A Fort Carson training exercise set to start this weekend in southern Colorado at the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site has put the state office charged with historic preservation at odds the Army officials, following what the state called an “unjustified threat” to end their working relationship. 

Fort Carson said discussions to end the relationship were a necessary tool to adhere to strict timelines to ensure a planned monthlong training at Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site northeast of Trinidad could take place. During the training, soldiers will test a new communications system that could be rolled out across the whole Army.

For the first time at Piñon Canyon, soldiers will fire test artillery shells that are expected to damage two historic sheep ranching sites and three archaeological sites, including a area where scattered stone tools have been found.

The sites are just a handful of the 6,000 archaeological sites across the Piñon Canyon training area.

Under federal law, History Colorado staff help advise Fort Carson officials on the best way to mitigate expected damage to historic sites, but that relationship has been strained.

In a March letter to Fort Carson’s garrison commander, the State Historic Preservation Officer Dawn DiPrince said her office signed an agreement over how to mitigate expected damage to six archeological and historical sites “because of an unjustified threat” the Army would no longer work with the state on the issue.

The letter said Fort Carson’s tactics were unnecessarily aggressive and that state officials’ efforts to make suggestions and ask questions about proposed mitigation to the maneuvers “were met with disdain, excuses or a closed door.” 

In a written statement provided to The Gazette, Fort Carson said the work was conducted in good faith and complied with federal law, but had to adhere to strict timelines because of the planned monthlong training in May.

“Discussions regarding the procedural option to ‘terminate consultation’ were used as a standard regulatory tool and a matter of transparency to ensure all parties understood the strict timelines required to successfully complete the consultation and support the mission,” the statement said. 

From the state’s perspective, the threat demonstrated a lack of good faith to participate in a constructive dialogue, DiPrince said.

The Southern Ute Indian Tribe was disappointed with the process, according to the letter. The Southern Ute reservation is south of Durango, but the Utes and other tribes historically occupied what is now Piñon Canyon. 

If the Army had decided to no longer work with History Colorado, the collaboration on the agreement that outlines mitigation efforts would have stopped, DiPrince said. The mitigation effort could include additional field work to better understand sites in Piñon Canyon, an area where History Colorado could add expertise.

To mitigate the expected damage, the Army may complete field work at other similar sites within Piñon Canyon but outside the area slated to see damage, the agreement said. 

That field work could be used to help write two papers, one on the early Hispanic sheep ranching in the area and one on the Native Americans who lived in the area and their rock art.

Such papers can be a good research resource for future archaeological work, said Chris Johnston, the former president of the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists in an interview in March. 

But DiPrince said she found the agreement lacking in detail. For example, the document does not describe when the field work will happen, or how, or who might be asked to participate.

“We remain uncertain if consulting parties will be included, if their recommendations will be considered and what research will be completed,” she said. 

Fort Carson said it remains committed to consulting with Native American tribes and consulting with the State Historic Preservation Office, among other parties in the official statement.

The work on Piñon Canyon is also taking place as the Army revamps how it complies with the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The Army states in a document outlining the changes that it needs to replace the project-by-project review criteria and overly restrictive historic preservation standards. The Army manages 122,000 historic buildings and 84,000 archaeological sites. 

In a news release, an Army official said the new process would allow mission-critical activities to be on a fast track, while the most significant historic properties receive the highest standard of preservation. 

Former federal archeologist Erwin Roemer, who retired from the Air Force Academy in 2024, said in his opinion the new process “eliminates the heart of the legal requirements” in the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Under the old system, the Army would seek advice and information from the state historic preservation officer, tribes and others before taking action, a process that helps preserve the nation’s heritage and save money, Roemer said. 

“With this new arrangement, it’s basically a “Trust us, the Army will notify the (state historic preservation office), et al., later after the Army has concluded internal planning and impacted the physical environment,” he said in an email. 

A Washington D.C.-based law firm, Cultural Heritage Partners, a group that advocated against the change, also said it eliminates meaningful involvement in the historic preservation process. 

“This Program Comment isn’t a small tweak. It hands the Army near-total control over historic sites across 14 million acres, including tens of thousands of archaeological sites, with no outside review,” said Ellen Chapman, a cultural resources specialist, with the firm.