DENVER - A judge said Wednesday a lawsuit that seeks to block construction of facilities on the current Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site may not deserve to be thrown out as the Army contends.

Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch made his comment at the first court proceeding on a lawsuit filed in April. It was filed by a group known as Not 1 More Acre! that opposes expansion of the site.

The lawsuit seeks a court order barring construction of facilities on the current site until it complies with a federal environmental assessment law.

The Army wants him to dismiss the lawsuit because it contends that the action being challenged by the lawsuit relates only to the current site and not to an expanded site.

The action being challenged is the Army's Aug. 2, 2007, approval of an environmental impact statement about building new facilities on the current site. The lawsuit contends, in essence, the Army is using approval of the impact statement to get its "nose under the tent" for expansion of the site, said attorney Stephen Harris, representing the opposition group. The lawsuit alleges the Army illegally segmented, for environmental impact analysis, plans for "transformation" of the current site from plans for expansion of the site.

The lawsuit also alleges the Army illegally did not consider alternatives to the construction plans, as the group contends is required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

The judge asked Harris if his client's position is that the Army violated NEPA when it approved the environmental impact statement, regardless of the separate "nose under the tent" expansion issue.

"That's correct, your honor," Harris responded.

That is when Matsch said the lawsuit may not deserve to be thrown out as premature.

Earlier, Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Snodgrass, representing the Army, told the judge, "All we're talking about (in the environmental impact statement) is to build some new troop facilities on land we hold."

Snodgrass said it's legally too early for a judge to review expansion issues.

The opposition group says plans for construction include 16 barracks, three motor pools, two dining facilities, among many other facilities.

"This is far more extensive than for additional soldiers" who are scheduled to be sent to Fort Carson and use the site for maneuvers, Harris told the judge. "It (the planned facilities) is designed to serve the expansion they are planning."

It appears Matsch may decide in one decision whether the lawsuit is premature and whether the Army violated the environmental law, because both issues are going to be argued simultaneously in legal briefs.

Harris said his opening brief is due Nov. 17 and the Army's response is due in December. Then, Harris has until January to file a reply. The Army has until February to file its final brief about why the lawsuit should be thrown out as premature.

Based on that schedule, it is likely to be March at the earliest before the judge decides the case, Harris said. For the full story, please visit http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2008/08/07/news/denver_bureau/doc489aa46b...