Congress by the 2008 deadline, this is a 

onetime requirement, and DOD officials said that this plan will be a 

snapshot of the status of the planning process at the time of its completion 

and will not be considered a comprehensive master plan for several 

reasons. First, the results of the environmental impact statement and 

resulting record of decision on the proposed military buildup, which are 

expected to be completed by January 2010, will influence many key 

decisions about the military infrastructure development on Guam. Also, 

Joint Guam Program Office officials estimate that the office could 

DOD Has Established 

a Framework for 

Military Buildup on 

Guam but Has Yet to 

Develop the 

Congressionally 

Required Master Plan 

 33S. Rep. No. 110-428 at 10 (2008). 

Page 20 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
complete a comprehensive master plan for Guam within 90 days once 

these documents are completed. Second, plans for the detailed force 

composition of units relocating to Guam, associated facility requirements, 

and implications for other services’ realignments on Guam continue to be 

refined. Third, additional time is needed to fully address the challenges 

related to funding uncertainties, operational requirements, and Guam’s 

economic and infrastructure requirements. 

DOD has established various planning and implementation documents that 

serve as a framework to guide the military realignment and buildup on 

Guam. Originally, the Marine Corps realignment was discussed in the U.S.-

Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative, which established the framework 

for the future of the U.S. force structure in Japan. The Japan Ministry of 

Defense reported that based on bilateral meetings in 2005 and 2006, the 

government of Japan had decided to support the United States in its 

development of necessary facilities and infrastructure, including 

headquarters buildings, barracks, and family housing, to hasten the 

process of moving Marine Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam. In July 

2006, U.S. Pacific Command developed the Guam Integrated Military 

Development Plan to provide an overview of the projected military 

population and infrastructure requirements.34 The plan is based on a 

notional force structure that was used to generate land and facility 

requirements for basing, operations, logistics, training, and quality of life

involving the Marine Corps, Army, Air Force, Navy, and Special Operations 

Forces in Guam. However, this plan is not considered a master plan for the 

military buildup and provides limited information on the expected effects

of the military buildup on the local community and off-base infrastructure. 

The Joint Guam Program Office has completed its first phase of the Guam 

planning process and developed basic facility requirements with general

cost estimates, mapping concepts, and land use plans with preferred 

alternatives. Through an analysis of available land on the island and DOD 

preliminary operational requirements, the joint office has identified 

alternative sites for the Marine Corps main encampment, family housing, 

and aviation operations and training and for the Navy transient aircraft 

carrier pier. However, the office has not identified its preferred sites for 

the ballistic missile defense task force and firing and nonfiring training 

DOD Has Established a 

Framework for Military 

Realignment and Buildup 

 34U.S. Pacific Command, Guam Integrated Military Development Plan (Camp H.M. Smith,

Hawaii: July 11, 2006). 

Page 21 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
ranges. According to Joint Guam Program Office officials, the second 

phase of planning is in progress and will include more details, including 

more specific information on the placement of buildings, roads, training 

facilities, and utilities systems. 

The Joint Guam Program Office is coordinating the multi-service 

development of a working-level plan for DOD that is expected to be 

submitted to congressional staff in September 2008. However, this is a 

onetime requirement, and DOD officials said that this working-level plan 

will not be considered a final comprehensive master plan. According to 

Joint Guam Program Office officials, the working-level plan will be a 

snapshot of the status of the planning process at the time of its 

completion. It is being developed to provide DOD components with an 

opportunity to review and provide input. Moreover, the plan will address 

the realignment of Marine Corps forces in the context of other DODproposed actions on Guam, including the Navy’s plan to enhance its 

infrastructure, logistics capabilities, and waterfront facilities and the 

Army’s plan to place a ballistic missile defense task force on Guam. 

Before the Joint Guam Program Office can finalize its Guam master plan 

and finalize key decisions, it will need to complete the environmental 

impact statement and the resulting record of decision required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

35 DOD officials said that the 

results of these documents will influence many key decisions on the exact 

location, size, and makeup of the military infrastructure development on 

Guam. However, according to these officials, the environmental impact 

statement and record of decision are not expected to be completed until 

December 2009 and January 2010, respectively. Joint Guam Program 

Office officials stated that development of a comprehensive master plan 

for the military buildup on Guam depended on the completion date of the 

record of decision and estimated that the office could complete a master 

plan within 90 days once the record of decision is finalized. 

On March 7, 2007, the Navy issued a public notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement pursuant to the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,

36 as implemented by the 

Environmental Impact 

Statement and Record of 

Decision Are Needed to 

Make Key Decisions but 

Will Not Be Completed 

until 2010 

 35National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 4321-4347. 

36National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 4321-4347. 

Page 22 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Council on Environmental Quality Regulations,37 and Executive Order 

12114. The notice of intent in the Federal Register38 states that the 

environmental impact statement will: 

• Examine the potential environmental effects associated with relocating 

Marine Corps command, air, ground, and logistics units (which comprise 

approximately 8,000 Marines and their estimated 9,000 dependents) from 

Okinawa to Guam. The environmental impact statement will examine 

potential effects from activities associated with Marine Corps units’ 

relocation including operations, training, and infrastructure changes. 

• Examine the Navy’s plan to enhance the infrastructure, logistic

capabilities, and pier/waterfront facilities to support transient nuclear 

aircraft carrier berthing at Naval Base Guam. The environmental impact 

statement will examine potential effects of the waterfront improvements 

associated with the proposed transient berthing.

• Evaluate placing a ballistic missile defense task force (approximately 630 

soldiers and their estimated 950 dependents) in Guam. The environmental 

impact statement will examine potential effects from activities associated 

with the task force, including operations, training, and needed 

infrastructure changes. 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the regulations 

established by the Council on Environmental Quality, an environmental 

impact statement must include a purpose and need statement, a 

description of all reasonable project alternatives and their environmental 

effects (including a “no action” alternative), a description of the 

environment of the area to be affected or created by the alternatives being 

considered, and an analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed

action and each alternative.39 Further, accurate scientific analysis, expert 

agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. For example, federal agencies

such as DOD are required to ensure the professional integrity, including 

scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses contained in the 

environmental impact statement. Additionally, after preparing a draft 

environmental impact statement, federal agencies such as DOD are 

required to obtain the comments of any federal agency that has 

jurisdiction by law or certain special expertise and request the comments 

 3740 C.F.R. pts. 1500-1508. 

3872 Fed. Reg. 10186-7 (Mar. 7, 2007). 

3940 C.F.R. § 1502.13-1502.16. 

Page 23 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
of appropriate state and local agencies, Native American tribes, and any 

agency that has requested that it receive such statements. Following the 

final environmental impact statement, DOD will prepare a record of 

decision that will state what the decision is for the proposed military 

buildup on Guam; identify alternatives considered and specify those that 

are environmentally preferable; state whether all practicable mitigation 

measures were adopted, and if not, explain why; and commit to a 

monitoring and enforcement program to ensure implementation of 

mitigation measures. Until an agency issues a final environmental impact 

statement and record of decision, it generally may not take any action 

concerning the proposal that would either have adverse environmental 

effects or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. 

DOD officials stated that performing these alternative site analyses and 

cumulative effects analyses may delay the completion of a comprehensive 

master plan and affect the construction schedule of the required military 

facilities and infrastructure. DOD will submit its fiscal year 2010 budget 

request to Congress for the first phase of military construction projects 

prior to the completion of the environmental impact statement. Thus, DOD 

may be asking Congress to fund the military construction projects without 

the benefit of a completed environmental impact statement or a final 

decision on the full extent of its facility and funding requirements. DOD 

officials said that this practice is consistent with the department’s normal 

planning, programming, and budgeting procedures routinely used for 

large-scale construction projects. In such cases, construction projects are

not awarded and funds are not expended until after the record of decision

is completed. Joint Guam Program Office officials told us that immediately 

after the environmental impact statement and record of decision are 

completed, the department will commence construction of facilities in 

efforts to meet the 2014 goal of moving Marines and their dependents from 

Okinawa to Guam. However, some DOD and government of Guam officials 

believe that this is an ambitious schedule considering the possibility that 

the environmental impact statement could be delayed, the complexities of 

moving thousands of Marines and dependents from Okinawa to Guam, and 

the need to obtain funding from the United States and Japan to support 

military construction projects. 

Although the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative identifies Marine 

Corps units to move to Guam, plans for the detailed force composition of 

units relocating to Guam, associated facility requirements, and 

implications for other services’ realignments on Guam continue to be 

refined. The U.S.-Japan realignment roadmap states that approximately 

Size and Makeup of Forces 

and Other Variables Are 

Not Yet Known 

Page 24 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
8,000 Marines and their dependents will relocate to Guam. These units 

include the Third Marine Expeditionary Force’s command element and its 

major subordinate command headquarters: the Third Marine Division 

Headquarters, Third Marine Logistics Group Headquarters, 1st Marine Air 

Wing Headquarters, and 12th Marine Regiment Headquarters. The Marine 

Corps forces remaining on Okinawa will consist of Marine Air-Ground 

Task Force elements. 

Marine Corps officials said that the Corps was reviewing its Pacific force 

posture and associated requirements for training operations on Guam in 

light of DOD’s plan to increase the number of Marines under the Grow the 

Force initiative. At this time, no decisions have been made on whether to 

deploy additional forces to Guam under this initiative. If such a decision is

made, the government of Japan would have no commitment to support 

such additional forces on Guam. 

The type of missions to be supported from Guam is a key factor in the 

planning for infrastructure capabilities. The operational, housing, utilities, 

and installation support facilities needed on Guam depend on the type, 

size, frequency, and number of units; units may be permanent, rotational, 

or transient. Desired capabilities and force structure define the training 

and facility requirements, such as the number and size of airfield facilities, 

ranges, family housing units, barracks, and schools and the capacity of the 

installation support facilities needed to support operations and the 

military population. Accordingly, Joint Guam Program Office officials said 

that the master plan they were initiating will reflect efforts to build 

“flexible” infrastructure, such as site preparation and utilities, that may 

operate on Guam. 

DOD faces several significant challenges associated with the military 

buildup on Guam, including addressing funding and operational challenges 

and community and infrastructure impacts, which could affect the 

development and implementation of its planning efforts. First, DOD has 

not identified all funding requirements and may encounter difficulties in 

obtaining funding given competing priorities within the department. 

Second, DOD officials need to address the operational and training 

limitations on Guam, such as for sealift and airlift capabilities, and training 

requirements for thousands of Marines. Third, the increase in military 

personnel and their dependents on Guam and the large number of 

construction workers needed to build the required military facilities will 

create challenges for Guam’s community and civilian infrastructure. 

DOD Has Not Yet Fully 

Addressed the Funding, 

Operational, and Local 

Infrastructure Challenges 

of Relocating to Guam 

Page 25 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
DOD officials have yet to fully identify the funding requirements to 

support the military buildup on Guam. The military services’ realignments

on Guam are estimated to cost over $13 billion; of that, the Marine Corps 

buildup is estimated to cost $10.3 billion. Additionally, the $13 billion 

estimate excludes the costs of all other defense organizations that will be 

needed to support the additional military personnel and dependents on 

Guam. For example, DOD agencies, including the Defense Logistics 

Agency and the Defense Commissary Agency, will likely incur additional 

costs to execute their missions to help support the services’ influx of 

personnel, missions, and equipment to Guam. 

Recently, Marine Forces Pacific officials estimated that the Marine Corps 

realignment on Guam alone will exceed $15 billion, which is significantly 

higher than the original $10.3 billion estimate. These additional operational

costs include the cost of high-speed vessels (procurement and 

maintenance) to move Marines to and from Guam; training-related costs in 

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; relocation costs for 

personnel, equipment, and material to Guam; costs of facility furnishings, 

such as furniture and office equipment; and real estate costs if additional 

land is required in Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands. These officials have also identified base operational and 

maintenance costs that will be funded with U.S. appropriations after the 

move to Guam but are currently reimbursed by the government of Japan 

through its host nation funding programs like the Japan Facility 

Improvement Program and special measures agreements that provide 

support for labor and utility services for Marine Corps bases in Okinawa. 

In addition, cost estimates for the relocation of forces to Guam do not 

include all costs associated with the development of several training 

ranges for the Marine Corps in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands—

estimated to cost $2 billion. Also, the Marine Corps estimates that the 

strategic lift operating from Guam will cost an additional $88 million 

annually as compared with operations from Okinawa. 

Some uncertainties also exist in the cost-sharing arrangement with the 

government of Japan. The government of Japan is expected to contribute a 

total of $6.09 billion of which up to $2.8 billion would be in funds without 

reimbursement for the construction of operational and support 

infrastructure, such as barracks and office buildings. The government of 

Japan is also expected to provide the remainder, another $3.3 billion, in 

loans and equity investments for installation support infrastructure, such 

as on-base power and water systems, and military family housing. Most of 

this $3.3 billion is planned to be recouped over time by the government of 

Japan in the form of service charges paid by the Marine Corps and in rents 

Funding Requirements Are Not 

Fully Identified 

Page 26 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
paid by U.S. servicemembers with their overseas housing allowances 

provided by DOD using funds appropriated by Congress. Also, according 

to DOD officials, several conditions must be met before the government of 

Japan contributes some or all of the $6.09 billion to the cost of the Marine 

Corps move. First, the government of Japan has stipulated that its funds 

will not be made available until it has reviewed and agreed to specific 

infrastructure plans for Guam. Second, failure or delay of any initiative 

outlined in the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative may affect 

another, because various planning variables need to fall into place in order 

for the initiatives to move forward. For example, according to DOD, the 

commencement of facility construction on Guam in fiscal year 2010 

depends on the government of Japan showing progress in the construction 

of the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma replacement facility. Finally, the 

government of Japan may encounter challenges in funding its share of the 

Marine Corps move considering Japan’s other national priorities and its 

commitments associated with funding several other major realignments of 

U.S. forces in Japan under the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative. 

DOD also has not fully addressed operational challenges, such as 

providing appropriate mobility support and training capabilities to meet 

Marine Corps requirements. According to Marine Forces Pacific officials, 

the Marine Corps in Guam will depend on strategic military sealift and 

airlift to reach destinations in Asia that will be farther away than was the 

case when the units were based in Okinawa. For example, in a 

contingency operation that requires sealift, the ships may have to deploy

from Sasebo, Japan, or other locations to collect the Marines and their 

equipment on Guam and then go to the area where the contingency is 

taking place, potentially risking a delayed arrival at certain potential 

trouble spots since Guam is farther away from these locations than 

Okinawa. According to Marine Corps officials, amphibious shipping 

capability and airlift capacity are needed in Guam, which may include 

expanding existing staging facilities and systems support for both sealift 

and airlift. 

Existing training ranges and facilities on Guam are not sufficient to meet 

the training requirements of the projected Marine Corps force. A DOD 

analysis of training opportunities in Guam concluded that no ranges on 

Guam are suitable for the needs of the projected Marine Corps force 

because of inadequacy in size or lack of availability. U.S. Pacific Command 

is also in the process of conducting a training study that covers Guam and 

the Northern Mariana Islands to see what options are available for training

in the region. Marine Forces Pacific officials stated that live-fire artillery 

training, amphibious landings, and tracked vehicle operations will be 

Operational and Training 

Challenges 

Page 27 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
challenging because of the combination of factors associated with the 

limited size of training areas available and the environmental concerns on

the Northern Mariana Islands. 

The increase in military presence is expected to have a significant impact

on Guam’s community and public infrastructure; however, these potential

effects have yet to be fully addressed. This undertaking is estimated to 

increase the current Guam population of approximately 171,000 by an 

estimated 25,000 active duty military personnel and dependents (or 14.6 

percent) to 196,000. The Guam population could also swell further 

because DOD’s personnel estimates do not include defense civilians and 

contractors who are also likely to move to Guam to support DOD 

operations. DOD officials estimate that they will require 500 defense 

civilians and contractors to support the Marine Corps base operations; 

however, they expect many of these jobs to be filled by military spouses or 

the local population. This estimate does not include personnel for other 

service realignments on Guam. 

DOD and government of Guam officials recognize that the increase in 

construction due to the military buildup will exceed local capacity and the 

availability of local workers. For example, DOD officials cite a July 2008 

study that estimated the annual construction capacity to be approximately 

$1 billion to $1.5 billion and potentially $2.5 billion with improvements to 

the port and road networks compared with the estimated construction 

capacity of more than $3 billion per year needed by DOD to meet the 

planned fiscal year 2014 completion date. In addition, Guam currently 

faces a shortage of skilled construction workers. Preliminary analysis 

indicates that 15,000 to 20,000 construction workers will be required to 

support the projected development on Guam. One estimate is that Guam 

may be able to meet only 10 to 15 percent of the labor requirement locally. 

Nearby countries may have workers willing to come to Guam to take jobs 

to construct needed facilities, but these workers will have to enter the 

United States on temporary nonagricultural workers visas.40 Joint Guam 

Program Office officials cite the recently passed legislation that will 

increase the cap of temporary workers in Guam from 2009 until 2014 as 

addressing many of their concerns about temporary workers’ visas.41 At 

Increase in Military Presence Is 

Expected to Have Significant 

Impact on the Local 

Community and Public 

Infrastructure 

 40This requirement would not apply to citizens from the freely associated states of the

Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau who may enter the Under States, including Guam, 

to work without visas under the terms outlined in each country’s compact of free 

association with the United States. 

41Pub. L. No. 110-229 § 702 (2008). 

Page 28 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
the same time, the government of Guam reports that the influx of foreign 

workers would put a strain on local emergency care services, medical 

facilities, public utilities, transportation networks, and the availability of 

temporary housing.42

In addition, as we recently testified, DOD and government of Guam 

officials recognize that the island’s infrastructure is inadequate to meet the 

increased demand due to the military buildup.43 For example: 

• Guam’s commercial port has capacity constraints with pier berthing space, 

crane operations, and container storage locations. 

• Guam’s two major highways are in poor condition and, when ordnance 

(ammunition and explosives) is unloaded from ships for Andersen Air 

Force Base now and for the Marine Corps in the future, the ordnance must 

be transported on one of these major roads that run through highly 

populated areas. 

• Guam’s electrical system—the sole power provider on the island—is not 

reliable and has transmission problems resulting in brownouts and voltage 

and frequency fluctuations. The system may not be adequate to deliver the 

additional energy requirements associated with the military buildup. 

• Guam’s water and wastewater treatment systems are near capacity and 

have a history of failure due to aged and deteriorated distribution lines. 

The military buildup may increase demand by at least 25 percent. 

• Guam’s solid waste facilities face capacity and environmental challenges 

as they have reached the end of their useful life. Currently, the solid waste 

landfills in Guam have a number of unresolved issues related to discharge 

of pollutants and are near capacity. 

Government of Guam officials stated that Guam will require significant 

funding to address anticipated public infrastructure challenges; however,

these officials have not identified sufficient resources necessary to 

support this buildup. In a recent congressional hearing, the Governor of 

Guam testified that the government of Guam will need $6.1 billion to 

address infrastructure upgrades, such as projects regarding the port 

expansion, road enhancements, power and water upgrades, education, and

 42Civilian Military Task Force, Planning for Military Growth: November 2007 Needs

Assessment (Hagåtña, Guam: November 2007). 

43See GAO-08-722T. 

Page 29 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
public health improvements.44 These costs are separate from and in 

addition to DOD’s cost estimates of the military realignments on Guam. 

The evolution of U.S. overseas defense basing strategies and infrastructure 

requirements continues, as reflected in the fiscal year 2009 overseas 

master plans, and many efforts to consolidate, realign, and shift the U.S. 

military presence globally are still under way and are years from 

completion. For the last 4 years, the overseas master plans have been an 

important means for keeping Congress informed of the challenges DOD 

faces and the costs associated with such efforts. However, DOD has 

submitted the plans to the congressional defense committees months after 

the annual budget submissions even though the congressional reporting 

requirement directs that updates of the plans be provided with each yearly 

budget submission. Recently, a congressional committee report expressed 

concern about the department’s frequent failure to comply with deadlines

for submitting mandated reports and reiterated the importance of 

receiving the reports in a timely manner.45 The timely filing of the 

department’s mandated reports was seen as essential to supporting the 

committee’s need for current information when making decisions related 

to DOD’s budget requests and to permit the committee to effectively 

exercise its oversight responsibilities. Without having the mandated 

reports in a timely manner, Congress is likely to be missing up-to-date 

information needed for making funding decisions and carrying out its 

oversight responsibilities. Since DOD intends to replace the overseas 

master plans with annual updates of its global defense posture as DOD’s 

overseas planning report to Congress, the department has an opportunity 

to reexamine its timeline for producing these reports to issue them with 

the administration’s annual budget submission to provide Congress with 

adequate time for review. 

With respect to the military buildup on Guam, it is likely that it will be 

2010 or later before DOD is able to complete a comprehensive master plan 

for the military buildup. A comprehensive master plan is important for 

Congress, as it helps to ensure that Congress has a complete picture of 

facility requirements and associated costs in order to make appropriate 

Conclusions 

 44Governor of Guam statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, The United States Military Buildup on Guam: Impact on the Civilian

Community, Planning, and Response (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2008). 

45S. Rep. No. 110-428, at 12 (2008). 

Page 30 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
funding decisions and to assist DOD, federal departments and agencies, 

the government of Guam, and other organizations in addressing the 

challenges associated with the military buildup. At the same time, it is 

reasonable to expect that until DOD has the results of the environmental 

impact statement and record of decision required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, it will not be able to finalize a 

comprehensive master plan for the reasons that we stated in our report. 

Meanwhile, the Joint Guam Program Office is coordinating the multiservice development of a working-level plan for DOD that is to be 

submitted to Congress in September 2008. However, no requirement exists 

to report periodically on the status of DOD’s planning efforts after this 

date. In our 2007 report, we suggested that Congress consider requiring 

the Secretary of Defense to report periodically to the defense committees 

on the status of the department’s planning efforts for Guam to help ensure 

the best application of federal funds and leveraging of options for 

supporting the military buildup until DOD finalizes a comprehensive 

master plan.46 Because of the uncertainty in DOD’s plans for the military 

buildup, we continue to believe that this approach has merit and that the 

defense committees would find annual updates of the Joint Guam Program 

Office’s working-level plan for Guam useful to inform congressional 

decisions and ensure proper congressional oversight from September 2008 

to the date on which the office completes its comprehensive master plan, 

currently expected no sooner than 2010. 

To inform congressional decisions and ensure proper congressional 

oversight, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following

two actions: 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

• Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and

Logistics to initiate a process of developing global defense posture 

updates earlier each year so that DOD can provide the congressional 

defense committees the overseas planning report with the administration’s 

annual budget submission. 

• Direct the Executive Director of the Joint Guam Program Office to provide 

the congressional defense committees with annual updates of the Guam 

working-level plan until a comprehensive master plan is finalized and 

submitted to Congress. 

 46See GAO-07-1015. 

Page 31 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially agreed with 

our recommendation to initiate a process of developing future overseas 

master plans earlier each year so that DOD can provide them to the 

congressional defense committees with the administration’s annual budget 

submission, and agreed with our recommendation to provide the 

congressional defense committees with annual updates of the Guam 

working-level plan until a comprehensive master plan is finalized and 

submitted to Congress. While DOD partially agreed with the first 

recommendation, it also stated that it plans to replace the expired 

requirements for the overseas master plans with annual updates of its 

global defense posture as DOD’s overseas planning report to Congress. 

DOD further commented that the report development process will support 

submission with the administration’s annual budget request. Since the 

Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2009 military construction 

appropriation bill requires that these updates include data similar to those 

presented in prior master plans and explains that the timely filing of 

mandated reports is essential to the ability of the committee to exercise its 

oversight responsibilities,47 we believe that this effort to replace the 

overseas master plans with the global defense posture updates will meet 

the intent of our original recommendation. Therefore, we revised our 

recommendation to reflect that DOD plans to replace the master plans 

with annual updates of its global defense posture as the department’s 

overseas planning report to Congress. 

DOD’s comments are reprinted in appendix II. DOD also provided 

technical comments, which we have incorporated into the report as 

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the 

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

the Marine Corps; the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command; the 

Commander, U.S. European Command; the Commander, U.S. Central 

Command, and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies 

will be made available to others upon request. In addition, this report will 

be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at 

(202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

 47S. Rep. No. 110-428. 

Page 32 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. The GAO staff members who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix III. 

Brian J. Lepore, Director

Defense Capabilities and Management 

Page 33 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
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 Thad Cochran 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Tim Johnson 

Chairman 

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Military Construction, 

Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies 

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 

Page 34 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
The Honorable Chet Edwards 

Chairman 

The Honorable Zach Wamp 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Military Construction, 

Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Page 35 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To determine the extent to which the fiscal year 2009 overseas master 

plans have addressed changes since the last plans, the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) challenges, and our prior recommendations, and to 

examine their timeliness, we analyzed the overseas master plans and 

compared them to the reporting requirements in the congressional 

mandate and the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s (OSD) guidance. We

compared and contrasted the fiscal years 2008 and 2009 overseas master 

plans in order to identify improvements and updated challenges in the 

plans. We also assessed the quantity and quality of the data describing the 

base categories, host nation funding levels, facility requirements and costs, 

environmental remediation issues, and other issues affecting the 

implementation of the plans. To discuss the reporting requirements, host 

nation agreements and funding levels, U.S. funding levels and sources, 

environmental remediation and restoration issues, property returns, 

residual value, and training requirements, we met with officials from OSD; 

U.S. Pacific Command; U.S. Army Pacific; U.S. Pacific Fleet; U.S. Marine 

Forces Pacific; U.S. Pacific Air Forces; U.S. Forces Korea; U.S. Eighth 

Army; Seventh Air Force; U.S. Naval Forces Korea; U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Far East District; U.S. Forces Japan; U.S. Army Japan; U.S. Air 

Forces Japan; U.S. Naval Forces Japan; U.S. Marine Forces Japan; Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command Far East, Japan; U.S. European 

Command; U.S. Army Europe; U.S. Naval Forces Europe; U.S. Air Force 

Europe; U.S. Central Command; and U.S. Special Operations Command. 

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

international agreements, and guidance to keep abreast of ongoing 

changes in overseas defense basing strategies and requirements. To 

directly observe the condition of facilities and the status of selected

construction projects, we visited and toured facilities at Garrison 

Wiesbaden and Garrison Grafenwoehr, Germany; Camp Schwab, Camp 

Zama, Yokosuka Naval Base, and Yokota Air Base, Japan; and Yongsan 

Army Garrison and Garrison Humphreys, South Korea. 

To determine the status of DOD’s planning efforts for the Guam military 

buildup, we met with officials from OSD, the Air Force, the Navy, U.S. 

Pacific Command, and the Joint Guam Program Office. In general, we 

discussed the current planning framework for the military buildup, the 

schedule and development of a comprehensive master plan, and the status 

of the environmental impact study required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969. In addition, we met with officials from U.S. Pacific

Fleet; U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Pacific; U.S. Marine Forces Japan; Third 

Marine Expeditionary Forces; U.S. Forces Japan; U.S. Army Pacific; and 

Pacific Air Forces to discuss the challenges and various factors that can 

affect U.S. infrastructure requirements and costs associated with the 

Page 36 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

military buildup, to determine if funding requirements to accommodate 

the buildup have been identified, and to identify operational and training 

challenges associated with the buildup. We also visited Naval Base Guam; 

Andersen Air Force Base, Guam; and other military sites in Guam to 

directly observe the installations and future military construction sites. We 

analyzed available reports, documents, and international agreements to 

keep abreast of ongoing activities in Guam pertaining to challenges that 

may affect DOD’s development and implementation of a comprehensive 

master plan for the military buildup. To identify the funding and local 

infrastructure challenges, we met with the Governor and his staff, Guam 

Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives, and representatives from 

the Guam legislature, the Mayors’ Council of Guam, the Guam Chamber of 

Commerce, Guam’s Civilian Military Task Force, and community groups 

on Guam. 

We met with U.S. Special Operations Command officials; however, its 

planning efforts were not specifically required for the overseas master 

plans in response to the congressional mandates. In addition, we did not 

include U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Northern Command in our 

analysis because these commands have significantly fewer facilities 

overseas than the other regional commands in the Pacific, Europe, and 

Central Asia. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2007 through 

August 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. 

Page 37 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense 

of Defense 

Page 38 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 39 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 40 GAO-08-1005

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Brian J. Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Mark Little, Assistant Director; 

Nelsie Alcoser; Mae Jones; Kate Lenane; Julia Matta; and Jamilah Moon 

made major contributions to this report. 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

Defense Infrastructure
Related GAO Products 

Page 41 GAO-08-1005

Related GAO Products 

Force Structure: Preliminary Observations on the Progress and 

Challenges Associated with Establishing the U.S. Africa Command. 

GAO-08-947T. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2008. 

Defense Infrastructure: Overseas Master Plans Are Improving, but DOD 

Needs to Provide Congress Additional Information about the Military 

Buildup on Guam. GAO-07-1015. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2007. 

Defense Management: Comprehensive Strategy and Annual Reporting 

Are Needed to Measure Progress and Costs of DOD’s Global Posture 

Restructuring. GAO-06-852. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2006. 

DOD’s Overseas Infrastructure Master Plans Continue to Evolve. GAO06-913R. Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2006. 

Opportunities Exist to Improve Comprehensive Master Plans for 

Changing U.S. Defense Infrastructure Overseas. GAO-05-680R. 

Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2005. 

Defense Infrastructure: Factors Affecting U.S. Infrastructure Costs 

Overseas and the Development of Comprehensive Master Plans. GAO-04-

609NI. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004. 

Overseas Presence: Issues Involved in Reducing the Impact of the U.S. 

Military Presence on Okinawa. GAO/NSIAD-98-66. Washington, D.C.: 

March 2, 1998. 

Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help 

Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth. GAO08-665. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2008. 

Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and Road 

Improvements Surrounding Growth Installations. GAO-08-602R. 

Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2008. 

Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase Risks for Providing Timely 

Infrastructure Support for Army Installations Expecting Substantial 

Personnel Growth. GAO-07-1007. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007. 

Overseas Master 

Plans/Global Posture 

Community Growth Bases 

Defense Infrastructure
Related GAO Products 

U.S. Insular Areas Defense Logistics: Navy Needs to Develop and Implement a Plan to 

Ensure That Voyage Repairs Are Available to Ships Operating near 

Guam when Needed. GAO-08-427. Washington, D.C.: May 12, 2008. 

Defense Infrastructure: Planning Efforts for the Proposed Military 

Buildup on Guam Are in Their Initial Stages, with Many Challenges Yet 

to Be Addressed. GAO-08-722T. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2008. 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Pending Legislation 

Would Apply U.S. Immigration Law to the CNMI with a Transition 

Period. GAO-08-466. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2008. 

U.S. Insular Areas: Economic, Fiscal, and Financial Accountability 

Challenges. GAO-07-119. Washington, D.C.: December 12, 2006. 

U.S. Insular Areas: Multiple Factors Affect Federal Health Care Funding. 

GAO-06-75. Washington, D.C.: October 14, 2005. 

Environmental Cleanup: Better Communication Needed for Dealing 

with Formerly Used Defense Sites in Guam. GAO-02-423. Washington, 

D.C.: April 11, 2002. 

Compact of Free Association: Negotiations Should Address Aid 

Effectiveness and Accountability and Migrants’ Impact on U.S. Areas. 

GAO-02-270T. Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2001. 

Foreign Relations: Migration From Micronesian Nations Has Had 

Significant Impact on Guam, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands. GAO-02-40. Washington, D.C.: October 5, 2001. 

U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution. GAO/OGC-98-5. 

Washington, D.C.: November 7, 1997.

Insular Areas Update. GAO/GGD-96-184R. Washington, D.C.: 

September 13, 1996. 

U.S. Insular Areas: Information on Fiscal Relations with the Federal 

Government. GAO/T-GGD-95-71. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 1995. 

U.S. Insular Areas: Development Strategy and Better Coordination 

Among U.S. Agencies Are Needed. GAO/NSIAD-94-62. Washington, D.C.: 

February 7, 1994. 

(351100) Page 42 GAO-08-1005 Defense Infrastructure
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. 

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 “E-mail 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, DC 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 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

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

Washington, DC 20548 

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