Trinidad Times on Festival and John Salazar

Investigation sought on PCMS funding ban, court order

U.S. Rep John Salazar addressed the Piñon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition's (PCEOC) festival in Kim on Saturday afternoon. The festival also included regional artwork, music and a barbecue.

Randy Woock, Staff writer, TTi   •  June 22, 2010 U.S. Representative John Salazar called Thursday for an investigation into allegations that the U.S. Army is in violation of a federal funding ban on expansion attempts, as well allegedly defying a federal court order calling the Army out on the insufficiency of the 2007 environmental impact statement the Army had tried to use to justify its Record of Decision (ROD) to expand the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS). The PCMS is a 237,000-acre training site utilized by troops stationed at Fort Carson by Colorado Springs. It was formed in the mid-1980s through the largest use of eminent domain against American citizens in the country’s history. The Department of Defense issued a waiver on its own moratorium on major land acquistions in February 2007 to allow for a 418,577-acre acquisition at PCMS. Salazar sent a letter Thursday communicating his concerns to the Inspector General Gordon S. Heddel at the Department of Defense. A request for comment from the Army was submitted Friday by The Times Independent, though a response was not returned by press time. Salazar, along with then-Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, originated the annual funding ban against the expansion in 2007. The federal court order cited in his investigation request by Salazar had resulted from a 2008 lawsuit brought against the Army by expansion opposition group, Not 1 More Acre! The lawsuit accused the Army of violating the National Environmental Policy Act while attempting to justify an increase of its training levels at the site. Matsch had ruled in the case that the Environmental Impact Statement used by the Army to justify its ROD for the proposed training increase was flawed and insufficient, failing to consider the possible environmental impacts from increased training usage and training levels at the site. “The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was deficient since it failed to mention the adverse impacts of the Army’s proposed action or any means by which to mitigate those effects,” Matsch’s decision had stated. The ROD had attempted to authorize an expansion for the purpose of instituting increased, possibly year-round training and new construction at the site. The September 2009 court order sets the historic training levels at the site at, “on average, approximately 4 months per year.” However, the Army announced earlier this month plans to increase training levels at the site as part of Fort Carson’s new Vision 2020 training program. Fort Carson Garrison Commander Colonel Robert McLaughlin first announced the increase in Las Animas County at a June 8 meeting with county commissioners. McLaughlin told The Times Independent that the increased training levels would likely commence in late August/early September with two battalions comprised of about “a few thousand” troops. McLaughlin had also described the Army as being “very conscientious” of the limits set by the court order, additionally asserting that the Army used to train in such numbers at the PCMS, though not for some period of time. Dee McNutt, Garrison Public Affairs Officer for Fort Carson, responded to a Times Independent inquiry by stating that the Army did not feel like it was in violation of any Congressional or court order. “With the constant deployments of the units assigned to Fort Carson, the short turn-around times between deployments, and the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan that did not require large-unit mechanized maneuver training, the Army’s training activities at the (PCMS) in recent years have been well below the levels authorized before 2007,” McNutt stated. “In 2009, a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado required the Army to do further environmental study before permitting it to train in excess of those historically authorized levels. With turn-around times increasing between deployments, and with the Army instructing units to train for all possible missions rather than just those which they may face in Iraq and Afghanistan, training at the PCMS will likely increase somewhat in the near future.” Adding, “However, that increase will be kept within the levels historically authorized unless and until satisfactory environmental study is complete to increase those levels.” McNutt also responded that the Army did not believe itself to be defying any court orders. “The environmental study reversed by the 2009 court decision also included substantial construction at the PCMS.  None of that construction has been started, and, in fact, there are now no plans to do so,” she stated. “However, a few small projects necessary for the operation of the PCMS and for the preparation of soldiers for deployments have been built in the past year or are being considered for construction. These projects include a new site for training of soldiers in urban environments and a proposed small structure to allow limited field maintenance of vehicles in a sheltered area.” Adding, “These projects could and would have been built whether or not training increased, and they have received or will receive proper environmental review before proceeding.” Salazar stated in his letter that the Army’s need for “adequate land” for training its troops did not override decisions made by the courts and other branches of the U.S. government. “Not only is the Army working against the President, Congress and a decision of a U.S. District Court, but also against a finding of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) which stated that they Army needed no additional land for troops being relocated to Ft. Carson,” Salazar stated. “The threat of expansion continues to haunt the livelihood of those living in or around (PCMS).  The threat of eminent domain is driving land values to nearly nothing, and is suffocating the number one economic driver in the region: agriculture.” Adding, “I want to make sure those constituents in Southeastern Colorado are treated fairly and with respect.”