Defense Infrastructure
Basing Uncertainties Necessitate Reevaluation of U.S. Construction Plans in South Korea Gao ID: GAO-03-643 July 15, 2003The U.S.-South Korean Land Partnership Plan (LPP), signed in March 2002, was designed to consolidate U.S. installations, improve combat readiness, enhance public safety, and strengthen the U.S.-South Korean alliance by addressing some of the causes of periodic tension associated with the U.S. presence in South Korea. The Senate report on military construction appropriations for fiscal year 2003 directed GAO to review the LPP. GAO adjusted its review to also address the effect of ongoing reassessments of U.S. overseas presence upon the LPP and other infrastructure needs. In this report, GAO assessed (1) the scope of the LPP, (2) the implications on the LPP and other construction projects of proposals to change basing in South Korea, and (3) implementation challenges associated with the LPP that could affect future U.S. military construction projects in South Korea.
Although broad in scope, the LPP was not designed to resolve all U.S. military infrastructure issues. Specifically, the plan was intended to resolve 49 of the 89 separate land disputes that were pending in South Korea. Of the land disputes the plan did not address, the most politically significant, complex, and expensive dispute involves the potential relocation of U.S. forces from Yongsan Army Garrison, located in the Seoul metropolitan area. As a result, the LPP, as approved, covered about 37 percent of the $5.6 billion in construction costs planned at U.S. military installations in South Korea over the next 10 years. Ongoing reassessments of U.S. overseas presence and basing requirements could diminish the need for and alter the locations of many construction projects in South Korea, both those associated with the LPP and those unrelated to it. For example, over $1 billion of ongoing and planned construction associated with improving military infrastructure at Yongsan Army Garrison and U.S. installations located north of Seoul--areas where there is uncertainty about future U.S. presence--has recently been put on hold, canceled, or redirected to an installation located south of Seoul. GAO identified some key challenges that could adversely affect the implementation of the LPP and future U.S. military construction projects throughout South Korea. First, the plan relies on various funding sources, including funding realized through land sales from property returned by the United States. The extent to which these sources of funding would be required and available for broader infrastructure changes is not yet clear. Second, a master plan would be needed to guide future military construction to reposition U.S. forces and basing in South Korea.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-643, Defense Infrastructure: Basing Uncertainties Necessitate Reevaluation of U.S. Construction Plans in South Korea
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-643
entitled 'Defense Infrastructure: Basing Uncertainties Necessitate
Reevaluation of U.S. Construction Plans in South Korea' which was
released on July 15, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
July 2003:
Defense Infrastructure:
Basing Uncertainties Necessitate Reevaluation of U.S. Construction
Plans in South Korea:
GAO-03-643:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-643, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
The U.S.-South Korean Land Partnership Plan (LPP), signed in March
2002, was designed to consolidate U.S. installations, improve combat
readiness, enhance public safety, and strengthen the U.S.-South Korean
alliance by addressing some of the causes of periodic tension
associated with the U.S. presence in South Korea. The Senate report on
military construction appropriations for fiscal year 2003 directed GAO
to review the LPP. GAO adjusted its review to also address the effect
of ongoing reassessments of U.S. overseas presence upon the LPP and
other infrastructure needs.
In this report, GAO assessed (1) the scope of the LPP, (2) the
implications on the LPP and other construction projects of proposals
to change basing in South Korea, and (3) implementation challenges
associated with the LPP that could affect future U.S. military
construction projects in South Korea.
What GAO Found:
Although broad in scope, the LPP was not designed to resolve all U.S.
military infrastructure issues. Specifically, the plan was intended to
resolve 49 of the 89 separate land disputes that were pending in South
Korea. Of the land disputes the plan did not address, the most
politically significant, complex, and expensive dispute involves the
potential relocation of U.S. forces from Yongsan Army Garrison,
located in the Seoul metropolitan area. As a result, the LPP, as
approved, covered about 37 percent of the $5.6 billion in construction
costs planned at U.S. military installations in South Korea over the
next 10 years.
Ongoing reassessments of U.S. overseas presence and basing
requirements could diminish the need for and alter the locations of
many construction projects in South Korea, both those associated with
the LPP and those unrelated to it. For example, over $1 billion of
ongoing and planned construction associated with improving military
infrastructure at Yongsan Army Garrison and U.S. installations located
north of Seoul”areas where there is uncertainty about future U.S.
presence”has recently been put on hold, canceled, or redirected to an
installation located south of Seoul.
GAO identified some key challenges that could adversely affect the
implementation of the LPP and future U.S. military construction
projects throughout South Korea. First, the plan relies on various
funding sources, including funding realized through land sales from
property returned by the United States. The extent to which these
sources of funding would be required and available for broader
infrastructure changes is not yet clear. Second, a master plan would
be needed to guide future military construction to reposition U.S.
forces and basing in South Korea.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends (1) a reassessment of construction projects planned or
under way in South Korea as ongoing studies of overseas presence and
basing are finalized and (2) the development of a detailed South Korea-
wide infrastructure master plan to guide future construction planning.
DOD agreed with GAO‘s recommendations and indicated actions it is
taking to address them.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-643.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Barry W. Holman at
(202) 512-5581 or holmanb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Korea Land Partnership Plan:
Land Partnership Plan as Originally Approved Addressed a Portion of
Previously Existing U.S. Military Infrastructure Needs in South Korea:
Ongoing Studies Are Expected to Alter Previously Planned
LPP Construction Projects:
Challenges to Completing Land Partnership Plan and Other Planned
Construction Projects throughout South Korea:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Summary of the Land Partnership Plan:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Tables:
Table 1: Exclusive Use Grants Retained by the United States:
Table 2: Temporary Grants:
Table 3: Training Area Easements:
Table 4: Total Release of U.S. Training Areas:
Table 5: Partial Release of Grants:
Table 6: Joint Use of South Korean Military Training Facilities
and Areas:
Table 7: Upper Tier Easements:
Table 8: Middle Tier Easements:
Table 9: Lower Tier Easements:
Figures:
Figure 1: Quonset Hut Used for Barracks at Camp Greaves:
Figure 2: U.S. Installations Located in the Seoul Metropolitan Area:
Figure 3: Execution of the Land Partnership Plan:
Figure 4: Sources of Funding for Planned Infrastructure Construction
Costs in South Korea, Fiscal Years 2002-2011:
Figure 5: Land Partnership Plan Funding Sources, Fiscal Years
2002-2011:
Figure 6: U.S. Troop Installations Located in South Korea Under the
Land Partnership Plan:
Figure 7: Estimated Funding Requirements for the Land Partnership Plan:
Figure 8: Installation Grants and Returns under the Land Partnership
Plan, by Calendar Year:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense
LPP: Land Partnership Plan:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 15, 2003:
Congressional Committees:
Military officials from the United States and the Republic of Korea
(hereafter referred to as South Korea) signed an agreement known as the
Land Partnership Plan (LPP) on March 29, 2002. The LPP was described
by the parties to the agreement as a cooperative U.S.-South Korean
effort to consolidate U.S. installations and training areas, improve
combat readiness, enhance public safety, and strengthen the U.S.-South
Korean alliance by addressing some of the causes of periodic tension
and discontent among South Koreans regarding the U.S. presence in South
Korea. The LPP, as originally approved, promised to reduce the number
of U.S. military troop installations from 41 to 23 and to consolidate
many U.S. facilities north of Seoul (the capital of South Korea), along
with other facilities south of Seoul. Under the plan, financing of new
construction to support consolidations and relocations of U.S. forces
in South Korea was expected to rely on revenue generated from land
sales following U.S. return of selected facilities and training lands
to South Korea, on host nation funding, and on U.S. military
construction funding. The LPP was predicated on continuing to maintain
U.S. bases and facilities north of Seoul (near the demilitarized zone
that separates North Korea from South Korea). Since passage of the LPP
by the South Korea National Assembly on October 30, 2002, there have
been various indications that the United States is re-examining how and
where it may want to station its forces overseas in the future.
Prominent among them have been statements by U.S. officials that the
United States is considering a range of options for its troops in South
Korea, including repositioning them away from Seoul and from areas
north of Seoul (near the demilitarized zone).
The Senate report on military construction appropriations for fiscal
year 2003[Footnote 1] directed us to review the LPP to provide the
Congress with a better understanding of the plan, associated costs,
burden-sharing implications, and other related factors that the plan
may not address. In light of ongoing reassessments of the U.S. presence
overseas, which could affect basing requirements, we adjusted our
review to also address the effect of potential basing changes upon the
LPP and the U.S. military's infrastructure in South Korea. This report
assesses (1) the scope and cost of the LPP in relation to total
infrastructure issues in South Korea, (2) the implications on the LPP
and other construction projects in South Korea of recent proposals to
reposition U.S. forces in South Korea, and (3) the implementation
challenges associated with the LPP that could affect future U.S.
military construction projects in South Korea. Briefings were provided
to various congressional defense committee staffs regarding
our preliminary findings during our review. This report updates that
information and provides our final analysis.
In conducting this review, we met with officials responsible for
developing and managing the LPP and military construction projects
throughout South Korea, and we analyzed projected costs and funding
streams. We visited 16 U.S. military installations and facilities in
South Korea that would be affected by the plan, including sites that
will be closed, partially closed, or expanded. We also visited land
transfer sites that remain unresolved and military construction
projects that are not addressed in the plan, and we met with officials
from the Department of Defense and the Department of State to identify
challenges that could also affect future military construction projects
throughout South Korea. In addition, we interviewed officials and
reviewed documents from the Department of Defense, which provided
perspective on the department's studies concerning a potential change
to the role, size, and basing of U.S. forces in South Korea. More
information on the scope and methodology of our work is presented in
appendix I.
Results in Brief:
Although broad in scope, the Land Partnership Plan, as approved, was
not designed to entirely resolve U.S. military infrastructure issues,
and it did not address some of the more challenging land disputes, such
as the relocation of U.S. forces from the Seoul metropolitan area.
However, the LPP represented a step forward in addressing U.S. military
infrastructure issues in South Korea related to improving
servicemembers' quality of life, combat readiness, and relations
between South Korea and U.S. forces. From a cost standpoint, the LPP
encompassed about $2 billion of the $5.6 billion that the U.S. military
and South Korea planned to spend to improve the U.S. military
infrastructure in South Korea from 2002 through 2011. The LPP was
intended to resolve 49 of the 89 separate land disputes (55 percent)
that were pending in South Korea in January 2003. Of the land disputes
the plan did not address, the most politically significant, complex,
and expensive dispute involving the potential relocation of U.S. forces
from Yongsan Army Garrison, located in the Seoul metropolitan
area.[Footnote 2] A previous agreement between the United States and
South Korea in 1991 called for the relocation of U.S. troops stationed
there and the return of garrison lands and facilities to South Korea.
The South Korean government had agreed to pay for the costs of the
relocation; however, the relocation did not occur due to its
anticipated high cost.
Ongoing reassessments of U.S. overseas presence and basing requirements
are expected to change U.S. basing in South Korea significantly beyond
that envisioned under the LPP and would diminish the need for and alter
the locations of many construction projects, both those associated with
the plan and those unrelated to it; in addition, costs could increase.
The Department of Defense is conducting multiple studies related to
future overseas presence, and available information indicates that at
least tentative decisions have been made to reposition, over time, U.S.
troops away from facilities in Seoul and away from areas north of
Seoul. The full results of these studies and related negotiations may
not be available for several months; consequently, sufficient
information is not currently available to determine the full magnitude
of modifications to existing basing arrangements that will be required.
However, we were told that the United States would likely concentrate
its forces in far fewer, though larger, installations than were
envisioned under the LPP. According to a U.S. Forces Korea official,
until recently there had been about $1.3 billion of ongoing and planned
construction associated with improving military infrastructure at
Yongsan Army Garrison and U.S. installations located north of Seoul--
areas where there is uncertainty about the future U.S. presence.
However, U.S. Forces Korea officials recently announced that they were
reviewing these projects and that over $1 billion of the ongoing and
planned construction had been put on hold. Further, the Department of
Defense recently submitted a budget amendment to the Congress to cancel
about $5 million of construction projects planned for the garrison and
to redirect $212.8 million of construction planned for the garrison and
northern installations to an installation located south of Seoul.
Our review of the LPP identified some key challenges that could have
adversely affected the implementation of the LPP, as originally
approved, and which also could affect future U.S. military construction
projects throughout South Korea with the larger-scale changes now
likely. First, the plan is dependent on substantial amounts of funding
that South Korea expects to realize through land sales from property
returned by the United States, host-nation-funded construction, and
U.S. military construction funds. The extent to which these sources of
funding would be available to support broader infrastructure changes is
unclear, particularly the relocation of forces from Yongsan Army
Garrison. While the South Korean government is expected to remain
responsible for providing funding for this relocation, the Yongsan Army
Garrison property reportedly would be used for municipal purposes and
would not be subject to resale to provide funding to support relocation
of U.S. forces, as is the approach to basing changes under the LPP. At
this point, insufficient information is available to determine
precisely how many replacement facilities will be required for U.S.
troops moving out of Yongsan Army Garrison and facilities north of
Seoul and any difficulties that might be encountered in obtaining the
funding. The LPP also relied on using up to 50 percent of South Korea's
host nation funding,[Footnote 3] which would have limited the
availability of these funds for other uses. To what extent these funds
would be used for additional troop relocations is not yet clear.
Second, implementation of the LPP involves a closely knit series of
tasks to phase out some facilities and installations while phasing in
new facilities and expanding other facilities and installations. U.S.
Forces Korea was developing a master plan to manage this complex task
and control future changes to guide its implementation of the LPP, but
in light of the expected broader repositioning of forces in South Korea
much greater changes in the numbers of affected bases and locations are
anticipated. These changes, not yet finalized, suggest the need for a
revised road map to manage and guide future facilities requirements and
changes in South Korea.
We are making recommendations in this report to the Secretary of
Defense to (1) require a reassessment of planned construction projects
in South Korea as the results of ongoing studies associated with
overseas presence and basing are finalized and (2) prepare a detailed
South Korea-wide infrastructure master plan to manage the changing
infrastructure plans for South Korea. In commenting on a draft of this
report, the Department of Defense agreed with our recommendations and
pointed out that it is taking actions to ensure that all planned
construction projects support decisions regarding global presence and
basing strategy and that all master plans are adjusted to support these
decisions.
Background:
U.S. interests in South Korea involve a wide range of security,
economic, and political concerns. The United States has remained
committed to maintaining peace on the Korean Peninsula since the 1950
to 1953 Korean War.[Footnote 4] Although most of the property that the
United States once controlled has been returned to South Korea, the
United States maintains about 37,000 troops in South Korea, which are
currently scattered across 41 troop installations and an additional 54
small camps and support sites.
According to U.S. Forces Korea officials, many of the facilities there
are obsolete, poorly maintained, and in disrepair to the extent that
the living and working conditions in South Korea are considered to be
the worst in the Department of Defense (DOD).[Footnote 5] We observed
many of these conditions during our visits to U.S. facilities and
installations in South Korea. While improvements have been made in
recent years, U.S. military personnel still use, as shown in figure 1,
some Korean War-era Quonset huts for housing.
Figure 1: Quonset Hut Used for Barracks at Camp Greaves:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Improving overall facilities used by the United States in South Korea
will require an enormous investment. At the same time, rapid growth and
urbanization in South Korea during the last several decades have
created a greater demand for land and increased encroachments on areas
used by U.S. forces. Consequently, many of the smaller U.S. camps and
training areas that were originally located in isolated areas are now
in the middle of large urban centers, where their presence has caused
friction with local residents; urban locations also limit the ability
of U.S. forces to train effectively. Figure 2 shows the boundaries of
Yongsan Army Garrison and other U.S. installations that have become
encircled by the city of Seoul.
Figure 2: U.S. Installations Located in the Seoul Metropolitan Area:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Historically, DOD reports difficulties filling its military personnel
assignments in South Korea, which are generally 1-year hardship tours
in which 90 percent of the assigned military personnel are
unaccompanied by their families. A DOD survey conducted in 2001 found
that Army and Air Force personnel considered South Korea as the least
desirable assignment and that many soldiers were avoiding service in
South Korea by various means, including retirement and declining to
accept command assignments. U.S. Forces Korea has wanted to make South
Korea an assignment of choice by improving living and working
conditions, modifying assignment policies to increase accompanied tours
to 25 percent by 2010, and reducing the out-of-pocket expenses for
personnel to maintain a second household in South Korea.
Korea Land Partnership Plan:
To address these problems, military officials from the United States
and South Korea signed the Land Partnership Plan on March 29, 2002. The
LPP, as originally approved, was described as a cooperative U.S.-South
Korean effort to consolidate U.S. installations and training areas,
improve combat readiness, enhance public safety, and strengthen the
U.S.-South Korean alliance. The United States views the plan as a
binding agreement under the Status of Forces Agreement, not as a
separate treaty. However, U.S. Forces Korea officials told us that
South Korea views the plan as a treaty requiring approval by the South
Korea National Assembly and that approval occurred on October 30, 2002.
The three components of the plan are as follows:
* Installations--establishes a timeline for the grant of new land, the
construction of new facilities, and the closure of installations. The
plan calls for the number of U.S. military installations to drop from
41 to 23. To accomplish this, the military will close or partially
close some sites, while enlarging or creating other installations.
* Training areas--returns training areas in exchange for guaranteed
time on South Korean ranges and training areas. The plan calls for the
consolidation and protection of remaining U.S. training areas.
* Safety easements[Footnote 6]--acknowledges that South Korean citizens
are at risk of injury or death in the event of an explosion of U.S.
weapons, provides a prioritized list of required safety easements, and
establishes a procedure and timeline for enforcing the easements.
The costs of the LPP must be shared between the United States and
South Korea. U.S. funding is provided from the military construction
and operations and maintenance accounts and from nonappropriated funds.
The South Korean government provides host nation funds and funding
obtained from sales of property returned to South Korea by the United
States. As a general rule, the United States funds the relocation of
units from camps that it wishes to close, and South Korea funds the
relocation of units from camps South Korea has asked to be closed. The
execution of the LPP is shown on figure 3.
Figure 3: Figure 3: Execution of the Land Partnership Plan:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The target date for the completion of the LPP was December 31, 2011,
although the timetable and the scale could be adjusted by mutual
agreement. More information on the plan as originally envisioned is
included in appendix II.
Infrastructure Funding:
U.S. military infrastructure funding in South Korea involves multiple
organizations and sources. It involves 10 organizations from the United
States (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Special Operations, Army
and Air Force Exchange Service, Defense Logistics Agency, Department
of Defense Dependents School, Medical Command, and Defense Commissary
Agency), as well as construction funded by South Korea. These
organizations provide funding for military construction using
five different sources of money--U.S. military construction funds,
U.S. operations and maintenance funds, U.S. nonappropriated funds,
South Korea-funded construction, and South Korea combined defense
improvement program funding. Figure 4 shows the sources of funding for
$5.6 billion that, until recently, was planned:
for infrastructure construction costs for U.S. installations in South
Korea during the 2002 through 2011 time frame.
Figure 4: Sources of Funding for Planned Infrastructure Construction
Costs in South Korea, Fiscal Years 2002-2011:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Most of the approximately $2 billion projected cost of implementing the
plan was expected to be paid for by the government of South Korea, with
much of it financed through land sales from property returned by the
United States. Figure 5 shows all planned funding sources and amounts
for the plan.
Figure 5: Land Partnership Plan Funding Sources, Fiscal Years
2002-2011:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
More information on funding and sequencing actions associated with the
LPP, as originally approved, is included in appendix II.
A wide array of military operations-related facilities (command and
administrative offices, barracks, and maintenance facilities) and
dependent-related facilities and services (family housing units;
schools; base exchanges; morale, welfare, and recreation facilities;
child care programs; and youth services) have recently been constructed
or are in the process of being constructed in South Korea. Typically,
as U.S. installations overseas are vacated and turned over to host
governments, the status of forces agreements between the United States
and host governments address any residual value remaining, at the time
of release, of construction and improvements that were financed by the
United States. The agreement in South Korea differs from the agreements
used in some other overseas locations where the United States receives
residual value for returned property--such as currently in Germany--in
that South Korea is not obliged to make any compensation to the United
States for any improvements made in facilities and areas or for the
buildings and structures left there.
Stationing of Troops in South Korea May Be Changing:
In recent months, political dynamics in South Korea have been changing
as DOD has been reassessing future overseas basing requirements.
According to U.S. Forces Korea officials, there have always been groups
in South Korea that have criticized the U.S. presence and have claimed
that the U.S. presence hinders reconciliation between North and South
Korea. Demonstrations against American military presence increased
sharply during last year's South Korean presidential election. South
Koreans were angered in November 2002 by a U.S. military court's
acquittal of two American soldiers charged in association with a tragic
training accident that claimed the lives of two South Korean
schoolgirls in June 2002. The South Korean government wanted the two
American soldiers who had been operating the vehicle involved in the
accident turned over to South Korean authorities; however, they were
tried in a U.S. military court. As a result, South Koreans demonstrated
against U.S. forces in Korea, carried out isolated violence directed at
U.S. soldiers, and practiced discrimination against Americans (such as
businesses refusing to serve them). Subsequently, other groups
demonstrated in support of the U.S. government. At the same time, the
United States and South Korea were working to strengthen their alliance
and to address issues involving North Korea's active nuclear weapons
program and the proliferation of its missile programs.
In December 2002, the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Minister of
South Korea agreed to conduct a Future of the Alliance study to assess
the roles, missions, capabilities, force structure, and stationing of
U.S. forces, including having South Korea assume the predominant role
in its defense and increasing both South Korean and U.S. involvement in
regional security cooperation. The results of the Future of the
Alliance study are not expected until later this year. In February
2003, the Secretary of Defense testified before the Congress that the
United States was considering the relocation of U.S. troops now based
within and north of Seoul, including those near the demilitarized zone.
Consideration of such a move would be in keeping with a broader
reassessment of U.S. presence overseas that is now underway. In April
2003, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific
Affairs and other U.S. officials met with officials of the South Korean
Ministry of National Defense to discuss redeploying U.S. troops and
relocating key military bases in South Korea. Following these
discussions, the U.S. and Korean press reported that the United States
would relocate from Yongsan Army Garrison in Seoul to an area located
south of Seoul. According to the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs, both South Korea and the United
States have decided that this is an issue that cannot wait any longer
for resolution. U.S. and South Korean officials are expected to hold
more discussions to finalize the realignment of U.S. troops by fall
2003.
Moreover, the Secretary of Defense has recently directed acceleration
on work that began during the development of the 2001 Quadrennial
Defense Review, related to the global positioning of U.S. forces and
their supporting infrastructure outside the United States. In March
2003, the Secretary of Defense requested that the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy and the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, develop a
comprehensive and integrated presence and basing strategy for the next
10 years. An Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy will build
upon multiple DOD studies, including the Overseas Basing and
Requirements Study, the Overseas Presence Study, and the U.S. Global
Posture Study. In addition, the Integrated Global Presence and Basing
Strategy will use information from the combatant commanders to
determine the appropriate location of the infrastructure necessary to
execute U.S. defense strategy. The Integrated Global Presence and
Basing Strategy is not expected to be completed until the summer of
2003. However, we were recently told by DOD officials that the United
States will likely concentrate its forces in South Korea in far fewer,
though larger, installations than were initially envisioned under the
LPP, and that over time the forces now located north of Seoul will be
relocated south of Seoul.
Land Partnership Plan as Originally Approved Addressed a Portion of
Previously Existing U.S. Military Infrastructure Needs in South Korea:
Although the Land Partnership Plan as approved was broad in scope, it
was designed to address only a portion of the U.S. military's
previously existing infrastructure needs in South Korea, and it left
unresolved a number of significant land disputes. Specifically, the LPP
covered about 37 percent of the construction costs planned at U.S.
military installations in South Korea over the next 10 years,
encompassing about $2 billion of the $5.6 billion that the U.S.
military and South Korea planned to spend to improve the U.S. military
infrastructure in South Korea from 2002 through 2011. It was intended
to resolve 55 percent, or 49, of the 89 separate land disputes that
were pending in South Korea in January 2003,[Footnote 7] which was
considered a significant step forward. One example of a land dispute
that would be resolved under the LPP involves Camp Hialeah, located on
the southern tip of the Korean peninsula in the port city of Pusan,
South Korea's second largest city. According to press reports, South
Korea wanted this base returned because of its proximity to the port
and the impediments it posed to urban redevelopment. However, no
relocation agreement could be reached until the LPP included an
agreement to begin relocating Camp Hialeah's functions to a new site in
Noksan, South Korea, in 2008 and to close Camp Hialeah in 2011.
According to press reports attributed to an official from the South
Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, relocating in-city bases
like Camp Hialeah would help lessen the potential tension between U.S.
forces and neighboring communities.
Although the plan was considered a major step forward, it was not
designed to resolve a number of significant land disputes. As far back
as far as 1982, negotiations over some land returns have been
deadlocked and left unresolved. For example, the relocation of Yongsan
Army Garrison[Footnote 8] remained unresolved because of its projected
financial cost to South Korea. The relocation of the garrison has been
and continues to be a politically sensitive, complex, and expensive
issue for U.S. Forces Korea and the South Korean government. In 1991,
the governments of the United States and South Korea signed an
agreement to relocate the garrison by 1996. In 1993, the plan was
suspended, largely because of the anticipated high cost[Footnote 9] and
the lack of alternative locations for the garrison. More than a decade
later, the relocation of Yongsan is an ongoing, contentious
issue. Since the 1990s, U.S. military and South Korean officials have
held discussions on moving the military base out of the city, including
screening various suburb locations. In December 2002, the United States
and South Korea agreed on the need to find a mutually acceptable way to
relocate U.S. forces outside the city of Seoul as a result of the
Future of the Alliance Study.
Ongoing Studies Are Expected to Alter Previously Planned
LPP Construction Projects:
DOD has had many construction projects underway in South Korea, both
within and outside of the LPP. However, DOD-sponsored studies now
underway examining future overseas presence requirements are likely to
significantly change the number and locations for U.S. military bases
in South Korea. As noted, we were recently told that the United States
will likely concentrate its forces in far fewer, though larger,
installations than were envisioned under the LPP and that, over time,
the forces would be relocated south of Seoul.[Footnote 10] Therefore, a
number of sites and facilities retained under the LPP are likely to be
affected. Figure 6 shows the locations of U.S. troop installations in
South Korea under the LPP, as originally approved.
Figure 6: U.S. Troop Installations Located in South Korea Under the
Land Partnership Plan:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Except as otherwise provided by the LPP, South Korea is not obliged to
compensate the United States for any improvements made in facilities
and areas or for the buildings and structures left behind. This could
be particularly important because of military infrastructure projects
planned or underway in areas from which the United States is
considering relocating its troops, including Seoul's Yongsan Army
Garrison and U.S. installations located north of Seoul, which,
according to a U.S. Forces Korea official, had recently represented
$1.3 billion in ongoing or planned construction projects.[Footnote 11]
For example, construction projects in Yongsan included apartment high-
rises for unaccompanied soldiers, a hospital, a sports and recreation
complex, a mini-mall, and an overpass between Yongsan's main and south
posts. We discussed with U.S. Forces Korea officials the need to
reassess construction projects under way or planned in South Korea and
to delay the execution of some projects until better decision-making
information becomes available. Subsequently, U.S. Forces Korea
officials announced that they were reviewing all projects and that over
$1 billion in ongoing and planned construction had been put on hold.
Further, DOD recently submitted an amendment to the President's fiscal
year 2004 budget to the Congress to cancel about $5 million of
construction projects planned for the garrison and to redirect $212.8
million of construction planned for the garrison and northern
installations to an installation located south of Seoul.
Challenges to Completing Land Partnership Plan and Other Planned
Construction Projects throughout South Korea:
During the initial phase of our review we identified funding and other
management challenges that could adversely affect the implementation
of the Land Partnership Plan. As we considered these issues in light of
the potential for even greater basing changes, we recognized that
they could also affect the associated U.S. military construction
projects throughout South Korea. First, the LPP is dependent on
substantial amounts of funding that South Korea expects to realize
through land sales from property returned by the United States, host-
nation-funded construction, and U.S. military construction funds. While
U.S. Forces Korea officials expect to build on this LPP framework for
likely additional basing changes, the details have not been finalized
for the broader changes. As U.S. Forces Korea revises its plans,
competition for limited funding for other priorities could become an
issue. Second, U.S. Forces Korea does not have a detailed road map to
manage current and future facilities requirements in South Korea.
Funding Sources and Competition for Funding Are Challenges:
The LPP, as originally approved, was dependent on substantial amounts
of South Korean funding to be realized through land sales, host-nation-
funded construction, and U.S. military construction funds. The extent
to which these sources of funding would be required and available for
broader infrastructure changes is not yet clear, particularly for the
relocation of Yongsan Army Garrison. While U.S. officials expect the
South Korean government to fund much of the cost of these additional
basing changes, details have not yet been finalized. The South Korean
government is also expected to remain responsible for providing funding
for the relocation of forces now based at the Yongsan Army Garrison
property, although those costs could be reduced by the fact that a
residual number of U.S. and United Nations personnel are expected to
remain at Yongsan. It should also be noted that the Yongsan Garrison
property is expected to be used for municipal purposes and is not
subject to resale to provide funding to support relocation of U.S.
forces. At this point, insufficient information is available to
determine precisely how many replacement facilities will be required
for U.S. troops moving out of Yongsan Garrison and to anticipate any
difficulties that might be encountered in obtaining the funding.
However, if South Korea encounters problems or delays in acquiring
needed lands and providing replacement facilities, future projects
could be delayed. Figure 7 presents the amount of funding, as of May
2003, that the United States and South Korean governments expected to
pay for the LPP--as originally approved--by fiscal year. The funding
amounts for fiscal year 2004 and beyond are subject to revision.
Figure 7: Estimated Funding Requirements for the Land Partnership Plan:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The LPP, as originally approved, was dependent on designating up to
50 percent of South Korea's host nation funding for construction.
Historically, the stability of host nation funding from South Korea has
been subject to some uncertainty because international economic factors
have played a part in determining the level of funding.[Footnote 12]
South Korea host nation payments are paid in both South Korean won and
U.S. dollars; consequently, a downturn in the South Korean economy or a
sharp fluctuation in the South Korean currency could affect the South
Korean government's payments. For example, during South Korea's
economic downturn in 1998, host nation payments were less than expected
(the United States received from South Korea $314.2 million of the
$399 million that had been agreed to).
Designating up to 50 percent of host nation funding for the LPP would
also limit funding for readiness and other needs. Non-LPP readiness-
related infrastructure funding shortages previously identified in
readiness reports at the time of our visit to South Korea in November
2002 were estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars and
represented competing requirements for limited funding. Such needs
included Air Force facilities at Osan and Kunsan ($338.2 million), Navy
facilities at Pohang and Chinhae ($10.3 million), and Army facilities
at Humphreys, Carroll, and Tango ($25.2 million). Recently, U.S. Forces
Korea officials have also expressed the desire to increase from 10
percent to 25 percent the number of servicemembers in South Korea who
are permitted to be accompanied by their families. While these
expressions have not been finalized, such an increase could be expected
to cause a significant increase in the demand for housing, schools, and
other support services and could result in greater competition for U.S.
and Korean funding. For example, U.S. Forces Korea officials estimated
that the increased demand for housing alone would cost $900 million in
traditional military construction funding and, to reduce costs,
officials were exploring a build-to-lease program using Korean private-
sector funding and host-nation-funded construction, where possible.
In the past, funding from U.S. military construction accounts, which
represent 13 percent of funding for the LPP as originally approved, has
fluctuated. From 1990 through 1994, U.S. forces in South Korea did not
receive any military construction funds, resulting in a significant
backlog of construction projects.
Managing Current and Future Facilities Requirements Is Also
a Challenge:
Implementation of the LPP was expected to involve a closely knit series
of tasks to phase out some facilities and installations while phasing
in new facilities and expanding other facilities and installations.
U.S. Forces Korea was developing an implementation plan for each
installation encompassed by the LPP and, at the time of our visit
there, was developing a detailed, overarching implementation plan
capable of integrating and controlling the multiple, sometimes
simultaneous, actions needed to relocate U.S. forces and support their
missions. According to U.S. Forces Korea officials, such a master plan
is needed to accomplish training, maintain readiness, and control
future changes.
During our visits to U.S. installations in South Korea, we found that,
in the absence of a completed master plan for implementation,
installation commanders had varying interpretations of what
infrastructure changes were to occur. U.S. Forces Korea officials told
us that this was not unusual, given that detailed implementation plans
were still being developed. At the same time, these officials
emphasized the need for a detailed plan to guide future projects and to
help minimize the costly changes that can occur when subsequent
commanders have a different vision of the installations' needs than
their predecessors, which could lead to new interpretations of the LPP
and more changes. In light of the potentially broader repositioning of
forces in South Korea, the master plan under development could be
substantially changed; thus, a significantly revised road map will be
needed to manage future facilities requirements and changes in South
Korea.
Conclusions:
As approved, the Land Partnership Plan represented an important step
to reduce the size of the U.S. footprint in South Korea by leveraging
the return of facilities and land to South Korea in order to obtain
replacement facilities in consolidated locations. However, subsequent
events suggest the LPP, as originally outlined, will require
significant modification. Available data indicate that changes in the
U.S. basing structure in South Korea are likely; therefore, a
significant portion of the $5.6 billion in construction projects
planned over the next 10 years is being reassessed based on currently
expected basing changes and may need to be further reassessed when the
results of ongoing overseas presence and basing studies are completed.
The LPP was to require 10 years of intensive management to ensure
implementation progressed as planned. The master plan U.S. Forces Korea
officials are developing to guide its implementation will require
significant revision to accommodate the more comprehensive changes in
basing now anticipated and to identify funding requirements and
division of funding responsibilities between the United States and
South Korea.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Defense require the Commander, U.S.
Forces Korea, to (1) reassess planned construction projects in South
Korea as the results of ongoing studies associated with overseas
presence and basing are finalized and (2) prepare a detailed South
Korea-wide infrastructure master plan for the changing infrastructure
for U.S. military facilities in South Korea, updating it periodically
as needed, and identifying funding requirements and division of funding
responsibilities between the United States and South Korea.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs
provided written comments to a draft of this report. DOD agreed with
our recommendations and pointed out that it is taking actions that
address our recommendations. In commenting on our recommendation to
reassess planned construction projects in South Korea, DOD stated that
U.S. Forces Korea is already reassessing all planned construction in
South Korea and will ensure that all planned construction projects
support decisions regarding global presence and basing strategy. In
commenting on our recommendation for a detailed South Korea-wide
infrastructure master plan, DOD stated that U.S. Forces Korea is
already developing master plans for all enduring installations and,
once decisions have been reached on global presence and basing
strategy, they will ensure that all master plans are adjusted to
support these decisions. DOD's comments are reprinted in appendix IV.
DOD also provided a separate technical comment, and we revised the
report to reflect it.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Commander, U.S. Forces Korea, and the Director, Office
of Management and Budget. The report is also available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in
this report, please contact me at (202) 512-5581. Key contributors to
this report were Ron Berteotti, Roger Tomlinson, Nelsie Alcoser, Susan
Woodward, and Ken Patton.
Barry W. Holman
Director,
Defense Capabilities and Management:
Signed by Barry W. Holman:
List of Congressional Committees:
The Honorable John W. Warner,
Chairman
The Honorable Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ted Stevens,
Chairman
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate:
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Chairman
The Honorable Diane Feinstein
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Military Construction
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate:
The Honorable Duncan Hunter,
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jerry Lewis,
Chairman
The Honorable John P. Murtha
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Joe Knollenberg,
Chairman
The Honorable Chet Edwards
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Military Construction
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the scope and cost of the plan in relation to total
infrastructure issues in South Korea, we analyzed provisions of the
Land Partnership Plan (LPP), identified the scope and cost of
construction projects outside of the LPP, compared the scope and cost
of LPP construction projects to the scope and cost of all construction
projects in South Korea, and analyzed some of the key unresolved
infrastructure issues not included in the plan, such as the relocation
of U.S. troops from Yongsan Army Garrison. We met with officials from
the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Logistics Directorate and Strategy
Division); Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (Office of Asia-
Pacific Affairs); Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and
Environment); U.S. Pacific Command, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces,
U.S. Army Pacific, Marine Forces Pacific, U.S. Pacific Fleet; U.S.
Forces Korea, Eighth U.S. Army and 7th Air Force; U.S. Department of
State; U.S. Embassy (South Korea); and South Korea's Defense Ministry
to document their input to the plan. We visited 16 U.S. military
installations and facilities in South Korea that are affected by the
plan. We selected these installations and facilities because they
provided a cross-section of the activities that are covered by the plan
(i.e., some that will be closed, some that will be scaled back, some
that will be expanded, some where new construction will take place, and
some possible new installation locations). We also visited land
transfer sites that remain unresolved and military construction
projects that are not addressed in the plan to gain an understanding
and perspective on the wide range of infrastructure issues affecting
U.S. troops stationed in South Korea.
To determine the implications of potential basing changes on the plan
and other construction projects in South Korea, we obtained the views
of officials from the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Logistics Directorate and
Strategy Division); Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (Office of
Asia-Pacific Affairs); and U.S. Forces Korea on the potential impact of
changing defense policies. We conducted a literature review of U.S. and
South Korean publications to collect information on the LPP and
possible basing changes in South Korea. We also attended various
congressional hearings, which discussed funding for U.S. Forces Korea
construction projects and potential basing changes. We used this
information to identify the costs of ongoing and planned construction
associated with improving military infrastructure in areas where there
is uncertainty about future U.S. presence--such as Yongsan Army
Garrison and U.S. installations located north of Seoul. We did not
verify the accuracy and completeness of this information.
To identify implementation challenges associated with the plan that
could affect future U.S. military construction projects in South Korea,
we met with officials from the above organizations and reviewed the
Status of Forces Agreement, an agreement under Article IV of the Mutual
Defense Treaty between South Korea and the United States, and other
related agreements and defense guidance. We discussed challenges that
must be addressed during implementation of the LPP and implementation
issues associated with the plan that could affect future construction
projects throughout South Korea.
We performed our review from September 2002 through May 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Summary of the Land Partnership Plan:
The Land Partnership Plan (LPP) provides a comprehensive plan for
more efficient and effective stationing of U.S. Forces in South Korea.
The LPP is intended to strengthen the South Korea-U.S. alliance,
improve the readiness posture of combined forces, reduce the overall
amount of land granted for U.S. Forces Korea use, and enhance public
support for both the South Korean government and U.S. Forces Korea,
while positioning U.S. forces to meet alliance security requirements
well into the future.
According to U.S. Forces Korea officials, LPP imperatives are as
follows:
* The agreement should be based on readiness and security, not the
amount of land involved.
* The agreement should be comprehensive, allowing for land issues that
cannot be resolved independently to be resolved as part of a package
and ensuring stationing decisions that fit into a comprehensive vision
for the disposition of U.S. forces.
* When new land and facilities are ready for use, U.S. Forces Korea can
release old land and facilities. U.S. Forces Korea needs all existing
facilities and areas and can only return them when replacement
facilities are available or the requirement is met in another manner.
* The agreement should be binding under the Status of Forces Agreement.
The LPP is not just an "agreement in principle" but also a commitment
to take action, and it operates within the Status of Forces Agreement-
-which means there are no new rules.
* The agreement should be self-financing--the costs of the LPP must be
shared between the United States and South Korea. U.S. funding is
provided from the military construction account. The South Korean
government provides host nation funds and funding obtained from sales
of property returned to South Korea by the United States.
As a general rule, the United States funds the relocation of units from
camps the United States wishes to close, and South Korea funds the
relocation of units from camps that South Korea has asked the United
States to close. The execution of the LPP is shown in figure 1.
The LPP has been negotiated under the authority of the Joint Committee
under the Status of Forces Agreement. The Status of Forces Agreement
gives the Joint Committee the authority and responsibility to determine
the facilities and areas required for U.S. use in support of the United
States/South Korea Mutual Defense Treaty. The Joint Committee
established the Ad-hoc Subcommittee for LPP to develop and manage
the LPP. The LPP components address installations, training areas, and
safety easements.
Installations: The LPP reduces the number of U.S. installations from
41 to 23 and consolidates U.S. forces onto enduring installations. The
LPP establishes a timeline for the grant of new land, the construction
of new facilities, and the closure of installations. Figure 8
illustrates the sequence in which new lands are to be granted to the
United States and their relationship to facilities that will be
returned to South Korea from calendar years 2002 through 2011.
Figure 8: Installation Grants and Returns under the Land Partnership
Plan, by Calendar Year:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Training Areas: The LPP returns U.S. training areas in exchange for
guaranteed time on South Korean ranges and training areas. To ensure
the continued readiness of U.S. Forces Korea, the United States agrees
to return certain granted facilities and areas and to accept the grant
of joint use of certain South Korea military facilities and areas on a
limited time-share basis as determined by the Status of Forces
Agreement Joint Committee. The United States is expected to return
approximately 32,186 acres, or 39,396,618 pyong,[Footnote 13] of
granted training areas. Table 1 shows the exclusive use of existing
grants retained by U.S. Forces Korea.
Table 1: Exclusive Use Grants Retained by the United States:
Facility: Rodriquez Local Training Area #1; Acres: 1.0.
Facility: Story Range; Acres: 1,756.0.
Facility: New Mexico Range; Acres: 116.0.
Facility: Warrior Training Base; Acres: 19.0.
Facility: Warrior Training Base Ammunition Holding Area; Acres: 1.2.
Facility: Dagmar North; Acres: 1,391.0.
Facility: Mike-November; Acres: 3,008.0.
Facility: Papa-Oscar-Romeo; Acres: 3,353.4.
Facility: North Star; Acres: 30.2.
Facility: Chaparral Local Training Area; Acres: 115.1.
Facility: Local Training Area 130; Acres: 63.7.
Facility: Local Training Area 140; Acres: 6.4.
Facility: Rodriquez Gun Local Training Area #1; Acres: 17.5.
Facility: Rodriquez Gun Local Training Area #2; Acres: 8.3.
Facility: Rodriguez Gun Local Training Area #3; Acres: 7.6.
Facility: Humphreys Range; Acres: 6.0.
Facility: Training Areas; Acres: 79.0.
Facility: Bayonne Signal Training Area; Acres: 19.8.
Facility: Rodriguez Watkins Local Training Area; Acres: 45.1.
Facility: Rodriquez Live Fire Complex; Acres: 3,343.0.
Facility: Masan Range; Acres: 372.0.
Facility: Koon-ni; Acres: 438.3.
Source: U.S. Forces Korea.
[End of table]
Table 2 shows training areas that will be provided on a temporary basis
to U.S. Forces Korea.
Table 2: Temporary Grants:
Facility: Local Training Area 320; Acres: 247.0.
Facility: Drop Zone Cory; Acres: 186.0.
Facility: Non Commissioned Officer Academy Training Area; Acres: 364.0.
Facility: Drop Zone Rigger Pilsung Strafing Range; Acres: 619.8 0.
Source: U.S. Forces Korea.
[End of table]
Table 3 shows new safety easements to be designated for training areas.
Table 3: Training Area Easements:
Facility: New Mexico Restrictive Easement; Acres: 128.
Facility: Warrior Training Ammunition Holding Area Easement; Acres:
2619.3.
Source: U.S. Forces Korea.
[End of table]
Table 4 shows training areas that will be returned to South Korea under
the LPP.
Table 4: Total Release of U.S. Training Areas:
Facility: Rodriquez Local Training Area #3; Acres: 3.0.
Facility: Rodriquez Local Training Area #2; Acres: 100.0.
Facility: Rodriquez Local Training Area #4; Acres: 10.0.
Facility: Kansas Range; Acres: 71.0.
Facility: Oklahoma Range; Acres: 15.0.
Facility: North Carolina, Air Mobile, Edwards Local Training Area, TA-
504/520; Acres: 1,302.0.
Facility: Dagmar & S, Squads, Palmers, and Oklahoma; Acres: 16,747.0.
Facility: River Crossing; Acres: 16.0.
Facility: Camp Page Local Training Area; Acres: 302.0.
Facility: Tango; Acres: 2,952.0.
Facility: KCT-43, Yankee, Whiskey N.(actual) (written record); Acres:
8,920.0; 2,761.0.
Facility: Stanton Local Training Area; Acres: 15.0.
Source: U.S. Forces Korea.
[End of table]
Table 5 shows training areas where parts of the land will be returned
to South Korea.
Table 5: Partial Release of Grants:
Facility: Texas Local Training Area and Zulu LA; Acres: 1,133.0.
Facility: Mike-A; Acres: 480.0.
Facility: Romeo; Acres: 120.0.
Source: U.S. Forces Korea.
[End of table]
Table 6 shows training facilities and areas that the South Korean
government is expected to grant to the U.S. for joint use for the
time specified.
Table 6: Joint Use of South Korean Military Training Facilities
and Areas:
Facility: Typhoon Range; Weeks: 1 week per quarter; Days: 24.
Facility: Chungyong Range; Weeks: 2 weeks per year; Days: 12.
Facility: Bisung Range; Weeks: 1.5 weeks per year; Days: 9.
Facility: St. Barbara Range-MLRS Live Fire; Weeks: 4 weeks per year;
Days: 24.
Facility: St. Barbara Range-Paladin Live Fire; Weeks: 4 weeks per year;
Days: 24.
Facility: Korea Training Area/Twin Bridges Training Area; Weeks: 13
weeks per year; Days: 91.
Facility: Seung-Jin Nightmare Range; Weeks: 8 weeks per year; Days: 48.
Facility: Capital Defense Command Bangpae Range; Weeks: 2 weeks per
quarter; Days: 48.
Facility: Jungpyung M16; Weeks: 8 weeks per year; Days: 48.
Facility: Jungpyung 40MM Grenade Launcher Range; Weeks: 4 weeks per
year; Days: 24.
Facility: Jungpyung Hand Grenade; Weeks: 2 weeks per year; Days: 12.
Facility: Chochiwon Range; Weeks: 1 week per quarter; Days: 24.
Facility: Sokung (Seogok) Range; Weeks: 5 weeks per year; Days: 30.
Facility: Angang Range; Weeks: 1 week per quarter; Days: 24.
Facility: Kumi Range; Weeks: 4 weeks per year; Days: 24.
Facility: Susan-ri Range; Weeks: 6 weeks per year; Days: 36.
Facility: R-222; Weeks: 1 week per quarter; Days: 24.
Facility: R-227; Weeks: 4 weeks per quarter; Days: 96.
Facility: R-233; Weeks: 6 weeks per quarter; Days: 144.
Facility: R-228; Weeks: 6 weeks per quarter; Days: 144.
Facility: Han River Cross Site; Weeks: 2 weeks per quarter; Days: 48.
Facility: Training Area Jerry; Weeks: 2 weeks per quarter; Days: 48.
Facility: Training Area Nightmare; Weeks: 2 weeks per quarter; Days:
48.
Facility: Training Area Tom; Weeks: 2 weeks per quarter; Days: 48.
Facility: Saetue Field Training Area; Weeks: 2 weeks per quarter; Days:
48.
Facility: TAA No Name (Munmak); Weeks: 2 weeks per quarter; Days: 48.
Facility: Kaup Mountain Training Area (H-710); Weeks: 1 week per
quarter; Days: 24.
Facility: Kumdan Mountain Training Area; Weeks: 1 week per quarter;
Days: 24.
Facility: Puksung Mountain Training Area; Weeks: 1 week per quarter;
Days: 24.
Facility: Sung Mountain Training Area (H-471); Weeks: 1 week per
quarter; Days: 24.
Facility: Taeki Mountain Training Area; Weeks: 1 week per quarter;
Days: 24.
Facility: Yongmun Mountain Training Area; Weeks: 1 week per quarter;
Days: 24.
Facility: Hwangyong Park Tactical Training Area; Weeks: 1 week per
quarter; Days: 24.
Facility: Hampyong Tactical Training Area; Weeks: 1 week per quarter;
Days: 24.
Facility: Jinwon Tank Tactical Training Area; Weeks: 2 weeks per
quarter; Days: 48.
Facility: Mu Juk Training Area; Weeks: 26 weeks per year; Days: 182.
Source: U.S. Forces Korea.
[End of table]
Safety Easements: According to U.S. Forces Korea officials, a safety
easement is a defined distance from an explosive area that personnel
and structures must be kept away from and is directly related to the
quantity and types of explosives and ammunition present. The presence
of Korean citizens in areas requiring explosive safety easements has
placed them at risk of injury or death in the event of an explosion.
Tables 7, 8, and 9 show the various tiers of easements established
under the LPP at U.S. military installations. Upper tier easements are
those required at enduring installations; middle tier easements are
required during armistice, but will not be required after a change in
the armistice condition; and lower tier easements are those required at
closing installations. U.S. Forces Korea shall enforce safety easements
inside U.S. installations, while South Korea will enforce safety
easements outside U.S. installations.
Table 7: Upper Tier Easements:
Installation: Osan Air Force Base; Explosive site: Munitions storage
area (Delta site).
Explosive site: Installation: Patriot Batteries on Chin Wi River.
Explosive site: InstallationKunsan Air Force Base: Hot cargo pad
easement extension.
Installation: Kunsan Air Force Base; Explosive site: 2 Munitions
storage areas.
Explosive site: InstallationCamp Humphreys: Hot cargo pad and patriot
battery.
Installation: Camp Humphreys; Explosive site: Rearm point.
Installation: Camp Casey; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area 21.
Explosive site: InstallationCamp Stanley: Ammunition storage area 25.
Installation: Camp Stanley; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area 18
(tunnel).
Explosive site: InstallationCamp Walker: Ammunition storage area 9.
Installation: Camp Walker; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area.
Installation: Camp Hovey; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area.
Installation: Yongsan; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area.
Source: U.S. Forces Korea.
[End of table]
Table 8: Middle Tier Easements:
Installation: Camp Bonifas; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area
(main post).
Explosive site: InstallationExplosive site: Ammunition storage area
(east).
Source: U.S. Forces Korea.
[End of table]
Table 9: Lower Tier Easements:
Installation: Camp LaGuardia; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area.
Installation: Camp Howze; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area.
Installation: Camp Edwards; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area.
Installation: Camp Essayons; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area.
Installation: Camp Colbern; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area.
Installation: Camp Stanton; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area.
Installation: Camp Greaves; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area.
Installation: Camp Garry Owen; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area.
Installation: Camp Eagle; Explosive site: Ammunition storage area.
Source: U.S. Forces Korea.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
2400 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-2400:
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS:
Mr. Barry W. Holman:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Holman:
This is the Department of Defense (DOD) response to the GAO draft
report, "DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE: Basing Uncertainties Necessitate Re-
evaluation of U.S. Construction Plans in South Korea," dated May 22,
2003 (GAO Code 35026?/GAO-03-643).":
Comments on the recommendations are attached to this letter.
Additionally, a technical comment on the main text of the report was
provided separately:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.
Sincerely,
Richard P. Lawless:
Signed by Richard P. Lawless:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs:
GAO DRAFT REPORT - DATED MAY 22, 2003 GAO CODE 350267/GAO-03-643:
"DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE: Basing Uncertainties Necessitate Re-
evaluation of U.S. Construction Plans in South Korea":
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
require the Commander, U.S. Forces Korea, to reassess planned
construction projects in South Korea as the results of ongoing studies
associated with overseas presence and basing are finalized. (p. 27/GAO
Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Concur. In March 2003, the Secretary of Defense tasked
the Combatant Commanders with reviewing their FY 03 and FY 04 military
construction programs to ensure the projects continued to be
supportable priorities. This tasking, directed in conjunction with
DOD's review of global positioning of forces, demonstrates that DOD is
actively linkIng any changes in our global presence and basing strategy
to a review of military construction projects to ensure the two are
compatible. USFK is already reassessing all planned construction
projects in South Korea. Once decisions have been reached on ongoing
studies, USFK will ensure that all planned construction projects
support these decisions.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
require the Commander, U.S. Forces Korea, to prepare a detailed South
Korea-wide infrastructure master plan for the changing infrastructure
for U.S. military facilities in South Korea, updating it periodically
as needed, and identifying funding requirements and division of funding
responsibilities between the United States and South Korea. (p. 27/GAO
Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Concur. As the report notes on page 25, USFK is already
developing a detailed infrastructure master plan for all enduring
installations. Once decisions have been reached on ongoing studies,
USFK will ensure that all master plans are adjusted to support these
decisions.
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] S. Rpt. No. 107-202, at 26 (2002).
[2] Yongsan Army Garrison is surrounded by residential and commercial
high-rises. Yongsan Army Garrison is the headquarters for the U.S.
military presence in South Korea, including headquarters facilities for
the United Nations Command, the United States-Republic of Korea
Combined Forces Command, United States Forces Korea, and the Eighth
United States Army. Yongsan employs 2,500 U.S. military personnel,
1,000 U.S. civilians, 6,000 Korean civilians, and more than 1,000 South
Korean military personnel. In addition, 3,500 military and civilian
employees reside on the property or live in neighborhoods adjacent to
the garrison.
[3] The host-nation-funded construction program is part of the South
Korea burden-sharing arrangement covered by the Mutual Defense Treaty
between South Korea and the United States and represents the largest
single source of major construction funds for U.S. Forces Korea.
[4] In 1954, the United States and South Korea agreed to the Mutual
Defense Treaty between South Korea and the United States.
[5] Examples of poor living and working conditions include daily
electrical outages; air conditioning failures during the summer;
inadequate heating during the winter, including unheated showers and
latrines; and the presence of asbestos in family housing units.
[6] The LPP defines a safety easement as the distance from an explosive
area that personnel and structures must be kept and is directly related
to the quantity and types of explosives and ammunition present.
[7] Since 1969, U.S. Forces Korea has reportedly returned 87 percent of
the land it once controlled. During this time, additional land returns
have been attempted, but these were stalled when disputes arose
involving ownership and future use.
[8] In addition to traditional military facilities, Yongsan Army
Garrison includes support facilities associated with a small city, for
example, a hospital, a fire station, a police force, commissary and
exchange facilities, schools, theaters, restaurants, a hotel, sports
and recreational facilities, and water and sewage treatment plants.
[9] There have been various indications that the cost of relocating
Yongsan Army Garrison could have been from $1.7 billion to $9.5 billion
(in 1993 dollars). According to DOD, there has never been a detailed or
agreed upon cost estimate for the relocation of Yongsan Army Garrison.
[10] According to press reports, the relocations would occur in two
phases. During phase one, U.S. forces located north of Seoul would
consolidate on a smaller number of bases. During phase two, these
forces and forces in the Seoul metropolitan area would move to key hubs
south of Seoul.
[11] According to a U.S. Forces Korea official, of the $1.3 billion in
construction projects, $491 million was for ongoing or planned for
Yongsan Army Garrison in Seoul.
[12] The annual level of host-nation-funded construction is determined
between the U.S. Department of State and the South Korea Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Trade and is negotiated for a 3-year time frame.
[13] Korean unit of measure, 1 pyong = 3.3 square meters or 35 square
feet.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
