Army responds to Pinon Canyon citizens group lawsuit

By Randy Woock
for The Trinidad Times Independent

The Trinidad Times Independent/STPNS

July 02, 2008

TRINIDAD, Colorado (STPNS) -- The U.S. Army officially responded to a lawsuit filed against it by citizen group Not 1 More Acre! concerning the proposed expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS).

The Army claimed the lawsuit had failed to state a claim whereupon relief could be granted, fell outside the statute of limitations and asked that it be dismissed.

The lawsuit was originally filed in federal court by Not 1 More Acre! on April 23. It claimed that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the Army conducted in 2006 for the potential PCMS expansion violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Defendants in the lawsuit were listed as the Army, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of the Department of the Army Pete Geren and United States Army Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management Craig College.

The PCMS is a 238,000 acre military training site. It is currently the focus of a controversial plan by the Army to expand it by 408,00 acres - 103,000 acres to the south and 305,000 to the northwest of the current borders.

The lawsuit alleges that the proposed expansion posed serious environmental and cultural threats to southeastern Colorado, that the Army had, "...refused to disclose or consider any potential impacts of the proposed Expansion in the EIS prepared for the Transformation," in regards to these alleged threats.

"The Transformation of the PCMS and the Expansion of PCMS are connected actions and therefore the potential environmental, cultural and socioeconomic impacts of Expansion should have been disclosed to the public and evaluated in the EIS," the lawsuit stated. "The draft Transformation EIS and (Final Transformation EIS) failed to disclose or consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed Expansion on the environment, cultural resources and rural communities."

Also alleged by the lawsuit was that the Army had avoided revealing the full extent of the environmental impact of the proposed expansion by only studying plans to build new facilities within the site's existing perimeters, rather than reviewing the proposed expansion as a whole.

Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that the Army refused to consider in its study any alternatives to the expansion.

"Allowing Defendants to proceed with the Proposed Action at the PCMS without a legally adequate alternatives analysis would violate NEPA's fundamental purpose: to 'insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken,'" the lawsuit stated.

The Army's response to the lawsuit began by categorically denying that a combined transformation and expansion of the PCMS was planned by the military. "Federal Defendants nonetheless specifically deny the existence of any activity, project, program or action known as "Transformation Expansion" of the (PCMS) in southeastern Colorado," the Army's response stated.

And while the Army admitted to taking certain preparations, including the conducting of various studies, for something resembling a possible expansion of the PCMS, the existence of an official plan for expansion was denied. "Federal Defendants admit that they have previously produced maps that designate certain areas of interest for the possible, future expansion of the PCMS, but deny that there is any approved plan for expansion of the PCMS, that the Army has begun implementation of any such expansion plan, that the size or area of possible expansion has remained constant or is currently defined in geographic scope, or that the Army has finalized any specific proposal or alternatives for expansion," the response stated.

The Army also stated that the lack of a sufficient NEPA study, as alleged in the lawsuit, was due to the lack of sufficient progression of the possible expansion. "The Final PCMS Transformation EIS ("FEIS") and subsequent Record of Decision ("ROD") clearly explain that the potential expansion of the PCMS had "not progressed to the point of being ready for NEPA analysis . . . ." the response stated. " If and when a proposed action to expand the PCMS is sufficiently developed...the potential impacts of that proposed expansion will be considered in a separate NEPA analysis."

It continued, "Federal Defendants admit that, on June 7, 2007, the Army released a map depicting areas of interest for possible, future expansion of the PCMS."

Not 1 More Acre! declared itself pleased with the current direction of the lawsuit. The group's lead attorney in the suit, Stephen Harris of the Colorado Springs law firm Alpern, Myers, Stuart, LLC stated that, "We now look forward to working with the Court to develop a schedule for this case and, importantly, a timetable for the release of the administrative record for the EIS."

A ban on the spending of money for the expansion was recently inserted into the 2009 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs

Search this newspaper's archives at: The Trinidad Times Independent Archives