Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1982


Construction, Facilities, Real Property and Physical Security

An army must perform a whole series of mundane but necessary activities far removed from the realities of the battlefield. It must, for example, take on the roles of real estate broker, landlord, and policeman: to buy land for training and housing troops and sell it when no longer needed; to build structures in which to house troops and to develop, test, repair, and store equipment; to maintain the land and the structures; and to protect these assets from vandalism and the people who live and work there from crime. In 1982, the Army found much to be optimistic about concerning its performance of these missions.


In fiscal year 1982, the Army requested $1,079,700,000 and received a total obligational authority of $943,701,000 from Congress. During the year the Department of Defense construction fund transferred some $7 million to the Army, increasing the obligation authority to approximately $951 million. Based on this figure, the Military Construction Directorate of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) predicted an award of $826,071,000 under the 1982 Military Construction, Army, program. The field operating agencies of the Corps of Engineers made an exceptional effort and obligated $823,041,000 before the end of the fiscal year. Congress allocated the $951million appropriation among various needs. The largest portion, $328 million, was invested in troop housing and medical, community, and related facilities, including an $18-million barracks in Korea; barracks modernization worth $19 million at Fort Dix, New Jersey; an $81-million hospital at Fort Carson, Colorado; a $7-million physical fitness center at Fort Lewis, Washington; and alterations to an administrative and support facility at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C. Operations and training received $75 million from the Military Construction, Army, budget. Major projects included a $12 million tank crew qualification range at Grafenwoehr, Germany, and construction of battalion headquarters and classrooms at


Fort Drum, New York; Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Irwin, California; and Fort Stewart, Georgia. Congress authorized $157 million for maintenance and production facilities to equip the field forces. It provided $103 million to facilities for supply, research and development, administration, and utilities. Some $61 million went for conserving energy, $5 million for combating water pollution, and $7 million for cleaning the air. Congress gave the Army $28 million to acquire land at Fort Carson and $11 million to correct Occupational Safety and Health Act deficiencies. It appropriated $128 million for general authorization planning and design and $12 million for management services in support of construction projects funded by foreign nations where U.S. forces were the sole or primary user. It allocated $10 million for access roads. The 1982 appropriation provided $26 million in new obligational authority for exigent minor construction projects and $6.78 million for specified minor construction projects. Exigent minor construction projects are those costing $1 million or less which may demand the immediate attention of the Corps of Engineers and which are not specifically authorized by Congress. Instead it appropriates a lump sum. Specified minor construction projects are those costing $1 million or less which Congress specifically authorizes. By the close of the fiscal year, the Army had placed more money in minor construction projects than ever before, $32.2 million.

In view of significant backlogs in military construction and the tightening of budgetary constraints, the Army placed increased emphasis on the more efficient use of installations. Accordingly, the Office of the Assistant Chief of Engineers initiated a review of Military Construction, Army, projects contained in the installation's five-year defense plan, using the recently developed Directed Stationing System (DSS). DSS is a computer program which provides a breakdown, by building category codes, of information on the ability of an installation to house a given force as well as what housing the force requires. DSS indicates surpluses and shortages in the unit under consideration and estimates the expense of expanding facilities to house the force properly. DSS obtains data on current assets of the facilities from reports given by the installation in the Integrated Facilities System and the Real Property Inventory. For comparison purposes, DSS generates data on facilities requirements based on the force structure and equipment information drawn from the Personnel and Logistics Structure and Composition Systems which is incorporated into the Army Stationing and Installation Plan.

The Production Base Support (PBS) program provides the construction necessary to develop, maintain, and retain an effi-


cient industrial base. Although the funding for construction of industrial facilities came from five procurement appropriations, the Army concentrated most of its current work on the ammunition and tank programs. During 1982, these programs received $64 million and $38 million, respectively, of the $102 million in the Production Base Support program. Design continued on projects valued at about $355 million.

In fiscal year 1982, the Corps of Engineers started ten Military Construction, Army, medical projects, of which five were in Europe, one in the Pacific, and four in the continental United States. At the same time, the Corps completed fifteen projects, the largest of which was the Col. Florence A. Blanchfield Army Community Hospital at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The first hospital named for an Army nurse, the Blanchfield Army Community Hospital contained the most modern medical equipment available. It was, observed a representative from the Office of The Surgeon General, "state of the art." The Mobile District of the Corps of Engineers started the project design in April 1974 and completed it in June 1977. The district office awarded the construction project to a contractor in August 1977. The hospital followed a new design concept that would allow it to survive earthquakes intact. The building consisted of three asymmetrical blocks: one containing beds, another housing administrative offices and diagnostic facilities, and the third having the outpatient clinics. Each block had a different structural system. The contractor completed construction in July 1982. Brig. Gen. Hazel W. Johnson, the Chief of the Army Nurse Corps, officially dedicated the hospital on 17 September 1982.

At the end of fiscal year 1982, the Corps of Engineers had twenty-one medical projects under construction. The eleven hospitals, four dental clinics, one health clinic, and five combination health and dental clinics had a total value of $379 million. By 30 September 1982 Congress had reviewed, authorized, and appropriated the fiscal year 1983 Medical Military Construction, Army, program as submitted and had added a $1,050,000 health clinic to be constructed at Fort Benning, Georgia. The remaining projects approved included hospital alterations at Bremerhaven, Germany, for $29 million; at Gorgas, Panama, for $2.65 million; and at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, for $13.6 million. Also approved were construction of troop clinics at Camp Casey, Korea, for $3.8 million and at Fort Ord, California, for $5.8 million and a project to upgrade the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, for $9.8


million. The Surgeon General's five-year program for modernizing health facilities provided for the following funding: $31.5 million in fiscal year 1984, $323.0 million in fiscal year 1985, $332.1 million in fiscal year 1986, $299.4 million in fiscal year 1987, and $232.3 million in fiscal year 1988. The huge increase beginning in 1985 came from the simultaneous programming of three major Army medical construction projects, a situation resulting from budget cuts and project delays. The Office of The Surgeon General found that anticipated budget cuts made implementation of the total program questionable at best.

The Military Construction, Army Reserve (MCAR), program provides for the design and construction of various facilities to support the Army Reserve's training requirement and mobilization mission. Typical facilities include Army Reserve training centers, organizational maintenance shops, equipment concentration sites, weekend training areas, and annual training facilities. During fiscal year 1982 the Corps of Engineers awarded construction contracts for thirty-two MCAR projects worth at $52.7 million. Contractors finished work on projects costing $11.2 million.

The Corps share of the fiscal year 1982 Air Force military construction program amounted to $699.2 million. The Corps had forecast $622 million for award, but actually let $635 million. The Corps awarded contracts for 93 percent of the projects in the 1982 Military Construction, Air Force, program for which it had responsibility, thus exceeding the goal established by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The unawarded part of the program comprised projects affected by late design and criteria changes. Design continued on an Air Force fiscal year 1983 program that totaled $1,282 million and a fiscal year 1984 program in excess of $1,676 million. The lack of an approved basing mode in 1982 delayed support by the Corps for the Air Force's MX missile. On 1 October 1981 President Ronald Reagan canceled the horizontal protective shelter system in favor of studying several other options. The Corps of Engineers MX Program Agency (CEMXPA), located with the Air Force program manager, redirected its efforts in order to support research and development efforts of the Air Force. The Corps expected a decision on a new basing mode early in fiscal year 1983.

The Corps also let contracts for the construction of projects funded by other Department of Defense agencies. The total amount of construction awards for each agency during fiscal year 1982 was as follows:


Defense Logistics Agency  


Defense Mapping Agency  


Defense Dependents School System  


National Security Agency  


Defense Communications Agency  


Other Department of Defense agencies  


In keeping with the expanded U. S. presence in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf, the Department of Defense assigned the responsibility of construction agent for the bases of the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF) in Egypt and Oman to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. During 1982, the Rear Echelon Office of the Corps Middle East Division at Berryville, Virginia, continued to plan and design a base at Ras Banas, Egypt. In Oman the Middle East Division awarded two construction contracts to improve air base facilities at Masirah Island and Seeb. Construction continued at the Thumrait and Khasab air bases. The Middle East Division also designed additional facilities for the two bases to be included in the budgets for fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985.

Other overseas construction subject to oversight by the Corps of Engineers, excluding the work discussed in the security assistance section of Chapter 8, included projects in Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union. During 1982, the Corps continued to design and construct the $56.9 million U.S. Geological Service Mission in Saudi Arabia. Four Corps construction management engineers continued to assist the Department of State in building the new U. S. Embassy complex in Moscow.

During fiscal year 1982, Congress provided $5.9 million in Military Construction, Army, funds for the Corps of Engineers to support construction in Japan and Korea paid for by the host nations. The governments of Japan and Korea designed, funded, and awarded contracts and oversaw the construction of facilities for U. S. forces, which supplement those funded and built by the U.S. government. The Corps participated in preparing the criteria and overseeing the design and construction of facilities funded by the host nation. Japan budgeted $226 million for the program in fiscal year 1982; Korea provided $144 million.

The U. S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) at Champaign, Illinois, is the newest of the four Corps of Engineers laboratories. Established in 1968, it is located on a thirty-acre site at the Interstate Research Park, where it takes advantage of the resources and facilities of the University of Illinois and other Midwestern universities. During an average


year, one hundred graduate students perform research on the site as part of their academic program. The CERL interdisciplinary research team consists of 124 scientists and engineers supported by twenty-nine technical and fifty-eight administrative personnel. Nine of the staff members are military personnel.

In fiscal year 1982, CERL's program totaled $18.5 million, of which $9.5 million was direct funding for research, development, test, and evaluation and $9 million was reimbursable funding from the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Corps divisions and districts, major Army commands, the Defense Logistics Agency, the Defense Nuclear Agency, the Defense Communications Agency, the U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Navy. In the twelvemonth period ending 30 September 1982, the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory had a number of products which the Corps successfully field tested and implemented.

Lt. Gen. Joseph K. Bratton, the Chief of Engineers, recommended that the Army adopt the Pavement Maintenance Management System (Paver), developed by CERL, as an optional system. Paver is a computer program designed to help Army facility engineers determine the best maintenance program for streets and roads. In addition, the American Public Works Association selected Paver to test in six cities: Ann Arbor, Michigan; Hayward, California; Kansas City, Missouri; Sparks, Nevada; Tacoma, Washington; and Tampa, Florida. Some sixty cities and counties contributed $200,000 for the test. The city of Hamilton, Ontario, also chose it for implementation. Paver is the first system to assist the city manager, the pavement engineer, the airport manager, and the state highway engineer in finding optimal solutions with limited repair and maintenance funds.

Another CERL project, the Computer-Aided Engineering and Architectural Design System (CAEADS), received pilot testing at the Office of the Chief of Engineers by a private architectural and engineering firm under contract to the Corps. CERL created CAEADS to produce the first 25 percent of any Military Construction, Army, design and the associated cost estimates. Congress, in an effort to have realistic cost estimates, required the Corps. to submit 35 percent of the design of any new construction project before it would consider funding the project. The pilot test produced more than one hundred projects in the fiscal year 1984 Military Construction, Army, program at a fraction of the cost and time required by standard methods. CAEADS became the first system in the public domain that architects and engineers could use to evaluate their facilities.


The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) used the Directed Stationing System, originally called the Mobilization Facilities Planning System, at Fort Monroe, Virginia, in MOBEx 83. Within minutes this automated system developed by CERL allows planners to test various responses to any assigned scenario to discover how an installation might best meet real or anticipated mobilization needs.

The Corps of Engineers implemented the Vehicle Maintenance Facility Pollution Control Concept, another CERL project, following successful field tests at Fort Lewis, Washington, and Fort Polk, Louisiana. The concept called for centralized wash-rack facilities to control and treat waste water from washing vehicles. It also improved waste-oil handling and maintenance cleaning at vehicle maintenance complexes. Following the new procedures, washing a tank took six minutes in the tests compared with thirty minutes using the normal routine.

CERL made a breakthrough in corrosion protection with the development of the ceramic anode. Anodes are constructed with sacrificial coverings and are installed on metal structures, such as lock walls, hinges, water towers, and water pipes, to prevent their corrosion through contact with water. The invention makes corrosion protection available at one-fourth the cost and in a reduced size-500 times by weight that allows installation in areas previously too small. The ceramic anode has at least the same life as the bulky, forty-pound, silicon-iron anodes used in cathodic protection for the past thirty years, a technology now obsolete. At the end of the fiscal year, CERL was field testing ceramic anodes on lock gates at Millers Ferry in the Mobile Engineering District; on water towers at Fort Eustis, Virginia, and Fort Ord, California; and on underground pipes at Fort Carson, Colorado, and Fort Polk, Louisiana. CERL also successfully field tested its pipe corrosion monitor at Fort Carson and Fort Polk. The monitor is an automated device that can determine the degree of corrosion of underground pipes without having to excavate.

During 1982, CERL published technical reports explaining the purpose of the Engineering Modeling Study. These included three manuals: one explaining how engineer officers in the field might use the model; another showing how a systems programmer would physically load the magnetic tapes containing the program into a computer; and the executive summary for decision makers, written in nontechnical language. The Combined Arms Research Activity tested the model at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. At the end of the fiscal year, CERL and the Combined Arms Research Activity were in the last stages of integrating it


into the Combined Arms Center's Corps-Division Evaluation Model, one of the hierarchy of computers at Fort Leavenworth used to simulate combat. The engineer model is the first one developed to determine the impact of engineers on the outcome of battle.

The U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM) approved the weld-quality monitor developed by CERL and included it in the Manufacturing Methods and Technology Program for the production of the M 1 tank. The weld-quality monitor is an automated technique for evaluating welds during the welding process. The welder's torch is actually connected to a computer programmed to monitor certain factors, such as whether the rods are receiving the correct current, whether the right temperature is achieved, and whether the metal is melting as desired. The information allows the welder to correct errors before he finishes. The cost savings that led DARCOM to adopt the monitor are twofold: (1) a reduction in the number of post-weld inspections and (2) a reduction in the incidence of defects. The Navy investigated the problem and concluded that between 10 percent and 12 percent of all welds done in the traditional manner are defective. Furthermore, the Navy discovered that it cost five times as much to repair a weld as to make it originally. The monitor reduces defects to less than 3 percent.

CERL completed work on the Solar Economic Feasibility Assessment Method (SOLFEAS). This user-friendly computer program allows solar energy to be evaluated for new construction processes, as mandated by Congress, within fifteen minutes and at an average cost of $50, compared with a cost of $5,000 to $20,000 using traditional methods. Also in the area of solar energy, construction ended on a photovoltaic power demonstration project at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, developed by CERL. The project, a five-kilowatt system that converts solar energy to electricity at a remote site, is connected directly to the commercial utility without battery storage. At the end of the fiscal year, CERL had begun a checkout test.

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, successfully tested the Portawasher, a CERL device to clean dumpsters by using high-pressure, hot-water washing equipment while employing a vacuum system to retrieve the dirty wash water. During the first six months of 1982, Fort Leonard Wood cleaned 1,000 dumpsters with the Portawasher at a savings of nearly 75 percent.

As part of ongoing research to evaluate technology for the problem of handling human waste at remote sites, CERL began field tests of the composting toilet at Fort Leonard Wood in June


1982 with the installation of two units at a firing range. Based on the results of this research, the Army ordered six additional units-two for Fort Irwin, California, two for Fort Dix, New Jersey, and two more for Fort Leonard Wood. The toilets, still in the testing stage, had an average cost of $15,000 to $18,000 per unit, an expense which CERL hoped to reduce markedly once the toilets went into full-scale production.

Three foam domes each with twenty-eight-foot diameters, designed by CERL and constructed at Fort Leonard Wood in December 1981, continued to meet design criteria at the end of the fiscal year. The domes, constructed of polyurethane foam sprayed on an inflated membrane form, were built in an average of twelve hours each under adverse weather conditions-40 F., in a wind gusting from ten to twenty-five miles per hour. Similar sized domes, previously constructed under more favorable weather conditions, required approximately eight hours each to build. The domes are cost competitive with general-purpose tents and are more durable, insulated, and structurally stable. They offer impressive opportunities for mobilization housing.

CERL also developed a Multi-attribute Aid for Prioritization System (MAPS), a computer program which ranks the development of products and systems according to user needs. The ranking is based on six major characteristics, which are broken down into fifteen elements, each with a scoring range from zero to one hundred. Each element is weighted based on its importance to the characteristic. Products and systems are then scored. Examples of elements include such questions as who is interested in the project and how long the Army will use the information gathered in the project after it ends. If a major general is interested in a project, it receives one hundred points. If a colonel is interested, the project receives eighty points. Projects in which lower-ranking officers are interested receive no points. The same system operates with regard to the second element. Projects which the Army will find useful ten years or more after completion receive high scores; projects useful for shorter periods of time receive correspondingly fewer points. The usefulness of the system depends, of course, upon the assumptions built into weighting the elements. The weighting was done by a committee consisting of the commander of CERL, the CERL laboratory director, and the CERL technical director. During 1982 representatives from Bell Telephone Laboratories and the Gas Research Institute requested additional information about the system for possible application to their research and development decisions.

In 1982, several federal agencies used the Environmental


Technical Information System (ETIS) developed by CERL to assist in preparing environmental impact statements and assessments within the Department of Defense. State and local governments, planning firms, and architectural and engineering businesses expressed strong interest in the system. To meet this increasing demand, CERL in 1981 began to transfer the system to the Bureau of Urban and Regional Planning Research at the University of Illinois. The bureau functions as the sole operating contractor; it serves as a clearinghouse for all ETIS information. With this increase in access, the system recorded 550 log-ins, which are separate uses of the program, in July 1982 alone.

CERL also developed the Installation Compatible-Use Noise Zone technology consisting of sensors and mapping equipment. The sensors define the noise patterns at military installations and provide raw data for the production of noise-pattern maps. The maps, which look much like elevation lines on a terrain map, define the noise footprint produced by machine shops, airports, firing ranges, and similar activities as well as the movement of men and materiel to and from these locations. They indicate where planners should not locate housing, troop quarters, hospitals, and other facilities for which external noise might disrupt their smooth operation. The existence of noise zone technology has allowed a cooperative effort to develop between installations and adjacent communities in order to prevent noise-sensitive developments in high-noise areas. CERL estimated that cost savings using this technology amounted to $30,000 per installation.

The hand-held calculator for combat engineers contains five military engineering programs developed by CERL, a critical path method computation program, and several utility routines. Critical path computation means that the calculator follows sequential steps that mirror those taken by combat engineers to complete their assigned tasks. Utility routines refer to software programs that deal with certain complementary tasks often assigned to engineers, such as survey work. Engineer troop units in the United States, Europe, and Korea were testing the programs at the end of the fiscal year. The U. S. Army Engineer School at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, procured 140 calculators for student instruction and training. This marked the first time that the combat engineer had been able to work with a calculator rather than with charts and tables in field manuals.

During fiscal year 1982, CERL, in conjunction with the U. S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Command (MERADCOM), the U. S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, and the U. S. Army Engineer School successfully field tested the


Foam Overhead Cover Support System. CERL designed and developed the system to provide protective cover for TOW and Dragon missile launchers and operators. Tests were held at seven Army and two Marine Corps installations. The participating troops generally accepted the system.

The Department of the Army named four CERL employees as recipients of the Army Research and Development Award in 1982. Janet H. Spoonamore, Kenneth H. Crawford, and Dale L. Herron received the award for their contributions to CAEADS. Mohamed Y. Shahin was honored for developing the Paver system.

Facilities and Real Property

The Corps of Engineers acts as the executive agent for the Department of Defense Recruiting Facilities Program. During 1982, the Corps completed 1,807 actions involving the establishment of new recruiting offices and the relocation, expansion, and upgrading of existing offices. At the end of the fiscal year the four services had approximately 7,750 recruiting offices.

The Office of the Assistant Chief of Engineers (OACE) established a Worldwide Military Command and Control (WWMCC) terminal room to deal with the enormous changes produced by the Army's force modernization program. The WWMCC system will provide the proper management tools for the mission of the Office of the Assistant Chief of Engineers with regard to Military Construction, Army, appropriations; the Family Housing Management Account (FHMA); the Homeowners Assistance Program; and the Wildlife Conservation Program. The Directed Stationing System (DSS), a module of the Integrated Facilities System, became operational on the Worldwide Military Command and Control System during 1982. The Directed Stationing System made Department of the Army Real Property Utilization Studies more responsive to the Army staff, the major commands, and installations. DSS assets analyses provided answers to questions about the facility shortages in major commands and during mobilization exercises.

The Worldwide Military Command and Control room provided the Installation Planning Division of the Office of the Chief of Engineers with an efficient reporting system on which to base its studies. This division-the proponent for installation planning and utilization, stationing of the Army, realignment studies, the Directed Stationing System, and the Army Stationing System and Installation Plan (ASIP)-in the past had prepared station-


ing studies with a "stubby pencil." Using the Worldwide Military Command and Control terminal room, the division prepared studies of activations, inactivations, interservice or intraservice transfers of units, redesignations, and changes of jurisdiction of installations for the Army staff, the major commands, and installations in one-quarter the time. The division also acquired the capability to publish the Army Stationing and Installation Plan on WWMCC terminals. This report helps the Army staff and the major commands to plan construction at installations based on aggregate strength within the five-year plan.

On 23 November 1979, Lt. Gen. J. W. Morris, the Chief of Engineers from July 1976 to September 1980, formally committed the Corps of Engineers to supporting the Army's modernization program. This program calls for the fielding of over 500 new materiel systems in the 1980s together with several force restructuring efforts, including Division 86, the high technology Light Division, and Army 90. General Morris assigned the task of providing technical support to the Army staff and the major commands in identifying all support facilities requirements for the force modernization program to the Military Construction Directorate in the Office of the Chief of Engineers. To accomplish this new mission, the division formed a team of engineers and architects from among current personnel to develop facility support plans (FSP) and other advanced planning guidance. During the fiscal year, the Force Modernization Group had published twenty-two force structure plans together with fifty-five facility worksheets for the new heavy and light divisions. The purpose of the worksheets is to identify bottlenecks which might retard or even halt fielding of the Division 86 and high technology Light Division organizations.

The backlog of maintenance and repair (BMAR) is a measurement at the end of each fiscal year of planned maintenance and repair work which was required but not done because of inadequate resources. As facilities aged and inflation made work more costly, the, resources available did not keep pace with deterioration of the physical plant. Consequently, more and more work was added to the backlog during the 1970s. This growth reached its apex at the end of fiscal year 1981 when the Operation and Maintenance, Army, appropriation for BMAR reached some $2.288 billion. The major portion of this backlog was in Europe where BMAR was conservatively estimated at $1.271 billion. Actually, the condition of facilities in Europe was so poor that the BMAR did not realistically portray the requirements in relation to maintenance standards.


Fiscal 1982 proved to be a turning point in the Army's commitment to fix facilities. For the first time in nearly ten years BMAR growth not only stopped, but declined by some $249 million. This was the result of a significant increase in funds. Obligations for maintenance and repair in fiscal year 1982 was 45.8 percent higher than fiscal year 1981. With a sustained multiyear program that meets the new annual requirements and allows for resources to work off the backlog, the Office of the Chief of Engineers anticipates significant improvement in the Army's deteriorating physical plant as well as betterment of the living and working conditions of U.S. Forces worldwide.

During fiscal year 1982, the Corps of Engineers acquired 150,000 acres of land for the Army, using both military and civil works appropriations, at a cost of $83 million. Continuing its program of obtaining land for other federal agencies, the Corps acquired 1,895 acres for the Air Force. This included approximately 200 acres with improvements, at a cost of $5.4 million to expand clear zones at fifteen Air Force bases. The Corps purchased 31 tracts of land containing 2,523 acres at a cost of $3.1 million for the Department of the Interior's Big Thicket National Preserve in Texas. This brings the total acquisition for this project through fiscal year 1982 to 1,275 tracts consisting of 73,879 acres at a cost of $69.6 million. The Corps obtained 6 tracts containing 7 acres at a cost of $1,700 for the Department of Energy's Strategic Petroleum Reserve Program. This brought the total acquisition for the program through fiscal year 1982 to 1,085 tracts consisting of 5,590 acres at a cost of $116.4 million. During 1982, the Corps spent $1.1 million in payments to help relocate 150 applicants displaced by its acquisition activities.

At the close of fiscal year 1982, the Department of the Army controlled 11.8 million acres of military land worldwide and 11.7 million acres of civil works land which, with improvements, had an acquisition cost of $16.3 billion and $18.9 billion, respectively. During the fiscal year, the federal government disposed of 3,598 acres of Army land, acquired through both military and civil works appropriations and having an acquisition cost with improvements of $3.9 million. In addition the Army declared and reported to the General Services Administration 74,745 acres of land and improvements for disposal, which had an acquisition cost of $240.8 million. At the end of the fiscal year the Army had leased to others 37,666 parcels of land covering 6.8 million acres. These "outgrants" represented land for which the Army had no immediate use, but to which it wanted to retain title either because of mobilization needs or projected changes in the force structure


It was in this context that President Reagan announced his plan to sell surplus federal real property and use the proceeds to reduce the national debt. Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger asked the military services to explore the possibility of declaring as excess real estate which they could give up with little or no effect on defense capabilities. The goal was to identify for this purpose several billion dollars of real property, based on its current fair market value. In a related matter, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12348 on 25 February 1982, which placed increased emphasis on the management of real property under the control of the federal departments. It required each executive agency to review its property holdings and to report as excess those lands either not used or underused or not put to best use. The executive order established the Federal Property Review Board (FPRB) and prescribed the duties of the board, one of which was to set an annual target amount of property that each agency must declare as excess. After considerable review, the Corps of Engineers determined in fiscal year 1982 that 33,518 acres of civil works lands were excess to project requirements. The Department of the Army reported these lands to the Property Review Board and the Administrator of General Services. Of that total, the Property Review Board included 27,642 acres in its preliminary inventory of unneeded federal real property.

Physical Security

One objective of the Army physical security program is to provide commanders with the flexibility to tailor their resources to meet local security needs. In this endeavor, the U. S. Army Military Police Operations Agency, a field operating agency of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel with assistance from the U. S. Army Concepts Analysis Agency, developed a risk analysis methodology that local commanders could use to assess their particular security risks and determine the level of security necessary to protect the unit's assets. The risk analysis procedure encompassed five major categories: importance and cost of the assets, mission impact, vulnerabilities, criminal threat, and terrorist or hostile threat. The Physical Security Branch of the Military Police Operations Agency drafted a series of questions for each risk category, which it distributed to the major commands for comments. Responses to these questions would determine the risk value-low, medium, or high-for each category. The commander would then place the risk values on a


matrix that would indicate the level of security most appropriate for implementation. Maj. Steven Petersen, who developed this risk analysis procedure, found the approach especially useful because it could be adapted to the individual needs of each command. It allowed flexibility for requirements to change as the threat changed, and it considered internal as well as external risks. Because of its simplicity, the commander could become actively involved in deciding what physical security measures to use. He did not have to depend on a specialist to manipulate the matrix. Its simplicity also meant that the procedure could be completed in a short time and that all levels of the command could easily understand it.

In June 1981, discussions between Maj. Gen. Willard L. Webb, the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, and Lt. Gen. LaVerne E. Weber, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, resolved the issue of whether AR 190-11, Physical Security of Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives, should apply to the National Guard Bureau. They agreed to allow the Army National Guard to establish its own policies and procedures for the physical security of arms, ammunition, and explosives under the control of the non-federalized Guard. They also agreed that the Army National Guard would follow the spirit and intent of AR 190-11 and Department of Defense Manual 5100.76-M, Physical Security of Sensitive Conventional Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives, and that General Weber would forward all proposed regulations to the Department of the Army for approval before publication. The resolution of this issue allowed the Department of the Army to publish AR 190-11 on 15 October 1981 and distribute it to the field.

During fiscal year 1982, the Army discovered 178 weapons missing from arms storage facilities. The U. S. Army Military Police Operations Agency blamed weapon losses during the year on negligence by the individual to whom the weapon was assigned or on theft by unit members or unknown persons. Losses of ammunition and explosives amounted to 98,695 items. The Military Police believed that these losses were due to thefts by members of the unit or by persons unknown and to inventory shortages. Missing items consisted of single weapons or small quantities of arms, ammunition, and explosives. The Military Police attributed the reduction in losses of conventional arms, ammunition, and explosives during 1982 to a continuation of the policy of providing security to areas where the weapons are stored and an Army-wide command emphasis on management of weapons from the time of their production until their destruction, that is, throughout their life cycle.


Go to:

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter


Return to Table of Contents

Search CMH Online
Last updated 24 May 2004