PCEOC Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition
The Army again (STILL) fails to justify/explain why they need PCMS expansion.  Why are we still considering this? 
 
Enough already....
 
We need to put an end to this now so we can get back to work in our communities and on improving our local, state and national economies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
News Stories today include:
 
  
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
 

GAO says Army failed to explain
Pinon use, smaller expansion

By PETER ROPER
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN
January 13, 2009 11:02 am
Army officials have failed to adequately explain to Congress just how they use the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site or the reasons for shrinking their request for more land from the 418,000 acres they wanted in 2007 to the 100,000 acres they now are seeking.

That was the conclusion of a Government Accountability Office study released Tuesday, which was ordered by Congress last year.

A second GAO report focusing on the Pinon Canyon expansion also faults the Army for failing to provide better information about the expansion to the Southeastern Colorado community and contrasts the fight over Pinon Canyon with two other Army expansion efforts where more community outreach was undertaken from the start.

The first report also questions why the Army has nearly doubled the estimated price per acre for purchasing just 100,000 acres of land south of the 238,000-acre training range - at an estimated cost of some $52 million over the next three years. That comes out to $520 an acre.

"GAO recommends the Army provide Congress with additional information explaining six of the responses to the (congressional request) and the rationale for selecting the 100,000 acres for the proposed expansion," one study said in its recommendations to lawmakers.

As for the question of how often the Army uses Pinon Canyon, the GAO faults the Army's analysis to Congress, saying, "Therefore, the report is not clear regarding how much of the maneuver site was used for training in a given month or annually and whether the units could train simultaneously."

The two reports were requested or required - in 2007 and 2008 - by Colorado Sens. Ken Salazar and Wayne Allard, now retired, as well as then-Rep. Mark Udall.


GAO reports: Army fails to explain need for more Pinon Canyon land
 
By Howard Pankratz
The Denver Post

Posted: 01/13/2009 12:25:52 PM MST
Updated: 01/13/2009 12:42:43 PM MST

The Army has failed to adequately explain why it needs to expand by 100,000 acres the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in southern Colorado, the General Accounting Office said in two reports released today.
The Army identified Fort Carson - specifically its Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site - as one installation where potential land acquisitions would be a feasible solution to a 4.5 million-acre training land shortage by 2013.
Originally the Army said it would need to acquire up to 418,577 acres. But after the proposed expansion drew criticism from various landowners and interest groups, the Army said it would only seek 100,000 additionaly acres south of the existing maneuver site.
But, said the GAO, the Army failed to do several necessary things:
It did not explain its basis for selecting fewer acres.
The estimated cost per acre used for internal planning to acquire additional land at the maneuver site has increased since 2007 but the Army's report does not discuss the increase.
The Army completed the required analysis when requesting the Office of the Secretary of Defense's approval for the up to 418,577-acre expansion, but has not completed analysis for the current 100,000 acre proposal. Such an analysis, said the GAO, would help the public to understand, among other things, how much the 100,000 acres would actually be used for training, what type of training can be conducted, and what are the estimated costs to maintain the 100,000 acres.
The GAO said that while the Army has established an extensive analytical approach to making decisions regarding training land acquisitions, it has not ensured that its strategic plan remains current.
The Army has not updated its strategic plan since it was developed in 2004.
"Because of a lack of specificity in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Army communications strategies, the Army has not been consistent or always effective in communicating its approach to acquire training land," said the report. "Army officials and community groups said that the Army did not adequately explain its reasoning for the proposed expansion of Pinon Canyon. In this case, the public at times relied on rumors and leaked documents."
The reports were requested by Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, and former Sen. Wayne Allard, and then-Rep. Mark Udall.
Howard Pankratz: 303-954-1939 or hpankratz@denverpost.com
 
Rocky Mountain News
GAO study slams Army on Piņon Canyon expansion
The Rocky
Published January 13, 2009 at 12:09 p.m.
Updated January 13, 2009 at 12:09 p.m.
WASHINGTON - A new Government Accountability Office study criticizes the U.S. Army's approach to the proposed expansion of the Piņon Canyon Maneuver Site in Colorado, saying a lack of early communication with nearby residents allowed rumors to run rampant.
The report, one of two being released today in response to congressional requests, also says the army's land acquisition approach is based on out-of-date strategic plans, and recommends periodic updates as well as new methods of keeping members of the public informed.
The Pentagon has faced vocal opposition from some residents of the area south of Fort Carson when word first spread that the army might be trying to add up to 418,577 acres of land to the Piņon Canyon Maneuver Site.
Last summer, the army reported that it planned to limit the proposed expansion to 100,000 acres, but not before public outrage echoed by congressional opposition.
Congress asked the nonpartisan GAO to study what happened.
"Without adequate explanations, key stakeholders at times relied on rumors and leaked documents," one report concludes. "These information sources often did not provide a clear, complete or accurate explanation of the Army's need for and approach to acquiring additional land or of the Army's plans to also use other strategies to meet critical training needs."
In a written response, army officials called their approach to land acquisitions, including the one proposed for Piņon Canyon, were "fundamentally sound," but conceded that they would benefit from updating strategic plans and communicating more effectively.
 
PCEOC 
PCEOC