[CPEO-MEF] EXPANSION: GAO report on Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (CO)

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

Defense Infrastructure: Additional Information Is Needed to Better 
Explain the Proposed 100,000-Acre Expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver 
Site
GAO-09-171 January 13, 2009

[To view the original summary or link to the full report, go to
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-171.]

Summary

In 2007, the Army announced that the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
(OSD) had approved its request to expand its Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 
Colorado, by acquiring up to an additional 418,577 acres. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 required the Army to 
address 29 provisions related to the expansion in a report to Congress. 
In July 2008, the Army reported that, although it had revalidated the 
requirement for at least 418,577 additional acres at the maneuver site, 
in response to community, cost, and other concerns it now proposed to 
limit the acquisition of additional training land to 100,000 acres. The 
act also required GAO to review the Army's report and the justification 
for the proposed expansion. This report examines the extent to which the 
Army's report (1) addresses the provisions of the mandate and (2) 
explains the selection of the 100,000-acre site. GAO compared the 
mandate requirements with the responses in the Army's report, met with 
Army officials to discuss the expansion, and visited the Pinon Canyon 
Maneuver Site and Fort Carson.

While the Army's 2008 report on the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site generally 
addresses the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008, the report is lacking certain information that would 
help clarify six of the Army's responses to the mandate. For example, 
the Army provided a list of all the training activities that occurred at 
Pinon Canyon from May 2007 to April 2008, but this information does not 
indicate how much of the training area was used, nor does it indicate 
whether any of these exercises were performed simultaneously. Therefore, 
the report is not clear regarding how much of the maneuver site was used 
for training in a given month or annually and whether the units could 
train simultaneously. It is also unclear how this information was used 
to support the required analysis of the maximum annual training load 
without the proposed expansion of the site. Without additional 
information on the mandated provisions, it is difficult for Congress and 
the public to fully understand six of the Army's responses to the 
mandated provisions. The Army's report does not fully explain the 
current selection of the 100,000-acre site. Following are examples of 
specific issues not addressed in the Army's report: (1) The Army 
reported that it has reduced the amount of land it intends to purchase 
from 418,577 to 100,000 acres but did not explain its basis for 
selecting fewer acres or the specific site. (2) The estimated cost per 
acre used for internal planning to acquire additional land at the 
maneuver site has increased since 2007 but the Army's report does not 
discuss this increase. (3) The Army completed the required analyses when 
requesting OSD's approval for the up to 418,577-acre expansion, but has 
not completed an analysis for the current 100,000-acre proposal that 
would help to understand, among other items, how much of the 100,000 
acres would actually be used for training, what type of training can be 
conducted, and what are the estimated costs to maintain the 100,000 
acres. Army officials said that these questions and others would be 
difficult to address without the analysis required by the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Although the Army issued the mandated 
report, Army officials stated that, to date, the Army has voluntarily 
declined to spend other appropriated funds to begin the National 
Environmental Policy Act process due to congressional concerns about the 
potential effects of the proposed expansion. The officials further 
stated that uncertainty over congressional support for the potential 
expansion made a delay in expending funds to start the National 
Environmental Policy Act process appear to be prudent. Without the 
benefit of the analyses and information on how the Army identified the 
100,000 acres currently being proposed for acquisition, especially in 
light of the growth in the estimated price per acre, it is difficult for 
Congress and the public to evaluate the full benefits and costs 
associated with the proposed 100,000-acre expansion.

--


Lenny Siegel
Executive Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
a project of the Pacific Studies Center
278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org



_______________________________________________
Military mailing list
Military@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/military-cpeo.org