In an about-face from three months ago, the military has agreed to review security threats to NORAD after a government oversight agency found vulnerabilities hadn’t been fully assessed before the U.S. and Canadian air, space and maritime warning command was moved from Cheyenne Mountain to Peterson Air Force Base.

The change in the military’s stance came to light in a report by the Government Accountability Office (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081054r.pdf) presented Thursday to the House Armed Services Committee.

Security is paramount for the North American Aerospace Defense Command and its sister agency, Northern Command, because their missions are to protect the U.S. and Canada from enemy attacks.

The Air Force has designated NORAD, which was moved from Cheyenne Mountain on May 28 to above-ground Building 2 at Peterson, as needing the highest protection level afforded military bases. That means loss, theft, destruction, misuse or compromise of assets involved would result in great harm to the nation’s strategic capability.

“There was broad concern on the committee across the political spectrum about the readiness to meet all types of security threats,” said committee member Rep. Mark Udall, D-El Dorado Springs.

Udall said the military used a “fire, aim, ready” approach in deciding to move the center from a bunker it occupied since the 1960s, and he wants to override the decision.

“I’m urging NorthCom and NORAD to maintain the mission in the mountain large enough and of sufficient rank to operate independently of Peterson in the case of catastrophe,” he said.

NORAD/NorthCom commander Gen. Gene Renuart, who testified before the committee, issued a statement saying the move enhanced monitoring of multiple events, such as hurricanes and the political party conventions.

He also said he will “exceed the baseline security requirements” at NORAD.

“I believe that the consolidation of our command centers is the right thing to do to ensure we keep our nations safe,” he said. “The operational advantages of this effort are numerous and unmistakable.”

The issue dates to 2005 when then-NORAD/NorthCom commander Adm. Timothy Keating perceived operational problems he blamed on separation of the command centers – NORAD at Cheyenne Mountain in the foothills west of Colorado Springs and NorthCom at Peterson on the plains east of the city.

Keating ordered NORAD moved and the mountain center put on standby. Since then, the GAO has questioned whether the move was properly analyzed, both in costs and security.

A year ago, Congress ordered the Pentagon to review both issues and submit a report in March to be reviewed by the GAO.

The GAO’s classified analysis of that report was issued in July. Thursday’s release was the unclassified version ordered by Congress after a portion of the classified report was published by The Gazette in June.

In the secret documents, the GAO noted the military’s assessment didn’t include such threats as weapons of mass destruction or acts of terrorism like the Sept. 11, 2001, airliner crashes in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania, even though Peterson is located adjacent to Colorado Springs Airport .

The documents said a security assessment concluded that Building 2 has a 6 percent probability of survivability against a low-level threat and 0 percent against a medium or high threat.

Those details are missing from Thursday’s report, but the GAO noted commanders:

• Failed to require the security assessment take into account the full spectrum of risks and hazards associated with the move to Peterson, where Building 2 sits yards from the base’s perimeter.

• “Understated” the security challenges at Peterson in the report to Congress and failed to detail what mitigation is needed to protect against vulnerabilities.

The GAO also questioned a cost-benefit analysis that favored the move, despite a cost of $71.8 million – $51 million more than keeping the center in the mountain.

The Defense Department initially disagreed with the GAO’s call for a re-evaluation of security risks.

“We acknowledge that there are threats from which Cheyenne Mountain would provide better protection,” the Pentagon wrote on June 3. “However, we consider the probability of this type of risk to be low and outweighed by the benefits provided by the combined command center.”

But in an Aug. 29 letter to the GAO, the Pentagon said a director of security had been appointed and a team formed to “evaluate all threats and vulnerabilities.”

The evaluation began last month and a physical review will take place from Sept. 29 to Oct. 10. There was no indication when improvements would be made and at what cost.

Udall’s measure to maintain the mountain center 24/7 will be inserted into the Defense Authorization Bill, due for approval before Congress adjourns next week.

Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs, who serves on the House committee, said the GAO may be charged with continuing its oversight of the evaluation at Peterson.

Though some experts say the bunker is a dinosaur, Brett Lambert, with homeland security consultant Civitas Group, said a hardened bunker is still needed: “It is by no means obsolete.”