Army eyes annexation option for Piņon Canyon
By Randy Woock
Staff writer, The Times Independent

Whether or not the Army plans to abide by the recent federal judicial ruling and cease its attempts to expand the Piņon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) is the focus of a request to the U.S. Department of Justice from expansion opposition group, Not 1 More Acre!

The request, with a response deadline of Sept. 23, was prompted by the release of an Army document proposing the annexation of the PCMS to Fort Carson.

Titled, Sub-Installation Concept Plan (SICP), with a revised date of Dec. 30, 2008, and obtained by Not 1 More Acre! through repeated Freedom of Information Act requests since April, the document details Ft. Carson's request to annex the PCMS, with an "accelerated" execution date of Oct. 1, 2009.

The SICP describes the Army's plan as establishing the PCMS as, "...a self-sustained facility that is adequately resourced in order to improve operational command and control, coordination and communication...and to maintain and sustain the PCMS as a valuable Army training asset."

The Army has insisted that the desired expansion of the 235,300-acre PCMS would be needed for training the increased levels of troops the planned at Fort Carson. However, the increase may not be as large as previously anticipated, as U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced in early April that the Army had decided against the creation of three new brigades as part of an agency-wide budget cut. One of those brigades had been planned to consist of 3,500 troops to be stationed at Fort Carson in 2013.

The letter sent by Not 1 More Acre!'s legal representation to the Justice Department asked whether the Army agreed to impacts of the Sept. 8 court ruling. The ruling invalidated the Army's 2007 PCMS Transformation Record of Decision (ROD) due to an inadequate Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) used by the Army to downplay possible impacts of the desired expansion. The Army's ROD had attempted to authorize the desired expansion for purposes of instituting increased, possibly year-round training and new construction at the site.

The Army has two months to appeal the court's decision.

The interpretation of the decision forwarded to the Justice Department included, among other things, the blocking of the construction of new facilities at the administrative cantonment area, as well as the range and training areas and any increase in the frequency, intensity or duration of training at the PCMS. Additionally, "The defendants may not implement any of the actions contemplated in the (SICP)...(i)nsofar as Judge Matsch determined that the PCMS Transformation EIS violates (the National Environmental Policy Act of 1972) and vacated the PCMS Transformation ROD, it follows that the Army may not implement any activities that would be authorized as part of the (SICP)."

The business case detailed in the SICP suggested improved operational efficiency, improved risk management - as "an assigned site sub-installation workforce creates less risk of mission and enhances opportunities for proactive management of resources"- as well as generating cost savings through in-house repairs and maintenance, enhanced community interactions, avoiding travel costs between PCMS and Fort Carson and "preservation of a license to operate." The SICP also states that even with the annexation, no units would be permanently stationed at the PCMS, though support personnel may be contemplated.

"As a sub-installation the PCMS will be able to sustain the resources necessary to maintain itself as a vibrant enterprise and state of the art training facility capable of ensuring the mission commander with trained and ready soldiers," the SICP states. "The inherent increases of training frequency and duration can no longer be supported via the 'Hub and Spoke' concept where resources are surged to and from the PCMS as needed...(t)his concept plan has been developed to meet and sustain the increased training mission support requirements of the PCMS."

According to the SICP, the annexation is planned to occur in three phases beginning this October, with implementation of the plan completed no later than Oct. 1, 2011.

The SICP warns that, "Failure to approve and commence execution of this concept plan by the requested accelerated (execution) date of (Oct. 1, 2009) will continue to have an adverse affect on both Fort Carson and the PCMS' capabilities to support the increased training requirements of both today and the future."