In May of last year, I wrote an article entitled, “Fort Belvoir is Gobbling Up Golf Courses.”  This dealt with the Army’s decision to site the Army Museum (NMUSA) on the front nine of the Gunston Golf Course.

The Army published a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) back in October 2008.  I don’t want to get too technical, but the Army is required to assess the environmental impact before they start big projects like the museum.  The Environmental Assessment covers more than just soil, plants and animals.  The Army must also look at the socioeconomic impact and how it will impact on the morale and welfare of the troops and dependents.  Their conclusion that 27 holes rather than 36 holes for the golfing community at Fort Belvoir would be plenty was void of evaluation and reasoning.  And, guess what?  After we (Concerned MWR Patrons) submitted our comments, the Army withdrew their draft EA and went back to the drawing board.

It has been two years since the original draft EA.  Last month the Army tried again in a new and improved draft EA.  This time it includes reconfiguring the golf courses to keep 36 holes.  It also states that the Army Historical Foundation (AHF) (the group building the museum) will pay to reconfigure the golf courses.  Now that’s progress.

We are moving in the right direction, but we aren’t there yet.  Unfortunately, the draft EA is internally inconsistent.  In one place it stated the golf courses will be reconfigured first (“The Army anticipates that reconfiguration of the North Post Golf Course golf holes would start in advance of the museum construction.”).  In another place, it states the new holes will come last (“the Army would construct new holes and redesign the North Post Golf Corse to return to 36 holes in a timely manner following the construction of the NMUSA.”).  What’s going on?  Too many cooks in the kitchen?

If none of this is making any sense, I would recommend that you stop reading.  It is just going to get worse.

The requirement to reconfigure the golf courses is called a “mitigating measure.”  If the Army can mitigate the problems created by museum construction, such as tearing up the golf courses, then they can preclude any significant impact on the environment and will not have to prepare on Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  Preparing an EIS is a pain and the Army doesn’t want to go there.

Federal environmental regulations prohibit doing mitigating measures after the fact (32 CFR Part 651.15 (c)).  So the language “in a timely manner following the construction of the NMUSA” is a joke.  Mitigation after the fact is no mitigation at all.  The Army ought to know this.  If we can read the Federal regulations, so can they.

My biggest concern is that the Army starts construction, tears up the Gunston front nine and then, because of lack of funds, the project just drags on.  This is not idle speculation.  Hopefully Congress won’t appropriate any MCA funds until the AHF has the money to finish the job.

The regulations also require the Army to keep “interested parties” informed as to what is going on.  On this matter, they have a long list of interested parties.  Guess who is not on the list?  That’s right, the Concerned MWR Patrons.  We have asked to be put on the list.  We clearly fall under the definition of an interested party.  They just won’t do it.  I know we have been a thorn in their side, but it is a self-inflicted wound.  In the words of my wife, they should “get over it.”  If they can’t figure out that we are an interested party, then I can certainly understand why they can’t seem to get anything else right.  I just hope I am not writing about the litigation of this matter two years from now in Part 3.

Newsflash – The Concerned MWR Patrons have submitted their comments to the Army and you can find them at www.concernedmwrpatrons.org.