The senior U.S. military authority in the Pacific Area of Responsibility is the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command. Pacific Command is one of six U.S. geographic combatant commands. Pacific Command’s area of responsibility spans roughly half the earth’s surface and encompasses 36 countries, including Australia, China, India, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea. The Pacific Command is supported by four service component commands: U.S. Army Pacific; U.S. Pacific Air Forces; U.S. Marine Forces, Pacific; and the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Each component command is generally responsible for its service’s actions and missions within the Pacific Command area of responsibility and is supported by subordinate commands, which help support the service’s presence in the region. For example, U.S. Marine Forces, Pacific, is supported by the III Marine Expeditionary Force, a large Marine Corps unit forward deployed to Japan and other parts of Asia, which stands ready to conduct operations. Also supporting Marines in the Pacific is U.S. Marine Corps Installations, Pacific, which is responsible for the command and control of all Marine Corps installations in the region. In Japan, U.S. Forces– Japan—a subunified command under the Pacific Command—supports U.S. forward presence and ensures bilateral defense cooperation with the government of Japan. According to U.S. Forces–Japan, it focuses on war planning, the conduct of joint/bilateral exercises and studies, administering the Status of Forces Agreement, improving combat readiness, and enhancing the quality of life of military and DOD civilian personnel and their dependents. See figure 1 for information on major U.S. forces and installations in Japan, Okinawa, and Guam; approximate distances between Guam and other strategic locations in the Pacific; and U.S. strategic allies in the Pacific. The U.S.-Japan alliance dates back to the U.S. occupation of Japan after its defeat in World War II. The alliance is supported by the 1960 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security and a related Status of Forces Agreement which today covers about 51,200 U.S. servicemembers, 5,400 DOD civilian employees, and 42,200 dependents in Japan, as of January 2013. As a result of the treaty, the Status of Forces Agreement, and related agreements, U.S. forces have the use of nearly 90 installations throughout both mainland Japan and Okinawa, for the purpose of contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the region. Under the treaty and Status of Forces Agreement, the United States is granted the use of facilities and areas in Japan, with specific facilities and areas to be determined by the two governments. Generally, according to U.S. Forces–Japan officials, Japan constructs the facilities, while the United States bears the costs of maintenance—with each facility typically having a 50-year service life. One issue that remains at the forefront of the alliance is the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan. Efforts to realign U.S. forces in Japan date back to 1995. Discontent among the people of Okinawa regarding the U.S. military presence led to the establishment of the Special Action Committee on Okinawa in November 1995 by the Security Consultative Committee, a bilateral group of high-ranking U.S. and Japanese officials involved with overall bilateral policy regarding the security relationship between the two countries. In December 1996, this committee approved the final report of the Special Action Committee on Okinawa, which included recommendations on how to consolidate, realign, and reduce U.S. facilities and areas and adjust the operational procedures of U.S. forces in Okinawa in order to reduce the burden on local communities. Realignment efforts did not gain much traction until the end of 2002, when the United States and Japan launched an ambitious series of realignment initiatives called The Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI). Under DPRI, both countries were seeking to reduce the U.S. footprint in Okinawa, enhance interoperability and communication, and better position U.S. forces to respond to a changing security environment. The major realignment initiatives under DPRI are outlined in the United States—Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation (2006 Roadmap) which was issued in May 2006 by the Security Consultative Committee, reaffirmed and implemented in part in a 2009 bilateral agreement, and recently adjusted in the April 2012 statement. There are four initiatives under DPRI that are specific to the Marine Corps and its current plans to realign its forces in the Pacific: 1. Futenma Replacement Facility, 2. Realignment of Marine Corps units, 3. Okinawa Consolidation, and 4. Carrier Air Wing Move from Atsugi to Iwakuni. As envisioned by the 2006 Roadmap, the U.S. government would return to Japan the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa once the government of Japan constructed a fully operational replacement facility (Futenma Replacement Facility), including a runway, in a northern, less populated area of the island. This facility was originally projected to be complete by 2014. According to Marine Corps officials, some facilities have been constructed at the planned site of the realignment—Camp Schwab; however, the construction of the replacement runway has stalled. Those same officials stated that before construction of the runway can proceed, the government of Japan has to issue an environmental impact statement for the construction of the runway, and the Okinawa government has to approve a landfill permit. According to DOD officials, in December 2012, Japan’s Ministry of Defense submitted the environmental impact statement to the Governor of Okinawa. Subsequently, in March 2013, DOD officials informed us that the government of Japan submitted the application for the landfill permit to the Governor of Okinawa. Figure 2 shows the planned location of the runway at Camp Schwab. The Marine Corps estimates that its Operation and Maintenance and Procurement costs for the Futenma Replacement Facility will be approximately $178 million over the next 5 years; however, this estimate does not constitute the total cost to the United States and, according to Marine Corps officials, has not been approved. Because of the uncertainties surrounding the construction of the runway at Camp Schwab and following direction from the Senate Armed Services Committee, DOD has examined the feasibility of relocating air assets from Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Kadena Air Base, as an alternative to constructing the Futenma Replacement Facility at Camp Schwab. However, DOD concluded that it was not a viable solution. In the April 2012 statement, the representatives from the United States and Japan reconfirmed their view that the Futenma Replacement Facility remains the only viable solution that has been identified to date. In addition, the April 2012 statement noted that both governments expressed their commitment to contribute to refurbishment projects at Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to sustain safe mission capability until the Futenma Replacement Facility is fully operational and to protect the environment. According to Marine Corps officials, as of February 2013, a list of refurbishment projects to be funded by the U.S. government and the government of Japan has been identified, and planning for these projects is expected to be completed by April 2013. Though time frames may vary, Marine Corps officials expect work on these projects could start sometime in 2014. After several years of planning to move approximately 8,000 Marines off Okinawa to Guam, DOD revised its plan in April 2012 to relocate some units from Okinawa to Guam, Hawaii, and the Continental United States. Additionally, the plan includes establishing a rotational Marine Corps presence in Australia, a move that, according to DOD officials, stems from a November 2011 agreement between the United States and Australia. To date, the Marine Corps has established a small presence on Guam to prepare for the Marine realignment, but it has not yet relocated any units from Okinawa to Guam, nor has it been able to reduce its presence on Okinawa as anticipated under the April 2012 statement. According to Marine Corps officials, Marines cannot be relocated until suitable replacement facilities are constructed and made operationally capable on Guam and in other locations. The Marine Corps’ current plan is to build facilities on Guam and live-fire training ranges on Guam, Tinian, and Pagan—members of the Mariana Islands—to support the realignment of approximately 5,000 personnel (mostly rotational) and any dependents to Guam. Before any Marines can relocate to Guam, DOD must examine the environmental effects of its proposed actions, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. To address this requirement in the past, DOD performed an environmental review of certain proposed actions under the original 2006 realignment plan and released the Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Military Relocation Final Environmental Impact Statement in July 2010. In September 2010, the Department of the Navy announced in the record of Decision for the Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Military Relocation that it will proceed with the Marine Corps realignment, but deferred the selection of a specific site for a live-fire training range complex on Guam pending further study. In February 2012, the Department of the Navy gave notice that it intended to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate locations for a live-fire training range complex on Guam.Department of the Navy gave notice that it was planning to expand the In October 2012, as a result of the current realignment plan, the scope of the ongoing Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement evaluating locations for the live-fire training range complex, to determine the potential environmental consequences from construction and operation of a main cantonment area, including family housing, and associated infrastructure on Guam to support the recently revised realignment plan.