Helicopter Brigade effort is obviously intended to promote more desire for expansion of PCMS

So the Army advised 60 some days ago they wanted to erect 'clamshell' buildings on PCMS - one to be used for 'helicopter maintenance and repair'.  We asked then, 'Doesn't this suggest a variance from 'historical use limits' that the Federal Courts placed?'

And today then it was announced they are indeed looking at bringing an entire helicopter brigade to Colorado.  (see JULY 28 Pueblo Chieftain ) Suggesting it would help push the new southern gate access to Fort Carson, the Army is also trying again to manipulate/buy off local support via dangling hypothetical economic carrots for an expansion effort that cannot be justified.  

With the increased noise level and other associated issues relative to stationing a helicopter brigade at Fort Carson there will be additional pressures for expansion of PCMS.   

It appears to anyone wanting to take the time to look that they keep trying to utilize the current site beyond historic levels and to expand PCMS.  No matter what they say everyone should be looking at what they are actually doing because they are often two entirely different things.

Expanding PCMS is still a priority for the military and until such time as the Dept of the Army and the DoD revoke their  approvals to go forward with it one must assume they are indeed, going forward with that directive.  The only thing keeping them from doing so is the year to year funding ban that Congressman Salazar again got through committee for 2011.  It still needs to pass in the House and Senate too to remain in effect and we will continue our efforts to support that. 

.

Pueblo Chieftain Editorial July 18, 2010

No means no
Chieftain editorial
Sunday, July 18, 2010

   A KEY House subcommittee has approved a budget bill that includes continuing the ban on the Army from spending any money to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

   The ban again is thanks to Rep. John Salazar, D-Colorado, who serves on the military construction subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. He first put the ban into federal legislation three years ago.

   Rep. Salazar is adamant that the Army should not be allowed to expand the site, where area ranchers fear that would devalue their property even if the Pentagon would never use condemnation to grow the site. And he was unequivocal.

Congressman Salazar and Congresswoman Markey advise 2011 Funding Ban across first hurdle

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, Congressman John Salazar and Congresswoman Betsy Markey announced that the appropriations funding ban for the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site in Southern Colorado will be included in the FY2011 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations.

Early this morning, the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies completed its work on the FY2010 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act reporting the act out of committee by voice vote preserving the Piñon Canyon funding ban for another year.  Congressman Salazar has used his position as the 3rd most senior member of the subcommittee to lead the fight against expansion. 

"I came to Congress to defend agriculture and fight for residents of the 3rd Congressional District," said Salazar.  "I will always defend the interests of landowners in Southern Colorado who have been living under the cloud of expansion for far too long.  As a 5th generation farmer and rancher, I understand their deep connection to the land and will do everything in my power to protect their rights." 

"This is an encouraging win in our larger battle for private property rights in Southeast Colorado," said Markey.  "Preserving the funding ban for this expansion sends a message loud and clear that our rights will not be trampled on, and I will fight every day for Colorado's farmers, ranchers and landowners against the threat of this expansion."

The Piñon Canyon funding ban will now move to the full Appropriations Committee and then to the House floor for a vote.  

                                                                           ###

Army ignores/evades more laws

Just like the ban on spending, and the federal judge's ruling on historic use of the PCMS, the Dept of the Army chooses to ignore yet another law. 

Fort Carson has recently been found to once again having tried to avoid compliance with historical and preservation federal law requirements called 'Section 106'.  It was found that Fort Carson was planning on burying electrical lines on the current PCMS, yet they had failed to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and other entities as required by Federal law. 

After finding out from anonymous sources that the PCMS was preparing to bury approximately 8 miles of overhead electrical lines, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) contacted Fort Carson to determine if such a project was underway.  After confirming the project, Fort Carson indicated that they had mistakenly thought that they could review the project through the NEPA process and did not have to undertake Section 106 review.  This is the same excuse Fort Carson used in 2008 when they completed the Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization Program (I3MP) at Fort Carson and the PCMS without any Section 106 review.  The I3MP project included approximately 125 miles of underground fiber optic lines, six communication towers and equipment shelters. 

After being told once again that they must comply with Section 106, Fort Carson initiated consultation for the underground electrical lines on June 24, 2010

Colorado Springs City Councilman attacks PCEOC efforts

Colorado Springs City Councilman Sean Paige has attempted to suggest fighting expansion is being unreasonable - as he wrote in a recent column for a Denver news source.

Here is his attempt at ridiculing and criticizing our efforts to stop expansion: PAIGE

And here are many responses that show Mr. Paige is obviously not seeing nor telling the entire story but only reporting those elements that support his city's justification for sacrificing southeast Colorado for their economic benefit: RESPONSES

.