Other Articles in this Category
Most Viewed Stories
Most Commented Stories
Most Recommended Stories
Save & Share this Article
Army might settle for smaller expansion at Pinon Canyon
Comments 0 | Recommend 0Piñon Canyon site would grow by 100,000 acres, not 418,000, under the proposal
The Army is examining options for its proposed expansion of the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site, including one presented last week to southern Colorado officials for an expansion a quarter the size of the original plan.
Las Animas County commissioners learned of the option of expanding the site by 100,000 acres — instead of the 418,000 acres originally proposed — at a meeting with Army officials at the Pentagon.
Commissioner Jim Montoya said Army officials told him and his colleagues that the smaller expansion wouldn’t require the use of eminent domain, which Montoya said he took to mean the Army has identified willing sellers in the area.
The Army has said it needs to increase the 368-square-mile Piñon Canyon site to about 1,000 square miles to accommodate training for 10,000 more troops being transferred to Fort Carson.
Ranchers in the region have fought the expansion since the proposal was unveiled in 2006, claiming the Army will seize land under federal condemnation laws.
Army officials said Thursday that the 100,000-acre expansion option — called “Area A” — is one of several the military is required to look at under the 2008 Defense Authorization Act, which put Piñon Canyon expansion plans on hold for a year so the Army can further study the area and prove to Congress the need for expansion.
“The Army is required under the report to consider whether there are quantifiable training benefits to be gained from acquiring something less than the full 418,000 (acres) training land requirement originally sought,” said Army spokesman Dave Foster in a written statement.
Other options include expanding into the 300,000-acre “Area B,” or sticking with the original plan of expanding into both Areas A and B.
Foster said that although the Army has had “limited, informal contact with nearby landowners regarding both potential willingness and unwillingness to sell property to the Army . . . no formal negotiations have ever occurred with property owners.”
CONTACT THE WRITER: 636-0232 or carlyn.mitchell@gazette.com






