oversight

Military Bases: Relocating the Naval Air Station Agana's Operations

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-12-31.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

GAO

.-   l_ll_.....   .,.I,   ,l.l   .-..____    _ .._._   _-.---   ..--..   .   --...--..   “..--T-------




                                                                                                              MILITARY BASES
I hTt~I1llwr                                1!t!lo




                                                                                                              Relocating the Naval
                                                                                                              Air Station Agana’s
                                                                                                              Operations


                                                                                                                                                            142952
                                                                                                                                                                     II


                                                                                                                                        RELEASED
                                                                                                         RESTRICTED--Not       to be released outside the
                                                                                                         General Accomtlng Office unless specifically
                                                                                                         approved by the Offlce of Congressional
                                                                                                         Relations.


     GAO/NSIAI)-91-W
                                                                                          .




Far East Office                                                                   P.O. Box 61087
                                                                              Honolulu, HI 96860

B-240437

December 31,199O

The Honorable Ben Blaz
IIouse of Representatives

Dear Mr. Blaz:

The government of Guam has made numerous requests to the U.S. government to transfer
the facilities and land of the Naval Air Station Agana to its control. According to the
government of Guam, the transfer is necessary to permit expansion of the International Air
Terminal and its operations to accommodate Guam’s growing tourist industry and to promote
economic development. This report responds to your request that we evaluate (1) the
feasibility of relocating the operations at the Naval Air Station to Andersen Air Force Base,
Guam, (2) the estimated costs of such a move, and (3) the potential costs of making enough
Navy land available at the Air Station to expand the International Air Terminal without
moving all of the Navy’s operations.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no
further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we
will send copies to the Secretaries of Defense, Interior, Transportation and the Navy and Air
Force; the Chairmen, House and Senate Committees on Appropriations; the Governor of
Guam; and other interested parties. We will make copies available to others upon request.

Please contact me at (808) 541-1250 if you or your staff have any questions concerning the
report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Sincerely yours,




Walter C. Herrmann, Jr.
Director, Far East Office
ElxecutiveSummary


                   The Governor of Guam has requested title to the facilities and land of
Purpose            Brewer Field, currently split between the Naval Air Station Agana and
                   the Guam International Air Terminal. Guam wants the property to
                   expand the international airport to accommodate the island’s growing
                   tourist industry, promote economic development, and provide other non-
                   aviation services and facilities to the people of Guam.

                   Based on concerns that expanding the international airport is restricted
                   by the Naval Air Station, Guam’s Congressional Delegate asked GAO to
                   assess(1) the feasibility of relocating the operations at the Naval Air
                   Station to Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, (2) the estimated costs of
                   such a relocation, and (3) the potential costs of making enough Navy
                   land available at the Air Station to expand the international airport and
                   related facilities without relocating all of the Navy’s operations.


                   In 1974, the U.S. government and the territory of Guam entered into an
Background         agreement permitting the international airport to use Naval Air Station
                   facilities, including the runway and air traffic control tower. The airport
                   is operated by the Guam Airport Authority, according to the Guam Air-
                   port Authority Act (Guam P.L. 13-57). The act stipulates that the
                   Authority is responsible for extending, improving, and constructing
                   civilian airports and related facilities on Guam.

                   During the early part of 1989, Guam officials made numerous requests
                   to Department of Defense (DOD) officials to relocate the Naval Air Sta-
                   tion’s operations and turn over its land and facilities at no cost to the
                   government of Guam. In July 1989, the Secretary of Defense informed
                   the Governor that it would be difficult to justify the large amount of
                   funds necessary for consolidating missions at Andersen.


                   GAO found that Navy and Air Force operations can be consolidated at
Results in Brief   Andersen Air Force Base without affecting mission accomplishment and
                   that enough land is available to construct replacement facilities. GAO
                   estimates that the costs of such a relocation would be about $229.1 mil-
                   lion, as compared with the Navy’s $289.4-million estimate. GAO estimates
                   an annual savings of $7.7 million from reduced maintenance and per-
                   sonnel costs, as compared with the Navy’s annual savings estimate of
                   $3.2 million. Using a present-value analysis, GAO estimates it would take
                   over 100 years to recover the costs of relocating the Navy’s operations.




                   Page 2                         GAO/NSLAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
------.._
                             Executive Summary




                             Although not endorsing any approach, GAO identified four options that
                             would allow the airport to expand its operations without having the
                             Navy relocate, GAO estimates the cost of implementing these options
                             range from $9 million to $105.9 million, with no annual savings. Navy
                             and Guam officials expressed concerns over each of these options and
                             indicated that none would fully satisfy their needs.



GAO’s Analysis

Relocating the Naval Air     GAO found that, given the current situation, the Navy’s missions could be
Station’s Operations IS      accomplished at Andersen and that enough land is available. However,
                             Navy and Air Force officials noted that the Department of the Interior is
Feasible                     considering designating parts of Andersen as “critical habitats” for
                             some endangered species, which would limit the development and use of
                             the area. Interior officials expect the process to take until mid-1991
                             before they make a final designation.

                             The principal considerations in assessing the feasibility of relocating the
                             Naval Air Station are mission compatibility and land availability. An
                             August 1989 Navy study, as well as other Navy and DOD documents, con-
                             cludes that the Navy’s missions can be accomplished at Andersen
                             without interfering with Air Force operations and that enough land is
                             available to construct replacement facilities for the Navy. Further, Navy
                             and Air Force officials concur with the study’s conclusions.


Estimated Relocation Costs   GAO found that the Navy’s relocation cost estimate overstates some facil-
Are Substantial              ities’ requirements and costs. For example, the Navy’s estimate for the
                             construction of family housing is $23.6 million more than GAO'S estimate
                             which is based on less costly construction techniques being used. The
                             Navy’s estimate for maintenance and production facilities is $13.3 mil-
                             lion higher than GAO'S estimate because of different estimated require-
                             ments. As shown in table 1, a large portion of the relocation costs
                             involves replacing family housing, bachelor housing, community support
                             facilities, and maintenance and production facilities.




                             Page 3                        GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
    I


                                        Executive Summary




Table 1: Comparison of Cost Estimates
by Navy and GAO (Fiscal Year 1990       Dollars in millions
Dollars)
                                                                                                                    Navy           GAO
                                        Categories of one-time costs                                            estimate       estimate
                                        Family housing                                                -.-__         $102.9          $79.3
                                        Bachelor housing and services                                                 54.3           51.1
                                        Maintenance and production                                                    59.9           46.6
                                        Operations and training                                                       22.4           15.6
                                        SUPPlY                                                                        13.7 -14.8
                                        Administration                                                                 6.1     -.__   4.1
                                        Medical clinics                                                                2.1            1.9
                                        Communications improvements                 .___--___                          5.8
                                                                                                                    __--__            6.8
                                        Equipment and furnishings relocation                                           4.9
                                                                                                                        --____-_- -- 2.7
                                        Base closure                                                                  14.9            3.7
                                        Fuel system modifications                                                       1.0           1.0
                                        Demolition                                                                     0.7            0.7
                                        Family relocation                                                     .--      0.5            0.1
                                        Environmental impact studies                                                   0.2            0.4
                                        Reduction-in-force                ___...    __-.        ---                       0           0.3
                                        Total one-time relocation costs                                             $289.4        $229.1



Options Short of a Total                As requested, GAO examined other options for expanding the air ter-
Relocation are Available                m inal, without a complete relocation of the Navy’s operations. Although
                                        other options may be available, GAO focused on four involving expansion
                                        sites discussed in the Airport Authority’s Master Plan.

                                        The options assume that the Navy would make from 34 to 281 acres
                                        available for the construction of maintenance hangars, aircraft parking,
                                        and ground support and air cargo facilities.

                                        In general, the Navy opposeseach of the options based on contingency
                                        requirements, quality-of-life concerns, and security and encroachment
                                        issues. Guam officials oppose each of the options becausethe Navy
                                        housing units and community support facilities are incompatible with
                                        the operations of the international airport. Further, they believe that
                                        none of the options would meet the airport’s long-term expansion needs.

                                        Any transfer of federal land on Guam is subject to negotiations between
                                        the U.S. government and the territory of Guam. Payment for any
                                        transfer of federal land on Guam would also be subject to negotiations.
                                        However, both DOD and the territory of Guam believe that they should
                                        not have to pay for the relocation.


                                        Page 4                                GAO/NSIAD-91-33 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                                                                                              f,
                  Executive Summary




                  This report contains no recommendations.
Recommendations

                  GAO solicited comments on a draft of this report from the government of
Agency Comments   Guam, DOD, and the Department of the Interior. The government of
                  Guam stated that the Naval Air Station should not be viewed strictly in
                  economic terms because the relocation would provide numerous benefits
                  to both the United States and Guam. For example, it would provide
                  greater self-sufficiency for Guam while not impeding actions to defend
                  the Pacific area. The government of Guam also noted that the Airport
                  Authority’s Master Plan for the commercial airport was predicated on
                  the assumption that military operations would remain at the Naval Air
                  Station. The presumption of the Navy relocating all its operations would
                  have resulted in a different configuration of the airport’s planned
                  growth and expansion.

                  DoD concurred with the information in the report. The Department of
                  the Interior had no objections to the report. It suggested that a phased
                  relocation and different cost-sharing arrangements may be ways to
                  resolve relocation cost and financing issues.




                  Page 6                        GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
Contents


Executive Summary                                                                                          2

Chapter 1                                                                                                  8
Introduction              U.S. Territory of Guam                                                           8
                          U.S. Military Installations on Guam                                              9
                          Guam International Air Terminal                                                 11
                          Requests to Relocate the Naval Air Station’s Operations                         12
                          Cost Estimates for Relocating the Naval Air Station                             12

Chapter 2                                                                                                 14
Relocating the Naval      Relocating the Naval Air Station’s Operations to Andersen                       15
                              Air Force Base Is Operationally Feasible
Air Station’s             Navy Revised Estimate of Relocation Costs After Loss of                         18
Operations Is Feasible,       Bombers at Andersen
but Costs Would Be        Estimated Annual Savings Also Differ and Are Small in                          23
                              Comparison to Costs
Substantial               DOD Comments and Our Evaluation                                                23
                          Government of Guam Comments and Our Evaluation                                 24
                          Department of the Interior Comments and Our Evaluation                         24

Chapter 3                                                                                                25
Alternatives to a Total   Description of the Alternative Expansion Sites                                 25
                          Four Alternatives to a Total Relocation                                        29
Relocation                Concerns Expressed About the Four Alternatives                                 33

Appendixes                Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology                                 38
                          Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Defense                           41
                          Appendix III: Comments From the Government of Guam                             43
                              Dated August 24, 1990
                          Appendix IV: Comments From the Government of Guam                              46
                              Dated September 26, 1990
                          Appendix V: Comments From the Department of the                                55
                              Interior Dated September 18, 1990
                          Appendix VI: Major Contributors to This Report                                 58

Tables                    Table 1: Comparison of Cost Estimates by Navy and GAO                            4
                          Table 1.1: Projected Growth in Airport Activities on                            12
                              Guam
                          Table 2.1: Facilities That Could Be Jointly Used by Both                        16
                              the Navy and Air Force


                          Page 6                       GAO/NSIADBl-83   Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
          Contenta




          Table 2.2: Comparison of Estimates by the Navy and GAO                            19
              (Fiscal Year 1990 Dollars)
          Table 3.1: Options for the Airport Expansion                                     34

Figures   Figure     1.1: Major Military Installations on Guam                             10
          Figure     3.1: Expansion Site A                                                 26
          Figure     3.2: Expansion Site B                                                 27
          Figure     3.3: Expansion Site C                                                 28
          Figure     3.4: Expansion Site D                                                 29
          Figure     3.5: Option 1                                                         30
          Figure     3.6: Option 2                                                         31
          Figure     3.7: Option 3                                                         32
          Figure     3.8: Option 4                                                         33




          Abbreviations

          DOD          Department of Defense
          GAO          General Accounting Office


          Page 7                           GAO/NSIAD91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
.   Chapter 1

    Introduction


                        The Naval Air Station Agana is a joint-use facility housing both the
                        Navy’s military missions and Guam’s only commercial airport. The com-
                        mercial portion of the airport is called the Guam International Air Ter-
                        minal and is located on the northeast side of the Naval Air Station.
                        Citing the need to expand the International Air Terminal and its opera-
                        tions, Guam officials, including the Governor, have requested that the
                        Naval Air Station’s operations be relocated and the land transferred at
                        no cost to the government of Guam.


                        The island of Guam is the western-most territory of the United States
    U.S. Territory of   and is strategically located in the Pacific Ocean about 3,300 nautical
    Guam                miles southwest of Hawaii, 1,200 nautical miles east of the Philippines,
                        and about 1,500 nautical miles southeast of Japan. Guam is 32 miles
                        long, ranges from 4 to 8 miles in width, and has a total land area of 212
                        square miles-slightly more than three times the size of Washington,
                        D.C. About 50 percent of Guam’s land is privately owned; 32 percent is
                        controlled by the US. government, mostly for military reasons; and 18
                        percent is under the supervision of the government of Guam. According
                        to the government of Guam, the island’s 1988 population was about
                        126,400 people, including 22,400 military personnel and their
                        dependents.

                        Guam is a self-governing, unincorporated territory of the United States.
                        Its citizens are American citizens, but they are not allowed to vote for
                        the president. The people of Guam are represented in the House of Rep-
                        resentatives by one elected delegate who has the same privileges of
                        other members of the Congress, except the delegate cannot vote in a full
                        committee or on final passage of a bill on the House floor. The 1950
                        Organic Act of Guam and its amendments established a three-branch
                        territorial government that consists of an executive branch headed by
                        the elected governor and lieutenant governor, a judicial branch, and a
                        21-seat unicameral legislature elected biennially. During fiscal year
                        1988, Guam had $360.4 million in operating revenues.

                        Guam’s economy is led by income generated by the local tourist industry
                        and funds provided by the U.S. government. Tourism contributed $250
                        million and generated about 5,510 jobs directly and 7,761 jobs indirectly
                        to Guam’s economy in 1986. The US. government is Guam’s leading
                        source of revenue. It provided about $620 million through various
                        grants, programs, and wages. In 1986, the US. government employed
                        about 6,700 people from the local economy. Total island employment
                        reached an all-time high of about 50,000 people at the end of 1988. In


                        Page 8                        GAO/NSIALb91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                        chapter 1
                        Introduction




                        March 1989, Guam also reported a 2.6-percent unemployment rate,
                        which was the lowest in the United States.


                        Given its strategic location, Guam is an integral part of the logistical
U.S. M ilitary          support system of the Department of Defense (DOD) and serves as an
Installations on Guam   important meteorological, communication, surveillance, and educational
                        center in the Western Pacific. The Navy and Air Force have major oper-
                        ations and facilities located on Guam (see fig. 1.1). The Commander,
                        Naval Forces Marianas, is the senior military commander and the local
                        regional coordinator for Navy activities operating in the area. The
                        Navy’s larger installations include the Naval Air Station Agana; Naval
                        Communication Area Master Station, Western Pacific; Naval Regional
                        Medical Center; Naval Magazine; Naval Station; Naval Ship Repair
                        Facility; Naval Supply Depot; and Naval Public Works Center. The pri-
                        mary Air Force installation on Guam is Andersen Air Force Base.

                        The Naval Air Station Agana (Brewer Field) is located in the center of
                        the island and covers 2,213 acres. Its basic mission is to maintain and
                        operate aviation-related facilities and provide support to other Navy
                        activities and units in the Pacific as tasked by higher authorities. One
                        Naval Air Station task is the administration of the joint-use agreement,
                        which allows Guam to use the airfield for commercial purposes. During
                        fiscal year 1989, the Naval Air Station was authorized a total of 1,972
                        personnel-l,681 military and 291 civilian. The station has 136 officer
                        and 352 enlisted family housing units and 18 barracks to house approxi-
                        mately 800 unaccompanied personnel. The station also has operational,
                        maintenance, administrative, community support, medical, and other
                        facilities.

                        Andersen Air Force Base is located at the northern end of the island and
                        covers over 20,700 acres, It is primarily used for forward deployment of
                        stateside-based aircraft. Use of the land is dominated by the two opera-
                        tional runways and the aircraft operational and maintenance facilities.
                        During fiscal year 1989, the base authorization totaled 4,534 per-
                        sonnel-3,849 military and 685 civilian. The Air Force has 1,391 family
                        housing units on the base, 360 units at the Andersen South Annex
                        (about 4 miles south of the main base), and another 5 leased units. The
                        base also has almost 1,200 enlisted bed spaces in 5 barracks and addi-
                        tional housing for officers and other personnel in transit.

                        There were some major changes made at Andersen during 1989 and
                        1990, including changes in command and missions. The Strategic Air


                        Page 9                        GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                                              Chapter 1
                                              Introduction




Figure 1 .l: Malor Military Installations on Guam




                                    ISLAND OF G U A M


                                                                    u.S Naval
                                                                    Air Station
                                                                 c0mmunicatms

                                                             5
                             0       -



                                         7    r         Gwml

                                                                                                     Naval Au Statm   Agana




                                                                                       U.S. Naval Air Statmn
                                                                                       Communications Area




                                                  Page 10                         GAO/NSLAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                                                                                                                    ,

                                                                                                                        -


                     Chapter 1
                     Introduction




                     Command maintained and operated the facilities at Andersen until
                     October 1, 1989, when operational control of the base was trans-
                     ferred to the Commander in Chief, Pacific Air Forces. In addition,
                     the Congress ended funding for the bomber squadron stationed at
                     Andersen as of June 15, 1990. According to the Air Force’s Final
                     Environmental Assessment, dated January 1990, this action was
                     estimated to cut about 1,300 personnel authorized for Andersen.’ As
                     a result, the cut in personnel would release some Air Force facilities,
                     mostly family housing units, community support capacities, and
                     operational areas.


                     On July 19, 1974, the United States and Guam entered into a *joint-use
Guam International   agreement allowing Guam to use the Naval Air Station facilities for its
Air Term inal        International Air Terminal. They have revised and updated the agree-
                     ment periodically. In general, the agreement specifies that the Navy will
                     maintain the runway, lights, and navigational equipment; furnish the
                     crash, fire, and rescue service; and staff the air traffic control tower.
                     The Navy and international airport agreed to an equitable cost sharing
                     arrangement for the joint use of the federal facilities. The joint-use
                     agreement also specifies that Guam will maintain the terminal facilities,
                     the commercial aircraft parking apron, freight and baggage facilities,
                     public access roads, and parking areas.

                     As Guam’s only commercial airport, the International Air Terminal is a
                     major hub of aircraft routes in the Western Pacific, connecting the
                     IJnited States with Asia and Australia. It is managed by the Guam Air-
                     port Authority according to the provisions of the Guam Airport
                     Authority Act (Guam P.L. 13-57). The act stipulates that the Airport
                     Authority is responsible for operating, maintaining, extending,
                     improving, and constructing civilian airports and related facilities on the
                     island, including the International Air Terminal.

                     The Airport Authority’s Master Plan Update Report for the airport was
                     issued in November 198gm2    The report concludes that the existing airport
                     facilities are inadequate to meet Guam’s growing commercial air traffic
                     and operations and that the amount of land presently available to the


                     ‘During our review, the force structure for Andersen Air Force Base was still in the planning phase.
                     ‘The current report is an update of the 1977 master plan and addressesdevelopment issues for the
                     International Air Terminal through the year 2008. The current planning results are reported in an
                     executive summary, the Master Plan Update Report, and a volume of working papers.



                     Page 11                                  GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                                                                                                                                              -


                                         Chapter 1
                                         Introduction




                                         Airport Authority is insufficient to accommodate new, expanded facili-
                                         ties. Although the government of Guam wants the eventual transfer of
                                         all the Naval Air Station’s property, the plan identifies 120 acres of land
                                         for the initial (1989-1995) stage of expansion and 142 additional acres
                                         for future (1996-2008) expansion-a total of 262 acres.3

                                         According to the plan, the activity at the airport will grow significantly
                                         in the future. Table 1.1 shows the plan’s “most probable” forecast of
                                         this growth.

Table 1.1: Projected Growth in Airport
Activities on Guam                       Figures      in thousands
                                         ..-z_..__-.-     .-- -.-----_.-   ~
                                         Airport activity
                                                   -__-..-..-                                            1988O            1998             2008
                                         Passenger arrivals                                             772.0           1,870.O          2,515.4
                                         Aircraft operationsb                                            15.4              33.8             42.3
                                         Cargo in tons                                                   23.4
                                                                                                  --- -~-_____             45.0
                                                                                                                           -------          60.3
                                         Air mail in tons                                                 5.5              10.5             13.7
                                         aActual figures for 1988.
                                         bAn alrcraft operation is a landing or takeoff.



                                         In a January 13, 1989, letter to the Commander, Naval Forces Marianas,
Requests to Relocate                     the Governor of Guam requested that the Navy transfer the facilities
the Naval Air Station’s                  and land of the Naval Air Station to the government of Guam and termi-
Operations                               nate the joint-use agreement. The Governor cited the need to expand the
                                         commercial airport and its operations to accommodate Guam’s growing
                                         tourist industry, promote economic development, and provide other non-
                                         aviation services and facilities to Guam’s citizens. Since then, the Gov-
                                         ernor and other Guam officials have made similar requests to U.S. gov-
                                         ernment officials, including the Secretaries of Defense and the Navy. In
                                         a speech given in September 1989, the Lieutenant Governor stated that
                                         the transfer of the Naval Air Station should be at no cost to Guam.


                                         There have been numerous estimates of the costs to relocate the Naval
Cost Estimates for                       Air Station’s operations to Andersen Air Force Base. One of the first was
Relocating the Naval                     presented in an Air Force letter dated March 24, 1989. Citing the need to
Air Station                              construct at least new dormitories, office buildings, and maintenance
                                         hangars at Andersen, the Air Force estimated that the potential costs

                                         “The airport master planners had assumed the joint-use agreement would remain in effect and, as a
                                         result, proposed that the new civil aviation facilities be located on nonoperational areas of the Naval
                                         Air Station.



                                         Page 12                                      GAO/NSLAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
Chapter 1
Introduction




would be well over $100 million. In a July 24, 1989, letter, the Secretary
of Defense estimated that it would cost $458 million to relocate the
Navy’s operations to Andersen and concluded that such a large amount
would be difficult to justify through DOD appropriations. The most
detailed study of the relocation was completed by the Naval Air Force,
Pacific Fleet, on August 23, 1989. It concluded that, while the relocation
was feasible, it would cost $455.4 million and should be funded by the
government of Guam. Subsequently, the Navy revised its estimate to
$298 million, primarily to account for the changes at Andersen Air
Force Base.4In September 1990, DOD reported to us that the relocation
cost would be $289.4 million.




IWe converted the Navy’s estimates into fiscal year 1990 dollars using DOD inflation rates.



Page 13                                  GAO/NSIAD91-83 Nava.l Air Station Agana’s Relocation
I Chaljter 2

  Relocatingthe Naval Air Station’s Operations Is
  Feasible,but Costs Would Be Substantial

                  Various DOD studies and documents conclude, and we agree, that the
                  Naval Air Station’s operations and the Air Force’s operations can be
                  consolidated at Andersen Air Force Base. Navy flight operations could
                  be relocated to Andersen without creating operational problems for
                  either the Air Force or the Navy. Further, Andersen has enough land to
                  support Navy requirements, which include the construction of some new
                  facilities. Also, there are some benefits to the Navy from relocating at
                  Andersen. For example, the relocation would eliminate the Navy’s
                  safety and noise concerns that exist at the Naval Air Station, and
                  Andersen is more secure and has longer runways than the Air Station.
                  The feasibility of relocating, however, could be hampered by the Depart-
                  ment of the Interior’s possible designation of land at Andersen as a
                  “critical habitat” for certain endangered species.

                  In a detailed study dated August 23, 1989, the Navy estimated that it
                  would cost $455.4 million to relocate its operations to Andersen.’ Subse-
                  quently, the Navy revised its estimate to $289.4 million to account for
                  the reductions in operations and personnel levels at Andersen Air Force
                  base that occurred after its initial estimate. We developed our own esti-
                  mate of $229.1 million to relocate the Navy’s operations to Andersen2
                  Our estimate is lower because we believe the Navy overstated the need
                  for new facilities, overestimated some costs, and included costs not
                  directly related to the relocation to Andersen.

                  While our cost estimate is not as high as the Navy’s estimate, it is sub-
                  stantial when compared to our estimated annual savings of $7.7 million
                  resulting from reduced maintenance and personnel costs. Based on our
                  present-value analysis, we conclude that, even though consolidation
                  would save $7.7 million a year, it would take well over 100 years to
                  recover the cost of relocating the Navy’s operations to Andersen Air
                  Force Uase.




                  ‘We converted the Navy’s costs and savings estimates into fiscal year 1990 dollars. The Navy did not
                  conduct a net present-value analysis to account for the changing value of money over time.

                  20ur cost estimates are given in constant fiscal year 1990 dollars and are not discounted to account
                  for the changing value of money over time. This allows us to compare our estimates with the Navy’s
                  initial and revised estimates.



                  Page 14                                  GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                                                             b
                           Chapter 2
                           Relocating the Naval Air Station’s Operations
                           Is Feasible, but Costa Would Be Substantial




                           Based on our review of Navy studies and visits to the Naval Air Station
Relocating the Naval       and Andersen Air Force Base, we believe that the Navy and Air Force
Air Station’s              missions can be accomplished at Andersen and that enough land is avail-
Operations to              able to replace Navy facilities. A Naval Air Force, Pacific Fleet report,
                           dated August 23, 1989, and other DOD and Navy documents support this
Andersen Air Force         conclusion. In addition, the Navy would gain some cost and operational
Base Is Operationally      benefits by relocating to Andersen. Navy and Air Force officials noted,
Feasible                   however, that the Department of the Interior is considering designating
                           parts of Andersen as “critical habitats” for some endangered species,
                           which could threaten the feasibility of relocating the Navy’s operations
                           to Andersen.


Operational Requirements   Andersen would be able to accommodate the added air traffic from
                           naval air operations. The 1989 Naval Air Force, Pacific Fleet, study and
                           other Navy documents concluded that both the Navy and Air Force
                           could operate at Andersen given that additional facilities would be con-
                           structed and the infrastructure would be improved. According to Fed-
                           eral Aviation Administration and Air Force officials, Andersen is
                           currently operating well below its capacity and the addition of Navy
                           flight operations would not create operational problems for either the
                           Air Force or the Navy. Also, according to DOD officials, Andersen could
                           accommodate additional naval operations if the Navy had to make fur-
                           ther changes to its base structure in the Pacific.

                           Relocating the Navy’s operations to Andersen would result in a total of
                           29 aircraft assigned at the base. In June 1990, the Air Force deactivates
                           the bomber squadron at Andersen, leaving six assigned aircraft at the
                           base. At the time of our review, the Navy had 23 aircraft permanently
                           assigned to the Naval Air Station, which includes 12 helicopters. How-
                           ever, few aircraft are ever at the Air Station on a daily basis. Also,
                           according to Navy and Air Force officials, the Air Force’s plans to
                           deploy bomber groups to Andersen about eight times per year still
                           would not create operational problems. Our analysis of Navy and Air
                           Force air traffic information also confirms that Navy operations could
                           be relocated to Andersen without creating operational difficulties for
                           either the Air Force or Navy,


Land Requirements          Andersen has sufficient land for the Navy to construct facilities and
                           conduct its mission. The Navy requires about 170 acres of contiguous
                           land to meet its current mission and contingency requirements. This
                           land requirement could be met by locating Navy operations on the


                           Page 16                                GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation




                                                                                                           ,
                                              Chapter 2
                                              Relocating the Naval Ah Station’s Operations
                                              Is Feasible, but Costs Would Be Substantial




                                              southeast corner of Andersen. According to Navy documents, this site is
                                              approximately 170 acres and includes only a few Air Force facilities,
                                              which could remain in use by the Air Force or be given to the Navy for
                                              its operations. Bachelor housing, family housing, and community sup-
                                              port facilities would have to be located to other areas of Andersen and
                                              Andersen South Annex.


Facility Requirements                         The Navy would need to construct some new facilities and modify some
                                              existing Air Force facilities to meet its mission requirements. The Navy
                                              could take over some Air Force facilities and jointly use others, as
                                              shown in table 2.1. However, there are not enough facilities to fully
                                              meet Navy operational, maintenance, supply, hospital, housing, and
                                              community support requirements. These facilities would need to be
                                              built.

Table 2.1: Facilities That Could Be Jointly
Used by Both the Navy and Air Force                            __---
                                              Runwavs
                                              -.-..___
                                                         -I
                                                                                                        Bachelor housina
                                              Taxiway                                                   Enlisted dining facility
                                              Aircraft parking apron                                    Rehabilitation center
                                                                                                                           __.-
                                              Aircraft wash rack                                        Chapel
                                              Compass calibration pad                                   Exchange retail
                                              Filling station      __________-                          Exchange cafe       -                         .__
                                              Fuel storage
                                                     ..--.____tanks -..... ~.                           Exchange service outlet
                                              Receiver/transmitter                                    --Amusement center         --
                                              Passenger/cargo ____-  facilities                         Service station
                                              Police/fire facilities                                    Hobby shop                                     .-
                                              Control tower                                             Special services center
                                              Oxygen/nitrogen
                                               ..~____              facility-___---                     Auto hobby shop
                                              Ordnance buildina                                         Bowlina allev
                                              Armory for small arms                                     Theater
                                              Academic building -____           -.-                     Clubs
                                              Corrosion control
                                                            .___--.- hangar                             Class Six store
                                              Engine power check ___.    pad                            Library
                                              Auto vehicle shop                                         Recreation pavilion
                                              Public works
                                                        ..-__- shops
                                                                   _____--                              Indoor play courts
                                              Administrative space                                      Retail warehouse
                                              Note: This table lists facilities that the Navy could use in whole or In part to satisfy its facility
                                              requirements.




                                              Page 16                                        GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                       Chapter 2
                       Relocating the Naval Air Station’s Operations
                       Is Feasible, but Costs Would Be Substantial




Benefits to the Navy   There would be some benefits produced from relocating the Navy’s oper-
                       ations to Andersen Air Force Base. According to Navy officials as well
                       as Navy documents, in addition to reduced maintenance and personnel
                       costs, the relocation would eliminate the Navy’s safety and noise abate-
                       ment concerns about the Naval Air Station. Also, operating from
                       Andersen would be more secured than sharing facilities with a commer-
                       cial airport, In addition, the Navy would have newer, better designed
                       facilities and longer runways at Andersen.


Critical Habitat       One factor that could affect the Navy’s relocation to Andersen is Guam’s
Designation            endangered species, primarily birds and fruit bats. The Endangered Spe-
                       cies Act of 1973, as amended, stipulates that an area required for the
                       survival of an endangered species, referred to as a critical habitat, must
                       be conserved and protected. Currently, the Department of the Interior is
                       in the process of determining which sections of Andersen should be des-
                       ignated as critical habitats. According to Interior officials, it appears
                       that the endangered species are not currently located in the areas where
                       the Navy would relocate its operations. However, because some loca-
                       tions around Andersen’s runways may be suitable to reintroduce the
                       species to Guam, they are being considered in Interior’s review. Interior
                       officials do not expect to make a final designation before mid-1991.

                       A critical habitat designation could limit the development and use of an
                       area. In this case, the feasibility of relocating could be affected if areas
                       around Andersen’s runways are designated as critical habitats. These
                       areas could be where the Navy would need to construct new facilities to
                       carry out its missions. If a critical habitat is declared, all future actions
                       in the area must be coordinated with the Department of the Interior.
                       According to the Commander, Naval Forces Marianas, a critical habitat
                       designation could prohibit construction in the area. Also, an Air Force
                       letter to the Department of the Interior noted that a critical habitat des-
                       ignation could restrict the use of heavy equipment, restrict construction
                       times and seasons, and affect construction milestones. However, because
                       the Department of the Interior’s study is still in process, it is not possible
                       to determine the cost or feasibility implications of a critical habitat des-
                       ignation on relocating the Naval Air Station to Andersen.




                       Page 17                                GAO/NSIAD91-33 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                               Chapter 2
                               Relocating the Naval Air Station’s Operations
                               Is Feasible, but Costs Would Be Substantial




                               In a study dated August 23, 1989, the Navy estimated that it would cost
Navy Revised                   $455.4 million to relocate its operations to Andersen Air Force Base.3
Estimate   of Relocation       After this study WZIS completed, the Congress ended funding as of June
Costs After Loss of            15, 1990, for the bomber squadron stationed at Andersen. This draw-
                               down of operations freed Air Force operational and support facilities,
IBombers at Andersen           such as a hangar, clubs, and bachelor housing, for use by the Navy. In
                               September 1990, DOD reported the Navy’s revised estimate of $289.4 mil-
                               lion. The revised estimate accounts for the drawdown of operations at
                               Andersen and reflects other adjustments in cost estimates.

                               We believe the Navy’s revised estimate, although significantly lower
                               than its initial estimate, is still too high. We estimate the cost would be
                               $229.1 million to relocate the Navy’s operations to Andersen. Our esti-
                               mate is based on a detailed review of the Navy’s estimates and analysis
                               of what facilities it needs to meet its mission. We also identified what
                               Air Force facilities would be available for Navy use at Andersen.

                               We believe the Navy’s revised estimate is too high because it included

                           l larger requirements for replacement facilities,
                           l higher construction costs for family housing,
                           l costs not related to the relocation, and
                           . higher cost estimates.

                               The Navy also underestimated some costs and excluded reduction-in-
                               force costs that we believe are related to the relocation.

                               Table 2.2 compares the Navy’s estimates of $455.4 million and $289.4
                               million, and our estimate of $229.1 million.




                               “We converted the Navy’s cost estimates into fiscal year 1990 dollars.



                               Page 18                                   GAO/NSIAD-91-33 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                                        Chapter 2
                                        Relocating the Naval Alr Station’s Operatipns
                                        Is Feasible, but Costs Would Be Substantial




Table 2.2: Comparison of Estimates by
the Navy and GAO (Fiscal Year 1990      Dollars in millions                                                                             ______
Dollars)                                                                                                Navy                Navy
                                                                                                       initial           revised           GAO
                                        Cateaories of one-time costs                              estimates            estimates      estimates
                                        Replacement costs for Navy facilities
                                        Family housing   --                                            $126.0             $102.9           $79.3
                                        Bachelor --.housing and community services                      116.9               54.3            51 ,l
                                        Maintenance and production                                       67.7      -        59.9     -____ 46.6
                                        Operations and training
                                        -_______-              ___--                                     49.7               22.4             15.6
                                        SUPPlY
                                        _.__-_---_-----.------                             _____--       13.0                13.7            14.8
                                        Administration                                                    6.6                 6.1             4.1
                                        Medical clinics                                                   2.8                 2.1             1.9
                                                                                                                                         _____-_
                                        Utilities                                                         2.3            -___ 0                 0
                                        Other costs
                                        Off-base road improvements                                       25.7                   0                 0
                                        Communications
                                        -_..-.-________ improvements                              .____ 19.6                  5.8               6.8
                                        Construction of Air Force
                                                              ___- facilities                      .._~___ 6.7                  0                 0
                                        Water system improvements ----.                                    6.2                  0                 0
                                        Equipment and furnishings relocation                               5.2 -__            4.9               2.7
                                                                  ______-
                                        Base closure
                                        -_.-..-~  -~__.- ___._____-.__-                                    4.3               14.9      ~-.--    3.7
                                        Fuel system modifications                                          1.0                1.0               1.0
                                        Demolition                                                         1.0                0.7    -0.7
                                        Family relocation
                                        ._A
                                                                                                          0.5                 0.5               0.1
                                        Environmental impact
                                                          ____ studies
                                                               .-.                                        0.2                 0.2               0.4
                                        Reduction-in-force                                                  0                   0-              0.3
                                        Total                                                         $455.4              $209.4            $229.1
                                        Note: The Navy’s and our estimates are not discounted to account for the value of money over the time
                                        period to relocate. The Navy’s initial and revised estimates were presented in fiscal year 1989 and 1991
                                        dollars, respectively. We converted the Navy’s estimates into fiscal year 1990 dollars using DOD inflation
                                        rates.




Larger Requi rements for                The Navy’s estimate is based on larger requirements for replacement
Replacement Facilities                  facilities than our estimate. The Navy, under the category of operational
                                        and training facilities, included replacement costs for an operation con-
                                        trol center, which it does not presently have and has no plans to build.
                                        The Navy estimated that this facility would cost $4.4 million. Although
                                        the Navy has an official requirement for such a facility, we believe that
                                        this is not a true requirement of the relocation since the Navy is pres-
                                        ently operating without one.

                                        The Navy included the cost to construct new facilities in its revised esti-
                                        mate, even though facilities at Andersen could meet Navy requirements.


                                        Page 19                                    GAO/NSIAD-91433 Naval Air Station Agaua’s Relocation
                               Chapter 2
                               Relocating the Naval Air Station’s Operations
                               Is Feasible, but Costa Would Be Substantial




                               Due to the reduction in Air Force operations, Andersen has excess
                               capacity in its community services facilities, administrative space, and
                               medical clinics. We believe that the Navy did not adequately consider
                               these facilities in its revised estimate. At the time of our review, our
                               estimates for community services, administrative space, and medical
                               clinics were $4.2 million, $2.1 million, and $200,000 less, respectively,
                               than the Navy’s estimates.


Higher Construction Costs      Both the Navy’s and our estimates include the cost to replace all 488
for Family Housing             family housing units currently located at the Naval Air Station. The
                               Navy’s estimate for the construction of family housing is $23.6 million
                               more than our estimate because our estimate-is based on the use of less
                               costly construction techniques.

488 Housing Units              If there were a total relocation, Navy officials believe that all 488 family
                               housing units on the Naval Air Station would be needed. There has been
                               a significant reduction in the number of personnel with families sta-
                               tioned at Andersen Air Force Base since the Navy issued its initial esti-
                               mate. According to a March 7, 1990, letter from the Commander in
                               Chief, Pacific Air Forces, the reductions at Andersen Air Force Base
                               would free up 578 Air Force housing units and Air Force personnel
                               would vacate another 137 Navy units-a total of 715 units. It appears,
                               however, that the Air Force and Navy need all 715 housing units that
                               have become available to meet expanded requirements and the existing
                               housing shortfall. Officials from the Pacific Air Force Command esti-
                               mate that 175 homes will be needed to meet the housing requirements of
                               a communications squadron that is relocating to Andersen. In addition,
                               in January 1990, the Navy had 562 Navy families living off base. Based
                               on these figures, the Air Force and Navy could use a total of 737 housing
                               units -more than the 715 units freed up at Andersen.

                               Although there is no DOD policy that military housing should be provided
                               to every family, we included the 488 housing units at the Naval Air Sta-
                               tion in our cost estimate because the Navy has a requirement for them.
                               If they were not replaced, the Navy would have recurring housing
                               allowance costs for its service members.

Estimated Construction Costs   The Navy’s revised estimate of $102.9 million to replace 488 housing
                               units is based on standard DOD cost estimating procedures using conven-
                               tional construction methods. Although the Navy reduced its family
                               housing cost estimate in its revised estimate, we believe it should have



                               Page 20                                GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                             Chapter 2
                             RelomMng the Naval Air Station’s Operations
                             Ie Feasible, but Costs Would Be Substanthl




._-_-_-_“_. ..-,_I-__.-_--
                             based its estimate on the use of prefinished construction methods to fur-
                             ther reduce these costs, Based on other Navy prefinished housing
                             projects in Pacific locations, and according to the manufacturer, prefin-
                             ished construction could meet Guam’s typhoon design standards,

                             Using DOD cost estimating procedures for prefinished, U.S. factory-built
                             construction methods, we estimate that it would cost $79.3 million to
                             replace the 488 Navy housing units. This is $23.6 million less than the
                             Navy’s revised estimate, or $163,000 per housing unit versus the Navy’s
                             estimate of $211,000 per unit. If the relocation occurs, we believe the
                             Navy should consider the less expensive construction method.

                             Government of Guam officials believe that replacing the family housing
                             should not be considered a part of the cost of the relocation, because the
                             housing units were already identified for replacement. Citing the Naval
                             Air Station Master Plan, the officials believe that the current location of
                             the family housing is incompatible with the operations of the interna-
                             tional airport and should be relocated. The plan recommends that the
                             existing family housing be phased out when it is no longer economical to
                             maintain and replacement facilities are funded, but notes that the
                             housing is currently in good physical condition.


Costs Not Related to the     Initially, the Navy included costs for road improvements that are not
Relocation                   related to the relocation. It also included environmental cleanup costs
                             for items that it is already obligated to pay for.

                             The Navy included $25.7 million in its first estimate for the government
                             of Guam to improve the roads from Andersen Air Force Base to other
                             military installations. During our review, we concluded that this
                             improvement is not a necessary part of the relocation. Guam is already
                             in the process of improving its road system. Although the Navy still
                             believes road improvements are needed to support its operations at
                             Andersen, it deleted this cost item in its revised estimate.

                             Under the base closure category, the Navy’s revised estimate includes
                             $11 million to clean up two sites at the Naval Air Station contaminated
                             with hazardous waste. Officials from the Navy and the Guam Environ-
                             mental Protection Agency are currently discussing the amount of
                             cleanup required at these sites given the exposure risks presented by the
                             land’s present use. We believe these cleanup costs are not related to a
                             relocation to Andersen and did not include them in our estimate.



                             Page 21                              GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                   Chapter 2
                   Relocating the Naval Air Station’s Operations
                   IR Feasible, but Costa Would Be Substantial




                   The Navy may face additional cleanup costs if control of the Naval Air
                   Station is turned over to another party. If the use of the land and the
                   associated exposure risks change, the Guam Environmental Protection
                   Agency may require a more stringent cleanup of the two contaminated
                   sites. Any costs associated with cleaning up the two contaminated sites
                   at the Naval Air Station beyond standards dictated by the Navy’s cur-
                   rent use would be a cost of relocating the Navy’s operations to
                   Andersen. It is not possible at this time to estimate these potential costs.

-
Some Higher Cost   The Navy’s revised estimate for family relocation costs and moving
Estimates          expenses for equipment and furnishings are higher than our estimates.
                   The Navy’s $500,000-estimate for family relocation costs assumes that
                   all 488 families at the Naval Air Station would need to move at the same
                   time. We estimate that constructing new Navy facilities, including
                   family housing, will take 6 years. This would permit all but 125 families
                   to relocate as part of the normal permanent change of station for mili-
                   tary families. We estimate it would cost about $125,000 to relocate the
                   125 families.

                   The Navy, in its latest estimate, did lower its original equipment and
                   furnishings relocation cost estimate. In its original $5-million estimate,
                   the Navy applied 2 percent against its estimated facility construction
                   costs to determine the cost to move its equipment and furnishings from
                   the Naval Air Station to Andersen. We also applied the Navy’s 2 percent
                   against our lower facility construction cost estimate to compute our esti-
                   mate of $2.7 million, Our estimate assumes that some of the Air Force
                   equipment and furnishings in the shared facilities at Andersen would be
                   transferred to the Navy.

.-~1__-




Some Costs         We found that the Navy’s estimate to conduct environmental impact
Underestimated     studies is lower than our estimate and did not include reduction-in-force
                   costs. According to more recent Navy data, since the initial estimate,
                   costs to conduct environmental impact studies on Guam are higher than
                   expected due to additional travel costs for an overseas location, local
                   environmental awareness that requires additional technical studies and
                   coordination with regulatory agencies, and the need to examine endan-
                   gered species and habitats. We used the Navy’s more recent estimate of
                   $350,000 for environmental impact study costs. In addition, the Navy
                   did not include the costs to the U.S. government for terminating civilian
                   employees at the Naval Air Station. Using our estimates of the number



                   Page 22                                GAO/NE&ID-91-83 Naval Air Station Agaua’s Relocation
                                                                                                          I


                      chapter 2
                      Relocating the Naval Alr Station’s Operations
                      Is Feasible, but Costs Would Be Substantial




                      of personnel who would be laid off and eligible for benefits, we estimate
                      these actions would cost $338,000.


                      The Navy estimated that the consolidation at Andersen would save $3.2
Estim a ted Annual    m illion annually. Our annual savings is $4.5 m illion higher becausewe
Savings Also Differ   estimated that fewer facilities would need to be built and maintained
and Are Small in      and fewer m ilitary and civilian personnel would be needed after reloca-
                      tion. Although the estimates are different, both are small in comparison
Comparison to Costs   to the potential costs.

                      Based on our present-value analysis, we estimate that, even though con-
                      solidation would save $7.7 m illion a year, it would take well over a 100
                      years to recover the cost of relocating the Navy’s operations to
                      Andersen Air Force Base. To discount our one-time costs estimate of
                      $229.1 m illion and our annual savings estimate of $7.7 m illion, we used
                      (1) a forecasted 20-year average inflation rate of 4.36 percent and (2)
                      the current 9.01-percent yield on outstanding government bonds as the
                      discount rate. This adjusts our one-time costs and annual savings esti-
                      mates for the changing value of money over time.

                      Our analysis showed that even after 100 years, savings would only
                      recover about three-fourths of the relocation costs. Based on our anal-
                      ysis, we believe that the savings to DOD would not recover the costs of
                      the relocation. However, our analysis did not consider the potential ben-
                      efits to Guam from expanding the international airport and providing
                      additional community facilities, given the difficulty of quantifying such
                      benefits.


                      DOD concurred with the information contained in the report. In its
DOD Comrnents and     August 1, 1990, letter DOD noted that the U.S. Commander in Chief,
Our Evaluation        Pacific, had refined the cost estimate to $298 m illion for relocating the
                      operations of the Naval Air Station to Andersen. As of September 1990,
                      DOD reported to us that the cost estimate was further reduced to $289.4
                      m illion. W e have changed the report to reflect the $289.4-million esti-
                      mate, but the DOD estimate is still higher than our estimate.




                      Page 23                               GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’e Relocation
                     Chapter 2
                     Rdocating the Naval Air Station’s Operations
                     Is Feasible, but Costs Would Be Substantial




                     The government of Guam stated that the relocation of the Naval Air Sta-
Government of Guam   tion operations would benefit the governments of the United States and
Comments and Our     Guam by providing greater self-sufficiency for Guam while not
Evaluation           impeding actions to defend the Pacific area. It also stated that the relo-
                     cation should be at no cost to the government of Guam. We believe that
                     the government of Guam should recognize that any transfer of federal
                     land on Guam is subject to negotiations. Payment for any transfer would
                     also be subject to negotiations between the US. government and the ter-
                     ritory of Guam.


                     The Department of the Interior had no objections to the report’s con-
Department of the    tents. It noted that the remaining obstacle to the relocation is the esti-
Interior Comments    mated costs. It suggested that a phased relocation and cost-sharing
and Our Evaluation   arrangements may be feasible ways to resolve the issue over the cost
                     and financing of the relocation. We agree that the potential cost and
                     financing of the relocation are major obstacles to base consolidation at
                     Andersen.




                     Page 24                                GAO/NSlAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
Chapter 3

Alternatives to a Total Relocation


                          As requested, we identified options available for the Navy and the gov-
                          ernment of Guam to consider that do not require a total relocation of the
                          Navy’s operations to Andersen Air Force Base. Our analysis focused on
                          four options involving the transfer of Naval Air Station land to the gov-
                          ernment of Guam for the expansion of the commercial airport. Three of
                          the options meet all of the airport’s expansion requirements to the year
                          1995 and one meets all the requirements to the year 2008, as set forth in
                          the Airport Authority Master Plan. Assuming that the Navy housing
                          units and facilities are replaced, our estimated costs of implementing
                          these options range from $9 million to $105.9 million. Because the Navy
                          would not have to relocate its operations under these options, we do not
                          believe there would be any operational or personnel savings that would
                          offset the costs. Navy and government of Guam officials are opposed to
                          all of the options and have indicated that anything short of a total move
                          would not fully satisfy their long-term needs.

                          By discussing these four options, it is not our intent to imply that Navy
                          property should or should not be transferred to the government of
                          Guam or that the Guam International Air Terminal or its operations
                          should be expanded. These options are presented in response to the
                          request from Guam’s Congressional Delegate. We do not endorse any of
                          them. Any transfer of federal land on Guam is subject to negotiations
                          between the governments of the United States and the territory of
                          Guam. Payment for any transfer of federal land on Guam would also be
                          subject to negotiations. However, both DOD and the territory of Guam
                          believe that they should not have to pay for the relocation.


                          Our review of the Airport Master Plan Updated Report and discussions
Description of the        with Navy and government of Guam officials showed that various
Alternative Expansion     expansion sites on the Naval Air Station have been proposed in the
Sites                     Master Plan for the International Air Terminal and its operations. Sites
                          that appear to have been considered or discussed frequently are
                          described below.

                        . Site A contains approximately 18 acres of Navy property west of the
                          existing International Air Terminal boundary, north of the runway, and
                          south of the Navy family housing area (see fig. 3.1). According to the
                          Airport Authority Master Plan, this land would be used for aircraft
                          parking and developing facilities, such as small maintenance hangars
                          and ground support operations. Site A is a clear area of land without
                          any Navy facilities.



                          Page 26                       GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
--
                                   Chapter 3
                                   Alternatives to a Total Relocation




Figure 3.1: Expansion Site A




                                             Naval Air Station Agana




                               l   Site B covers approximately 16 acres of the east end of the Navy
                                   housing area immediately west of the International Air Terminal prop-
                                   erty line (see fig. 3.2). According to the Master Plan, the land is a pro-
                                   posed site for future airline maintenance and ground support facilities.
                                   Currently, it contains 52 family housing units, a gate, security fencing,
                                   and a guard house.




                                   Page 26                              GAO/NSIAD-91-33 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                                   Chapter 9
                                   Alternatives to a Total Relocation




Fiaure 3.2: Expansion Site B




                               l   Site C includes approximately 82 acres of Navy property at the south-
                                   west end of the runway and west of existing Navy hangars and aprons
                                   (see fig. 3.3). According to the Airport Authority, however, the land
                                   could yield only 41 acres for expansion due to site constraints and envi-
                                   ronmental concerns. (The site contains sink holes and was formerly a
                                   sanitary landfill.) The property is proposed to be used for a maintenance
                                   hangar and apron, possible air cargo or express package operations, and
                                   general aviation facilities. It currently contains some Navy communica-
                                   tions equipment.




                                   Page 27                              GAO/NSLAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
--_---~                                                                                                                  -
                                 Chapter 3
                                 Alternatives to a Total Relocation




Figure 3.3: Expansion Site C




                                           Naval Air Station Agana




                               . Site D covers approximately 181 acres north of the runway and west of
                                 the International Air Terminal property line (see fig. 3.4). It encom-
                                 passes all of the family housing at the Naval Air Station and includes
                                 the 16 acres and the 52 housing units discussed in expansion site B. The
                                 Master Plan concludes that it could not accurately determine the exact
                                 amount of property needed for airport expansion due to numerous
                                 unknowns about future requirements. Since future requirements for the
                                 land are not known, we included all 181 acres in proposed expansion
                                 site D. In addition to 488 family housing units, this site includes land
                                 with bachelor housing, Navy Exchange facilities, and community sup-
                                 port facilities.




                                 Page 28                              GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
-.-
                                   Chapter 3
                                   Alternatives to a Total Relocation




Figure 3.4: Expansion Site D
l.------




                                              Naval Air Station Agana




                                   Assuming that Navy facilities on the sites would be replaced, we esti-
 Four Alternatives to a            mate that the one-time relocation costs of implementing the four options
 Total Relocation                  we reviewed range from $9 million to $105.9 million. These are less than
                                   our $229.1-million estimate for a total relocation. Because the Navy
                                   would not have to relocate its operations under the options, we do not
                                   believe there would be any similar reduction in operations or personnel
                                   costs, which would occur in a total relocation. Implementation of any of
                                   the four options would not significantly affect the Navy’s operations.
                                   Descriptions of the four options and their estimated costs follow.

                               .    In option 1, expansion sites A and B would be made available to the
                                    Airport Authority to construct aircraft parking spaces, maintenance
                                    hangars, and support facilities. Option 1 covers approximately 34 acres
                                    of Navy property north of the runway and west of the International Air


                                    Page 29                             GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                         Chapter 3
                         Alternatives to a Total Relocation




                         Terminal (see fig. 3.5). According to the Airport Authority, this option
                         would meet only the airport’s “very near term requirements” for expan-
                         sion. We estimate replacement costs for the 52 family housing units and
                         other Navy facilities in option 1 would be $9 million.
l-ll_~~
Figure 3.5: Option 1




                       . In option 2, sites A, B, and C would be made available to the Airport
                         Authority to construct aircraft parking spaces and aprons and mainte-
                         nance, support, and air cargo and general aviation operations facilities.
                         Option 2 covers approximately 116 acres of Navy property on both sides
                         of the runway (see fig. 3.6). According to the Master Plan, this option,
                         plus the 4 acres on the east side of the terminal, meet the airport’s
                         expansion requirements to the year 1995. We estimate that it would cost
                         $10 million to relocate the communications equipment and replace the
                         52 family housing units and other Navy facilities.




                         Page 30                              GAO/NSIAD9183   Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                           Chapter 3
                           Altmnatlves to a Total I&location




Figure 3.6: Option 2




                       l   In option 3, sites A and D would be made available to the Airport
                           Authority to construct aircraft parking spaces and aprons; maintenance,
                           support, freight, and general aviation facilities; and an airport access
                           road. Option 3 covers approximately 199 acres of Navy property north
                           of the runway and west of the International Air Terminal (see fig. 3.7).
                           This option contains enough land to meet the airport’s expansion
                           requirements to 1995. We estimate replacement costs for the 488 family
                           housing units, bachelor housing, community buildings, and other Navy
                           facilities would be approximately $104.9 million.




                           Page 31                             GAO/NSIAD-91-M Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
       .
                         Chapter 3
                         Altmnativee to a Total Relocation




Figure 3.7: Option 3




                       . In option 4, sites A, D, and C would be made available to construct the
                          same type of facilities listed in option 3. Option 4 includes expansion site
                        * C, which adds an additional 82 acres of property on the south side of the
                          runway to the 199 acres identified in option 3-a total of 281 acres (see
                          fig. 3.8). This option contains enough land to meet the airport’s expan-
                          sion requirements to the year 2008. We estimate that it would cost
                          approximately $105.9 million to replace the Navy facilities covered in
                          option 4. This estimate includes the replacement costs identified in
                          option 3, plus the estimated costs for relocating various communications
                          equipment currently located on site C.




                         Page 32                             GAO/NSIAD91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                       Chapter 3
                       Alternatives to a Total Relocation




Figure 3.8: Option 4




                                                                                           Location Map




                                 Naval Air Station Agana




                       According to Navy and government of Guam officials, anything short of
Concerns Expressed     a total Navy relocation to Andersen Air Force Base would not fully sat-
About the Four         isfy the needs of the Naval Air Station or the International Air Terminal.
Alternatives           Given this position, Navy and government of Guam officials have some
                       concerns about the acceptability of the four options. Table 3.1 summa-
                       rizes the descriptions of the potential costs, proposed uses, and concerns
                       of Navy and government of Guam officials.




                       Page 33                              GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                                                       Chapter 3
                                                       Alternatives to a Total Relocation




Table 3.1: Options for the Airport Expansion
Factors        Option 1                      Option 2                                   Option 3                          Option 4
Sites          Site A: 18 acres west of the  Site A: 18 acres west of the               Site A: 18 acres west of the      Site A: 18 acres west of the
               terminal and north of the              terminal and north of the         terminal and north of the         terminal and north of the
               runway.                                runway.                           runway.                           runway.
               Site B, 16 acres at the east           Site B: 16 acres at the east      Site D: 181 acres north of the    Site C: 82 acres at the
               end of the Navy family                 end of the Navy family            runway and west of the            southwest end of the runway.
               housing area.                          housing area.                     terminal, and includes all
                                                                                        Navy facilities on the north      Site D: 181 acres north of
                                                      Site C: 82 acres at the           side of the runway.               runway and west of the
                                                      southwest end of the runway.                                        terminal and includes all Navy
                                                                                                                          facilities on the north side of
                                       ~~_-.-__--                                                                         the runway.
cost         $9 mrllron                               $10 million                       $104.9 million                    $105.9 million
Proposed use Aircraft parking, small                  Aircraft parking, small           Aircraft parking, maintenance     Aircraft parking, maintenance
             maintenance hangars, and                 maintenance hangars, ground       hangars, ground support           hangar, ground support
             ground support facilities.               support facilities, air cargo,    facilities, and unknown future    facilities, air cargo, general
                                                      and general aviation.             development.                      aviation, and unknown future
                                                                                                                          development.
Navy’s         Requires replacement of                Requires replacement of           Requires replacement of           Requires replacement of
concerns       Navy facilities, requires Navy         Navy facilities, requires Navy    Navy facilities, requires Navy    Navy facilities, requires Navy
               families to move, and                  families to move, contributes     families to move, contributes     families to move, contributes
               contributes to auto traffic.           to auto traffic, heightens        to auto traffic, restricts        to auto traffic, heightens
                                                      security concerns, restricts      operations, and requires          security concerns, restricts
                                                      operations, isolates fuel area,   substantial funding.              operations, isolates fuel area,
                                                      and contains a former                                               contains a former sanitary
                                                      sanitary landfill.                                                  landfill, and requires
                                                 -.                                                                       substantial .____--~
                                                                                                                                         funding.   . ~--
Guam’s         Does not comply-with Navy              boes not comply with Navy         Does not comply with Navy         Does not comply with Navy
concerns       and federal setback                    and federal setback               and federal setback               and federal setback
               standards, limits the airport’s        standards, limits the airport’s   standards, limits the airport’s   standards, limits the airport’s
               ability to expand, does not            ability to expand, does not       ability to expand, does not       ability to expand, does not
               meet the airport’s long-term           meet the airport’s long-term      meet the airport’s long-term      meet the airport’s long-term
               needs, and does not provide            needs, and contains a former      needs, and increases              needs, contains a former
               land for other economic                sanitary landfill.                development costs.                sanitary landfill, and
               opportunities for Guam.                                                                                    increases development costs.




Navy’s and Government of                               The Navy’s position is that, if it is required to transfer sections of the
Guam’s Concerns                                        Naval Air Station to the government of Guam, it should be a total
                                                       transfer of facilities and land, not a partial transfer. According to Navy
                                                       officials, none of the four options would fully satisfy the Naval Air Sta-
                                                       tion’s needs. They believe that any benefit produced from the options
                                                       would be to the government of Guam or the Airport Authority and not
                                                       the Navy. In general, Navy officials oppose the options based on contin-
                                                       gency requirements, security, encroachment, and quality-of-life con-
                                                       cerns. Navy officials also believe that any transfer of property should be
                                                       contingent upon the availability of replacement facilities for the Navy
                                                       and at no cost to the Navy.



                                                       Page 34                                 GAO/NSIAD91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                         Chapter 3
                         Alternatives to a Total Relocation




                         The government of Guam also wants a total relocation of the Navy’s
                         operations from the Naval Air Station. Given this position, it opposes
                         the four options. In general, government of Guam officials believe that
                         the housing units and community support facilities located at the Naval
                         Air Station are incompatible with the operations of the International Air
                         Terminal and should be relocated.


Observations About the   We did not make a detailed analysis of the various concerns raised by
Concerns                 the Navy and the government of Guam. In general, the Navy’s concerns
                         appear to have validity, especially those dealing with the options
                         restricting operations, limiting the Navy’s capabilities to expand, height-
                         ening security concerns, increasing outside encroachment, and
                         decreasing the quality-of-life on the Naval Air Station. These circum-
                         stances already exist to some degree. Being located with the Interna-
                         tional Air Terminal has already restricted the Naval Air Station’s
                         operations and limited the Navy’s capabilities to expand. The current
                         situation has also caused security, encroachment, and quality-of-life
                         concerns. In addition, the Navy is already required under current envi-
                         ronmental law to clean up the former sanitary landfill in options 2 and 4
                         to certain standards based on probable land use.

                         The government of Guam’s concerns also appear valid. Its position is
                         that the options would limit the International Air Terminal’s capabilities
                         to expand and do not meet its long-term needs. However, some of
                         options meet the land requirements identified in the Airport Authority
                         Master Plan and other documents. Options 2,3, and 4 provide enough
                         land to meet the airport’s expansion requirements to the year 1995, and
                         option 4 meets all the requirements to the year 2008 as set forth in the
                         Master Plan. Other documents indicate that these three options meet the
                         airport’s immediate requirements. However, according to Guam offi-
                         cials, the Master Plan did not assume a total transfer of the Naval Air
                         Station. If there is a total transfer, these officials stated that they would
                         develop a more efficient layout of the international airport.

                         The environmental concerns associated with the landfill should not be of
                         major concern to the government of Guam under either a complete or
                         partial relocation, According to Navy officials, the Navy is already
                         required to clean up the landfill to meet federal standards.

                         If the various concerns can be resolved, the options represent a less
                         costly solution to the land use issue than relocating the Navy’s entire
                         mission to Andersen. Even though we do not endorse any of the options,


                         Page 35                              GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
Chapter 3
Alternatives to a Total Relocation




we do believe they should be given serious consideration as part of any
negotiations relating to the resolution of the land use issue. Any transfer
of federal land on Guam is subject to negotiations between the govern-
ments of the United States and the territory of Guam. Payment for any
transfer of federal land on Guam would also be subject to negotiations.
However, both DOD and the territory of Guam believe they should not
have to pay for the relocation.




Page 36                              GAO/NSIAD-91-33 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
Page 37   GAO/NSIAD-9143 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
1 -Aakhdix I ’

 Objectives,Scope,and Methodology


   ---___
                 Guam’s Congressional Delegate requested us to assess (1) the feasibility
                 of relocating the operations at the Naval Air Station Agana to Andersen
                 Air Force Base, (2) the estimated costs for such a relocation, and (3) the
                 potential costs of making enough Navy land available at the Air Station
                 to expand the International Air Terminal without relocating all of the
                 Navy’s operations. At the time of the request, the Delegate expressed
                 some concerns that Guam’s planned expansion of the International Air
                 Terminal and its operations was restricted by the Naval Air Station.

                 We conducted our work at the U.S. Pacific Command and several Navy
                 and Air Force commands located in Hawaii and Guam. While at these
                 military commands, we interviewed officials and analyzed data related
                 to the feasibility of the move, the potential costs, and possible alterna-
                 tives to a total move. We visited and toured the Navy and Air Force
                 installations on Guam to determine what types of military facilities
                 existed, their usage, and condition. During these visits, we also deter-
                 mined whether there was sufficient land available at Andersen Air
                 Force Base to accommodate the Navy’s facilities and operations. In addi-
                 tion, we met with Department of the Interior officials to discuss possible
                 environmental concerns or endangered species issues that could affect
                 the Navy’s move to Andersen Air Force Base. We also met with Depart-
                 ment of Transportation officials to discuss any potential issues that
                 could result from the complete transfer of the Navy’s facilities and oper-
                 ations to the government of Guam.

                 We met with the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Guam, Guam’s
                 Bureau of Planning officials, and Guam Airport Authority officials to
                 discuss the need to expand the International Air Terminal and obtain
                 their perspectives on possible alternatives to a total move. We toured
                 the Guam International Air Terminal to determine what types of facili-
                 ties existed, their condition, and current capacity. We also reviewed gov-
                 ernment of Guam reports and data related to Guam’s economic
                 condition, its tourist industry, and the Airport Authority’s plans to
                 expand the commercial airport and its operations.

                 Our principal considerations in assessing the feasibility of relocating the
                 Navy’s operations to Andersen Air Force Base were mission compati-
                 bility and land availability. We determined the compatibility based on
                 discussions with Navy and Air Force personnel concerning mission
                 requirements, analyses of mission statements, reviews of air traffic data
                 for both installations, and examinations of pertinent reports and
                 studies. We determined land availability based on reviews of maps and



                 Page 38                        GAO/NSIAD-91433 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
Appendlx I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology




facilities requirement documents, interviews with Navy and Air Force
officials, and site visits to both installations.

To assessthe potential costs of a total Navy relocation, we reviewed the
Naval Air Force, Pacific Fleet study, which estimated that it would cost
$442.6 million in fiscal year 1989 dollars to move to Andersen Air Force
Base. According to Navy officials in Hawaii and Guam, it was the most
current, detailed estimate at the time of our review. Based on our anal-
ysis of the study and subsequent meetings with Navy and Air Force offi-
cials, we developed our own estimates of the costs.

Using DOD inflation rates, we converted the Navy’s estimate into current
fiscal year 1990 dollars of $455.4 million. Starting with the $455.4-mil-
lion figure, we eliminated costs not justified by the move, added moving
costs not included in the estimate, reduced some cost estimates that
were too high, and eliminated duplicative costs. In addition, we consid-
ered the changes at Andersen Air Force Base that occurred since the
Navy study was completed. To estimate construction costs to replace
Navy facilities, we used the Navy Facilities Engineering Command’s offi-
cial guidance on unit costs when available. For construction costs not
listed in this guidance, we used costs estimates provided by the Pacific
Division of the Navy Facilities Engineering Command located in Hawaii.
Based on interviews with Navy officials and a review of budget docu-
ments, we also developed our own estimate of the potential annual sav-
ings that could result from consolidating the operations at Andersen.

We used present-value analysis to develop estimates in fiscal year 1990
dollars of the costs to relocate the Navy’s operations to Andersen and of
the annual savings resulting from reduced maintenance and personnel
costs. Present-value analysis is a decision-making tool that is used to
compare the value of various investment options in terms of current dol-
lars. Based on discussions with Navy officials, we estimated that it
would take about 6 years to construct the facilities required by the Navy
to operate at Andersen. We inflated our costs and savings estimates
using a forecasted 20-year annual average inflation rate of 4.36 percent
and then discounted them using the current yield on outstanding gov-
ernment bonds of 9.01 percent to account for the time value of money.
Forecasts extending beyond 20 to 30 years are of questionable use
because the economic structure from which the inflation and discount
rates are estimated cannot be expected to remain unchanged. We per-
formed a sensitivity test by considering other reasonable inflation and
discount rates after the first 25 years and found that the costs were
recouped within 100 years.


Page 39                              GAO/NSLADsl-93 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
     Appendix I
     Objectives, Scope, and Methodology




--
     Subsequent to our analysis, the Navy revised its estimate to $298 mil-
     lion, primarily to account for the drawdown at Andersen. In September
     1990, DOD reported to us that the relocation cost would be $289.4 mil-
     lion. To identify questionable or overstated cost estimates, we compared
     the Navy’s supporting documentation for the $289.4-million estimate. To
     identify questionable or overstated cost estimates, we compared the
     Navy’s supporting documentation for the revisions with the data we col-
     lected at the Naval Air Station and Andersen Air Force Base.

     We also identified the potential costs of making enough Navy land avail-
     able at the Naval Air Station to permit expansion of the International
     Air Terminal without relocating all of the Navy’s operations. Our anal-
     ysis focused on four options involving different expansion sites pro-
     posed in the Airport Authority Master Plan. We identified these sites
     based on our review of the Airport Authority Master Plan and other
     related documents, and discussions with Navy and Guam officials. Fur-
     ther, we obtained the views of officials from both the Navy and the gov-
     ernment of Guam on the advantages and disadvantages of each option
     and, using the methodology described previously, we estimated the
     potential costs of implementing them.

     Our costs and savings estimates are based on preliminary planning data
     and are not budget quality. Actual costs and savings would depend on
     future decisions and span of time.

     We conducted our work from October 1989 to September 1990 in accor-
     dance with generally accepted government auditing standards.




     Page 40                              GAO/NSLAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
Appendix     II

CommentsFrom the Department of Defense


supplementing those in the
report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
                                                         OFFICE   OF THE ASSISTANT      SECRETARY           OF DEFENSE
                                                                      WASHINGTON,     D. C.   20301-2400




                              ,WTS”WATIONAL                                                                       August    1, 1990
                             ,IC""ITY AFFllR.




                                       Mr. Frank C. Conahan
                                       Assistant    Comptroller   General
                                       National    Security   and International
                                           Affairs   Division
                                       U.S. General Accounting       Office
                                       Washington,    D.C.    20548

                                       Dear Mr. Conahan:

                                               This is the Department of Defense (DOD) response to the General
                                       Accounting    Office (GAO) draft report, "MILITARY BASES: Relocating
                                       the Naval Air Station Agana's Operations,"     dated July 20, 1990 (GAO
                                       Code 3980191, OSD Case 8425.     The Department concurs with the draft
                                       report.

                                                It should be noted that,  since the GAO completed its                        work, the
                                       U.S. Commander in Chief, Pacific,       has further refined   the                     cost of
                                       relocating     the operations of the Naval Air Station,     Agana,                     to
See comment 1.                         Andersen Air Force Base.      These costs are now estimated      to                    be $298
                                       million.

                                                The Department     appreciated      the opportunity             to comment on the GAO
                                       draft     report.




                                                                                                            Sincerely,



                                                                                                      ;Gm7~          2 L;‘&F-c<./-.
                                                                                                      Philip       E. Bar$nger
                                                                                                                 Director
                                                                                         Foreign           Military     Rights Affairs




                                               Page 41                              GAO/NSIAD91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
               Appendix II
               Comments From the Department of Defense




               The following are GAO’S comments on the Department of Defense’s letter
               dated August 1, 1990.


               1. On September 11, 1990, DOD reported to us that the cost is now esti-
GAO Comments   mated to be $289.4 million, which is still higher than our estimate of
               $229.1 million.




               Page 42                           GAO/NSIAD91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Rdocation
                                                                                                                                      I   I’
Appendix     III

CommentsFrom the Government of Guam
Dated August 24,199O

supplementing those in the
report text appear at the
end of this appendix.




                                                                                               AUG2 4 1990
                             Walter C. Hermann, Jr.
                             Director, Far East Office
                             US General Accounting Office
                             PO Box 50187
                             Honolulu, Hawaii 96850
                             Dear Mr. Hermann:
                             Thank you for the draft report, “MILITARY BASES: Relocating Naval Aii Station Agana’s
                             Operanons”, for our review and comment.
                             Becauseof the comprehensivenature.of the issue, and becausea policy with as much importance
                             as this for this the people of Guam requires greater public input, I am requesting an extension of
                             the period of commentary of an additional thirty days which will allow us to receive input from our
                             Aviation Policies Task Force and our appropriate Legislative oversight committee Chairman.
                             For the moment, I would like to make but a few brief comments intended to improve the accuracy
                             of the report.
See comment 1                One point that needsto be made at the onset is that the GIAT master plan predatesthe decision to
                             recover the entirety of NAS and therefore does not reflect full government utilization of the
                             property, nor does it accurately reflect use of the property by parties other than the Guam
                             International Airport. There are uses for the property of a non-airport nature, such as highway
                             construction and public use of recreation facilities, which can be further articulated and illustmtcd.
See comment 2.               Secondly, I must state, for the record, that the people of Guam should not be made to pay for the
                             relocation of NAS to Andersen Air Force Base. The people of Guam have already paid, in the
                             form of confiscation of property at a time when we were not even citizens of the United States.to
                             the denial of land resourcesfor two generations,to the unpaid labor of our people in the
                             construction of the airfield during World War II -- not to mention the continued presenceof
                             Guamaniansin the defense of our Nation (even on the front lines in Saudi Arabia) despite the fact
                             that the people of Guam have no direct participation in the American Government.
                             This last point cannot be overstated. The people of Guam have suffered from a muddled
                             recognition, at best, of their rights since the day that the USS Charleston sailed into Apra Harbor
                             over ninety years ago. Even today, we still struggle to establish some senseof personal
                             sovereignty -- and although today we are granted US citizenship -- we realize that this is but a
                             revocable gift on the part of Congressand that our citizenship is consequently “different” from that
                             enjoyed by Americans. For ninety years, we have been a non self-governing people under the
                             American Flag, and although we have the illusion of that desired, indeed necessarystate -- through
                             tbe existenceof elected public office in our Territory -- we recognize that under the Tenitorial
                             Clause all powers over our lives and property are reserved to Congress. We do not pruticipate in
                             any way other than tokenism in the United StntesGovernment. We elect no one who is truly a
                             member of that Government. In the simplest definition of representativedemocracy -- we are
                             excluded.
                             We arc not sovereign citizens, rather (under the status quo) we are subjects.



                                                                                                                    CommdnwealthNow!




                                    Page 43                                           GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                                    Appendix     III
                                    Comments From the Government of Guam
                                    Dated August 24,199O




I.,....
    --..__ _...,__
                -- ._______


                              That this is an unacceptableway to live, and further, a form of political existence that should be
                              unacceptable under the American form of government, representing as it does the best of
                              democratic traditions and ideals.
                              We are aware that depending on the occasion, Guam is either treated as foreign or as domestic.
                              The,United States -- in the interest of National Policy -- has previously made mcmdrble deals with
                                      ovemments for the use of property for American Military bases. Why should different
                              fiiix&    apply to us? If we do not share in the full rights of Americans -- why should we
                              expected to bear the full burden? Is it not enough that the blood of so many of our sons has been
                              shed under the American Flag in defense of freedoms we do not ourselves fully enjoy?
See comment 3                 It is clear to us as well, that the relocation of NAS provides not only Guam, but the United States
                              as well, with many benefits. The long-term cost savings to the Defense Department outweigh
                              immediate ex nditures. Further. it is clear to us that neither current nor future geopolitical
                              obligations o p”the United Statesjustify the continued occupadun of this base ur the p~openy it sits
                              on.
See comment 4.                Guam has, since the end of the Viet Narn conflict, become essentially a logistics and
                              communications base, and them seemslittle on the horizon to change that. Even events in the
                              Persian Gulf reinforce this fact. In the   t Cold War Era, the United States may require a
                              permanent presencein the Gulf, but it cl--
                                                                       oes not require Guam as a base for the forward deployment
                              of troops or any offensive hardware, which was its former role.
See comment 5.                The economic benefits to our people would be profound, were NAS to bc vacated. Guam’s
                              rapidly growing economy requires this property for a varie sof reasons..Our tourism based
                              economy means that our airport must and will expand. NA IS located dvectly ur the middle of our
                              rapidly urbanized island It is an unnatural impediint to infrastructure growth.
                              Gur island is few in resoumesand thus we must capitalize on those we have. We are becoming
                              increasing1 self-sufficient, and consequently less reliant on federal largesse-- a welcome note we
                              would thrd in light of the federal deficit and the looming Savings and Loan Crisis. Help us to be
                              even more self-sufficient. We have a goal that one day, the per capita income in Guam will be.as
                              high as the mainland United States. This is only fair for our people. We have achieved so much
                              on our own to achieve this -- despite some glaring federal impediments to our progress. Help us to
                              overcome one of these impediments, through the return of NAS.
                              Pleaseconvey my extreme gratitude to your staff for their hard work in the preparation of this
                              report.




                                                                                      overnor of Guam




                                    Page 44                                          GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
               Appendix III
               Cmunenta  Fronn the Government of Guam
               Dated August 24,199O




               The following are GAO’S comments on the government of Guam’s letter
               dated August 24, 1990.


               1. The government of Guam’s position on how we used the Airport
GAO Comments   Authority Master Plan is reflected at the end of chapter 3. As requested,
               we identified options available for the Navy and the government of
               Guam that do not require a total relocation of the Navy’s operations to
               Andersen. The options involved different expansion sites proposed in
               the Master Plan. We do not endorse any of the options.

               2. The government of Guam’s position that it should not have to pay for
               the relocation is reflected throughout the report. Payment for any
               transfer of federal lands on Guam is subject to negotiations between the
               governments of the United States and the territory of Guam.

               3. In chapter 2 we report that there would be some benefits produced,
               such as increased security and newer facilities, from relocating Navy’s
               operations to Andersen. However, our analysis, as well as DOD'S, indicate
               that the annual savings do not outweigh the costs to relocate.

               We agree that the relocation could provide some economic benefits to
               Guam and could increase self-sufficiency. However, as noted in Guam’s
               September 26, 1990, letter (see app. IV), the economic benefits of relo-
               cating the Naval Air Station’s operations would be difficult to quantify.
               For this reason we did not attempt to identify them during our review.

               4. Given the current budget situation and the everchanging political situ-
               ation in the Far East and the Persian Gulf, we believe it is not possible at
               this time to determine the future roles of U.S. military bases on Guam.
               We reported in chapter 2, however, that currently it was feasible to relo-
               cate the Naval Air Station’s operations to Andersen Air Force Base
               without creating operational problems for either the Navy or the Air
               Force.

               6. Any transfer of the Naval Air Station land to Guam is subject to nego-
               tiations between the governments of the United States and Guam.




               Page 45                            GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
’ Ap&ndix     IV

  CommentsFrom the Government of Guam
  Dated September26,199O

  Note: GAO comments
  supplementing those in the
  report text appear at the
  end of this appendix.




                                                                               SEP26 1990



                               Walter        C.     Jr.
                                                  Herrmann,
                               Director, Far East Office
                               U. 5. General Accounting Office
                               P.O. Box 50187
                               Honolulu, Hawaii 96850
                               Dear Director             Herrmann:
                               As a supplement to my comments submitted to you on August 24, 1990,
                               I am enclosing   additional comments on the GAO report     entitled
                               "MILITARY BASES: Relocating     the Naval Air     Station,  Agana's
                               0perations8t.
                               The enclosed            comments indicate   the following:
  See comment 1                 . That the GIAT Master Plan should be viewed from the perspective
                               that it did not contemplate     relocation     of all NAS activities   and
                               therefore, a completely different     configuration   of GIAT's expansion
                               would have resulted.
  See comment 2.                  That relocation  of NAS will result  in numerous benefits     to both
                               the U.S. and the Government of Guam that,        while difficult      to
                               quantify,  should at least be discussed as relocation  is not simply
                               an economic issue.
  See comment 3.                . That relocation  is consistent     with U.S. policy   for Guam in that
                               itwill  result in greater self-sufficiency      while not impede actions
                               to defend the region or create regional       stability.
  See comment 4.               . That relocation     will result in efficient    usage of land resources
                               and open up significant     economic opportunities,     especially  in the
                               transportation    industry.
  See comment 5                .    That GAO should reevaluate    the figures used in calculating   the
                               amount  of time to recover the cost of relocating     NAS to AAFB since
                               use of the "real interest     rate 'I indicates that cost recovery will
                               Occur  between 40-75 years as opposed to the "well beyond 100 years"
                               as indicated   in the draft   report.




                                                                                                        CommonwealthNow!




                                           Page 46                                GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
 Appendix IV
 Comments F’rom the Government of Guam
 Dated September 20,199O




Walter C. Berrmann,    Jr.
Page 2


Finally,    I must point    out for the record,         that   I fully   and
unequivocally    support relocation    of N A S to AAFB and believe    that
relocation    can occur with a minimum of adverse impact to the
community of Guam, the military,         and private     landowners in the
vicinity   of AAFB. I am sure that these comments as wall as those
nubmitted earlier    will be seriously    considered by the GAO. Again,
please accept my appreciation      for the efforts   of you and your staff
in this endeavor.




                                         Governor   of Guam
Enclosure




 Page 47                              GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
  AppendiiIV
  CXumuentsFromtheGovemmentofGuam
  DatedSeptember26,1990




                                 GOVERNMENT           OF G U A M
                                      AGANA   G U A M 96PIO




                                              SEP2 6 1990

Memorandum
TO:           The   GOVarnOr

From:         Chairman,        Aviation   Policy     Task Force
subject:      General     Accounting      Office     Draft         Report
On behalf of the Aviation    Policy Task Force,   I am submitting    to you
the following  comments of the Task Force on the General Accounting
Office   (GAO) Draft Report:     -a             .                the I&y&


The first     concern involves     the report's       treatment    of the Guam
International      Air    Terminal     (GIAT)       Master    Plan    and     its
reoommendatione on the use of federal            property   at NAS Agana. The
GAO  report suggest that only portions         of the station   are needed for
the expansion of civil      aviation   facilities.        This interpretation
is both misleading     and erroneous.
The Task Force maintains the position         that the conclusions         of the
GIAT master plan were predicated        on the assumption that military
operations   at NAS Agana would remain.       This is an essential         point.
The land use options involving      military     landholdings      contained in
the plan were limited     only to those areas of the station           currently
unused or used for non-operational         purposes, such as the housing
area.    The presumption   of NAS relocating      in its  entirety     certainly
would have resulted      in a completely      different     configuration        of
GIAT's planned growth and expansion.
The draft          report    indicates    that the cost of relocation               vastly
outweighs expected benefits.                 While this issue still           needs to be
addressed         more fully,        recognition      that    relocation       makes b th
practical         and economic sense when viewed from                  a broader pol Pcy
standpoint         must be specifically          emphasized.        Various overriding
national         defense and security            goals     would be served by the
relocation         of N A S to Andersen Air Force         Base. The benefits        to the
nation       as a whole,           such as in national             defense      and self-
sufficiency,         cannot be as easily quantified             as the replacement of
facilities.           However, they must be identified                in the report      to
allow       full      appreciation       of    the     advantages       resulting     from
relocation.




  Page48                                       GAO/NSlAD-91-83NavalAirStationAgaua'sRelocation
 Appendix IV
 Comments From the Government of Guam
 Dated September 26,199O




Uemorandum
Page   2




The Task Force     also believes   that the recovery or non-recovery           of
costs to the Navy detracts        from the essence of this issue: the
civilian   community in Guam can make far better use of the land and
facilities     at NAS than the Department          of Defense.          Factors
associated   with recovering     the cost of relocating       fails    to take
into account that the Navy has already exacted far more value from
the property      on which NAS is situated,         above and beyond the
cumulative    costs it has borne in developing         and controlling       the
facilities   there, than the dollar      amount to move to Andereen would
now co&.      It   is  therefore  believed   that the   Government     of  Guam
should continue to resist any recommendation to pay all or any part
of the costs of the move.
Some of the       points raised in this paper may         appear to be beyond the
parameters      of GAO's assessment but the Task          Force strongly  believes
that, at a      minimum, these parameters should           be discussed with some
detail     in   the report    so as to avoid the           false conclusion    that
relocation       is simply an economic issue.
There is no doubt that large areas of land are needed for                            the
expansion and development of new airport                  facilities      if GIAT is to
truly    fulfill        its role as the aviation       center for Micronesia         and
the Western Pacific.              Blessed with superior        geographic location      -
- three and a half hours away from its prime markets, Guam is an
important        air-link      with most major Asian cities              and all major
district      cities       in Japan.    Korea, Philippines,         Taiwan, Hong Kong,
Indonesia        and Southeast Asian nations,             Australia,       New Zealand,
indeed, the entire Pacific              Rim and Pacific      basin are other growth
areas within the island's              air transport    reach.
The Governments of Guam and U.S. should seek and build up the image
of Guam as the center        for transportation,     communication    and
education in the region.    This can go hand-in-hand   with a continued
strong and efficient    presence of the U.S. military      in defense of
peace and stability   in the region.
Guam expects 986,000 visitors        this year and within three years plan
to greet       1.4 million     passengers    from Japan and other      Asian
countries.       The island therefore     needs expanded, full-service   air
transportation      facilities   to realize    this great potential.
In addition,      the Guam Internfa~t.t,ilodnalo&-port can and should assume
a larger        role   in  the                     air    cargo   handling    and
transportation.       This business sector is expanding in tremendous
volume between Japan, Asian countries                  and the United States.
However, the island is losing the opportunity                to compete in this
arena because of site constraints.             There is absolutely     no mom




 Page49                                     GAO/NSIAD-91-83NavalAirSt.ationAga.na'sRelocation
  Appendix IV
  Comments From the Government of Guam
  DatedSeptember26,1990




Memorandum
Page 3


left to accommodate such an expansion.        The present cargo facility
was designed to accommodate traffic       of the declined   international
economy of the late 1970s.       Now, in this "Decade of the PacifW@,
there is significant      demand for service.     Even now, air carriers
are suffering    from this gross limitation     of space.

The Guam International       Airport has a great chance to contribute     to
the emergence of the Territory         in the international  marketplace.
Guam's geographic      privilege,    standing  at a nexus point between
both north-south    and east-west travel,     mandates that we step up and
accept this natural role for its people.
Other     real benefits      to the United States include the opportunity
for    the private      development of aviation     facilities    such as local
aircraft      maintenance hangars, a major overhaul/rework          facility       for
aircraft      in the Asia-Pacific       Region, and other operations          common
to viable airport         environments.     As has been pointed out in other
fora,     these improvements,        with the accompanying highly            skilled
technical       work-force,     would be available   to the military         mission
in the event of a national               emergency.     But until     a complete
relocation       of NAS happens, all that would be available        is an under-
utilized,      unimproved naval air base under near-caretaker              status.
The opportunity      for the federal government to make             a significant
contribution     to the self-sufficiency  of this Territory            also should
not be understated.          It is indeed germane to any             cost-benefit
analysis     of the proposed relocation.      In its pure            essence, the
Territory     is only asking the federal government to              nhelp us help
ourselves~~.
It is the hope of the Task Force that these comments will                       be
thoughtfully    considered.      The Task Force is extremely grateful         for
the opportunity    to comment on this very critical         issue.   Should you
require any additional      information   or clarification,      I am available
to assist you.



                                             FRANK F. BLAS




  Page 50                                  GAO/NSLAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
.-
        Appendix lV
        Comments From the Govemment of Guam
        Dated September 20,199O




                                   DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE
                                  DEPATTANENTONI KONBTSIO



     QLYCE      90 - 0313 - L                                           September 18, 1990

     MBNORANDIJN
     To:              Chief Planner, Bureau of Planning
     From:            Chief Economist
     Subject:         GAO Estimates of the Cost of Moving              NAS

     As par your request,    I have reviewed the cost estimates of moving
     the Naval Air   Station    (Brewer Field)     operations  to Andersen Air
     Forca Base that were prepared by the General Accounting            Office.
     Although I have insufficient      information     to address the accuracy
     or even the validity     of the cost estimates themselves,      I am able
     to shed some light    on the GAO estimate of the time it would take
     the Navy to recover the cost of the move by way of operational         cost
     savinge.
     In their report,   the GAO is both kind and deceptive in the estimate
     of the time it would take to liquidate        the cost of the NAS transfer
     out of operational    savings.     They state that "...it      would take well
     over 100 years to recover         the cost of relocating..."         (see, for
     instance,   page 33 of the report).         However, using their       "markets
     interest  rate of 9.01 percent on outstanding          government bonds and
     DOD'S estimated twenty-year       average inflation    rate of 4.36 percent,
     along with the estimated       $229.1 million     cost of the move and the
     estimated $7.7 million      annual savings      in operational     costs (both
     in 1990 currant dollars),       I find that the costs of the move would
     D~~BI be recovered;     thus, the GAO is being guite kind in their
     swell over 100 year6" statement.
      On the other hand, the inflation                      rate used is suspect:           more
      specifically,        the difference      between the interest             rate factor and
      the inflation       rate used must be called into question.                   In economics
      and finance,       the difference        between the current market interest
      rate (the "nominal"          interest     rate) and the rate of inflation                 is
      referred to as the "real"           interest      rate.     This is the rate at which
     the real purchasing power of a sum of money saved or owed increases
      in value, and is the relevant                consideration         in a computation      of
     this      type.     Historically        in the United States                (excluding  the
     anOQaloUS period           of the last          twenty years,          with the extreme
     interventions         by the government in financial                  markets increasing
     risk and, therefore,            the required        real rate of return by inves-
     tom),        thi8 rate has generally          fluctuated       between 1.6 percent and
     2.6 percent: the real rate of interest                   implicitly     used in the GAO'S
     CalCUlatiOns       is 4.65     percent,    which is much higher than should be
     used for long-term calculations,                 and is deceptive.




        Page 61                                      GAO/NSIAD-9183Naval          AirStationAgana'sMelocation



                                                                                                 ::
  Appendix N
  Comments From the Government of Guam
  Dated September 26,199O




I have run calculations      of the time to cost recovery using several
alternative     interest rates, and have also determined the limiting
intarent    rate at which the costs would never be recaptured.      This
provides an indication     of how long it would take for the move from
NAS to Andersen to pay for itself,       given the assumption that the
estimates of the cost of the move and the annual operational        cost
savings are accurate.        The results  of these calculations  are as
follows:
                                                                                              Time to Total
                            t Ratg                                                            l3Jst Recovery
                  *1.6%                                                                         40.72 years
                     2.0%                                                                       45.65 years
                     2.52                                                                       55.15 years
                   *2.6%                                                                        51.87       years


                     3.0%                                                                       75.48 years
            3.3609777382                                                                      664.21 years
lh. luc flsur.       rrpr..mt.     th. Ilmltly)     lnt.r..t       r.t.  t. th. flnst       dr~ru at pr.d.lon     of ny c.lcu1.tln-a
rehln.;    thl. Indlc.t..      th. Isvsl of th. r..l         Intsrsst   rst. .I I*llch th. WV. .v.ntu.lly       ISCOV.~. It. c0.t..
.bw. lhlch th. c0.t. ulli n.v.r tot.lly            b. r.cov.r.d.          Th. tma fnt.r..t      rst.. lvrkd ulth ..t.rl.k.      .r. th.
.mroxlm.t.     Llnlt. In th. hl.torlc.1     fluctwtlau          of th. rs.1 Intsrnt      r.t., .xcludfnp th. .na..low      y..r. slnc.
th. ..rlv 1979..


As an addandum to this analysis,       though, I would be less than
candid if I did not mention that the recovery or non-recovery         of
costs to the Navy is really    not the core of this issue; rather,    it
is the fact that the civilian    community in Guam can make far better
Use of land and facilities       at NAS than can the Department of
Defense.   In addition,   the Navy has already exacted far more value
from the property     on which NAS is situated,    above and beyond the
cumulative   costs it has borne in developing       and controlling the
facilities   there, than the move to Andersen would now cost.       AnY
recommendation that the Government of Guam pay all or any part of
the costs of the move should be resisted       on these grounds.
I hope that   this information   and these remarks are of use to you
in preparing the response to the draft GAO study.     Should you need
additional  information  on this subject, please feel free to contact
me at your convenience.




  Page 52                                                           GAO/NSLAD-91-83 Navel Air Station Agana’s Relocation
               Appendix N
               Comments From the Government of Guam
               Dated September 26,199O




               The following are GAO’S comments on the government of Guam’s letter
               dated September 26, 1990.


               1. The government of Guam’s position on how we used the Airport
GAO Comments   Authority Master Plan is reflected in chapter 3. As requested, we identi-
               fied options available for the Navy and the government of Guam to con-
               sider that do not require a total relocation of the Navy’s operations to
               Andersen. The options involve expansion sites identified in the Master
               Plan. We do not endorse any of the options.

               2. As requested, we limited our review to assessing the feasibility of
               moving the operations at the Naval Air Station to Andersen Air Force
               Base, the estimated costs of such a move, and the potential costs of
               making enough land available to expand the commercial airport without
               moving all of the Navy’s operations. We did not attempt to quantify the
               benefits that could result from a total relocation of the Naval Air Sta-
               tion’s operations. In addition, the government of Guam acknowledges
               that these benefits would be difficult to quantify.

               3. In chapter 1, we discussed how important the tourist industry is to
               Guam’s economy. We also recognize that most visitors to Guam arrive at
               the commercial airport. However, as noted in comment 2, we did not try
               to predict the benefits to Guam from a total relocation. In chapter 2, we
               noted that the Navy’s missions could be accomplished at Andersen
               without interfering with the Air Force’s operations.

               4. In chapter 2, we reported that sufficient land was available at
               Andersen for the Navy’s operations. In chapter 3, we discuss potential
               commercial uses of the Naval Air Station.

               5. We used present-value analysis to develop estimates in fiscal year
               1990 dollars of the costs to relocate the Navy’s operations to Andersen
               and of the annual savings resulting from reduced maintenance and per-
               sonnel costs. We inflated our costs and savings estimates using a fore-
               casted 20-year annual average inflation rate of 4.36 percent and then
               discounted them using the current yield on outstanding government
               bonds of 9.01 percent to account for the time value of money. We believe
               forecasts extending beyond 20 to 30 years are of questionable use
               because the economic structure from which the inflation and discount
               rates are estimated cannot be expected to remain unchanged. We also
               performed a sensitivity test by considering other reasonable inflation



               Page ii3                         GAO/NSIAD=91443 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
               Comments From the Government of Guam
               Dated September 26,199O




_.--.-.---__
               and discount rates after the first 25 years and found that in some cases
               the costs were recouped within 100 years.




               Page 64                          GAO/NSIAD-91-83 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
Appendix V
                                       1
CommentsFrom the Department of the Inter&
Dated September l&l990

supplementing those In the
repor! text appear at the
end of this appendix
                                          United States Department of the Interior
                                                      OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
                                                       WASHINGTON, D.C. ZO!M

                                                                        SEP1: 1990
                             Mr. Frank C. Conahan
                             Assistant  Comptroller General
                             National Security and International
                               Affairs  Division
                             General Accounting Office
                             Washington, D.C.
                             Dear Mr. Conahan:
                             Secretary  Lujan has asked me to respond to your request for
                             Department of the Interior  comments on the General Accounting
                             Office's  draft report on the relocation   of Guam's Naval Air
                             Station to Andersen Air Force Base.
                             The Department is pleased to learn that no operational                      or
                             logistical      problems prevent consolidation         of the Naval Air
                             Station     (NAS) with Andersen.          The civilian      international
                             airport    faces a critical      need for expansion in order to meet
                             the     demands       of   increased      regional       commercial       air
                             transportation.          An expanded commercial aviation          hub will
                             enable      Guam to       continue    its    tourism-driven        economic
                             development       as well      as serve U.S. commercial            aviation
                             interests    in the region.
See comment 1                The remaining      obstacle    to base consolidation      is the
                             estimated cost of the relocation,       and how that cost can be
                             met.     Because that obstacle    appears to have the Guam and
                             Federal governments stalemated      on how best to proceed with
                             the base consolidation,     I would like to pose some questions
                             regarding how that cost impediment might be addressed.
                                   0      While the GAO study was not designed to examine
                                          other possible consolidation   scenarios, would there
                                          be value in having Federal policy makers and Guam
See comment 2                             leaders consider the option of a phased transfer    of
                                          NAS missions and facilities  to Andersen?
                                   0      Would it be logistically       and economically  feasible
                                          for the Navy to maintain           interim   use of some
                                          facilities  at NAS while moving other missions in a
                                          staged, multi-year    relocation?
                                   0      If the Guam Airport Authority's    most critical  near-
                                          term need is expansion of its hub capabilities,
                                          i.e.,    additional   apron parking,      hangar space,
                                          aircraft   maintenance facilities,   etc., could some




                                Page 65                              GAO/NSIAD-91-33 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
                  AppendixV
                  CommentsFromtheDepsrtmentofthe
                  InteriorDatedSeptember18,1990




                           of these NAS properties       be transferred   in the
                           near-term     for significantly       less cost than the
                           several     hundred million      estimated   for a total
                           relocation?
See comment 3        0     How would a cost-sharing    arrangement between the
                           Federal and Guam governments affect a phased versus
                           an un-phaaed relocation?
                     0     What are the potential         savings   to the Federal
                           government,      if    any,  in a phased relocation,
                           requiring       several     smaller    annual      Federal
                           appropriations,     rather than a one-time commitment
                           of the two to three hundred million           dollars   GAO
                           estimates for the complete, un-phased relocation?
                     0     From Guam's perspective     and the Federal point of
                           view,    are cost-sharing     and phased relocation
                           feasible ways to resolve the stalemate on the issue
                           over the cost and financing    of the move?
                I pose these questions because I believe that these are the
                issues that need to be addressed, by future studies and/or
                discussions  between Federal and Guam leaders, if we are going
                to bridge the present impasse.

                                      Sincerely,



                                    'Stella     Guerra
                                      Assistant    Secretary
                                      Territorial     and International   Affairs




                  Page66                            GAO/NSIAD-91-83NavalALrStationAgana'sRelocation
               Comments From the Department of the
               Interior Dated September l&l990




               The following are GAO'S comments on the Department of the Interior’s
               letter dated September 18, 1990.


               1. We agree that the potential cost and financing of the relocation are
GAO Comments   major obstacles to base consolidation at Andersen. Both DOD and the
               government of Guam believe that they should not have to pay for the
               relocation.

               2. Due to the time to construct replacement facilities for the Navy, we
               believe there would have to be a phased-in transfer of Navy operations
               to Andersen, if there is a relocation.

               3. A cost-sharing arrangement and a phased-in relocation would be sub-
               ject to negotiations between the governments of the United States and
               Guam.




               Page 67                               GAO/NSIAD-91433 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
.   Ap’pendix VT

    Major Contributors to This Report


                            David R. Warren, Assistant Director
    National Security and
    International Affairs
    Division,
    Washington, DC.

                            Reginald L. Furr, Jr., Assistant Director
    Far East Office         Mark A. Little, Evaluator-In-Charge
    Honolulu, Hawaii        Kenneth F. Daniell, Evaluator
                            David C. Trimble, Evaluator




    (aB8019)                Page 68                        GAO/NSLAD-91433 Naval Air Station Agana’s Relocation
1i.S. (;t~nt~r.id Accounting    Office
I’osf. Offiw 130x 6015
(hit lwrshrg,      Maryland    20877




‘I’tww is a 25,“,, discount    on orders for 100 or more twpies mailed Lo a
sin&b address.

Ortlt~rs must, be prepaid by cash or by check or rnoncly order made
011l Lo t.lw Supt~riIltt~nclent of Documents.
_..._ . _.I. --._.-_._..
                     - _.._.._.
                           -- .-.-..-.-- ..-- - ..-.....-.---.--   ---   --